I was open to the idea of the county commissioners helping an airplane mechanic establish a business out at the airport. Doing lease-purchase agreements on a new building or some version of business assistance is not uncommon for governmental entities. I figured this was a better idea than just spending a lot of money on an airport plan with no promise of any benefit from the improvements.
So needless to say, I was a little shocked today to hear that the commission is still listening to suggestions for airport development projects beyond just assisting a business. The plan that was proposed to the commission today would cost $3.6 million over 20 years and the county's share would be $1.8 million.
Say what?
This plan would include a terminal building, more hangars, a runway extension, the rerouting of the county road to the north, easement and land acquisitions (the plan shows a building restriction line connected to the back side of Ralph and Pat Holsch's house so I don't know that they would be able to continue to live there).
People have called me a dreamer in the past and that probably is a fair description of me, but even I can't fathom why this county would ever want to spend that kind of money on the airport. This is a facility that has almost no activity outside of a couple crop spraying operations. There are occasional touch and go activities, a few leisure landings and takeoffs and I suppose a few people show up to conduct some business. But seriously, I can't see any reason to go after the "hot shot" completed facility (as the consultant referred to it) that is being proposed.
This isn't a project like a swimming pool where almost anyone could use it. The general use of an airport would be by a very small, select group of people. (And don't let them tell you this would be used for medical emergencies - Lifestar lands at the hospitals.)
The commissioners have not committed to anything yet. As citizens of this county, you all need to get ahold of them and tell them to stop this ridiculousness now. Don't just talk about it over coffee at the local convenience store, call the commissioners or show up at a meeting and tell them they need to commit their resources to other efforts. Otherwise they will say nobody has talked to them about the subject.
By having county business development director Christy L'Ecuyer work on it, we are already spending money on the project. It's a waste. It is time to cease and desist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Dan, I am amazed, this time I agree completely with you. By having our Business Coordinator working on this, and the cost of our commissioners time, we have already wasted more money on the airport. If we don't pay attention and get in touch with the commissioners, we will next be told it is our fault and since money to cover the revenue bonds isn't being generated, we need a increased mill levey to pay for it. Same scenario as the jail. I hope this whole airport thing gets a lot of coverage in your paper.
We agree? Oh crud. Maybe I have to rethink my entire position on this topic. Just kidding.
I don't know if the commissioners liked the concept of Greenlinton or what, but they don't seem to want to let go of the airport development concept. Our existing communities have plenty of needs. Our business coordinator will not get bored focusing on them.
Dan, I agree 100%. This is one of the reasons I am running for commissioner. To me, pouring more money into an ill-advised and seldom used airport can be compared to paying someone $1,000.00 to paint an old car with no motor in your back yard. It will look better when it is done but it still won't take you anywhere.
I agree!
I do have a copy of the proposed airport plans taped to my Washington County News office window if anyone wants to see it.
Dan, we should not have built a airport in such a small county, when we have a great airport 20 miles east.
I am glad to see that people in the county are taking an interest in the activities at the airport. However, the editorial about the “hotshot airport” is a reaction to a comment by the airport engineer and one total figure in the plan. It does not address WHY the commission sought an updated airport development plan or the recommendations.
It is a fiscally responsible action by the county commission to study potential development at the airport to preserve what we currently have so that it is known what is needed and that any planned development meets FAA guidelines. The FAA rules and regulation ultimately affect any development that might occur. Unneeded or illegal improvements would cost the county more money to correct. The commission sought the plan which lists recommendations (not requirements)for development at the airport, and yet still follows the guidelines set forth by the FAA. KDOT and the FAA require that we know what we need and how it should be placed before we do anything.
Not all recommendations have to be followed. The figure of $1.8 million is the cost IF ALL the recommendations are followed and is the total figure for all improvements made over a 20 year time span. Broken down, this is $90,000 per year. It is very difficult to persuade the county commissioners to spend money on anything that they don’t consider necessary. Twenty-eight years ago a master plan was developed which suggested and prioritized improvements and estimated potential revenues from the improvements. It also covered 20 years and had a price of $2.75 million, $533,000 being the county’s share. That plan expired in 2000 and only 3 of those recommendations were followed. The new development plan restates some old recommendations not followed in the master plan and makes new recommendations because aircraft, technology, times and rules have changed.
The airport engineer’s personal suggestions for a quality airport included only 4 of the listed improvements, one of which was locating an FBO at the airport. This is a private business operated at the airport, and not something the county necessarily pays for. We have an opportunity to develop that which is only available NOW. For the other 3 items the engineer mentioned, the cost using the estimates provided in the development plan would cost the county approximately $700,000 over 20 years, or $35,000 per year, which is a lot less than $90,000.
Not all improvements have to be paid for by the county. Facilities such as hangars or the maintenance building can be paid for by private investment, with usage agreements between the investor and the county. A public/private partnership could be developed where an aircraft owner could build a private hangar to fit his own plane, so long as usage agreements are followed.
Development at the airport will help in medical emergencies. Even though Life Star lands at the Hospitals, the Life Star Director of Operations said it would be an advantage to have an AWOS at the airport and said that there is a weather-information black hole here. The hospital is close enough to the airport that Life Star can get accurate up-to-the-minute information on weather conditions right here, even as they are flying in. Pilots cannot just “go on-line” to the national weather service to see if it’s safe to fly. Since there is no weather reporting for this specific area, the pilot must make a guess whether it’s safe to fly based on weather predictions for the region. Life Star has refused to come when called due to predicted weather conditions and our hospital has had to transport critical patients by ambulance.
It is also a goal of the State of Kansas to have an air ambulance available within 30 minutes of all citizens. In inclement weather, the Life Star helicopters can’t fly. With an AWOS and navigation aids, then critical patients could be transported by fixed wing aircraft which require a weather reporting airport. If that helps save one person’s life from Washington County, then it is worth the price.
Our airport has a non-directional beacon (NDB) with a GPS overlay that signals pilots on how to land. The FAA has decreed that these will all eventually be taken out and replaced with strictly GPS approaches. When the NDB goes away, so will the GPS overlay. To install strictly GPS approaches means that the runway approaches must be surveyed to FAA standards (currently estimated to cost $60,000 per runway end). Since it is a federal requirement, it is expected that the government will provide some funds for the surveying. If we are going to make improvements, it makes sense to do them before the NDB goes away, so that we do not pay for re-surveying after the improvements are made.
To say we should do nothing because "there is NO traffic" is an inaccurate statement; according to the FAA there were approximately 1700 aircraft operations at our airport in 2007 and the FAA projects air travel to double in the next 10 years. An FBO has proposed offering several services at our airport, one which includes providing air tours to local residents, a charter service, flight lessons and plane rental. These are only a few of his suggestions and he’s interested in us!
A Fixed Base Operator (FBO) is a business located at the airport; a money-generating, tax paying, outside-population-drawing advertisement that this county is an excellent place to come for a visit or to do business. Visitor dollars spent here turn over approximately five times and they help pay for the operation of our local businesses, which pays wages for their employees, who spend them on living expenses such as eating out, buying groceries, paying doctor bills, and paying taxes. The entrepreneur is interested in operating the FBO here because we have shown an interest in improving the airport. Any suggestions or alternatives on how to help the entrepreneur succeed are welcome.
Post a Comment