Our View: Studying the airport study

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

It is becoming more and more apparent that the city of Steamboat Springs' efforts to study alternative uses for the city's general aviation airport might be a waste of time and money.

"We're going to do everything in our means to try to convince you not to close the airport," the Federal Aviation Administration's Craig Sparks told the Steamboat Springs Airport Steering Committee last week. "We're going to put the squeeze on you a little bit. You're going to have a hard time persuading us that an airport where 90 aircraft are based is not economically viable, but there is a procedure."

Basically, the procedure would require the city to repay millions of dollars in grant funds to the FAA. There simply isn't an alternative use that would make such payments viable. Certainly, it's hard to see how to put together an affordable housing plan - the alternative use most often mentioned by those who would close the airport - given such upfront costs.

It has been nearly a year since the city commissioned the $100,000 study into alternative uses for the airport. At the same meeting, the city agreed to fund a $250,000 master plan for the airport. The city then created the steering committee to develop the scope of work for the master plan as well as the alternative uses study.

Preparation of the master plan is under way. Unlike the alternative uses study, the plan will recommend work to keep the airport open for years to come.

At its Feb. 13 meeting, the City Council approved seeking bids from consultants to do the alternative uses study. The scope of work in the alternative uses study includes determining the economic impact of the airport on the community, the actual cost of operations at the airport, the city's legal obligations to the FAA, who benefits from the airport, the impact of consolidating air operations at Yampa Valley Regional Airport and, finally, scenarios for alternative uses of the airport.

But given the information from the FAA, perhaps the city should consider adjusting the scope of the study. Is it really necessary to consider alternative uses when closing the airport seems to be such a stretch?

The most important piece of information that will come out of the study, in our opinion, is the actual cost of airport operations.

The problem with the airport is not that it is open. Truth is, it is a good amenity to have, especially for a resort whose economy is somewhat dependent on second-home owners.

Rather, the problem with the airport is its costs relative to its usage. The city should be focused on making sure the financial burden of operating the airport falls primarily on the very small fraction of the population that uses it. If the city can show that the cost to the average taxpayer - most of whom will never use the airport - is minimal, the politics of the airport should dissipate.

It's a shame we have to pay an outside consultant to provide those operational costs, but if it can put this issue to rest once and for all, it will be worth it.

Questions about an editorial? Call 871-4221 or e-mail editor@teamboatpilot.com

More like this story

Comments

elphaba 6 years, 2 months ago

The issue with the airport has never really been the economics. If a true financial analysis were to be completed today the airport is at, or very close to, making a profit from airport operations. The users of the airport are currently paying the cost of running the Steamboat Airport. What other City operation even comes close? The opposition has always clouded the issue with bonded indebtedness and non-inclusion of certain revenue in order to press their point. It is time to complete this financial study (would take someone about 5 hours) and move on.

The true point is that a certain friend of Ken Brenner wants a sweet deal on the land so that he can make a huge profit as a developer. He has stated this several times privately. Ken and Susan are trying their hardest to get him the land before everyone wises up. Plain and simple. This is a land development scheme to enrich a few at the expense of a city asset. This Council almost got away with it.

0

elphaba 6 years, 2 months ago

Guess what fourseasons. The land around the airport isn't owned by the City. One of the great misconceptions about the airport is the perception of all that vacant land. Sorry - it's not a part of the airport and is owned by a private individual.....The airport is basically what you see. A road going into a strip of land several hundred yards wide and a mile long. That would be a tough development plan - A one mile long street with tiny houses on each side?

0

housepoor 6 years, 2 months ago

Lets face it, the City Council screwed up when they built that White Elephant (terminal building) leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for years. I'm still amazed that none of the parties involved in that decision has paid any price politically. Bob Adams field has turned into nothing more than very nice amenity for the "Steamboat Privileged" sponsored by the taxpayer. The most sensible solution is to turn it into affordable housing. Even if we have to pay the grant money back the cost still might be cheaper then keeping it open. If that is not an option, figure out the real cost of the City sponsored airport and charge the users accordingly. End this entitlement to the rich who don't want to drive to Hayden like the rest of us.

0

elphaba 6 years, 2 months ago

"Housepoor" - the terminal building has nothing to do with Airport operations. Continental Airlines' leaving the area made that building inoperative. No "privileged few" benefit unless you count Smartwool. The building has been rented with a positive cash flow to the City for two years. Turning the airport into "affordable housing" only makes a good situation bad. Maybe if our City had a Council of people with any business experience and real jobs (not unemployed pizza delivery people and aerobics instructors) we wouldn't be in the position where no one understands a financial statement (Mr. Strong excluded)

Learn your facts - the Steamboat Airport is self sufficient and the users do pay all costs associated with the operations.

0

another_local 6 years, 2 months ago

So we spend a few hundred thousand on consultants to study the issue... what's the big deal? We could have had the payments on the community center boondoggle covered for a year or two with that money... that's what.

Why do we spend large chunks of money studying bad ideas?

0

Ilike2dv8 6 years, 2 months ago

Housepoor, you are so misinformed it would be amusing if it weren't such a serious issue. What the SS City Council is trying to do and has done with regards to the airport and affordable housing is near criminal (at least philosophically). The inclusionary zoning ordinance has done nothing except hurt attainable housing by driving real estate prices up steeply. In a feeble attempt to help a few individuals they have punished the rest of the market with this amazingly short sighted grasp for votes. Attempting to use the airport as an affordable alternative is nothing more than a sham for someone's hidden purpose and agenda. I am curious though... why is it that taxpayer's in this county are expected to subsidize a home for you? Since the first settlers hit this valley they worked hard to make a life here, now everyone wants a subsidized (if not free) ride. You should ask yourself this question: if Steamboat were truly affordable, how many people would be living here? I support helping people (especially teachers, firefighters, service workers, city and county employees, nurses, etc.) remain in the valley but the idea of helping any and everyone who wants to move here by subsidizing housing is a ridiculous notion. As a county or city we could never afford it nor would most of us want 50,000 or more people living here (at least overnight). A person who works in a larger city and cannot afford nor desires downtown hi-rise living typically moves to the suburbs... why is Steamboat so different. I'm tired of this entitlement attitude for those who are not willing to work as hard as the rest of us were and willing to make the difficult sacrifices we made to stay here. I came here with nothing more than a cheap pair of skis and worked three jobs to remain here and I wouldn't have had it any other way. Steamboat is a very special place and if it were too easy and financially accessible to everyone this valley would soon look like southern California. Give me a break with your sharp words about those who utilize the airport. The airport and its businesses provide jobs to many and are vital to the several weekly flights for life. It also provides a critical close-in air operations center in the event of a large scale forest fire (think beetle kill). I'm not down on affordable housing at all; I just can't stand to see it used as a political tool for those with ulterior motives.

0

Camo181 6 years, 2 months ago

Also utilizing Bob Adams airport here in Steamboat is the Civil Air Patrol Squadron cadet program, mentored by very dedicated (unpaid) senior members. The cadets (youth from Craig, Hayden, Oak Creek and Steamboat) meet every Tuesday night; maybe some of the families are "rich"," but most cadets come from average, hardworking families. This squadron has the highest percentage (per capita) in Colorado of cadets being accepted into the Air Force Academy.

Just thought I'd mention this.

0

jack legrice 6 years, 2 months ago

Excellent post by Ilike2dv8. Also cool to hear how well the cadet program does. Keep up the good work kids. This alone is a reason to keep it open.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.