Red Lodge Airport Questions Have Answers
There are a number of concerns that have been raised regarding issues surrounding the Red Lodge Airport and the interlocal agreement (Agreement) governing its management. Below are answers to questions put forth in two recent letters to the City of Red Lodge.
Regarding the concern that the County has or is seeking total control of the airport, the existing agreement calls for two representatives from each airport town (Bridger and Red Lodge), appointed by their own governments, and three appointed by the County commissioners. The County Commissioners appointed themselves to streamline the governmental process. The City could have appointed City employees, but chose instead to appoint two residents knowledgeable about aviation and with a history of dedication and service to the community. The County has indicated they are open to negotiating a change to the composition of the Board.
There is a concern that hangar owners are only paying $0.105 per square foot. Nate Davis and Stephanie Naftal (Davis/Naftal) recently wrote to the City of Red Lodge asking “Why is that price so low? It seems like the city is basically renting out that land for next to nothing and getting nothing in return while the city residents are paying the bill”. FACT CHECK: The benefit of leasing the land at any rate is to shift the cost and burden of hangar development and maintenance from the City to the hangar users. Red Lodge city residents have not paid their portion of “the bill” for 2015, 2016, or 2017, totaling about $19,922. Hangar owners pay property taxes on their hangars. The lease agreement and rates were approved by the City as required by the Agreement. The City is a party to the leases which are for 20 year terms. Regardless of what the City wants to do with the Airport, it has obligations under the current lease agreements with the tenants that it must honor for at least the next 20 years.
Of the approximately 120 public use airports in Montana, the Department of Transportation conducted a survey of the ground lease rates of 79 of them in 2020. Of those, 23 did not calculate lease rates as cost per square foot but rather a flat rate (usually $100-$200). Of the remaining 56:
22 charge nothing “as a way of promoting aviation on the airport”, 22 charge between 2.5 cents and 10 cents, Red Lodge Airport is the only one that charges 10.5 cents (although it is listed in the report as charging 11 cents), 11 charge between 10.75 cents and 22 cents, and one charges $3. Although, the current condition of the Red Lodge Airport is rated “poor” by the FAA, the rate the airport charges for leases is above average for the State of Montana. A graphic representation of this information is provided below.
Another vocal critic of the airport, Theresa Whistler, wrote to the City with overlapping concerns including the claim that “Neither the City Planning Board nor the City Council has seen the Airport updated Master Plan that’s been in the works this past and current year.” FACT CHECK: As pointed out in the letter to the City from Airport Board member Steve Smith and Airport Manager Jeff Wise, both Red Lodge residents:
“The statement that ‘neither the City Planning Board nor the City Council has seen the Airport’s updated Master Plan’ is incorrect. The pursuit of the Master Plan was undertaken by the Airport Board. The appropriate source for briefings and updates on the Plan is public Airport Board meetings, and City representatives have indeed attended meetings where the Plan was discussed. In addition, the engineer in charge of developing the Master Plan for Red Lodge Airport has attended two Planning Board meetings and one City Council meeting to answer questions regarding the Master Plan and the processes involving the Airport and the FAA.”
They go on to state:
“As the Master Plan process is finalized, both entities will have full knowledge of its contents. Additional public meetings and individual meetings with the City Council and Planning Board can easily be facilitated.”
The Master Plan cannot be submitted to the FAA without the City signing off on it. All Airport Board meetings are open to the public.
There are also questions as to how the Master Plan will affect the management and use of the airport: “what would be the impact on that whole area, events up there, trails, observatory and increased traffic”? Ironically, the only unusual impact in the area that has occurred recently and is anticipated in the future is being caused by the the City-approved Whistler Observatory currently under construction. The project is spearheaded by Theresa Whistler whose plans include using Airport Road for event parking. Having an FAA Master Plan will add an extra layer of governmental oversight to the Plan area for 20 years. In order to do anything not provided for in the Master Plan, the Airport Board, County Commission and City Council would have to approve the action as well as the FAA. Currently just the Board, Commission and Council make those decisions.
And that’s how this conflict started. The Board proposed to lease a portion of airport grounds to the rodeo association. Mayor Kristen Cogswell dismissed the proposal in a manner the County and Board found capricious and arbitrary. The Board went ahead and entered into the lease directly without consulting the City Council as called for in the Agreement. When asked about it, Carbon County Commissioner Scott Blain said, “You’re right. That shouldn’t have happened, but it’s certainly not worth blowing up a 70 year relationship over. We’re working with City Council to resolve these issues with an improved interlocal agreement and map of the airport acceptable to all.”
The question has been raised on several occasions wondering why the County insists on using a map from the 1970s to discuss today’s airport. The 1976 map is the document used to define the airport in City codes, ordinances and other governing documents. The County believes it is reasonable to rely on the City’s official documents defining the airport to determine the boundaries of the airport.
Davis/Naftal ask, “Why are any meetings being held that involve the city without inviting city reps that disagree with the county and who are on the mayor’s airport committee? This is a committee set up specifically because the airport board has no city staff on it and neither does the county committee aside from two council members that already agree with the county.” FACT CHECK: I have seen three members of the mayor’s airport committee, all appointed by the mayor, meeting with the commissioners and Airport Board: Jenn Battles, Terri Durbin and Jody Ronning. While they agree on some items, they do not on others. They are negotiating the other items on behalf of their constituents as they were elected to do. Airport Board and Commissioners’ meetings are open to the public, allowing the pubic to view and interact with officials at work. Note: City residents are doubly represented as, in addition to their council members, the commissioners also represent them as citizens of the county.
The Davis/Naftal letter asserts that: “The (2018 interlocal) Agreement states that if either party decides to opt out of the Agreement then they are free to do so. It also states that the assets be split and no exchange of money take place. Why is the county asking for $800,000+ due to the cancellation of the Agreement? This looks like scare tactics are being used by the county commissioners to get what they want.” FACT CHECK: Paragraph 10 of the 2018 Airport Interlocal Agreement, deals with the disposition of assets upon termination of the agreement. It makes no mention of the exchange of money; however, just as when any partnership dissolves, assets are disposed of in a manner that attempts to make each party whole.
For instance, let’s say Jones contributes land as his part of a business partnership and for their part Smith builds a shop, buys equipment and carries the insurance on the property. At the point they decide to stop being partners, Jones does not walk away with the business, land and everything on it because he owns the land. Smith is entitled to walk away with assets in proportion to their contribution. Those assets can be dispersed in the form of physical property or money. The dissolution process is designed to determine the proper distribution of asset value.
Further Davis/Naftdal question: “Why does this matter keep being pushed back? Are the commissioners waiting for a more county friendly administration?” FACT CHECK: The County was prepared to proceed with the dissolution as outlined in the Agreement. The City of Red Lodge requested an extension which the County granted.
At the August 22 City Council meeting, Alderman Terri Durbin put forward a motion that the airport boundary ordinance and draft interlocal agreement be put on the agenda for September 12 for review by Council. The motion was seconded by Alderman Jody Ronning stating that given the October 13 deadline to either resolve the discord or dissolve the Board, time is of the essence and whether or not the documents are finalized, the discussion needs to start as soon as possible. The motion passed unanimously. The airport items are on the agenda under Mayor’s Comments for the City Council meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, at City Hall located at 1 South Platt.