THE FAIRGROUNDS RELOCATION QUESTION

( By Jay Hupp)
10 Apr. 2013 revision

Purpose: This paper presents an independent research effort intended to acquaint interested parties with information considered pertinent to the question of Sanderson Field Fairgrounds relocation. It is a work in progress with continually updated versions intended. History: After using various locations since 1908, in 1926 the Miller family donated 40 acres for an expanded Mason County Fairgrounds at Scotts Prairie and the County added another 29 acres. In 1928 Mason County leased property just north of the fairgrounds for use as an airport. The two facilities existed in a mutually beneficial relationship until 1942 when the Navy condemned about 1,200 acres surrounding the fairgrounds to create Naval Auxiliary Air Station (NAAS) Shelton. (Ref: Mason County Museum Files) After WWII there was a long period of little use at NAAS Shelton as facilities were disposed of and new ownership agreements were being worked out between local and Federal Government entities. (Ref: Various Listed Mason County Journal Articles) In 1957 the entire NAAS Shelton property was deeded in outright and total ownership to the Port of Shelton. However, the airport was to remain in operation and there were several limitations on how the property could be used. One of the use limitations required Federal Government approval before sale, lease or use of any property for nonairport use. Another limitation insisted that all funds generated by leases be used for airport maintenance and improvements. (Ref: Note 13 -1957 Quit Claim Deed) With large paved surfaces available and recreational racing on the minds of many returning WWII Vets, NAAS Shelton became one of the premier racing spots in the Pacific Northwest. All types of racing dominated airport and community activity into the 1970s. The 1960 Seafair Sports Car Races were held at NAAS Shelton which by that time had become Sanderson Field. With recreational racing all over the airport, except on the main east/west runway (05/23), the State Patrol Academy also conducted cadet driver training on the sports car course. Later the Academy built its own pursuit course west of runway 17/35 on land leased from the Port and designated for other than airport use. (Ref: Mason County Museum Files and Ref. Notes 7, 18 & 19) The previous mutually beneficial relationship between the airport and the fairgrounds was rejoined in 1963 when the Port wrote a 50 year lease to the County for fairgrounds relocation back to Sanderson Field. However, it was no longer reasonable to site the fairgrounds in its original location because that area was dominated by the aircraft parking and service ramp created by the Navy. Consequently, 67 acres were set aside for a fairgrounds south of runway 05/23 where no roads, taxiways or any other aviation

development had taken place and where none was anticipated. (Ref: Mason County Museum Files) Considering land sales, there have been two since 1957. One was a 27 acre sale to the State Patrol to establish the Training Academy and the second was a 163 acre sale to the State Patrol which conveyed ownership of the pursuit course as a result of a condemnation action by the State. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved of the first sale but fought a losing battle, along with the Port, over the pursuit course. In the early 1990s the FAA successfully opposed sale of 10 acres to a private party. (Ref: Note 9) Considering leases, there is no record of the FAA objecting to any leases issued by the Port until the early 1990s. At that time an after-the-fact objection surfaced over the 1963 lease on the fairgrounds which had another twenty years left to run. The FAA objected to any extension or renewal of that 50 year lease for several reasons that will be covered later in this paper. (Ref: Note 15) The fairgrounds lease was limited to 50 years due to Port and FAA limits on initial lease lengths. However, extensions on such leases are common and in this case the assumption was that the fairgrounds was being moved to a PERMANENT location in 1963. Once there, the community began to build more substantial and long-lasting facilities centered on the old Navy Blimp Recovery Pad south of the main runway (05/23). There was no known objection or concern over the new fairgrounds location by federal authorities in 1963 and a constant stream of newspaper articles followed the local excitement and progress. (Ref: Various Listed Mason County Journal Articles) In 1962 the project had been before the Washington State Fair Board for assistance and was being talked about all over the state. By the spring of 1963 the first three buildings were in place, the well had been drilled, the county had built the access road and PUD-3 had power connected. Airplane rides at Sanderson Field were a great addition to the1963 Fair and that relationship continued for many years with no FAA objection over fairgrounds activity. In that same year, the Port obtained formal authorization from the FAA to allow State Patrol use of runway 17/35 as a pursuit course for cadet training. (Ref: Various Listed Mason County Journal Articles) In a particularly pertinent development in 1967, the Port extended a water line to the fairgrounds from its main 125,000 gallon tank. The project was precipitated by bad water in the fairgrounds well along with many others in the area. The infrastructure development was large and expensive yet there was no objection from the FAA over using funds to do something other than airport maintenance and development outside the airport development area. It was the kind of cooperative effort between the airport and its surrounding community that is called for in the FAA Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6B chapter 1, paragraph 1.7. and chapter 17, paragraph 7.14 d. (Ref: Mason County Journal Article 1 Apr. 1967 Pauley recalls activities of Port during 20 years as commissioner) (Ref: Notes 3 & 19)

In examining the 1968 Airport Layout Plan (ALP), which was a joint planning effort financed mostly with FAA funding, we find the essence of the early relationship between the FAA and the Port. On that ALP a bold line drawn 750 south of runway 05/23 depicts the demarcation between property intended for airport development and property intended for other uses. The fairgrounds sits in the area intended for other than airport use. The note referring to that relationship reads as follows: 1. AREA WITHIN BOUNDARY IS TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT. AREA OUTSIDE THIS CAN BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR OTHER PURPOSES. This document clearly illustrates the expected attitude of cooperation and compatibility between airports and communities called for in FAA Order 5190.6B. Since the fairgrounds were relocated to the Port starting in 1963, it follows that the authorization contained in the note above was an understanding already in place. Additionally, that note may have constituted a formal release of the property for non-airport use as requested by the Port in 1966. In 1986, the Sanderson Field Airport Layout Plan (ALP) still recognized a 67 acre fairgrounds area located south of Runway 05/23. In the early 1990s, however, FAA resistance toward any intent to renew the fairgrounds lease beyond its 2013 expiration date was becoming evident and was articulated in the 1992 Airport Master Plan. By 1997 a decision had been made to designate the MASON COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS property as AVIATION RESERVE with future aviation development intentions. That decision was highly controversial and a question exists as to whether or not a legal land use change was actually accomplished. The predominant community attitude toward the decision was disbelief, betrayal and disgust over what seemed to be an unnecessary impact on a vital community asset. (Ref: Notes 16, 20 & 21, 22 & Various Listed Mason County Journal Articles) Along with a community attitude of distrust toward the Port of Shelton, maintenance and improvements at the fairgrounds began to decline as the belief in permanency disappeared. The County even looked at the feasibility of once again relocating the fairgrounds but that effort was frustrated by financial realities. By 2009 the County gave up all hope on the fairgrounds and terminated their lease nearly four years early, thus abandoning the facilities to Port ownership. (Ref: Various Listed Mason County Journal Articles) In an attempt to maintain community faith in the Port, a facilities assessment was conducted in late 2009 to determine if the fairgrounds could be brought up to Port leasing standards. After considerable expense and removal of several buildings the facility was leased to a private party to operate as a community event center and fairgrounds. The lease terms achieved a far better return in support of the airport than any previous revenue effort. Expectations were that those revenues would continue to grow as long as the facility was allowed to operate. However, that lease ended in late 2012 due to FAA refusal to allow leasing beyond 2013. (Ref: Note 14) On the other hand, a 2011 court decision allowing residential encroachment south of the airport likely makes aviation development at the fairgrounds site inadvisable due to

potential increases in aviation noise over new residential areas. Even a recent independent Port sponsored marketing study confirms the inadvisability of using the fair grounds property for hard core aviation business development. (Ref: Note 11) FAA Position: The essence of the FAA position is primarily drawn from a 31 July, 2012 letter to Port Director Dobson from FAA District Director Suomi which contains the following Points: 1. Under the 1957 deed and various grant provisions, the Port must have FAA approval for any sale or lease of the property for non-airport use. 2. The FAA will not support an extension of the fairgrounds lease beyond December of 2013 for three primary reasons: A. The property is considered to be in a prime public airport use location in that it is located next to a primary runway. B. The land use change from Fairgrounds to Aviation Reserve in 1997 was part of a collaborative process with community involvement. C. The Port's lease rate on the property was at less than fair market value. 3. The FAA views the issues in item 2 above to be a direct violation of grant assurances and the terms of the 1957 deed. 4. The FAA appears to be open to constructing a taxiway on the south side of runway 05/23 which would open the 170 acres there, including the fairgrounds, to aviation development. 5. The FAA contends that the fairgrounds buildings have outlived their useful life and should be removed. 6. The FAA may consider interim use for non-aeronautical use if pursuit for an aeronautical use does not materialize after a reasonable time. 7. The FAA encourages relocation of the fair grounds. 8. In addition to the most recently expressed concerns in the Suomi letter, past FAA communications led to the belief that the Port may be in danger of being judged out of compliance with paragraph c.(2) of the Guide to Sponsor Obligations- under paragraph 2.10- within the FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order5190.6B), concerning public safety issues relating to fairgrounds building locations; paragraph g.(2) concerning a fairgrounds location that is not in compliance with the latest Airport Layout Plan (ALP); paragraph h.(2) regarding whether or not the lease fee on the fairgrounds is discounted rent; and paragraph i.(2) regarding whether or not the non-airport use of the fairgrounds property was, or is, under FAA approval. In another expressed concern there is objection

to extending the 50 year fairgrounds lease because it may generate expectations that would lead to future difficulties in reverting the land back to aviation use should that become necessary. In a phone conversation between Port Commission Chairman Taylor and Mrs. Suomi in early September, 2012, she indicated that she was not interested in meeting with the Port Commission and that her 31 July 2012 letter was a final position.

Observations: 1. The guiding FAA authority in this issue is found within the FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order 5190.6B). As seen in Chapter 1; The order is not regulatory and is not controlling with regard to airport sponsor (Port) conduct; rather it establishes the policies and procedures for FAA personnel to follow in carrying out the FAAs responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance. The chapter further suggests that Airports should be compatible with surrounding communities, maintaining a balance between needs of aviation and the requirements of residents in neighboring areas. In Chapter 2, under Analyzing Compliance Status, the order requires that when making a Preliminary assessment. FAA must make a judgment call in all cases as to whether a sponsor is reasonably meeting its federal commitments. Chapter 3 of the order brings focus to the question of highest and best use of the land with specific direction on evaluations before use determinations. The authority for determining highest and best use is local, however, and not an FAA function. Given the mandatory use of judgment calls in all preliminary cases, it can also be assumed there is room to question those judgment calls. 2. Concerning the FAA question of building location safety in relationship to the Building Restriction Line (BRL), actual measurements show that all fairgrounds buildings are below the 30 foot restriction height at the required distance from the runway center line. 3. Concerning the FAA contention that the Port may not be in compliance with the latest approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) because the fairgrounds remains in place, that should not be an issue because both the 1997 and 2012 plans are non-specific as to the removal date. The expectation is simply that it will happen some time in the future but after a new fairgrounds is produced somewhere else. Additionally, there is serious question as to whether or not the land use depicted in both the 1997 and 2012 Airport Master Plans is in fact a legal change of use or simply an indication that the area is intended for aviation use sometime in the undefined future. 4. Concerning the FAA question of whether the fairgrounds lease rate was at fair market value, when we compare the 1968 State Patrol lease on 163 acres to the 67 acre fairgrounds lease we find a far greater return per acre from the fairgrounds. We can also turn to state statutes for guidance on fair market values pertaining to fairgrounds leases.

RCW 36.37.160 establishes the lease rate on 250 acres of Department of Natural Resources land, for the purposes of establishing a fairgrounds, at $1,000.00 per year. That is far below the lease rate established for the 50 year lease on the Mason County Fairgrounds. The most recent lease terms far exceeded anything that the market had been able to deliver in the past and expectations are that present revenues will continue to grow as long as the facility is allowed operate.

Loss of the facility as a revenue generator would not only detract from the funding that now flows to support the airport but would also result in a wasted investment of local tax dollars in the fairgrounds. There is some argument that an aviation use would deliver more value than continuing with a fairgrounds, however, achieving that reality is questionable because the Port has yet to see business interest focused on the fairgrounds property. 5. Concerning the FAA question of whether the non-airport use of the fairgrounds was, or is, under FAA approval, it would seem that it has been approved since 1963 under its original lease. Further, FAA adoption of all Airport Master Plans/ALPs between 1963 and 1997 is proof of FAA approval of the fairgrounds location, without objection, until 1997 when changes were made on the maps and in the text. Authorized use of the property south of runway 05/23 for other than airport use is clearly spelled out in the 1968 ALP. 6. While there is no question that the 1957 deed requires FAA approval for any nonairport use, the 1997 reversal of the 1963 approval of the fairgrounds location can be viewed as a critical mistake. Former Port Commissioners explain that the decision was reluctantly made by the Port in an attempt to secure future FAA funding support. That is also the common understanding in the general public arena. Many observers think, it was a mistake to succumb to FAA pressures without a more careful examination of the fairgrounds history or an in-depth analysis of how changing community attitudes might impact Sanderson Field. Additionally, the land use change appears to have been made without proper analysis of the highest and best use for the land as called for in Chapter 3 of the Compliance Manual. Considering that there are three elements discussed in paragraph 3.6 of the Compliance Manual that allowed the 1963 fairgrounds non-airport use decision to be made in the first place, the question begs to be answered as to what analysis was conducted to justify the intent to reverse that decision in1997. The elements for examination are:

* The economic potential of the property.

* Qualitative values (social or environmental) of the property. * Use factors affecting land use (e.g., zoning, physical characteristics, private
and public uses in the vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, roads, location, and environmental and historical considerations). There is no evidence that a highest and best use analysis was conducted either by the Port or the FAA leading up to the 1997 Master Plan adoption. 7. Starting in 1963, most of the new fairgrounds buildings were located on the Old Navy Blimp Recovery Pad about 900 feet south of runway 05/23. That was the only war-time construction at the site. If the FAA had intentions to preserve that area for future aviation development it had the authority to stop the County from building on the Blimp Pad. In those days it would have been reasonable to make a case for the future of heavy-lift blimps and balloon recreation at Sanderson Field and, therefore, a need to preserve the Blimp Pad. But no such argument was made. Consequently, it was completely reasonable for the community and the Port to assume that the reestablished fairgrounds would be permanent. 8. Concerns that extending the fairgrounds lease beyond 50 years may lead to expectations that may make it difficult to revert the land to aviation use in the future is a specious argument. The land has never been used for aviation except as a WWII Blimp Recovery Pad. The historical and paramount expectation for that land is that of the community in its continuing intent to use the property as a fairgrounds. That was obviously the FAA intent too as indicated by the 1968 ALP.

9. As mentioned above under history, the 2011 Superior Court decision allowing the City of Shelton to rezone property south of the airport from industrial to residential made aviation use of the fairgrounds highly questionable. Residential encroachment is now a given and efforts should be made to reduce the potentially frictional relationships that will undoubtedly develop as a result of aviation noise. The highest and best use of the property would now seem to be as a noise buffer and a fairgrounds would seem to serve that purpose. 10. In an issue related to highest and best use, there are hundreds of acres adjacent to existing taxiways and an unused runway that make better business locations than the 67 acres historically devoted to the fairgrounds. There is therefore no foreseen need to consider aviation development on the fairgrounds property because it is not served by a taxiway. Even if a taxiway were to be built it would only service relatively small aircraft because its planned width is only 35 ft. Consequently, the fairgrounds property is in one of the least desirable locations for future aviation development at Sanderson Field. 11. Considering the Growth Management Act (GMA) and its impact on land use decisions since the early 1990s, the question needs to be answered as to what zoning authority allowed the fairgrounds land use change to be depicted in the 1997 Airport

Master Plan. Since Ports have no legislative authority and do not plan under GMA and the FAA has no local land use authority, only Mason County exercised land use authority over Sanderson Field. Yet there is no known record of Mason County having made a land use change from Fairgrounds to Aviation Reserve before the Airport Master Plan/Airport Layout Plan was adopted by the Port of Shelton and the FAA in October of 1997. Nor is there any record of the Port, as property owner, having requested that the County conduct a change of use process on the 67 acres in question. In examining the 17 June 1996 adopted Development Regulations and Development Areas Map, Mason County Ordinance 82-96, the fairgrounds area south of the runway is marked as being in the Urban Growth Area (UGA) while the rest of the airport is in a zone presumed to be Airport Industrial. The map clearly shows the intent to zone the fairgrounds area differently than the rest of the airport as was the case with every Airport Master Plan previous to that time. If the Port intended to change the zoning 16 months later a zoning change process should have been entered into, which was not the case. Further, when examining the entire 1997 Airport Master Plan, there is legitimacy in the argument that the Port Commission never intended for a land use change to take place. The argument can well be made that the fairgrounds depiction under the general notation of Aviation Reserve on the ALP simply reserves the area for future aviation use but there is no intent to displace the fairgrounds. Again, the 1968 ALP clearly indicates the intent for non-aviation use of the entire area south of runway 05/23. Additionally, in a letter dated 25 March 1994 from Port attorney Hoss to Civil Engineer Mary Vargas at the FAA District office in Renton, in a discussion over the State Patrol pursuit course condemnation case, it was pointed out that all Sanderson Field land, except the State Patrol track is under critical aquifer land protection regulations. And that it is questionable as to whether or not any land at Sanderson Field remains suitable for industrial development. Despite that caution in 1994, the FAA continued to press for the re-designation of the fairgrounds property to aviation reserve with industrial development intended. Thus, it appears that another mistake may have been made when the Port adopted the 1997 Airport Master Plan without making the fairgrounds location permanent. 12. Questions also persist as to whether or not the public processes demanded by the state Open Meetings Act, the Growth Management Act, the Records Retention Act and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B were observed during the 1997 Airport Master Plan adoption process. Available records lead to the conclusion that the public may have been excluded from parts of the process and county legislative oversight may have been bypassed as well. More specific evidence leads to the same conclusions pertaining to the process used to adopt the current 2012 Master Plan/ALP. That plan contains the following recommendation: The Mason County Fairgrounds complex is planned for relocation off the airport during the current twenty year planning period. The buildings are planned for demolition and the site will be redeveloped based on market conditions. If that recommendation is implemented, the community can

expect to lose its fairgrounds and all the events that take place there. Just to name a few: Oysterfest with its 20,000 visitors and $190,000 generated by local nonprofits each year; the Mason Area Fair with its 7,000 visitors and thousands of dollars more to local vendors and businesses; the Mason County Truck Show that has gone elsewhere looking for future location stability. Possibly the most significant loss for the community, however, would be a disappearing potential to grow tourism and an aviation theme around the existing facility. The future of the facility could include a wing at the existing museum featuring the local Aviation Hall of Fame member, General Woody Sanderson. Retaining that potential should move the community in the direction of better understanding and more positive support of the airport. 13. Considering all issues involved, there is evidence of a high concern over waning community support for Sanderson Field and the importance of that community support to long term survival of the airport. Some community leaders are beginning to comment that it would be better to give up the airport than the fairgrounds. For the support reason alone it is worth reemphasizing that the FAA Compliance Manual insists on airport compatibility with local communities. Nowhere has the shrinking support for Sanderson Field been more evident than in recent zoning decisions that invite residential encroachment on the airport in spite of the expected frictional relationship over noise issues. Decreasing support is also expressed by many tax payers in their understanding that the Port District is the fee simple owner of the land and should be able to use the property in a reasonable manner. They see that reasonable manner as continuing the fairgrounds use as originally agreed upon, or at least not objected to, by the FAA in 1963. Those same tax payers also express frustration over the local dollars being spent in support of daily airport operations, maintenance and development in comparison to relatively small amounts being granted by the FAA over the past few decades. The most significant sign of declining support was when Mason County washed its hands of any further attempts to negotiate an extended lease for the fairgrounds operation in 2009. 14. As a model of how cooperation between communities and the FAA can be beneficial to all concerned, we can look at the Chehalis Airport which is nearly an exact duplicate of Sanderson Field except in overall size. Chehalis operates under the same FAA rules, regulations and standards as Sanderson and is administered by the same FAA District Office in Renton. In the 1980s Lewis County convinced the FAA that it would be beneficial to construct a K Mart within 700 feet of the main runway. That is about the same distance that our fairgrounds are from our main runway 05/23. In the 1990s the community was successful in a further commercial development argument when the FAA agreed to having the cross-wind runway at the Chehalis Airport removed to make room for Wal Mart, a shopping mall and a Home Depot. Only the Home Depot was located more than

700 feet from the remaining runway. Recently, the FAA has allowed development of a public picnic and viewing site in what is considered to be a prime aviation development area. It remains because Chehalis has successfully argued that the viewing area is more valuable to the airport as a positive community connection and education element than any other pending development on the property. Some observers of the fairgrounds location issue at Sanderson contend that there is a striking resemblance to situations that have been successfully negotiated in Lewis County. Comparing non-airport land use approvals at the two airports also leads some to question the issue of fairness as required by Chapter 2, paragraph 2.4.d in FAA Order 5190.6B. Other observers wonder what has caused the FAA to so intently focus on removing a fairgrounds from a location that has very little aviation development potential. Why risk a very high probability of creating significant animosity between the community and Sanderson Field? Conclusion: Given all of the above, it is probably in the best interest for all concerned to come to terms that will benefit Sanderson Field as an airport and Mason County as a community. Many see that solution to be a negotiated renewal of the fairgrounds lease or a deed modification that would give blanket authority for continuing fairgrounds use as expressed by the 1968 ALP. To do otherwise will simply ignore the community desire which has insisted on the fairgrounds being located on Mrs. Millers pasture for 66 of the past 86 years.

(This paper is not a Port of Shelton Commission official position. It is the minority view of Commissioner Jay Hupp alone)

REFERENCE NOTES: 1. Current draft, Century West Engineering Sanderson Field Airport Master Plan, Oct. 2008 2. FAA ltr. to Norm Eveleth, 13 July, 1993 (No mention of the fairgrounds lease but the letter does recommend a long-term lease solution rather than selling 10 acres to a private business. 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Order 5190.6B of 30 Sept, 2009, National Policy, FAA Airport Compliance Manual. 4. Mason County Lease 59006 on 8 May 1929 to Shelton Air Transport Inc. recorded in Deeds Volume 52. 10

5. 1963 Fairgrounds Lease between the Port of Shelton and Mason County. (Terms require full understanding of FAA requirements as per the 1957 deed between the Navy and the Port. Additionally, the terms of the lease may not be as far from fair market value as the FAA currently claims.) 6. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Terms and Conditions of Accepting Airport Improvement Program Grants May 2011. 7. 1968 Port of Shelton Lease for 163 acres to the State Patrol which details a monthly payment for $115 per month total on the entire property. For comparison, the fairgrounds lease at that time was for 67 acres at $100 per year total plus 5% of the gross intake on the fairgrounds property. 8. FAA ltr. of 31 July, 2012 to Port Director Dobson from FAA District Manager Carol Suomi which is the FAA response to the Ports Draft Sanderson Field Fairgrounds Future Use Plan. 9. Port attorney Hoss ltr. to FAA Engineer Vargas of 25 Mar. 1994 pointing out the critical aquifer recharge issue over all of Sanderson Field. 10. FAA Engineer Vargas ltr. to Port Director Eveleth 13 July, 1993 chastising the Port for wanting to sell the State Patrol track even though the property had been condemned by the State. 11. Kidder Mathews 19 June, 2012 Market Study for the Port (Page 4 for 2012 and 2013 fairgrounds closure comments and page 6 for considerations of court decision impacting future use of the property south of runway 05/23. 12. 29 June, 2012 notes on distance measurements- fairgrounds objects from runway center line. 13. Complete 1957 Quit Claim Deed attached to an Attorney Houser ltr. of 14 Feb. 2006 to Port Chairman Taylor. 14. Helix Study Port of Shelton Fairgrounds Building Condition Study. 15. FAA ltr. from Engineer Johnson to Port Chairman Trusler 29 July 2001 summarizing the history of the FAA refusal to extend the fairgrounds lease. 16. 1997 Sanderson Field Airport Master Plan/Airport Layout Plan. 17. United States Naval Air Stations of World War II, M.L. Shettle, Jr., Volume 2. 18. Long Straights and Hairpin Turns, Martin Rudow, Volume One.

11

19. 1968 Sanderson Field ALP located in Washington State Archives, PS-14 3 July, 1968 CH2M Sheet 1 of 2. 20. Port copy of 1 page from the 1992 Airport Master Plan. 21. Port of Shelton 1997 Sanderson Field Airport Master Plan. 22. Mason County Ordinance 82-96 of 17 June 1996 Development Area Map

A PARTIAL LIST OF MASON COUNTY JOURNAL ISSUES CONTAINING ARTICLES PERTAINING TO AIRPORT OR FAIRGROUNDS SUBJECTS: 1926: 3 Dec. 1927: 19 Jul., 26 Jul. 1928: 23 Aug. 1945: 14 Aug. 1946: 4 Jul., 25 Jul., 15 Aug., 5 Sep., 19 Dec., 26 Dec. 1947: 2 Jan., 24 Apr,. May issues, 17 Jul., 24 Jul., 7 Aug. 1948: 17 Jun. 1949: 27 Jan. 1953: 10 Sep. 1954: 13 May, 11 Nov. 1955: 20 Jan. 1957: 6 Jul., 19 Sep. 1959: 26 Feb., 6 Aug,. 27 Aug., 17 Sep., 31 Dec. 1962: 8 Nov., 22 Nov., 6 Dec. 1963: 21 Mar., 2 May., 16 May., 11 Jul., 15 Aug., 22 Aug., 12 Sep. 1967: 15 Jun., 10 Aug. 1969: 23 Jan., 14 Aug., 25 Dec. 1976: 1 Apr. 1989: 27 Jul. 1999: 21 Oct. 2008: 8 Jul.

12