theSheetNews.com

Council convenes holiday meeting to save air service

When I first learned that Mammoth Lakes had called a Special, Emergency Town Council meeting on July 4 at 2 p.m., my first thought was, “Am I being punk’d?”

At 2 p.m., this reporter (the only newswriter there) filed into Suite Z, along with between 30 and 40 concerned citizens who had also got wind of the meeting. Public comment drew remarks about the meeting’s short notice (issued late in the day July 3) and intrusion on the holiday, nevermind that all four of the Councilmembers on the dais were all in shorts, at least two still in their parade garb.

But the subject turned out to be very serious, the stakes being having commercial air service (courtesy of Alaska Airlines) or not.

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area Chief Marketing Officer Howard Pickett and Town Manager Dave Wilbrecht briefed Council that urgent action is needed to close a $325,000 shortfall in summer and fall subsidies to assure jittery executives at Alaska that Mammoth is committed (and perhaps more important) and capable of guaranteeing air service.

The hitch: with no money available by combing through the Town’s budget, Council is considering how to potentially poach the Measure U funding stream.

“We’ve seen a progression of subsidies, but also a progression of year-round air service,” Wilbrecht noted. “[The Town is] bankrupt right now. We’re very tight and disciplined in terms of expenditures, so [finding the money in the budget] is off the table.”

Options discussed included essentially appropriating unused funds and unencumbered money from the new fiscal year’s projected revenues, taking out a loan against Measure U or going through an accelerated Measure U application process, hoping to qualify under the “mobility” clause.

After the pilot round of funding last fiscal year, Measure U had $84,415 in leftover money, to be used for “planning, construction, operation, maintenance, programming and administration of [Mobility, Recreation, and Arts & Culture] facilities and projects.” Appropriations for this fiscal year are estimated at more than $900,000.

Pickett said he’s been hearing about potential problems from the airlines for about six weeks, but things apparently only recently came to a head when a proposal to close the shortfall by either significantly reducing travel dates or shutting off air service September through November was rejected by the airline, which said that if that were the case, it would likely opt to pull out of Mammoth service altogether.

“There are two modes of thinking within Alaska: one that thinks we need to be in this market, and another sees uncertainty within the Town, and looks at it in terms of risk management … go to a better market with a better guarantee of return,” Pickett explained.

MMSA serves as guarantor on the contracts, since the Town is legally prohibited from doing so. This past winter, MMSA shelled out $3 million to cover United Airlines and Alaska Airlines service, when it only had budgeted $1.3 million. A summer subsidy for Alaska Airlines of $775,000 found MMSA only left with $300,000 to kick in, and Mammoth Lakes Tourism, which for the past two years has shouldered funding for air service, only able to fund $150,000 after its budget was cut for the new fiscal year.

Mono County is not included in the figures at this point. The County is reportedly mulling upping its commitment from $85,000 to $100,000, but is still in budget deliberations and that figure is far from final. “We have three Supervisors representing [Mammoth] right now; it could be a good litmus test,” Councilmember Rick Wood noted.

Pickett’s charge: urgency. He is being pressed for a contract. “We’re well past the point of needing to sign a summer subsidy deal,” he advised. “The airline has been selling seats and operating flights, but even our supporters inside Alaska are worried that no subsidy could be the end of our relationship.”

He went on to relate that brand identity and operational considerations are part of what worries Alaska executives.

MLT Executive Director John Urdi also outlined the hit to economic benefit to the town if Alaska service were to be lost, which he said would be well into the millions of dollars.

Councilmember John Eastman asked if the lateness of the hour means the damage is done. Pickett said the wait has been long, but didn’t think any damage was irreparable. “Every day we delay, however, the situation worsens,” he added. “Even if we can’t do it, I’d rather know now than a week from now.”

Eastman pointed out the economic situation of the town. “It’s not that we don’t want [air service], but it’s important that [Alaska Airlines] understand that we’ve had a bad ski year, MMSA has had layoffs, we’ve had to cut our budget and enter into bankruptcy,” he said.

Pickett replied the airline is aware of that, but also that filing a Chapter 9 petition doesn’t do anything to help the Town’s perception with wary executives.

Councilmember Michael Raimondo reminded Council and those present that subsidy is a guarantee, not revenue that’s spent up front.

Nonetheless, how Measure U would factor into covering the subsidy was a source of concern expressed during public comment. John Wentworth, who sits on the Measure U Steering/Application Committee, expressed a need for transparency and preservation of the public process, recommeding that no matter what the course of action, the Town should at least fill out a Measure U application. Also from the same committee, Bill Taylor urged vetting of any Measure U move through the committee, saying the Council should go through the same process it adopted. He did acknowledge, however, that the impact of borrowing [from Measure U], given a reasonable expectation of short term repayment, would probably be nominal.

Committee member Joyce Turner was worried about whether using Measure U funds would amount to supplanting, replacing municipal funding rather than enhancing or improving.

Lisa Isaacs questioned the severity of Pickett’s “emergency,” referencing a quote that she said was once stuck on MMSA’s purchasing department wall. “Lack of planning on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on my part,” she recalled. “That’s where we’re at now. We just went bankrupt and now we’re talking about subsidizing a business. We have never equated air subsidies with mobility.” Isaacs went on to warn that she thinks use of Measure U funds for that purpose would be illegal and recall elections could result.

Wood countered by saying he thinks that the language is somewhat open to interpretation. He also said any decisions he makes on this or any subject wouldn’t be influenced by any threats of recall. “The Town filed a Chapter 9 petition, but the sun came up today, we have business to conduct and this is part of business,” he responded.

Mayor Matthew Lehman, who along with Raimondo sponsored the agenda item, said the Town’s main fault early on was not putting a full-time air service funding mechanism in place. Airport Commissioner Deb Pierrel, who said she plans to re-up for her seat, agreed. “We don’t want to lose our momentum, but we are being reactive,” she said, adding a call for “shoring up for the long haul.”

Others advocted taking time to evaluate the situation. Mono County Tourism Commissioner Danna Stroud, who’s also part of the Eastern Sierra Air Alliance, said she only sees six uses for Measure U money, and isn’t convinced an air service guarantee is a good fit. “Don’t bypass the process unless you want to rewrite the ordinance,” she said.

Stroud suggested filing an application, studying feasibility, transient occupancy tax growth and return on investment. “Tell us if we can sustain it, and if we’re getting the money to justify subsidies,” she requested. “Perhaps it’s not time for September through November air service. Maybe it’s time to walk away.”

Pickett told The Sheet studying the issue is fine, given enough time. Right now, it’s also a function of how long we can wait to reply to Alaska, he indicated.

Planning Commissioner Mickey Brown, delegate to the Economic Stimulus Council, disagreed with Stroud and other critics. “Air service is not a kneejerk discussion item,” Brown stated. It is, she insisted, part of the Town’s exhaustive, lengthy General Plan vetting and also a top priority mentioned in the recently adopted Destination Resort Community Economic Development Strategy document.

Jim Smith, also on the Measure U Committee, pointed out that future budget revenue is to be be directed to the settlement that otherwise could have been available. “Emergencies happen, it’s okay,” Smith said, adding that, “Two things will help get us out of this: MLT and air service.”

“Wow, you’re all right to one degree or another,” Lehman observed regarding public comment. He went on to outline many facets not brought up previously, such as $1 million in lost enplanement funds from the Federal Aviation Administration for capital airport improvements that would have to be scrapped, the work that went into the Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative, lots of marketing efforts and spent money that would have to be cast aside, and the difficulty finding another carrier as cost effective to operate at the airport, assuming we could find one that wants to be here.

“I’d hate to lose that over one season of subsidy,” he said, adding he was ready to move on authorizing a loan then and there. Eastman mentioned the $20 million the Town has put into airport improvements, but suggested a roundtable of various partners and stakeholders (TOML, Mono County, MMSA, MLT, Mobilty and Airport commissions) to brainstorm ideas.

Wood said he would like to make a commitment to air service, but also said he’d “like more detail.” He also blasted critics of MMSA regarding air service. “I’m tired of attacks on MMSA and how they’re the only ones who reap the benefits. It’s part of the community, and employes 2,500 people.” Pickett noted that MMSA picks up the subsidy tab for the winter season, and still partners during summer months, when lift ticket sales aren’t an issue and the Town benefits as much or more from air service.

“This isn’t an MMSA issue, it’s a community issue,” Urdi added.

“[The Town] committed to air service and it’s our responsibility to find the money,” Wood continued. “The only questions are how much and from what fund?” Wood went on to say he’s not ready to commit Measure U funds, though he thinks the language is subject to interpretation as to whether air service qualifies. Council, he added, might well have the authority to override the process, “at the risk of political fallout.”

Lehman told The Sheet he thinks the solution would be either a loan, a very accelerated Measure U application process or a plan C that has yet to come forward. At press time, Wilbrecht was organizing the aforementioned group workshop meeting for Monday or Tuesday. Council is expected to call another Special Meeting Wednesday to evaluate options and decide on a course of action.

Meanwhile, should Alaska Airlines decide to cancel its Mammtoh service, it’s as yet unclear as to whether or for how long tickets already sold would be honored, or if planes would be reassigned immediately and tickets refunded.

An airport you can (NOT) count on

Dear Editor:

Today was a beautiful summer afternoon with light breezes and warm clear skies as we walked up towards the terminal at Mammoth-Yosemite Airport. A fellow walking out stopped us saying “L.A.?” Referring to whether that was where we were headed. “Cancelled.” What? He said he was told the plane was “broken down in Mexico.” He also mentioned that this was the third time he’s had a flight canceled during with this same “broken down in Mexico” line. He believes they do it when they don’t have enough passengers booked for a given flight. Inside, we’re confirmed that the flight is canceled and that there’s nothing they can do to help rebook the two other connecting flights that my girlfriend will have to reschedule. Love that kind of service. Not to mention the doctor’s appointment and hotel reservation that will now also have to be changed. A courtesy call hours earlier would sure’ve been nice. Could’ve just driven to L.A. with more notice. In fact it seems really poor that there wasn’t an earlier phone call if the flight really was broken down in Mexico, they would’ve known for hours. Then a friend of ours happens to walk in only to find out that now he too will have to change his plans and instead drive the 5 hours to LAX because he can just barely make it in time for his flight at 11pm. Thanks Alaska Airlines for screwing up peoples schedules to save a few bucks of operation cost. Perhaps someone needs to make a more honest assessment of the viability of Mammoth-Yosemite Airport. Once we talk with our booking agent she says in no uncertain terms that the plane is not broken down in Mexico, they simply didn’t have enough passengers and canceled the flight. That’s service you canNOT count on.

My girlfriend has flown in and out of Mammoth-Yosemite Airport a total of 4 times. Last time there was a wind cancellation on her return flight forcing her to wait in the Bay Area for 4 days for the next flight, and this time, with no notice there’s a cancellation of her departure flight throwing her entire travel plan out the window. 50% success rate so far for her is really really bad when it comes to making critical plans. Then you factor in that one of the times she did land was probably the scariest landing of her life. And she’s flown laps around the world in airmiles.

Clearly, no matter how beautiful the flight is, or how good that free beer might taste, you can’t count on Mammoth-Yosemite Airport. If you’re setting up travel plans that don’t have room for error, save yourself the stress and don’t bother. Go to Reno, drive to L.A., or San Francisco. Go to a real airport, and leave our little hobby airport for the times that don’t matter so much. You’ll likely save money in the process since rescheduling costs lots of money and headaches.

David Huebner
Mammoth Lakes

The Mammoth Yosemite Airport’s (MLH) Airport Layout Plan Updated Narrative (ALPUN) took a major step toward being submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Tuesday.

The Mammoth Lakes Airport Commission, meeting for one of the last times before it merges with the Mobility Commission to form the Transportation Commission, passed the ALPUN unanimously, with errata and some other language changes added.

The current ALPUN is designed to supersede the 2000 ALP. According to Town Staff’s report to the Commission, the new narrative points out FAA items that need to be either addressed directly, or reviewed for potential modifications or waivers. The ALPUN is an intricate document, made up of input from the Town, airport design and constructions consultants Mead & Hunt, as well as considerable public comments on virtually every facet.

Staff maintains that, per Mead & Hunt’s analysis, that certain reservations expressed by the public about aspects of the airport’s needs, especially if it is to be upgraded from a B-III to C-III facility, must take into account that there really is no airport “standard.” This condition is, staff insisted, common at many airports, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect that the FAA might grant waivers or other considerations.

In terms of forecasting enplanements, Staff pointed out that some of Mammoth’s peer airports’ statistics were used to formulate estimates, which are predicated in part on some key changes in new air service routes. Burbank, for example, has been dropped from consideration, and other routes are being scaled back somewhat. And the growth pattern has been adjusted down several thousand enplanements to appear more conservative, though some of that growth depends on Mammoth Mountain Ski Area’s continuing commitment to subsidies.

Airport Commissioner John Walter noted that MMSA’s winter forecast only doubles the number flights over 20 years.

The ALPUN isn’t without its critics. Stephen Kalish and Owen Maloy, two of the Airport’s most vocal watchdogs, both submitted detailed comment letters, taking issue with everything from runway taxiway separation and safety areas, to hangar locations and a need to address the disposition of the Green Church, which they point out has impacts on the runway protection zone at the end of the runway.

“This ALPUN reminds me of a paper handed in at an exam I once proctored at USC. The girl who handed it in appeared to think she had done well. But when I looked at it, I saw that she had mistaken form for substance. The math was irrelevant and so were the sketches,” Maloy wrote via e-mail.

Kalish suggested that the revised ALPUN “geometry” would not be acceptable to the FAA, adding his concern that the document should be rewritten and rethought to either keep the airport at a B-III status (even at the risk of losing Horizon Airlines and its Q400 plane service) or provide an expansion plan, including moving hangers and taxiways, to upgrade MLH to a C-III facility.

Malloy, who was present at the Commission meeting, seemed to sum up their concerns in public comment.

“There is an FAA process for requesting modifications of standards … you have to address each one with separate documents,” he said. “The way this is being presented — moving the taxiway and hangers — you’re saying you don’t intend to do them. All you have to do is say you plan to meet [the obligations] eventually. Otherwise, you [irritate] the airlines and the FAA, which could bounce [the ALPUN] back.”

The way it’s composed now, parts of the ALPUN don’t comply with FAA rules and can be appealed, says Maloy.  He also posited that the FAA treats runway safety area improvements as “maintenance,” and not a capital improvement item, and suggested that those be removed from the airports Capital Improvement Project list.

Airport Director Bill Manning suggested the narrative was important to find out what the FAA has in mind. “The FAA will tell us what’s required,” he replied, “whether we’ll stay a B-III airport or change. We need to get the FAA’s response.”

One item that Maloy suggested he and Kalish would find favorable was Staff’s incorporating their idea to modify Environmental language such that “required environmental documents will be completed for all airport projects.” As opposed to a previous versions, which only mentioned Environmental Assessments, no specific reference would be made to either EAs or more formal Environmental Impact Reports, since at this point there is now way to determine which will be needed for particular projects.

“It’s being left intentionally open-ended, but I think we need to add that specific language to clarify our position,” Commissioner Thom Heller opined.

“In any case, it goes without saying we’ll follow the law,” Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw added.

Heller’s only other question was whether Manning thought that, given the Town’s precarious budget situation, we could pull off any of the projects. “Are we realistic in saying we’ll be able to meet some semblance of the timeline?” he asked Manning.

“The majority of the funding [for the new terminal expansion] will come from the FAA,” Manning answered. “The new terminal project is top priority, and the rest will have to happen as funding [from the Town and the FAA] becomes available, but yes, projects will be completed.”

Council is expected to also set a date for merging the Airport and Mobility Commissions, though according to Mobility Chair Sandy Hogan, a meeting of the two commissions to work out a smooth transition has yet to be set.

Seats on the Airport Commission are also up for re-election, though 6-year Commissioner Deb Pierrel this week sent a letter to Town Council saying that, “When my current Airport Commission term is up, I will not be seeking appointment to the newly transitioned Transportation Commission, nor any other current commission vacancies.”

Pierrel did express concerns about the merger as it relates to the airport’s future, saying that, “While I understand the mindset behind the commission restructuring, I would like to share one concern I have. The airport is in its infancy, really, and already in need of a new terminal building. It can be a huge benefit to our community and economic development if handled well, with proper oversight. It is a pivotal time in Mammoth fiscally, and my worry is that the Airport, with all of its issues and diverse needs, may not receive the constant and focused oversight I feel it is in dire need of, with a broader reaching commission.”

The Airport Commission will hold a joint meeting with Town Council at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6 to discuss the ALPUN and other airport matters.

At approximately 4:20 p.m. on Friday, April 27 at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH), a twin engine Cessna general aviation (GA) aircraft landed “gear-up” on the runway without causing major damage or personal injury. Airport personnel responded, as did the Long Valley and Mammoth Lakes fire protection districts, in addition to the Mammoth Lakes Police Department.

The aircraft was towed from the runway, allowing Alaska Airlines Flight No. 2196 from Los Angeles to land at approximately 4:53 p.m.

The Mammoth Yosemite Airport has resumed full operations. -Press Release

Four years after the initial court judgment, the various players reflect upon Hot Creek

As Thursday marked the 4th anniversary of that fateful day in Bridgeport when the Town of Mammoth Lakes lost the Hot Creek (airport litigation) case – and Jay Becker was seen later that night whooping it up at the Rhino in Bridgeport – perhaps it’s time to revisit the case and tell you what I know.

Or at least, tell you what some of the key players have told me.

As I contemplate where to start, I do think it’s important to make a few prefacing remarks.

1.) Context is critical. As former Mayor Kathy Cage recalled, “At that time [the Development Agreement with Hot Creek was negotiated] there was a story a week in the Fifty Center about the next, new fabulous thing. Big planes. Major airlines. Trader Joe’s.” In fact, she recalled a big reception at Terry Ballas’s hangar at the airport which was supposed to herald the arrival of Trader Joe’s.

So there was … some momentum, some pressure on Council to make things happen.

2.) We all recognize that memory is a trickster, and that folks tend to remember things in such a way as to place themselves in a favorable light. So I do believe it’s important to judge for yourself the credibility of each witness, and what they might have to lose or gain.

In 1997, Mammoth Lakes Town Council was comprised of Cage, John Eastman, Kirk Stapp, Byng Hunt and David Watson.

The Town had acquired the Mammoth Airport from the County a few years before. Then-Councilman Stapp said there was actually a ballot referendum on whether or not the Town should buy the Airport from the County. The referendum passed narrowly. The Town bought. At the time, Stapp recalls he and Eastman opposed the acquisition.

“It was a service the County should have provided the Town,” he said.

Stapp also vividly recalls one detail of the transaction – a photograph of the Mono County Board of Supervisors celebrating the transaction, Andrea Mead Lawrence grinning broadly while holding a bottle of champagne.

“They were happy to get rid of it,” sighed Stapp.

The airport was a money-loser, so when Terry Ballas, who’d had some experience as a Fixed-Based Operator in Santa Monica, came calling, Mammoth was all too eager to listen.

The issue, however, was that the Town flatly didn’t know what it was doing. As former Mayor and current Councilman Rick Wood said, “The first mistake was that we didn’t have a lawyer [at the time] who’d ever drafted a Development Agreement. We didn’t have a depth of experience in our legal counsel.”

As Stapp added, longtime Town Attorney Peter Tracy was famous for saying, “This isn’t my purview.”

“Then again, nothing’s his purview,” added Stapp.

Cage said the Town chose Councilmember Watson to negotiate the Development Agreement with Ballas because he was “a businessman.”

On the right track

Dear Editor:

Supervisor “Hap” Hazard stated in a recent reply (Feb. 11) to an Elizabeth Boyd letter (Feb. 4) “I receive only a salary with no employee benefits in my role as a Supervisor.”

Supervisor Hazard appears to intentionally cloud the focus of Ms. Boyd’s letter by going on to cite the questionable “dangerous” incidents he was involved in during his employment as a Deputy Sheriff. There is a question of credibility regarding these claims.

However, County records indicate our Supervisor’s receive a Board (BOS) base salary of $4,109 a month, a vehicle allowance of $790 per month, term life insurance (at an unknown cost), a generous travel allowance and  approximately $450 a month if the County does not have to purchase health care insurance on their behalf. I can find no evidence that Hazard has ever “opted-out” of any of these BOS benefits.

Ironically, after Hazard denied receiving any BOS benefits, it appears he may be the only Supervisor receiving the healthcare reimbursement for employees who do not require health insurance. My understanding is the County’s recently stopped paying this benefit for the County workforce. Did the BOS also have it taken away?

In addition to his BOS salary and benefits, Hazard receives a Sheriff’s Department retirement of approximately $5,400 a month and a retirement health care benefit worth more than $1,000 a month. I intentionally low balled these figures so as not to over dramatize their effect.

Adding it up, Hazard’s total compensation, salary plus benefits, from his two PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) jobs (Sheriff’s and BOS) is conservatively estimated to be well in excess of $ 11,400 per month. Again, if Hazard has “opted out” of receiving any BOS benefits listed above, he needs to provide some supporting documentation and I will adjust my estimates accordingly.

Ms. Boyd possibly misrepresented some of the technical aspects of “double dipping,” but she was absolutely on the right track.

Terry Padilla
Mono County Assistant Sheriff (Ret.)

Editor’s Note: At Tuesday’s Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting, Hazard requested that Board members look at freezing their salaries to be “fair and equitable to employees.”

Big “A” or little “a”?

Dear Editor:

People sometimes wonder why flights can’t divert to Bishop Airport if they are unable to land at Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) due to weather. A gentleman that I rode up with on the chairlift one blustery day said he would probably have to drive to Bishop later and collect his daughter because the plane probably wouldn’t make it into Mammoth. He was right about the flight, it didn’t land in Mammoth, but his daughter didn’t end up in Bishop.

Bishop Eastern Sierra Regional Airport (BIH) is not designated as a suitable alternate airport by the airlines (let’s call it alternate with a Big “A”). This designation for the airport is not controlled by the Town but by the air carrier and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). To a pilot, any airport is a potential alternate if your aircraft is on fire (alternate with a little “a”). However, during normal operations, it is not legal for a commercial flight to list a non-compliant airport as its alternate on the flightplan.

Besides the legality issue, there would be a number of logistical problems if a commercial flight landed at BIH. There are no passenger facilities, customer service agents, bag handling equipment or personnel, ground power carts, tow-bars, or TSA personnel and screening equipment to name a few. Not to mention that lining up several 50 passenger buses on short notice might be difficult. Could it be done? Sure … but only if you throw tens of thousands of dollars at it. The FAA would have to approve the airport as an alternate and BIH would need a Crash/Fire/Rescue unit standing by anytime a flight might arrive. There’s an old aviation adage: ‘All it takes to fly is airspeed and money.’

If weather is a problem, it is far more practical and cost effective for the airline to hold a flight on the ground or cancel it before it leaves the gate. If it’s already airborne then the aircraft might enter a holding pattern for a short time (fuel permitting) if the weather if forecast to improve. Ultimately it may continue to its next destination or return to the airport it departed from.

In addition, the airline’s aircraft routers are often concerned with having the aircraft and crew stuck out of position.

Yes it’s sometimes inconvenient … welcome to aviation. It still beats the horse and buggy days most of the time.

Lee Hughes
M.L. Airport Commissioner

Judge appears tired of Town’s stall tactics in airport litigation

The Town of Mammoth Lakes was given one extra week to file any additional pleas and defense motions in a Thursday morning hearing regarding its ongoing airport litigation.

The hearing was held in Mono County Superior Court, concerned a Writ of Mandate, recently filed by the plaintiff, Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition.

The writ essentially petitions the court to enforce the judgment against the Town as part of the Hot Creek Aviation litigation.

The Town now owes roughly $42 million in judgment and attorney fees, and has exhausted all of its appeals. If Presiding Judge Roger D. Randall, a retired Superior Court justice from Kern County, upholds the writ, the Town would have to begin putting plans in place for a 10-year payment schedule to settle its obligations under the judgment, which was made final one year ago.

Attorney John Higginbotham with Best & Krieger, the Town’s retained counsel, asked Judge Randall to consider an evidentiary hearing so the Town can better present evidence to support its position, as well as what Higginbotham said would be an accurate account of the Town’s finances. He said the Town needed more time to respond than the 10-days notice that accompanied the writ.

Randall, however, said such hearings aren’t generally an expectation in these types of writs, and also pointed out that the Town has already had an extra 14 days, but was willing to grant an additional week.

Attorney John Pierce, representing MLLA, told the Judge he’s still waiting to hear whether the Town intends to present any type of defense. “There’s no disputing the facts … the judgment was final a year ago, and there’s been no attempt at payment or raising funds to make any payment,” Pierce said. “Do they intend to seek a 10-year installment plan rather than bandy about some hypothetical check?” He also said there’s been no lack of due process.

Higginbotham replied that the Town is effectively insolvent. “If the court orders [the writ], it will be insolvent many times over,” Higginbotham told the Judge. Higginbotham asked the Judge to consider allowing due process by means of recently enacted state legislation for municipalities to mediate these types of dire situations, “rather than being forced into emergency action and declaring Chapter 9 bankruptcy, which isn’t in anyone’s best interest.”

Pierce countered, saying that mediation is “irrelevant to the matter before us.” Judge Randall seemed to agree, adding that, “Mediation has nothing to do with these proceedings.” Additional pleas and defense motions are due by March 15. Any further response from the Town itself is due by March 21. The hearing is scheduled to reconvene on March 23 at 1:30 p.m.

How compliant does Mammoth-Yosemite have to be? 

Mammoth Lakes’ Airport Commission met Tuesday afternoon to hear a breakdown of the third-party peer review of the Town’s Draft Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative.

Prepared by the architecture and design firm of Mead & Hunt, the report evaluated the status of aviation forecasts, as well as airfield modifications and terminal expansion designs.

According to Mead & Hunt, the Narrative Report is fully “in conformance with aviation industry and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards.” It did acknowledge that the Narrative is “more extensive than is common,” falling somewhere between a typical narrative and a full Airport Master Plan.

Mead & Hunt consultant Jeff Hart opined that the Narrative’s aviation forecast component is “aggressive, but not unreasonable,” when measured against a peer resort such as Aspen. Other criteria being similar, Mammoth is currently running about 200,000 enplanements behind Aspen, but by that same token has considerable growth potential.

“Resorts usually tie in their business plans with enplanements,” Hart noted. Commissioner John Walter, however, said he remains critical of the forecasting, which he suggested was based in part on 100 percent success rates that are “overly optimistic.”

A major focus of the Narrative, said M&H’s report, is how to address airfield features that don’t meet FAA standards for C-III aircraft. Most airports have “non-standard” conditions, which are due to the “evolving role of an airport, and/or the result of the FAA changing or adding standards over time.”

While the FAA doesn’t grant permanent modifications or waivers for such conditions, temporary or “bridge” waivers might be allowed to buy time for corrections.

“A lot of ‘fixes’ don’t seem financially feasible, let alone easy,” commented M&H Senior Planner David Dietz. “It’s going to be a lot more of the FAA deciding what are the important bits and how much they’re going to fund to accomplish them.”

Rejection of the ALP altogether is, he added, unlikely. The FAA, he elaborated, might ask to “show” a possible feature, but without a specific timeline if it’s deemed unlikely to ever happen. MMH, for instance, meets the standards for one feature most important to the FAA: the runway safety area (RSA). Sonoma County Airport, for example, is facing $40 million in RSA correction issues.

Mead & Hunt said MMH is facing its own challenges, but nothing on that scale. If it were, given a 10% match from the Town, “$4 million is a lot to come up with,” Dietz pointed out.

Dietz also outlined his take on the FAA’s role in the Airport going forward. “[The Town and Commission] have already established your vision,” Dietz said. “The FAA has no regulatory authority over the airport. It’s more of a soft, advisory or guideline type input, more zoning than code. But, if you take their grant money, then you have to do what they want.”

“It’s good to know that the RSAs are in compliance,” Commissioner Lee Hughes said, but added he wonders about including taxiway and hanger locations in the ALP at this time.

Commissioner Walter said he’s also concerned about disregarding the FAA’s previous informal [Narrative] comments. “We might be making it harder to [address] them if the FAA requires them in the future,” he said.

“It’s a tough issue at a lot of airports,” Dietz replied. “We didn’t find any practical alternatives [to hangar relocation and similar issues]. You might be asked to drop things from the ALP to keep the options open and keep things on a certain level of ‘non-standardness.’ The question will be is the FAA interested in half a cake?”

Hangar locations, Dietz submitted, aren’t likely to be an issue. “Worst case for upgrading from B-III to C-III aircraft classification is you need to run a grader and remove some brush.” MMH, he added, is already technically operating at C-III status anyway, with daily service by C-III class Bombardier Q400 planes already in existence.

M&H’s report indicated that for the next 15 years or so, it’s highly likely that MMH would continue to be served by Q400 and CRJ-700 aircraft. They also posited that market conditions and financial arrangements might also bring in slightly larger, but compatible aircraft such as the Airbus 319 (American has ordered 100) and the Boeing 737-700 or -800 models.

He also told the Commission it’s not about the runway, which he said is not an issue, but rather the terminal. “It’s all about peak loads, not daily but hour by hour. Can you handle 125 passengers on any given plane, as opposed to 75?” Dietz asked rhetorically. “The terminal needs to be expandable into the future. It’s not crazy to err on the side of flexibility.”

During public comment, Stephen Kalish questioned what happened to a 2006 ALP and whether it was rejected by the FAA at the time. He also questioned whether the RSA areas near the runway and their related grading conform to FAA standards.

Dietz responded that RSAs are typically fully vegetated, which isn’t the case in Mammoth and never will be. “An RSA isn’t intended to be like the runway,” he said, adding that only obstructions are to be removed. As to the 2006 ALP, Dietz replied that older ALPs don’t typically inform newer ones. “They’re a snapshot of where we are today … what’s the vision of the future.”

According to Airport Director Bill Manning, the ‘06 ALP was not really a plan, but requested by the FAA as part of an Environmental Impact Report process begun in 2005. It was, he added, “not rejected … it was just never signed.”

The draft Narrative Update will undergo changes from several comments along with basic corrections, and a version for approval will then be taken up by the Commission. From there it will be submitted to the FAA for its review.

“Once the ALP is approved, that will determine what projects are fundable,” Dietz explained. “The only question at that point will be whether to use FAA grant dollars or go for discreationary funding, which you’ll have to compete for on a regional basis.”

Walter said he would “reluctantly” support the draft Narrative, though “it’s more gamesmanship than laying out where we’re going to be in a few years.”

Special thanks to friendly people

Dear Editor:

I would like to publicly express my appreciation to Tim Bue and Lesley Yen, both employees of the Inyo National Forest Service and administrators for special use permits on INFS land.

In these times when state, local and federal government budget cuts are effecting small businessman in the Eastern Sierra and other areas, it is a pleasure to find a couple of government employees who really care about how businessman in this area are treated.

Personnel cuts have made those left in the INFS juggling many tasks and difficult situations with regards to issuing special use permits for those businessmen like myself who rely on competent, understanding people that can get us the necessary permits in order to conduct business on NFS land.

Kudos to Tim and Lesley … they are a breath of fresh air and their friendly and responsive demeanor will not go without thanks from me.

Tom Loe
Sierra Drifters Guide Service

Lee-nding perspective

Dear Editor:

The residents of Mammoth Lakes and surrounding communities deserve to know the process that is being followed to upgrade Mammoth Yosemite Airport without the editorializing and personal attacks. In the OP/ED piece by Stephen Kalish (MAMMOTH YOSEMITE AIRPORT: A TRAGEDY IN MORE THAN ONE ACT, The Sheet, February 18, 2012), Mr. Kalish would like us to believe that the airport is a “fiefdom” and there is some sort of collusion taking place between airport staff, a “sole-source consulting airport engineer” and Terry Ballas. I’m not sure what Mr. Kalish thinks the agenda of this “trio” (as he refers to them) actually is. Perhaps it is Mr. Kalish who has some sort of agenda. In any case, there is certainly enough historical controversy surrounding our little airport. But for those who think this airport is beneficial to our community and would like it to succeed, dredging up the past is counter-productive. As Mr. Kalish points out, there are many decisions to be made as our community strives to improve the Mammoth Yosemite Airport. However, I absolutely do not share his view that there is an impasse with the FAA. Many decisions have already been made or will be finalized after the FAA reviews the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). But let’s look at what has been accomplished at the airport so far.

Commercial air service is born 

About four years ago, Mammoth Yosemite Airport was a marginally equipped General Aviation airport with no commercial air service. It is now a fully certified FAR Part 139 commercial airport with up to seven flights per day. The runway was resurfaced, communications capability upgraded, weather observation equipment installed, Crash/Fire/Rescue equipment purchased and personnel trained. It has a very nice (and admittedly cozy) terminal that was not long ago a garage that housed equipment and snow plows. It has a Sprung structure to provide shelter and food service for passengers waiting for their flights. It has car rental facilities, taxi service, hotel transportation and other visitor friendly services like many other resort airports throughout the country. This was all accomplished by an extremely hardworking airport and town staff despite a multitude of technical obstacles and legal challenges that needed to be overcome. All of this was done on a shoestring budget which was funded in great part by the FAA. This initial air service has been amazingly successful especially for a start-up. It has done very well both operationally and regarding load factors. In fact, Mammoth Yosemite exceeded a critical milestone of 10,000 enplanements per year in 2010 and now receives an annual grant from the FAA of $1 million to help fund the airport. The airport reached 26,000 enplanements in 2011. The real trick going forward will be to maintain the momentum required to sustain the airport and grow the air service. This has been made even more challenging by a recession and a marginal snow year.

The next step 

To improve the airport operationally and upgrade the passenger facilities, the FAA requires the Town of Mammoth Lakes to submit an Airport Layout Plan and an Aviation Forecast before it can make recommendations and ultimately approve funding. The ALP is a stand-alone document and does not normally refer to or expand upon previous plans (whether they were approved or not). The ALP Update Narrative (ALPUN) is a further explanation of the changes being sought in the ALP. An unusually detailed ALPUN was prepared by the Town’s airport design consultant, Reinard Brandley, and is currently in draft form. After some editing it will be submitted to the FAA along with the ALP. These documents are essentially the blueprint for what our airport should look like in the future and will include a list of areas that need to be addressed at some point for the airport to meet current FAA design standards. The ALP takes into account the desire (by both the Town and the FAA) to upgrade the category of the airport from B-III to C-III. These technical criteria correspond to the size and approach speed of the aircraft that currently operate into the airport or might do so in the future. For example, the Q400 that Alaska Airlines currently operates into Mammoth Yosemite Airport is a Category C-III aircraft. Most Regional Jets that would be expected to operate into Mammoth Yosemite Airport in the future will also be C-III. It is ultimately up to the FAA (and not Mr. Kalish or even town staff) to decide which deficiencies at our airport will need to be addressed immediately and which will be addressed at a later date. These include many small items and some larger ones, like moving the taxiways and hangars for example. It should be noted that many airports have “Modifications to Standards” that allow a category of aircraft to operate into an airport even if that airport does not meet all of the criteria for that category of aircraft. There may be some restrictions but these are usually taken into account by the airline that is approved to operate at that airport.

The bottom line is that the FAA allows airlines such as Alaska to currently operate their Category C-III Q400 into our currently B-III airport. But the ultimate objective is to make the airport C-III compliant by a combination of improvements and “Modifications to Standards”. Further improvements will be made (and largely funded by the FAA) in the future that will eventually mitigate most of the deficiencies as the FAA deems them to be a priority. It is not unusual for “Modifications to Standards” to be in effect for years or even decades until the FAA funds the necessary improvements. Burbank Airport is a perfect example. It has not been fully compliant since it was built yet mainline aircraft such as the Airbus and B737 frequent the airfield. In fact by comparison, Mammoth Yosemite Airport has far fewer and less significant Runway Safety Area (RSA) violations than does the Burbank.

Build it and they will come

Mr. Kalish and one or two other vocal opponents of the airport have suggested that the Town should have prepared an ALP that fully funds the “Field of Dreams.” After this perfect airport was built then presumably the next task would be to find an airline to provide air service. If funds were unlimited, this theory might possibly have some merit, as long as the Town and the FAA were willing to take the significant financial risk that air service could be procured and sustained.

In the real world, it is extremely unlikely that the FAA would consider funding the airport to any substantial level unless commercial air service was already in existence. I will state an obvious fact here; the Town of Mammoth Lakes could not support air service based on size and demographics alone. Like it or not, it is through the partnership with MMSA and the community (and hopefully someday the Eastern Sierra Air Alliance) that we even have air service at all. Subsidies are common at resorts such as Mammoth and are frankly the only way to ever attract air service to a town this size,.

On the other hand, if you happen to be anti-airport, then asking the FAA to fund perhaps upwards of $100 million all at once would be a very good way to kill the project altogether. Chapter 5 of the draft ALPUN is devoted to examining theoretical alternatives to using the existing airport configuration as a baseline. It entertains options like moving Hwy. 395 so the runway could be relocated, shaving off the top of Doe Ridge and even building an entirely new airport in Long Valley. All these scenarios were found unacceptable on either financial grounds or because of environmental issues. That is not to say the FAA won’t take some components of these alternatives and make them a future requirement (such as moving the taxiways and hangars). At the advice of their consultants, the Town has elected to present a more moderate plan and defer to the FAA. This is the way the process works, despite what some folks want you to believe.

Consultants checking consultants

The Town of Mammoth Lakes went to the extraordinary measure of having a very well known and respected airport design consultant check the work of our well known and respected primary design consultant. The price for this peer review was $20,000 at a time when funding is tight. That price tag does not include the hundreds of hours of staff time required to request competitive bids, analyze the data and present the results. Mr. Kalish states in his OP/ED that this “…may have been more of a public relations initiative than serious outreach for advice.”

Ironically, the Town commissioned Mead and Hunt to do the peer review as a direct result of Stephen Kalish and Owen Maloy’s hundreds of comments and challenges to the validity of the ALPUN prepared by Reinard Brandley. The consultant from Mead and Hunt stated he had never seen public comment in such quantity or detail on any other airport project he has worked on.

I’ll concede that some minor errors and omissions were identified and they will be included in the final version of the ALPUN. But the vast majority of the comments are either based on mis-interpretation, are flat out wrong or are perhaps just “red herrings.” Mead and Hunt concluded that “The [ALP] Narrative Report is fully in conformance with aviation industry and FAA standards.”

Hindsight is always 20-20

Despite the conspiracy theories and accusations of incompetence, the airport is now a viable benefit to our community. This has been brought into reality by the partnership of the Town, Mono County, and MMSA. It is also a direct result of a lot of planning and hard work by staff and others.  There will always be a few armchair quarterbacks who will point out missteps and disagree with past decisions. And there have been a few decisions that should have been made differently. Hindsight is always 20-20. Rather than dwell on the past, why not look to the future and imagine what we want our airport to be.  The current path the Town of Mammoth Lakes and its “fiefdom” airport have chosen is to let the consultants do their job, have the town staff and Councilmembers review their recommendations and to let the FAA ultimately decide on what they will approve and fund. Despite Mr. Kalish’s pessimism, the FAA has so far responded favorably to the draft ALPUN and is on record as stating they “…will work with [the Town] to try and find a way, if possible, to manage the impact of these issues.”

The choice is clear

The decisions might be difficult but the choices are straightforward. The community can give up now and let this airport languish, it can solicit the FAA and the Town for millions of taxpayer dollars that will never be approved, or we can all work through the hurdles one at a time to make this airport a vital link for our community.

Lee Hughes
M.L. Airport Commissioner

By Stephen Kalish

Not for the first time, the Town of Mammoth Lakes has important choices to make in planning and developing Mammoth-Yosemite Airport (MMH). The Town must now decide how it might break a nearly decade-long impasse with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over future airport development necessary to safely accommodate large commercial aircraft at MMH.

Achieving resolution will not be easy, and will involve local decision-makers — town staff, commissioners, and council members — who have heretofore mostly stayed away from airport planning issues, and in any event lack familiarity with FAA procedures and airport design guidelines.

In retrospect, it has not worked out well for the Town to cede so much decision-making and oversight responsibility to its airport manager and consulting airport engineer, neither of whom raised red flags at crucial moments over planned development at the airport that could be seen as violating FAA grant assurances or potentially getting in the way of future airport expansion.

MMH exists as a mostly independent fiefdom — an outlying piece of Town real estate operating without  meaningful Town oversight— lorded over by its Airport Manager, Bill Manning; beholden to Reinard Brandley, its sole-source consulting airport engineer, to produce FAA grant applications; perennially in need of Town subsidies; and locked in regrettable compacts with its development partner, Terry Ballas.

These marquee actors were all on stage in 1997, when Ballas approached the Town about developing the airport to generate private profits and public revenue. Working for both the Town and Ballas, Brandley produced essential documents for inclusion into the 1997 Development Agreement, and later did engineering work for Hot Creek’s hangar project. Manning failed to pass on concerns faxed to him from the FAA ahead of the Town’s approval of the development agreement with Ballas.

Over the past fifteen years, the trio of Manning, Brandley and Ballas have neither maintained nor created an FAA-compliant airport. Instead, they have enabled a public-private land development partnership that has leased, swapped, developed, and otherwise appropriated Town-owned (but owned subject to FAA grant assurances) airport land for commercial profit-making purposes.

Confronted with an airport too small for large jets, such as Boeing 757s, Mammoth Mountain convinced first Horizon Airlines and then United Airlines to bring in smaller — but still large — aircraft with guaranteed subsidies. (Mammoth Mountain has been the driving force in bringing air service to MMH.) The Town, along with some divisions within the FAA, signed on, but with no plan or commitment to upgrade and expand MMH to accommodate this new fleet of what are categorized in the industry as regional jets.

The current FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dates from December 2000. Subsequent draft — also prepared by the duopoly of Manning and Brandley — were not received favorably by the FAA, which eventually consigned them to the wastebasket.

A major stumbling block is that Hot Creek’s leased corporate hangars are located too close to the taxiway and runway. Airport specific operation procedures for Bombardier Q400 aircraft are required because of these deficiencies. The hangars fronting the runway are located where a relocated taxiway should be built.

The FAA — the usually silent and often reluctant behind-the-scenes partner in this drama — will apparently not make any more grants for new construction until the Town drafts, submits, and obtains FAA approval for an updated ALP. (Environmental approvals are also required.)

Mammoth Mountain, speaking by all appearances as if it is the Town, wants an expensive new  passenger terminal — ideally funded by an FAA airport improvement grant — to accommodate the  increasing number of flights per day that they forecast will be arriving during the next few years.

Mammoth Mountain successfully lobbied the FAA for a grant to prepare a Terminal Area Development Plan. Using FAA grant money from the 2008 runway rehabilitation project, Brandley (reporting to Manning) has prepared an Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative  (ALPUN). (The draft ALP is part of the ALPUN.) Both documents  were presented to the Town’s Airport Commission and released for public comment late last summer.

But the draft ALP fails to conform to FAA guidance to prepare a layout plan compliant with FAA airport design standards for existing critical design aircraft (the Q400), and future design aircraft (proposed were the B737-500 and Airbus A319). The thrust of the draft is that the FAA should accept the airport about as it is now, but upgrade its rating to allow larger aircraft in the near future.

Written comments on the draft

ALPUN by the FAA spotlighted the close-in location and excessive height of the hangars in relation to the taxiway, taxilane, and runway, and the lack of adequate separation between the runway and parallel taxiway which is required for  large aircraft operations.

The crux of the problem with the draft ALP is that it does not tackle moving Hot Creek’s hangars, and consequently cannot propose an airport expansion plan (beyond sketching in a new passenger terminal and a relatively short runway extension). As evidenced by the FAA’s comments, it never stood a chance of being approved.

Some good news: Town Manager Dave Wilbrecht has made moves in the past few months to “take back the airport,” assigning Community Development planners and Public Works staff to assist the Airport Commission in evaluating and editing the draft ALP.  The Airport Commission is in need of all the help and staff support it can muster.

And, in what may have been more a public relations initiative than serious outreach for advice, the Town has retained, for $20,000, the firm of Mead & Hunt, an outside airport design and engineering firm, to do a professional peer review of Brandley’s draft ALP, and to evaluate and respond to FAA and public comments.

That report was released on the Town’s website on Tuesday, Feb. 14.

Meanwhile, Ballas has resurfaced with ideas about exercising his remaining development options on unexpired leases that are part of the 1997 development agreement. The Town has been working with Ballas to develop a restaurant and retail project at the airport. But while he and the Town view his lease options as vacant airport land ripe for commercial development, the FAA might see it as reserved aeronautical land, protected by grant assurances for needed airport expansion.

Although the Town claims not to need more airport land for aeronautical uses, and in any event reiterates that it remains bound by the development agreements with Ballas and Hot Creek, they do not discuss where else Hot Creek’s hangars could be relocated to if not on airport land now designated for commercial development.

Mead & Hunt’s report suggests the FAA will eventually want the parallel taxiway moved, and add that this would resolve the problem of the hangars being too close to the runway — without proposing where to put homeless hangars.

Since 1997, the Town has viewed its airport property as developable, for-profit real estate. This mindset shows no sign of changing anytime soon. At this point, there is no local consensus, and hardly any acknowledgement, that larger aircraft require a larger airport.

Mead & Hunt will present their peer review study and recommendations to the Airport Commission on Tuesday afternoon, Feb. 28 from 3-5 pm in Suite Z. I encourage decision-makers and the general public to attend. It should be an interesting meeting.