Lake Tahoe Airport master plan taking off
A master plan is being put together to guide Lake Tahoe Airport for the next 20 years. Photo/Kathryn Reed
By Kathryn Reed
It’s not a noise study. It’s not a comprehensive economic study. It’s not a study to do away with the airport. It’s not a study to bring back commercial air service.
The master plan for Lake Tahoe Airport is a vision for the South Lake Tahoe airfield for the next 20 years.
As Councilman Tom Davis said at the start of the Feb. 13 meeting about the master plan, the airport has a “checkered history”.
The 1992 airport agreement that was the result of multiple lawsuits that involved the California Attorney Generals Office, League to Save Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency expired in October 2012. Because the environmental, economic and social fabric of the South Shore is not the same as 1992, the city opted to go forward with a comprehensive master plan for the airport. Plus, the FAA requires a master plan.
The FAA is funding 90 percent of the master plan at a cost of $315,000, with the city picking up 10 percent or $35,000. C&S Companies out of San Diego is the consulting firm doing the work.
Safety is the FAA’s No. 1 priority for all airports. And because it is footing the bulk of the bill, it has the most say in what is studied.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has rules about noise in the Regional Plan, but they remain much the same as when the 1980 RP was adopted. There was talk when the latest RP was adopted in 2012 that noise would be addressed at a later date. That still hasn’t happened. And it won’t be looked at in the master plan.
While the economics of the airport will be considered, it is done on a limited basis. It won’t delve into who regionally is benefiting or being hurt financially by the airport. Nor will it study the feasibility of having festivals or other events there. It’s about the finances of the airport itself.
This was a bone of contention for some of the more than 100 people who attended the Thursday night meeting. Some people want a comprehensive economic study done. The city always has the option to do that at another time, for more money.
Several in the room advocated for closing the airport or keep it just for helicopter service.
To close the airport would require Federal Aviation Approval. It would also mean the city would have to pay back the $27,462,036 the FAA has provided for improvements to the facility since 1999.
The city obtained the 55-year-old from El Dorado County in 1983 for $1. The city’s general fund has been subsidizing the airport at a cost of about $400,000 a year. Half of that expense will go away after this fiscal year when the hangar debt is paid off.
Most South Lake Tahoe city offices are at the airport. This is saving the city roughly $100,000 a year in rent; what it was paying when offices were on Tata Lane.
On the flip side, if commercial air service were to return, those city offices would have to relocate.
City staff and councils have for years said they want commercial service to return. It hasn’t happened since 2000. The peak passenger count was in 1978 at 294,000.
While there was a vocal contingent of people against the airport as it is today and adamant against expansion, many in attendance want a viable, thriving airport.
The FAA will have final say over the Forecast of Demand and the Airport Layout Plan. These are two documents that are part of the master plan.
The Forecast of Demand predicts future levels of service (operations) and the type(s) of aircraft providing that service.
Michael Hotaling with the consulting firm was repeatedly asked where the information was coming from to predict those outcomes. He didn’t have a concise answer, instead differed to the company doing that report. But no one from that firm was in attendance.
The Airport Layout Plan is the other document the FAA must approve. It will show existing airport facilities and provide a blueprint for future airport development. It also goes into safety issues and land use outside the airport.
Hotaling had mentioned the airport’s being an environmental asset. When pressed to explain in what way, Hotaling said only in regards to providing a tarmac and fuel for planes fighting the 2007 Angora Fire and then as a staging area for planes working on slope stabilization post-fire.
Vehicle miles traveled to get to the airport or to the destination after landing will not be studied.
At least two more community meetings are planned regarding the master plan. Public comment would be taken at the City Council and TRPA meetings when approval for the document is sought, but by that time it’s essentially a done deal. The final report is expected to be completed in January 2015, with it going for agency approval the next month.
—
Notes:
• Lake Tahoe News did a three-part series on Lake Tahoe Airport in July 2012. Here are the articles – story No. 1, story No. 2 , story No. 3.
• Information about the master plan process will be on the city’s website.
The Airport master plan! There’s a line from a movie (Little big man?) “The best plan is to have no plan”. Looks like that’s what we’re getting here in SLT.
I also see we’ve got another consulting firm hard at work on this “Master plan” which has nothing to do with economic viability, noise levels, commercial service, land use or evironmental issues or any thing else relevent to the airport as it is today.
Does the city hire a consulting firm who then in turn recommends which consultants to hire for the job at hand? ” We should hire a consultant” … “Yeah but which one? ” I don’t know , hire a firm to tell us who we should hire”. I’m just curious, but I wouldn’t be surprisied if that’s how it’s done.
Happy Valentines day, LTN readers!!! OLS
WHAT A SCAM
“The FAA is funding 90 percent of the master plan at a cost of $315,000”
That is a lot of money for a Plan. BTW there is already a plan this is more of an update.
All FAA airports are required to have a 20 YR master plan. I know there is a plan.
What a scam.
I realize that it was probably just an error, but IMHO the FFA (Future Farmers of America) would likely to have better results than there have been in some time. The obstructionist attitude towards the airport by agencies (TRPA, specifically), like many other issues, has caused nothing but waste and stagnation. The pervasive use of consultants underlines the lack of effectiveness of the employees who are well paid for their so-called expertise. Consultants only provide an excuse to avoid accountability. It is particularly interesting that additional funds must be spent to figure out the finances. Shouldn’t there be sufficient understanding by the staff for that? How does one run a department without understanding the budget?
Another colossal waste of money. More proof that for government, money grows on trees.
Repair the streets instead.
The plan DOES evaluate Economic and Environmental factors, along with aviation forecast. In addition, the South Lake Tahoe Master Plan also includes a comprehensive evaluation of Sustainability, which further addresses the balance between economic viability and the environment, operational efficiency and social responsibility to the local community.
The FAA rarely grants additional funding for Sustainability analysis, however, the City’s Airport Manager made the case to the FAA that this Master Plan would be inadequate without evaluating the balance between the economy and the environment through the Sustainability analysis. The FAA agreed, and provided additional funding for that aspect.
The Plan is expensive. There are only a few firms that specialize in conducting these comprehensive studies. The firm was selected through a Request for Proposal process and approved by the FAA, they have expertise in Aviation Forecasting and economic analysis, Airspace Analysis, Environmental Studies (and additional analysis for the Sustainability aspect), Architecture, Airport Planning and more.
Community input will be throughout the planning process.
To stay up to date and get accurate information, the City has created a webpage with all the Airport Master Planning process, information and documents, including the presentation from last night’s workshop. Visit http://www.cityofslt.us/airport.
For more information, provide your input, please call the City’s Airport Manager, Sherry Miller at 530-542-6158
The presentation was very one-sided, for starters, and by the end, it felt like just another start of another public process to meet the ‘public involvement’ requirements for funding. We have a say…but only if it fits with what others already want.
At first we were told our feedback was wanted regarding options to look at, including closing the airport (and the cost). This sounded good. But then, wait for it: options involving reducing the airport’s size or closing it are not really options, because the FAA won’t allow it. Well, no, actually, they will, but it will cost a lot – and FAA really wants to keep it open (note: no one from FAA was at the meeting, although FAA was blamed for a variety of the reasons we can’t look at various options).
Next, what about an economic study to look a the cost to taxpayers who pay for the airport’s operation plus the ongoing O&M and costs to mitigate environmental impacts (also tax dollars), vs. where in our local economy the ‘profits’ go? Nope, not part of scope. They’ll look at it from a “Regional” perspective (basin-wide). Nevada’s sure going to love that, especially after the Loop road funnels passengers straight to Edgewood.
Ok, what about a study about the environmental pros and cons? Wait for it: nope, not part of the scope. Impacts to property values? Nope. Environmental ‘benefits’? Well, we need it to fight fires, although it can’t handle the heavy bombers that Minden can, and it can’t be expanded to do so. But better not talk about what options there really are for fire-fighting resources, because that could suggest something like an OPEN discussion.
Finally, the Future Demand Forecast that will drive this update will apparently (mostly) forecast demand for the airport based on economic assumptions. But let’s be clear, the new Plans in place (TRPA, City) encourage more use of the airport, so think that’s going to influence this supposed ‘demand’ they’ll forecast for the future?
I’m still pondering how they can look at the future viability of the airport – the one thing it seems they ARE doing for this (maybe) – without doing a focused economic study, environmental study, a true alternatives study, etc. – all things that will affect what it costs to run the airport. Hmm…
I was in that meeting last evening. Let me state some good points, some bad points, and reality.
The good – the meeting was very well attended, and people were generally well behaved; the presentation & information was very good.
The bad – the desire by the vocal minority to simply “close” the airport. These people are a lost cause. The NIMBY attitude never fails to amaze me.
The reality – the airport is NOT closing. The FAA will never permit that to occur. In the history of the U.S., no airport has ever been permitted to close; in fact, the FAA can take over the airport if they so choose. There is no room to expand the airport, so that’s a myth. The airport is a tremendous community asset. The underlying problem with the airport is never addressed, and that is mismanagement.
Ok, so now that a bunch of money has been spent, yet again, on this albatross, regardless of all the feasability stuff, there seems to be no airline that is willing to make slt part of their scheduled service but maybe once and awhile, at best. Maybe it would be smart to find out if there is even interest in any airline taking the risk of setting up this kind of service. Seems the history of providing regular service to slt has always failed. In these times of increased costs for everyone and a shrinking pay check for most, the outcome is pretty predictable. The people that can afford the time and money to fly into our town are already doing it through private services. So lets just keep throwing more and more money after this thing that has been studied over and over and over with the same outcome. Hummm, sounds like insanity to me, go figure…
Old Long Skies:
I understand that you’ve been in SLT for a very long time and I’m wondering if you know exactly who the individuals were that were serving on the City Council that approved the deal which was struck to pay EDC $1 along with trading City owned property in exchange for the airport. When people say “the City did it” that actually means that “some Council members did it” and I’d like to know who those “elected people” were who made this decision and why they made a deal that this and other City Councils and City staff have been left to deal with and have continually been blamed for.
I can’t help but wonder if this was another long-ago good old boy backroom deal intended to benefit only the good old boy backroom dealmakers.
Many thanks.
That sure is a pretty picture of the airport. Thanks LTN for putting it on your site.
City taxpayers can only hope this consultant’s “study” addresses the possibility of relinquishing ownership of the airport to the FAA, letting them operate it (if they deem feasible) and assuming 100% of its costs. Until now, pros and cons of this scenario have only been rumors, with certain city officials acting as unqualified FAA spokespeople in the FAA’s curious absence. With present commercial airline business models, resulting in airlines dropping service at far busier airports with much higher demand, continued local city taxpayer subsidies to fund operation of the airport are unsustainable.
Just to set the record straight, I’m not anti airport. I live close to the flight path and airplane noise doesn’t bug me one bit. Living near the airport was taken into consideration when I bought my first home in Sierra Tract in 1974.
Another study? Well if the FAA requires a master plan and they’re footin’90% of the cost for the plan, so be it. I hope it keeps goin’ and attracts more flights. Commercial flights have been tried many times and they always fail to make it work.
I hate to think how much the city has spent on our $1.00 airport over the years, but being a mountain community it’s esential we keep the airport for emergencies as well as the occaisional commuter flights.
4-mer-usmc, I don’t recall who made the deal with El Dorado county to buy it for a buck but I think it was around the time Terry Trupp was our Mayor. I could be wrong on that one so I can’t say for sure.
I would like to see some city events planned for out there, in the terminal or in the parking lot. We got it, lets use it!!! At least most of the city offices are there, saving the rent they were paying for the building at the Y.
Now if I could just afford a seaplane…Old Long Skiis
go figure, you got it right. No study is needed to tell us commercial air service is not viable. The free market has spoken. If there was profit to be made carriers would be here. What purpose does the airport serve to the general public? Why are we subsidizing the wealthy 1% who primarily use the airport for private use?
I would like to see some city events planned for out there
FYI – you have the Lake Tahoe Air Show. some comments above are actually enlightened – I think its obvious which ones….but face it folks this is a tough one – the demand for direct flights to Tahoe is mostly from the upper economic bracket and as someone pointed out, those folks can and probably very much prefer to fly in on private carriers. This will always allow folks to say that the city’s operation of the airport seems “elitist” yet at the same time pays some city-wide benefits. (e.g., the summer golf tournament at Edgewood, which yes benefits SLT as well).
The reality is build it and they will come just doesn’t always work as sold. The weather here, the flying conditions, and the proximity of Reno all mitigate against a viable commercial presence – the airport may or may not have been “mismanaged” but those factors out of anyone’s control are always going to make this a tough one. I think most folks should applaud the city for using the buildings they own at the airport as a cost efficient way of dealing with the current reality of how the airport is used by others.
ljames, any clue as to what is going on with this year’s airshow?
The agreement with FAA when the city went in to the airport offices was only for a short term. They’ve already exceeded their agreement and I’ll bet their lease agreement wasn’t renewed either. TVL is the best thing to happen to this basin ever. With a few exceptions.
Shouldn’t the airshow committee already be gearing up with plans and have had at least 1 or 2 meetings by now? Seems late in the season to start now. Perhaps it will be tabled for a concert or something non-aviation related.
People seem to conveniently forget that the FAA is essentially the owner de facto of the airport, and you cannot do anything of substance at the airport without their consent. The FAA will never consent to closing the airport after all the money they invested there.
CJ, Yelling (caps lock) does not help win your argument. That said, I believe the “airport” needs to to sold or disposed of. It costs $400,000 every year while the city can’t fix roads in town? Study after study after study after study will not “magically” bring commercial service back. Make Learjet Larry Ellison an offer to unload this money pit and be done with it.
The airport cannot be sold, it will remain open, and planes will continue to fly in and out.
The problem with the airport is that the city doesn’t know how to run an airport. It has a history of mismanagement for almost as long as the airport has been around. They had one good manager there who knew what he was doing, and he left years ago.
The question that needs to be asked is should the city be in the airport business?
BK. The county sold it to SLT for 1 dollar. Since then the city, Douglas County, Feds, Lodging Association, etc have spent 10’s of millions to keep that “airport” going. Management can’t help you sell Yugos… used Yugos.
It is pretty obvious that a number of the people did not fully read the article. Some want to close the airport and use the savings to fix the roads. If we do close it we will have th pay the FAA 27 million dollars. Since after this year the airport is costing us 200k minus the 100k we would have to pay for city office space that means the airport will only cost $100k. this 100k savings would take 270 years to payback the FAA the 27 million we owe them
Ok. I would be skeptical of that $200k less $100 estimate, since the average has been $400k and more for years.
The last time I asked the City Manager for a list of “costs” for the “airport” 10 years ago (by going through city records) it was close to $15 million by budget/actual estimates. Then I found out Douglas County had kicked in something like $5-7 Million for a resurfacing project; which evidently needs to be done again. So great. The city dumps $20-$25 Million into the “airport” and still owes another $27 Million to the FAA; Defined as “money pit.”
Offer Larry Ellison to take it off our hands for $27 Million. Carve it out of the City Assets somehow, declare bankruptcy on the Airport and hand it over to the FAA. Years ago, someone suggested selling it to the Washoe Tribe and turning it into Casino or Recreation site. Sub-lease it to Douglas County.
I think it is folly to think 737’s are going to be coming in and out of that “airport” on the hour anytime soon.
Av8rGal says, “The airport is a tremendous community asset.” If so, the entire community should pay for it – not just the poor suckers who live in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The city should insist that the airport be run by a regional JPA, or hand it over to the FAA and let them pay for it. If it is also true that the city would owe the FAA $27 million should it shut down the airport, then those funds are not grants, but loans, and the city should be very careful about accepting more, as they ties its hands and leaves the city on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies, year after year, with no end in sight.
Come on, all you county and Nevada-side residents who support the airport. Talk is cheap. Time to support the airport with your tax dollars.