Decades of debate and indecision appear to be arriving at a critical juncture in Kalispell: Should the city airport stay or go?
In the wake of a new report that lays bare the financial obligations and lingering needs of the 71-acre airport on the south end of town, the Kalispell City Council is faced with an unavoidable decision.
CTA Architects Engineers, the firm hired by the city to study urban renewal options in south Kalispell, has landed on five alternatives for the 88-year-old airfield — keep it operational using city funding; buy-out the on-site leases and shutter all operations; request Federal Aviation Administration funding for upgrades; incorporate an airport authority that oversees the site; or privatize it.
Councilors and other city officials interviewed by the Beacon believe the decision in the coming months will center on the first two alternatives — keeping the airport open through the city’s general fund or closing it.
The third alternative — re-opening negotiations with the FAA for on-site upgrades — would fly in the face of voters who rejected previous updates, 1,886 to 1,535, in November 2013.
“That one’s off the table,” longtime city councilor Jim Atkinson, an outspoken supporter of the airport, said. “We’re stuck with either paying for it or paying for it to leave.”
To keep the airport operational, the city would have to invest $900,000 over five years to address overdue maintenance needs and safety issues, according to CTA’s report. After the initial investment, the site would operate at an ongoing loss of $300,000, the report stated.
“This means that the City will need to invest more money than the Airport is expected to return,” CTA stated.
The report added, “Spending $900,000 to receive negative $1.3 million in value may not look like a wise investment; however, cities do not operate like for-profit enterprises. Many essential city functions, such as schools, emergency services, and parks and recreation, do not generate profit. These services increase value of private enterprises that use them, which comes back to the City in the form of tax and licensure revenue and quality of life and emergency preparedness.”
City councilor Phil Guiffrida, who serves in the ward encompassing south Kalispell and the airport and has expressed opposition in the past for upgrades at the site, said the city will need to decide if it wants to subsidize the airport — and how — moving forward.
“We don’t have the money to fund this,” he said. “If you want to subsidize it, tell me how to pay for it. The only way to pay for it is to (increase mill levies to) the max and reduce services across the city. Are the citizens in Kalispell, the taxpayers and residents, willing to subsidize that airport to the level at which they would have to subsidize it?”
Others have said the airport provides a boost to the local economy. CTA’s report mentions the site offers “economic benefit for the community by way of jobs and local tax base” but does not provide details of the prospective finances.
“I’ve supported the airport because I think businesses will build up around it and that the entire city would benefit from another form of transportation,” Atkinson said.
“It started in 1928 and it has provided a good service to this community.”
Atkinson said he believes the 2013 voter referendum put the airport on the path toward closure.
Instead of using federal aviation funds to keep the site up-to-date and operating, the city is now stuck bearing the financial burden of keeping the airport running.
As the council and community come face to face with this fact, Atkinson believes support for the site is waning.
“I think there’s a majority of the council that does not feel the community wants to pay for the airport. It’s the way it is,” he said. “It’s kind of a sore subject for me. It’s a very tough decision but I think it’s winnowed down to that. I may be surprised and we may still try to hold onto it, though.”
Shuttering the airport would be no easy matter. The cost to buy out the on-site leases is estimated at $2.9 million, according to CTA. Tax increment finance funds would be available to pay for these buyouts, but in the short-term there would still be a negative return on investment because the city would not generate enough revenue from the sale of land, the report states. A long-term benefit could be found from selling the 71 acres to private developers and gaining a new source of tax revenue for the city as opposed to its current status as public property. The city could also set a date in the future when the airport would close and allow some of the leases to naturally expire, or ask developers to pay out the leases as part of a purchase agreement.
In the long run, closing the airport would be $1.8 million cheaper than keeping it open, CTA states.
All aviation operations at the current site would be forced to move to Glacier Park International Airport or other regional sites.
In their report, CTA planners did not recommend closing the site “due to the high cost of lease buyouts and negative aviation implications, in addition to the loss of services and economic activity that would occur for the City of Kalispell.”
The planners also stated that losing an access point for emergency medical transportation, search and rescue operations and other services “would be a significant loss, which is not quantifiable in terms of City finances.”
Nevertheless, the prospect of closing the airport looms large.
“They may go down that road. They will have to sit down and think about it. What’s the plan? What’s the exit strategy?” Kalispell City Attorney Charlie Harball said.
The city’s urban renewal agency will review the entire south Kalispell plan, as well as the airport alternatives, in the coming weeks. The Kalispell Planning Board will similarly review the matter in the near future. Public comment will be accepted throughout this process. The city council is expected to face the matter in the coming months.
“I want to see us end this debate. I want us to come up with what’s best for the taxpayers and economics of Kalispell. I don’t want to kick any more cans down the road,” Guiffrida said.
“If we want to decide to subsidize this airport, we move forward. If we decide to close the airport, we close the airport. I want to give clarity to this situation and give clarity to the citizens of Kalispell and give clarity to our future.”