Kalispell airport users offer financial support

A decision on the fate of the Kalispell City Airport likely won’t come this year.

After scuttling a planned Aug. 1 vote on whether to close the municipal airport — long a subject of sharply divergent views from its supporters and detractors – the Kalispell City Council directed staff at its Monday night work session to begin discussions with a group of airport users offering to financially support its continued operation.

The city also will start the process of appraising the value of current leases. Closing the airport would obligate the city to buy out those leases, and the cost could factor into other options for maintaining operations at the facility.

Speaking during more than 90 minutes of public comments to open the session, local business owner and airport user Dewey Swank told the council that he and a group of individuals and businesses were interested in helping to fund the increasing costs of maintaining and operating the airport, which the city currently operates at a net loss.

“The impetus behind the complaints comes down to money, and who’s going to pay,” Swank told the council. “We want to make an offer to take the responsibility.”

Swank suggested the pro-airport interests could help fund management and maintenance at the 88-year-old facility, but stopped short of offering specific numbers.

The members of the council all expressed varying levels of support for the proposal, but council member Phil Guiffrida also proposed a set of conditions on any such agreement, notably including the creation of an $18 million reserve account, paid for by the pro-airport group, to insulate the city against financial liabilities.

He tied the majority of that figure to a newspaper advertisement paid for by city airport users and pilots through Red Eagle Aviation that claimed the current leases would cost $10 million to $15 million to buy out. The most recent city-funded study, authored by CTA Architects Engineers, put that estimate at $3.1 million.

“Some of these numbers are going to be very frustrating to you, but it’s because of you,” Guiffrida said, addressing the pro-airport group. “... As a steward of the taxpayer, I have to pick the highest number.”

He noted, however, that further study of the actual buyout cost could bring that figure down.

Other conditions in Guiffrida’s proposal included limiting future leases to a month-to-month basis and requiring an additional $1.1 million investment by the private group to complete the airport’s capital improvement plan.

Council member Kari Gabriel objected to Guiffrida’s approach, noting that she and the rest of the council were seeing the proposal for the first time.

“This is one council member’s opinion and this is not how I enter into negotiations dealing with people willing to come forward and make a solution,” Gabriel said. “I certainly hope we are going to set this aside and start with neutral ground of all parties.”

Council members Jim Atkinson, Chad Graham and Rod Kuntz supported the premise of Guiffrida’s proposal, but characterized it as only a starting point for negotiating an agreement.

Atkinson, a longtime airport supporter, reaffirmed that stance, but echoed comments by other council members that the city should have some degree of financial assurance if the user group starts footing a portion of the bill.

“I think there could be some conversation as to whether they should be paying for part of it,” Atkinson said. “I’m looking forward to these offers to see what does transpire. I’m thinking Dewey and the group can come back with an alternate proposal and we can work together to make this thing work.”

After the meeting, Gabriel said she would need a chance to review Guiffrida’s conditions, but criticized his abrupt introduction of the proposal, saying it “felt like an ambush.”

Several council members accepted Guiffrida’s proposed May 1, 2017, final deadline for a decision.

Mayor Mark Johnson added that he would like staff to work with the user group to establish a framework for the agreement by October. Johnson supported both of the recently scheduled votes on the airport, and reiterated that he wants a defined timeline to see some closure on the issue.

He also noted that while the council has previously balked at paying to have the existing leases appraised, it would be the only way to establish certainty when weighing the costs of closing the airport versus keeping it open.

“Leaving it as it goes, year after year after year is an endless cost to the taxpayer,” Johnson said.

And as a last resort if the council is unable to come to a decision, Johnson and Guiffrida both mentioned the possibility of a bond referendum asking voters for the full cost of continuing to run the city airport.

“A bond is always an option — that’s the ultimate litmus test for the voter,” he said.

Reporter Sam Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.