Tim Arntzen, Executive Director, Port of Kennewick
By Veronica Sandate Craker
After Port of Kennewick Commissioners voted to take another look at the viability of Vista Field in June, Port Executive Director Tim Arntzen was inundated with phone calls from residents.
Many of the questions stemmed from the fact that a study had already been performed on the airport in 2011. Once the study is finished it may be up to the voters to decide whether or not to keep Vista Field open.
The Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business and the port staff came up with some frequently asked questions to get answers on the truth about the independent study.
TCAJOB: The Port of Kennewick adopted a ten-year Master Plan for Vista Field in March 2011, what happened to that?
Arntzen: The Vista Field Master Plan was developed with the input of citizens and pilots. However, there have been dramatic changes since that plan was adopted, particularly in regard to availability of additional financial information. A recent private sector proposal to operate an FBO (fixed base operator) indicated significantly more capital investments are required to create a compelling and sustainable airport asset. The “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study will help quantify what it would cost to create a vital, self-sustaining airport, how to pay for each of the three options including: investing significantly more taxpayer money in expanded capital facilities and improvements at Vista Field; continuing to operate and maintain Vista Field in keeping with the Vista Field Master Plan; or possibly closing and redeveloping Vista Field. And this study will be used to help determine which option district taxpayers prefer, and how much they are willing to spend on Vista Field.
TCAJOB: Port of Kennewick Commissioners voted two years ago to keep Vista Field open. Why are they studying the airport again?
Arntzen: There actually have been dramatic changes since the vote to keep Vista Field open, particularly regarding the availability of additional financial information; and failure of a fixed base operator to locate at Vista Field, as well as the lack of private-sector, airport-specific investment—factors identified as critical to Vista Field’s success in the 2011 Master Plan.
Also, a number of assumptions affecting that decision have changed, particularly regarding finances related to the airport. At that time, the public also asked the Port commission to closely monitor and evaluate the private investment and airport-related development moving forward. It was also suggested that a private developer would build a new FBO building, and in fact, the Vista Field Master Plan called for $16.5 million of partner/private-sector investment “inside the fence”. That hasn’t happened. In fact the private sector proposal to establish an FBO (Fixed Base Operator) and manage the airport and airport facilities, indicated it would require significantly more than the no-more-than $50,000 per-year taxpayer subsidy supported by Commissioners in developing the master plan for Vista Field.
Commissioners have a responsibility to district taxpayers to ensure the safety and welfare of district assets, and that tax dollars are being spent for the benefit of the entire district. There have been recent incidents involving plane crashes at Vista Field. Fortunately the safety of the surrounding neighborhoods, parks, and businesses were not jeopardized by these accidents. However, the potential taxpayer liability created by ownership and operation of an airport within a densely populated commercial neighborhood is something that has never been assessed and would be included in any true assessment of environmental factors.
In addition, the State Auditor’s office has begun closely scrutinizing and issuing audit findings to facilities that continue to be subsidized by tax dollars in ever increasing amounts. In light of this scrutiny and the recent Yakima Air Terminal case and other government audits, and in response to taxpayers who are increasingly anxious about investing more funds in a facility which may not meet current and future community needs, Port of Kennewick Commissioners are taking a proactive approach to ensure Vista Field operations and investments are in line with auditor guidelines (and taxpayer expectations) for funding the airport.
Once completed, the “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study for Vista Field will help the port assess the unbiased costs and benefits associated with Vista Field, allowing Commissioners to make informed choices to benefit our district taxpayers. Responsible decisions are best made based on up-to-date, accurate and thorough assessments of current environmental conditions including changing financial conditions, taxpayer liabilities, possible new trends in aviation, and other factors which may influence the use, demand and needs related to general aviation. This study will answer those questions.
TCAJOB: Why is the Port of Kennewick spending $225,000 for another study on Vista Field?
Arntzen: Taxpayers have charged the Port’s Board of Commissioners with acting as stewards of the public resources. Therefore, the commissioners want to study three possible alternatives for Vista Field: investing significantly more taxpayer money in expanded capital facilities and improvements at Vista Field; continuing to operate and maintain Vista Field in keeping with the Vista Field Master Plan; or possibly closing and redeveloping Vista Field. The “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study will assess the true and unbiased costs and benefits associated with the Vista Field airport. Past studies were narrow in scope, and the costs/benefits of the alternatives were not fully established. This study will provide details necessary, including a Financial Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for each alternative, so that Commissioners can make informed decisions on behalf of our taxpayers.
In fact, the 2011 Vista Field Master Plan (which was developed with the assistance of both pilot and citizen advisors) called for a return on investment analysis—so regardless, money would have been spent on that financial analysis just to comply with the approved Vista Field Master Plan. Instead, this study will now complete a financial analysis for all three options. Also, this study will include an environmental impact statement for all three alternatives; something required by law if the Port does anything but follow the adopted master plan—including greatly expanding the Vista Field Airport, or looking at alternative uses for that area.
TCAJOB: How will this study affect the taxpayers?
Arntzen: The “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study for Vista Field study will provide details to the Commissioners and to taxpayers on exactly what the airport costs, what benefits it provides, and how to pay for each of the options. This study will also be an outreach to district taxpayers, to see what they think of the airport. And the study will provide unbiased, detailed information that will assist taxpayers in providing feedback to the Commission on how they want their tax dollars spent.
TCAJOB: What exactly are you studying and how come it was not looked at during the first study two years ago?
Arntzen: We are working to evaluate multiple alternatives, including investing significantly more taxpayer money in expanded capital facilities and improvements at Vista Field; continuing to operate and maintain Vista Field in keeping with the Vista Field Master Plan; or possibly closing and redeveloping Vista Field.
The 2011 Vista Field Master Plan was developed with the input and advice of citizens and pilots through the Vista Field Advisory Committee, and that same advisory committee suggested voter approved tax increases as an option to fund airport improvements.
It may very well turn out that following our existing Vista Field master plan is the best option, or we may find that by greatly expanding taxpayer investment Vista Field could be transformed into an economically viable, self-sustainable asset for our district. Or, we may find that other uses for this property are more appropriate. Past studies were narrow in scope, and the costs/benefits of the alternatives were not fully established; this study will provide those details, and allow voters to indicate their preference for Vista Field.
TCAJOB: How will this study affect businesses that use, and have made recent investments at the airport?
Arntzen: At this time, businesses located next to, but outside of Vista Field, simply pay a small fee to have ‘through-the-fence’ access to the runway; and airport-convenient business expansion doesn’t automatically generate significant new funds or increase usage at the airport. At this time it is really too soon to tell what, if any, impact the study’s findings may have on the limited businesses for which the airport is a convenient but not dependent use. We need this study to assess the costs and benefits of each of the alternatives and how to pay for each one. The Port is hearing from pilot users that they need additional services and capital investments at Vista Field. These services cannot be paid for by user fees alone; other funding options must be investigated, including possibility of a voter-approved tax as was suggested by the Vista Field Advisory Committee.
This new study will help quantify what it would cost to create a vital, self-sustaining airport, and how to pay for all three options, and it will be used to help determine what our taxpayers are willing to spend on Vista Field.
TCAJOB: How many airplanes are at Vista Field?
Arntzen: According to the Washington State Department of Aviation’s 2012 Economic Impact Report there are only 22 aircraft based at Vista Field. In comparison, the Richland Airport has 160 aircraft. However, there are inconsistencies in the State’s report relating to Vista Field and we believe the “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study will provide detailed, accurate and verified information to the Commissioners and public.
TCAJOB: How many businesses are located at Vista Field?
Arntzen: There is no direct airport business according to the Washington State Department of Aviation’s 2012 Economic Impact Report. However, the Port of Kennewick currently leases a corporate hangar to one private business tenant at Vista Field. Since there are known inconsistencies in the State’s report relating to usage of Vista Field, we believe the “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study will provide detailed, accurate and verified information to the Commissioners and public.
TCAJOB: How many businesses utilize Vista Field?
Arntzen: According to the Washington State Department of Aviation’s 2012 Economic Impact Report, there are no direct, indirect, or induced jobs, payroll, or economic output from airport businesses. However, the Port recognizes that PCLI, Cadwell Labs, UPS, and other businesses may utilize Vista Field as convenient to their needs. These businesses are defined as airport-convenient users who pay a nominal fee to have “through-the-fence” access to Vista Field Airport. “Through the fence” means the owner of property adjacent to an airport has an agreement that allows them to go through the fence, which separates their property from Vista Field, to use the airport facilities. During development of the 2011 Vista Field Master Plan, the advisory committee was cautioned that in fact the FAA gets excited when it hears about “through the fence” agreements, because that agency is spending taxpayer dollars on airports, and when there are individuals located outside the airport who don’t pay any significant fees—those people are essentially getting to use the airports for free.
Again, since there are known inconsistencies in the State’s report relating to Vista Field, we believe the “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study will provide detailed, accurate and verified information to the Commissioners and public.
TCAJOB: Why don’t you spend $225,000 to operate Vista Field for the next five to ten years instead?
Arntzen: Pilot users have indicated Vista Field requires not only operating funds but also significant capital improvements and maintenance expenditures to meet their needs. This study will help the Commissioners make informed choices that benefit district taxpayers. The reality is taxpayers have already been spending more than that each year in capital expenditures; in fact, since 1991 taxpayers have spent an average of $272,304 per year just in capital improvements towards at Vista Field Airport. And even if the Port wasn’t spending money on a detailed and complete assessment of all three alternatives, we’re still obligated to complete the financial study required under 2011 Vista Field Master Plan. The fact is this new study will provide independently verified and accurate details for both voters and Commissioners on all three alternatives, including the user needs identified and requested in the 2011 Vista Field Master Plan.
TCAJOB: Have Port Commissioners considered selling the airport?
Arntzen: Previously, the Port considered selling the Vista Field Airport back to the City of Kennewick, which is the previous airport owner. The City declined. The Port then discussed selling the airport to a private user with no response; and Port staff explored with a group of private users, the option of creating a Public Development Authority to operate the airport—all to no avail. Regardless, choosing any option but moving forward with the approved master plan will require the Port Commissioners to complete a financial assessment and a full economic impact statement review–thus the need for another study.
This study will complete a financial analysis and an environmental impact statement for all three alternatives; something required by law if the Port does anything but follow the adopted master plan. The proposed study will help quantify what it would cost to create a vital, self-sustaining airport, how to pay for any of the options; and it will be used to help determine which option is preferred by district taxpayers, and how much they are willing to spend on Vista Field.
TCAJOB: What are the issues with finding a fixed base operator to run Vista Field?
Arntzen: At the request of pilots, the Port has made a series of concerted efforts to find an FBO for Vista Field, with the understanding that a private business owner might operate the facility in a more financially efficient manner than a government entity. In 2010, Port staff worked with Jackson Aviation to open a private FBO operation at Vista Field; however, this business ceased operations after a few short months. Port staff then worked through a request for proposals process and Commissioners directed staff to negotiate a contract with a private businessman to run an FBO that would operate, maintain and promote development of Vista Field. The private business assessment of costs to operate, maintain, and improve the airport was significantly more than Port expectations, thus, Commissioners determined a better understanding of the true costs, benefits and alternatives was necessary. This new study will provide those details.
TCAJOB: Does Vista Field receive FAA funding?
Arntzen: No. According to the Federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, Vista Field Airport is not eligible for FAA funding. That places the burden of operating and maintaining and improving Vista Field squarely onto port district taxpayers. Most airports statewide operate at significant losses even though highly subsidized through FAA funding. In fact, FAA-designated airports can pay for 95 percent of their capital improvement costs through FAA grants. The Port worked diligently to secure an FAA designation for Vista Field but our request was rejected.
TCAJOB: How many jobs are created by the Vista Field Airport?
Arntzen: There are no direct jobs from airport business according to the Washington State Department of Aviation’s 2012 Economic Impact Report. That report also estimates there are only 12 jobs supported throughout the community from visitor spending related to Vista Field Airport. However, there are inconsistencies in the State’s report relating to Vista Field and we believe the “Planning, Environmental, and Economic Assessment of Alternatives” study will provide detailed, accurate and verified information to the Commissioners and public.
TCAJOB: It appears the Port of Kennewick is moving to shut down Vista Field, is that correct?
Arntzen: The assumption is not correct. The board of commissioners wishes to assess three alternatives for the airport, including the option to invest significantly more taxpayer money in expanded capital facilities and improvements at Vista Field. We need to know the full costs and benefits to taxpayers, and we need to know if we were to increase property taxes to fund these improvements, could Vista Field be transformed into an economically viable, self-sustainable asset for the district. This study will evaluate the costs/benefits of a Vista Field “on steroids” and that same analysis will be provided for the two other alternatives.
