Since 2006 the airport has operated at a $796,000 loss according to audited financial statements. Every side in the airport discussion acknowledges this fact, and agrees that it is unacceptable.

Where disagreements arise is on the question of what is to be done to turn things around and put the airport on a fiscally sound path moving forward. I believe there are two extreme positions in the debate about the future of the airport that do not offer a prudent financial plan to “save” the airport and put it on a self-sustaining trajectory.

The first solution would be to shut the airport down, or if that cannot be done, to tear up the existing asphalt runway and replace it with sod. Existing lease obligations at the airport make this solution unfeasible. The city is obligated to maintain the airport in at least the same condition as it was in at the time leases were signed.

This is not a serious option now because the cost to buy out leases is too high; however, as the terms of the leases decline the cost to taxpayers to buy them out will continue to diminish and at some point this will be a legitimate option. The timeframe for this becoming a feasible option is probably still 10 years out.

The second solution calls for turning the city’s airport over to the FAA. This too is not a fiscally responsible course of action. The city has no formal commitment from the FAA that it would fund an expansion.

As I understand it, in order to be eligible to apply for FAA funding the city must find $5 million, probably from borrowing, to acquire additional land and remove radio towers. Even then FAA funding is not assured. The airport would compete with other airports for limited resources. This airport has too many strikes against it to be a strong candidate in an era of extreme budget stringency. In the meantime, taxpayers would pay perhaps $200,000 annually in interest on debt to finance this risky venture. Land the city purchases will no longer pay property taxes to support our local school system.

The city would also be obligated to build a new FBO facility at taxpayer expense. Assuming the city is reimbursed for expenditures of nearly $800,000 it paid to acquire this property, the unreimbursed cost to taxpayers will be about $1.2 million. However it is unlikely that the city will ever see one cent of reimbursements for this expenditure, so the actual cost to local taxpayers is more likely to be closer to $2 million. In exchange for a 30-year lease at the newly constructed facility, Red Eagle Aviation will pay the city the same fee it currently pays, about $18,000 annually. The cost to taxpayers to finance the new FBO facility would be about $120,000 annually over 30 years, which means taxpayers will be losing over $100,000 each year on this arrangement.

Even assuming the city would receive FAA funding, City Manager Doug Russell states in a July 11, 2012, memo to the mayor and City Council that the airport will operate at a deficit. In essence, the expansion will take an incredibly valuable city asset and turn it into a liability.

Based on the city’s purchase of the Red Eagle property, the value of city land at the airport is worth about $27 million. However, if the city accepts FAA funding that land will be locked into a failing airport forever even if there is a higher and better use for the property in the future. There is no out once we go down the expansion path.

There is another solution. It is the way out of the current impasse that the overwhelming majority of city residents I have spoken to favor. It preserves the historic airport without putting the city’s financial future at stake. It does not call for a sellout of valuable city property in exchange for a federal bailout that would benefit a small number of airport users. It does not call for a longer runway, nor would it build a multi-million dollar clubhouse.

It DOES call for users to start paying their fair share of the costs to operate and maintain the airport. It would require users to abide by regular hours of operation and a city ordinance preventing them from flying too low over our homes, businesses, and public buildings. It would require airport management to maintain a flight log and discipline users disregarding safety and noise abatement measures.

Finally, it would require taxpayers to continue to subsidize the airport in the near term. I do not presume that this solution will be loved by anyone on either side of the issue, but it is the only fiscally responsible plan for saving the airport.

Vote FOR REPEAL of the airport expansion. We don’t need it, and we can’t afford it.

Jamey Loran is a resident of Kalispell and a certified public accountant.