Future of Lake Tahoe Airport in council’s hands
By Kathryn Reed
Before summer is over, a preferred alternative for the Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan should be selected.
The South Lake Tahoe City Council is expected to discuss the matter July 21 or Aug. 4.
It was in 1992 that a settlement agreement regarding the master plan was reached. This involved the city, state Attorney General’s Office, League to Save Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. That document expired in 2012 so the city has been operating the airport without a valid master plan.
The June 30 meeting attended by about a dozen people was the final public workshop before the council takes over. The public will have two more opportunities at council meetings to offer input.
Michael Hotaling, the consultant preparing the master plan, said it’s likely the preferred alternative will be a combination of the various proposals that have been whittled down based on public comments, research and staff input. The alternatives separately address the airfield, and land area with buildings and open space.
Under consideration is whether to keep the airport as it is or do something else.
The FAA will have the ultimate say over the Aviation Demand Forecast and the Airport Layout Plan. The feds are paying 90 percent of the cost to create the master plan.
Lake Tahoe Airport’s airfield could be altered depending on what the master plan calls for. Photo/LTN file
Closing the airport, while considered early on, is no longer an option. This is because the FAA deems the airport an important element in its greater transportation plan. Plus, it is a resource in emergencies and could provide the only way out of the basin in a catastrophe.
To accommodate a large number of planes like what will be arriving for this month’s celebrity golf tournament a temporary tower will be in place. Personnel from Reno will operate it. This is the second year for the portable tower. The permanent one cannot be used because it does not have equipment and the line of sight is blocked by trees.
Bringing back commercial air service is also off the table. The 139 certificate, which would allow commercial service, no longer is in effect. The council in the last year voted to give up that FAA designation.
Based on input from a meeting earlier this year the public is divided over what should be done at the airport. Some want to alter the airfield to allow a larger class of plane that is forecast to be the aircraft of choice going forward, others want to leave things as they are.
The consultants predict air traffic at Lake Tahoe Airport to increase 1.7 percent in the next 20 years. This means going from 2.7 flights per hour to 3.1.
When it comes to the land segment, some want to get keep the aviation designations for the property in case things change, others want to allow different uses. The city is looking at creating an outdoor events area east of the tower.
In the 2013-14 budget, $351,972 of the general fund was used to keep the airport afloat. That is a decrease of 43 percent from 2010-11. Hotaling said projections are for that number to continue to decline.
The consultants predict air traffic at Lake Tahoe Airport to increase 1.7 percent in the next 20 years. This means going from 2.7 flights per hour to 3.1.
Is this based on an 8 hour day, 24 hour day or sunrise to sunset day. One of our older council member a long time ago (can’t remember who but it was during Mike Weber’s tenure) said there were 90,000 flights a year at the airport. They were counting take off and landing as two as well as the helicopter flight school every time they lifted off and set right back down as two. That works out to 45K flights a year or 123 a day which is 5.1 per hour on a 24 hour day. On an 8 hour day it’s 15.3 per hour. Even in it’s heyday we did not have that many. There are other uses for the airport that can be utilized beyond flight. We still need an airport for the reasons stated in the article above but the recreational uses are staggering not to mention a great location for all our historical buildings to be in one place and out of our town centers. Historical building in the 56 acre project area, original schoolhouse that is now the union hall, Barton Ranch and any other ones I have missed. We are so spread out around here and with the “town centers” taking over we need our own space. Just take some vision by our council and a few bucks.
Is the city paying for the temporary tower for the Edgewood and the golfers with their private planes? This would be a great way to subsidise that crowd without donating the money directly to (the needy at) Edgewood.
Let it return to a meadow, how it was in the beginning, just like the Tahoe Keys was a very large marsh, a natural water filtering system for Lake Tahoe clarity. The single most ecological man made disaster that ever happened to Lake Tahoe and it is still killing the Lake til this day, nice job developers.
The airport taxes South Lake Tahoe residents to subsidize private jet travel. Even at the “reduced” annual rate of $350,000 per year, that’s $7 million over the next 20 years, plus costs for all the consultants, and any new infrastructure spending not paid for by the feds.
So the question is, what benefit is derived to South Lake Tahoe taxpayers from the cost of taxes, noise, air pollution, polluted runoff from the paved over meadow, etc? If the answer is money spent by jet travelers, that is only true if those folks wouldn’t have come to Tahoe via airports in Reno, Sac, Minden, etc., or by car (and then spent their money in South Lake Tahoe).
The FAA always opposes any airport closure (that’s their job), but other communities have chosen to shut their airports down for a variety of reasons, including cost burden. The money owed to FAA could be written off by an act of congress, as an in-kind EIP expenditure. Or imagine a conservancy, or large donor, wanted to pay for a meadow restoration project (including repayment to the FAA if necessary). That would bring in tens of millions. Imagine what the city could do with those funds (while saving millions from subsidizing private jets every year).
Seems to me that option (sell the airport for restoration) should be added to the list of alternatives under consideration. Even if it ends up being not feasible, or desired, at least there would be a full accounting of the possibilities, and trade-offs.
The subsidies that this regional asset requires shouldn’t be the sole burden of the taxpayers of the City of South Lake Tahoe. I don’t understand why our city doesn’t insist that it be managed (and paid for) by a regional JPA. That is what is missing from the Master Plan.
The city should have never got in the business of operating an airport. The county knew better when they unloaded that money pit on the city.
As a city resident I would much prefer this $352K annual airport subsidy being spent instead on city street repairs. Turn the keys to this white elephant back over to the FAA and tell them it’s all theirs, they’re welcome to operate it if they so choose.
We certainly must keep the airport in City hands-where else could Tommy keep his toys so handy?
How far we have fallen. Failing airport, no possibility of commercial service, no Airshow and a complete lack of accountability due to using “consultants” to do everything. Increased costs due to using “consultants”, leading to financial failure and still spending top dollar for an airport manager. All the current airport manager has done is prove that the airport is too expensive, affording minimal credibility to those who want to close it (an absurd idea, IMHO).
It would not surprise me to see a proposal for another BMX track at the airport in the near future… Oh, and taking out parking spaces for bicycle parking… And adding bike lanes to the airport road and to the runway…
This airport has always been problematic and dangerous on approach and take off. The surrounding residential areas make it unsuitable for events that are loud like outdoor concerts. The problem is there will be no foreseeable revenue as an airport and it doesn’t pass the cost benefit analysis, as an airport, it should be closed. What to do with it? Maybe a giant ice skating rink or some other good ideas that would work that aren’t a substantial yearly loss.
Aside from it being a money pit, I would just like to see it closed -replace the noise pollution with a beautiful wetland/marsh complex.
Not sure the cost of the airport is assessed correctly. What is not factored in is the spending and taxes generated by those who land so the cost is probably a lot less then the stated $350,000. If you want to look at it that way every department the city runs is at a loss. Should we shut down the recreation program because the revenue does not cover the cost? I never use it I’d rather my taxes not go for it but but I’ll live with the decision to fund it.
I’ll keep the airport for public safety reasons alone. I recall that airport being used quite frequently during the Angora Fire. Is easy to sit here five years out and say we don’t need it, butI think otherwise.
If the airport is kept open for public safety/fire uses, it is reasonable to expect the city to find some support for it from the feds who could be using it for those purposes in an emergency and would be able to provide funding. Public safety is about the only reason left to maintain it.
I agree with John Friedrich, let’s try to find a buyer at a fair price and cut the “airport” loose.
The airport was important during the Angora fire. However, no one in the affected area contributed a dime to its subsidy. The subsidy that year was paid by city residents, none of whom were in the Angora fire area. That city could have used that money to pave streets or better pay our police and firemen.
That’s what’s wrong. The airport is a regional asset that is subsidized exclusively by city residents because our City Council, apparently, wants ownership, and will not transfer it to a regional JPA.