To Grow or Not to Grow, That Is the Question for Airport District Candidates

When the Truckee Tahoe Airport District was formed in 1958, it probably never occurred to people that it would one day receive nearly $9 million in property taxes. In this year’s election, airport board candidates hold divergent opinions on where this money should be spent and whether the airport itself should grow. There are three seats up for grabs and six candidates running. David Diamond and Teresa O’Dette are incumbents. Director Rick Stephens is not seeking reelection, after serving 8 years. Answers edited for style and clarity. Order of responses determined by a randomizer.

Editor’s note: Tim Devine was unable to send his responses to Moonshine Ink before press deadline.

What priorities should the district have when looking at how to spend the property tax revenue it receives?

Bill Greeno: As there are legal obligations to how district property taxes are spent, it is incumbent on the board of directors to find the best uses for those dollars inside of these limitations. My platform is to help aviation and non-aviation uses of the airport both appreciate the assets of the airport. To do that I have three places for financial investment: 1. Invest in having the safest airport possible. 2. Invest in healthy forest initiatives and projects. 3. Develop our workforce locally at our educational institutions.

Advertisement

Birch Entriken: It is important to note there are rules on how the airport can spend its tax revenue. For me, the first priority should always be safety. We need to invest in the airport infrastructure and make sure it runs as safely and efficiently as possible. I would also like to reinvest what we can into our community by way of building a community hangar that can house STEM programs like the ones that inspired me as a young man. This could serve as a community hub that will not only inspire future generations of aviators, but also act as a gathering place for everyone who lives in the district so they can enjoy the airport whether they fly a plane out of there or not. I would also like to increase funding for aviation-related scholarships. I support the airport board continuing to give back to regional nonprofit organizations that are aligned with the airport’s mission and funding programs like the wildfire mitigation efforts, which benefit the entire region.

“building a community hangar is a top priority for me. As far as other hangar expansion, there is more to this issue than most people realize. I am in favor of moderate hangar expansion for a few reasons.”

~ Birch Entriken

Teresa O’Dette: The property tax collected in Placer and Nevada counties was approved by the voters in 1958 for the purpose of running the Truckee Tahoe Airport District. Property owners in the district pay roughly $32 per $100,000 of assessed value, and is included in the Ad Valorem base tax rate on a tax bill, so a property owner in the district might not know they pay toward the TTAD. The priority and legal requirement are to ‘spend’ the money toward the airport, or aviation related activities. That said, the current board has made it a priority to reinvest in the community whenever possible. An example of this is the $2 million TTAD’s current board approved unanimously toward fire mitigation.

David Diamond: Airport district investments of public money must benefit all residents of North Tahoe and Truckee, and they must reflect what’s most important to those of us who live here.

Last year, I asked for $2 million of this year’s tax revenue be used to form a wildfire mitigation partnership with the four fire departments within the airport district boundaries. Thanks to unanimous support from my fellow directors, wildfire mitigation projects in Truckee and North Tahoe that previously lacked funding are now underway.

We have also made multimillion-dollar investments in aviation safety, and we have provided regional firefighting authorities with all the support and resources they have requested.

These are strong examples of investment priorities that benefit everyone.

Our mission statement requires that we “invest in opportunities that increase community safety and provide sustained benefit to the entire Truckee Tahoe region.” This is what we’re doing, and I wholeheartedly support it.

“I understand that pilots are frustrated about sitting on waitlists. But community members are right to be concerned that more hangars will mean more planes, more noise, and more safety concerns.”

~ Greg Horvath

Greg Horvath: Public funding should provide public benefits. The airport district expects nearly $9 million in property tax revenue this year, yet most folks who pay into the airport do not use it at all.

I will advocate for maximizing funding for initiatives that benefit the entire community, including wildfire mitigation, STEM educational programs, and local nonprofits.

Noise and safety concerns are on everyone’s mind. Some claim that the distribution of airport collected property taxes to non-aeronautical purposes (like wildfire) weakens the airports ability to manage noise and safety. I disagree with this.

Economic impact is also cited to justify utilizing property tax revenue to support a growing airport, but this view is incomplete. There is no shortage of demand for Truckee Tahoe.

Funding initiatives that benefit the entire community (like those listed above) are perfectly compatible with maintaining a safe and efficient airport.

Intentional budget planning, smart infrastructure investments, and a community-first approach can continue to increase safety and mitigate noise while still maximizing the broader positive community impact. The existing board has begun this good work, and I intend to continue it.

Pilots advocate for more hangars at the airport. Should the district expand its hangar offerings? Why or why not?

David Diamond: Our new wildfire mitigation partnership shows the value of investing for regional benefit. I cannot imagine using that money to instead build hangars or otherwise expand airport infrastructure.

Further, adding hangars means more aircraft based at our airport, which means more operations.

Waitlists are common anywhere hangars are available. Building hangars to end a hangar waitlist is akin to adding a lane to Interstate 80 to end traffic. There will always be more demand.

Some suggest we build a “community hangar” to be used for public gatherings, in addition to larger aircraft. One of the airport’s current executive hangars was intended to serve as community meeting space. It was used as such only a few times, due to lack of interest. That hangar is now used to store aircraft.

“Waitlists are common anywhere hangars are available. Building hangars to end a hangar waitlist is akin to adding a lane to Interstate 80 to end traffic. There will always be more demand.”

~ david diamond

We do need public meeting spaces in our area, which is why folks are working hard to build us a new regional library. This makes much more sense, especially for afterschool use by students.

How we spend public money matters. Wildfire mitigation is critical for our region, in terms of safety and economy. Regional projects like this are where I think airport district property tax investments belong.

Greg Horvath: No, the airport should not expand its existing hangar offerings. Let’s keep Truckee Tahoe Airport small.

I understand that pilots are frustrated about sitting on waitlists. But community members are right to be concerned that more hangars will mean more planes, more noise, and more safety concerns.

Hangar waitlists are common nationwide. Having waitlists (versus satisfying all hangar demand) is both a fiscally responsible position for the board to hold and representative of how the community feels about a growing airport.

It’s more important that the airport harness its existing hangar resources more efficiently, and I plan to study and implement programs to make this possible. The airport can address pilots’ frustrations without making unnecessary investments of
public money.

I also oppose allowing third-party vendors the ability to finance and build more hangars, which would strip control of the airport away from the board and grant power to private firms with a financial interest in increasing airport traffic.

Birch Entriken: As I mentioned above, building a community hangar is a top priority for me. As far as other hangar expansion, there is more to this issue than most people realize. I am in favor of moderate hangar expansion for a few reasons. If done properly, extra hangars will not only increase revenue but actually decrease air traffic. Currently, there is a waiting list of local pilots who need hangars. This is potential airport revenue that is being left on the table. It is important to note that more hangars do not necessarily mean more air traffic. The local pilots who are on the waiting list are already flying into Truckee. But instead of parking their plane here, they are often repositioning it to another airport. This means they are making two round trips instead of one. People have this idea that only rich people with jets use the airport. I am proof that that is not true. I have a small two-person airplane that I use for recreation. There are many more pilots like me that love flying, live locally, but are not able to park their plane in Truckee.

Bill Greeno: I have engaged in meaningful conversations with constituents, staff, and current directors on this topic. The topic seems polarizing. The primary ideas I’ve heard among stakeholders are, “We need a space to de-ice that can be used for community needs,” “We need more rental hangars for plane storage,” or “More hangars mean more plane traffic and the problems that come with that,” and “Hangars only benefit pilots.” I’m a businessperson and a consensus builder. No one is as smart as everyone, so I propose the possibility of coming together and finding the right answer.

“I believe more hangars would reduce flights, increase revenue, and ultimately be safer for the pilots than repositioning to other airports.”

~ Teresa O’Dette

Teresa O’Dette: Hangars are a source of revenue for TTAD, and therefore reduce the airport reliance on tax dollars. In addition, a hangar tenant flies to Truckee and parks their plane. Another pilot without a hangar may fly to Truckee, drop their occupants, and fly to Reno or another airport to park their plane, resulting in DOUBLE the number of flights for that plane. I believe more hangars would reduce flights, increase revenue, and ultimately be safer for the pilots than repositioning to other airports.

Do you think the airport is doing enough to offset its negative impacts on its neighbors and the environment?

Greg Horvath: No, the airport can always do more to reduce its negative impacts on neighbors and the environment. At the same time, the current board has done an amazing job making the Truckee Tahoe Airport a sustainability leader while also implementing robust safety and noise programs.

Every month, the board looks at emerging solutions, ideas, and investments that can help with these challenges. I plan to continue those efforts in three respects.

Environment — California is moving forward with a historic transition to require unleaded fuels for aviation. I will strongly advocate for early adoption of unleaded fuels as well as broader efforts to reduce environmental impacts from airport operations.

Noise — living in Sierra Meadows, I’m intimately familiar with noise from planes flying low over homes. Noise management requires continued pilot education, technical solutions, and keeping an open mind to emerging and innovative ideas. It also means supporting the airport at its current size. A larger airport is a louder airport.

Safety — some infrastructure investments increase safety while others may also increase capacity. More airport operations means more chances for an incident. I believe the board should review all airport projects and their potential impact with a critical eye.

Bill Greeno: I believe that there are two kinds of airport users — aviation and non-aviation users. In my definition: If you choose to fly in a plane in and out of the airport you are an aviation user.

I’m a businessperson and a consensus builder. No one is as smart as everyone, so I propose the possibility of coming together and finding the right answer.”

~ Bill Greeno

Further, by my definition: If you do not fly in and out of the airport, you are a non-aviation user. If you choose to eat organic food grown locally through the Tahoe Food Hub, learn how to weld or sew at the Truckee Roundhouse, run your business startup at The Lift so you don’t have to rent your own building (all housed on airport property) you are a non-aviation user. If you hurt yourself and require CareFlight you are a non-aviation user. If a fire is extinguished through air support – non-aviation user.  You run a business that benefits from the people that fly in and out – non-aviation user. And if you believe you fall into none of these categories? If elected I’m happy to find ways to connect you to the asset that is our Truckee Tahoe Airport District.

David Diamond: Where, when, and how aircraft fly is up to the FAA. We cannot enforce flight paths or curfews, or close the airport whenever we want.

But we do have one powerful option: pilot education.

Most pilots willingly make flight decisions to reduce impacts, once they understand those impacts. My fellow director, Kat Rohlf, and I submitted a plan for a pilots group, which was intended to help pilots understand their impacts, study the “why” of airport accidents, and learn from one another. That evolved into our “Fly Safe” program — a training partnership with the FAA that is the first of its kind in the nation.

Airport data show our pilot education focus is making a measurable difference, so I support it.

On the environment front, the Climate Transformation Alliance was an idea conceived by Anna Klovstad (Truckee Town Council), Christa Finn (Truckee Donner PUD), and me. Today, there are more than 20 members of that alliance, which just helped secure $650,000 for climate projects in our region.

We cannot eliminate aircraft emissions, so airport investments to offset those impacts are important. Because we can’t ever do enough in these areas, I’ll keep trying to think of ways to do more.

Teresa O’Dette: The Board of Directors during my two terms has always prioritized reducing the impact of the airport. We have explored every suggestion and recommendation we have received. The FAA dictates that we cannot “close the airport” at night, or restrict in any way a pilot’s ability to land or take off. My position has always been “bring us a legal solution” and we will explore and implement it.

Birch Entriken: The airport has done a lot to offset negative impacts on our community but could be doing even more. The sustainable aviation fuel program is a great start, but we need to continue monitoring emerging technologies. Advances in eco-friendly fuel and electric planes are being made all the time. The airport has done a lot to reduce noise over our neighborhoods, but I have several ideas that can help even more. We need to continue and increase outreach to pilots, especially non-locals, in an effort to educate them on the best noise abatement procedures. I can help build and reinforce strong relationships with the aviation community. I also want to ensure the control tower is staffed full-time, which helps provide unfamiliar pilots with guidance on quieter routes for departures and arrivals, and also can help pilots who are not used to flying in our challenging mountain terrain. Lastly, lengthening runway 20 by a mere 346 feet would lead to quieter arrivals and departures. This would not open up our airport to any jets that are not already flying here. It would simply allow these jet operators to use a different runway, which takes their flight paths away from our neighborhoods.