City of Portage trying to close AIrport C47

"I'm a pilot that uses the airport."

That's got to be the lamest talking point to use. Frankly the town councel wgaf. Econmic impact arguments need to be made demonstrating how their voting constituency will be impacted.

Is that all AOPA that gets millions of dollars in memebership fees and donations to "advocate" for us can come up with?

No politician ever gave a crap about "cause I like to use it" unless their political future is at stake.
 
This is becoming a common trend about many communities it seems.
 
midwestpa24 said:
This is becoming a common trend about many communities it seems.
Click to expand...
Yep, muncipalties drool over a one time big cash infusion by selling the land to a developer without a care or consideration if the new developemnt really helps the community. All that matters is a few million in the coffers and some donations to their re-election funds.
 
A few facts:

The population of Portage is 10,327. The 2021 budget indicates the city spent $39,000 on the airport construction in 2020 and budgeted another $45,000 in 2021.

The airport returns $2500 a year for hangar rental. Airnav reports 21 single engine aircraft based on the airport.

The are two hard surface runways at the airport. One is served by an LP approach with a 441 ft MDA and non standard runway lighting. The second runway is reported in fair condition. There is no automated weather on the airport.
 
If it's been "proposed" it means it's pretty much a done deal as long as there are no legal interventions. Someone has most likely already offered to purchase the land for development or industrial use for a price that most likely far exceeds any revenue the airport generates. Without businesses or JetA aircraft based on the field it's inevitable especially if they haven't taken any federal grant money for improvements.
 
It's just far enough away to not be able to compete with the Baraboo/Dells airport for any GA flights that vacation in Wisconsin Dells. And you really need a reason to go to Portage.
 
wiscnews.com

Portage city council puts a pause on new airport

The vote to make the city eligible for over a million dollars in grant funding failed, with council members citing their concerns with the fine print.
wiscnews.com wiscnews.com

From the sounds of this, they are planning a new airport. Although their method seems "unusual". I don't see how or why disbanding the Airport Commission helps lead to a new airport.
 
Clip4 said:
A few facts:

The airport returns $2500 a year for hangar rental. Airnav reports 21 single engine aircraft based on the airport.
Click to expand...

The econmic impact of an airport isn't just on site t-hangers rentals or FBO services.

Flight training, business air related traffic, business that operate near the airport due to the sevrvices it offers, etc... all contribute to the econmic impact to an area.

It's kind of like the gas station in a small town, it's econmic impact isn't just the fuel and soda they sell... but they also make the loacl farms possible, or the nearby small town factory...
 
jrollf said:
The econmic impact of an airport isn't just on site t-hangers rentals or FBO services.

Flight training, business air related traffic, business that operate near the airport due to the sevrvices it offers, etc... all contribute to the econmic impact to an area.

It's kind of like the gas station in a small town, it's econmic impact isn't just the fuel and soda they sell... but they also make the loacl farms possible, or the nearby small town factory...
Click to expand...
Oh please, this airport does not make the local farms possible and if it does the county needs to fund the airport so the farmers are paying taxes toward the airport operation costs instead of City.
 
Last edited:
Does the airport support agriculture aviation services, i.e., crop dusters?
Does the airport employ locals?
 
jrollf said:
"I'm a pilot that uses the airport."

That's got to be the lamest talking point to use. Frankly the town councel wgaf. Econmic impact arguments need to be made demonstrating how their voting constituency will be impacted.
...
Click to expand...
Agreed. Much better to say, "I work/have a job at the airport", or "I am a volunteer Angel Flights pilot and use the airport to fly sick people to visit their doctors".
 
Does everything need to make a profit in order to be of use to the community?
 
When training we would to the airport and eat at the restaurant nearby. It’s not huge but I’m sure other CFI’s do the same and that brings money to a local business who employs local citizens.
 
UngaWunga said:
Does everything need to make a profit in order to be of use to the community?
Click to expand...
Not sure that it has to make a "profit", but if you can't support the expenditures with sufficient evidence of the intangible benefits of keeping it open it's going to be a difficult sell to the public/city officials. At least if it broken even they might let it slide. Bleeding $40K/yr out of the city budget for something that a couple dozen residents make use of each month probably doesn't pencil out too well.
 
This is why - if I were King - I'd have necessary public infrastructure funded by State or Federal government. Can you imagine the funding that would be available to build an interstate if every town along the route had to approve and continually fund?
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure that it has to make a "profit", but if you can't support the expenditures with sufficient evidence of the intangible benefits of keeping it open it's going to be a difficult sell to the public/city officials. At least if it broken even they might let it slide. Bleeding $40K/yr out of the city budget for something that a couple dozen residents make use of each month probably doesn't pencil out too well.
Click to expand...

I agree, yet nobody seems to seek the intangible benefits of things like a bike trail. Cities seem obsessed with spending tax dollars adding things like that while seeing an airport as a total drain on funds. It is a double standard.

I’ll say something similar to what I wrote in the Custer thread - if airports were graded on their return on investment nearly all of them would get closed. Thankfully the financial status of many of them just gets ignored.
 
mondtster said:
I agree, yet nobody seems to seek the intangible benefits of things like a bike trail. Cities seem obsessed with spending tax dollars adding things like that while seeing an airport as a total drain on funds. It is a double standard.

I’ll say something similar to what I wrote in the Custer thread - if airports were graded on their return on investment nearly all of them would get closed. Thankfully the financial status of many of them just gets ignored.
Click to expand...

I doubt there is a ton of annual money dedicated to maintenance of a bike trail though. Run a tractor with a finish mower down each side once every few weeks in the spring/summer. Done. Airports have lots of expensive stuff to maintain, insurance liability, and potentially regulatory demands if Federal dollars are involved. While I agree that there are services that municipalities often engage in, the ongoing expense is usually the bigger ticket item. Dog parks come to mind as another expensive item many cities put in, however, the ongoing maintenance is usually immaterial.
 
mondtster said:
I agree, yet nobody seems to seek the intangible benefits of things like a bike trail. Cities seem obsessed with spending tax dollars adding things like that while seeing an airport as a total drain on funds. It is a double standard.

I’ll say something similar to what I wrote in the Custer thread - if airports were graded on their return on investment nearly all of them would get closed. Thankfully the financial status of many of them just gets ignored.
Click to expand...
The difference is that “anybody” can use the bike trail. Only a “select few” can use an airport.
 
midwestpa24 said:
wiscnews.com

Portage city council puts a pause on new airport

The vote to make the city eligible for over a million dollars in grant funding failed, with council members citing their concerns with the fine print.
wiscnews.com wiscnews.com

From the sounds of this, they are planning a new airport. Although their method seems "unusual". I don't see how or why disbanding the Airport Commission helps lead to a new airport.
Click to expand...
That's a very enlightening article and suggests there's way more going on than meets the eye. It sounds like the local city council was reluctant to accept State aid to fund a new airport because of the strings they sensed were attached. I wonder if the most recent action, ostensibly to close the current airport, was a move by the mayor to get the council to fish or cut bait re funding a new airport.

I may be totally off the mark but this story - from April - is intriguing.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The difference is that “anybody” can use the bike trail. Only a “select few” can use an airport.
Click to expand...

I'd partially agree with that. At the smaller airports like the one in question here anyone could go out and enjoy it, like a public park. They just may not be legally qualified to use the airport in the same way that pilots would.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I doubt there is a ton of annual money dedicated to maintenance of a bike trail though. Run a tractor with a finish mower down each side once every few weeks in the spring/summer. Done. Airports have lots of expensive stuff to maintain, insurance liability, and potentially regulatory demands if Federal dollars are involved. While I agree that there are services that municipalities often engage in, the ongoing expense is usually the bigger ticket item. Dog parks come to mind as another expensive item many cities put in, however, the ongoing maintenance is usually immaterial.
Click to expand...

In some cases that would be a reasonable argument, but I don't see those kinds of expenses being associated with the airport in question. The city is spending very little on keeping that airport going, based on the article. If they haven't taken grant money they can effectively maintain it as they see fit, which would put it in the same maintenance category as a bike trail, dog park, etc. from my point of view.

There are many airports across the nation that are in a similar position. There are some things that could be done to help their financial situation but I'd venture to guess that very few of the small town airports get used enough to justify keeping them open. I continue to be appreciative of the airport sponsors that ignore the obvious and give people a place to play. It's something we should all keep in mind, because there is a real possibility that the number of closures will increase in the not too distant future.
 
mondtster said:
In some cases that would be a reasonable argument, but I don't see those kinds of expenses being associated with the airport in question. The city is spending very little on keeping that airport going, based on the article. If they haven't taken grant money they can effectively maintain it as they see fit, which would put it in the same maintenance category as a bike trail, dog park, etc. from my point of view.

There are many airports across the nation that are in a similar position. There are some things that could be done to help their financial situation but I'd venture to guess that very few of the small town airports get used enough to justify keeping them open. I continue to be appreciative of the airport sponsors that ignore the obvious and give people a place to play. It's something we should all keep in mind, because there is a real possibility that the number of closures will increase in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...
I was only going off of the info @Clip4 posted about what they had budgeted for expenditures in 2020/2021. If that $40K/yr was an ongoing expense, I can see where a small town with potentially limited income streams would rather avoid the cost altogether and spend it on some other piece of public infrastructure. Not to mention the cash infusion from selling a piece of property to a developer.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I was only going off of the info @Clip4 posted about what they had budgeted for expenditures in 2020/2021. If that $40K/yr was an ongoing expense, I can see where a small town with potentially limited income streams would rather avoid the cost altogether and spend it on some other piece of public infrastructure. Not to mention the cash infusion from selling a piece of property to a developer.
Click to expand...

In general, I don't think a $40k budget is out of line for an airport like Portage but it depends on how that money is spent.

I've been actively involved with the management and daily operations of a similar sized airport and know other people who are as well. The airport I'm at had a $50k budget for a long time, and has a very nice facility. The big difference between here and Portage is that they took grant money to make this facility extremely nice. (It is an overbuilt facility for the size of town and the type of traffic it sees.) The $50k annual budget went into basic facility upkeep while grants, coupled with state and local tax money covers the bigger maintenance projects. Unfortunately, they have minimal income to offset their expenses so the taxpayer burden is fairly high for the amount of use the airport gets. About 30 miles away from me is another facility that I'd characterize as being similar in many ways to Portage. Their budget has generally been between $40-50k, but the city owns the fuel and makes enough money off of it to cover the airport's expenses so the airport in its current state costs the taxpayers very little. Both facilities get used heavily for ag operations in the summer, which provides a justification for the airports to exist, but neither airport gets much revenue from the operators being here. The local CoOps, bars, hotels, etc. are another story.

I've come to the conclusion that many towns are poorly run when it comes to effectively spending taxpayer money. Airports are often on the list of places where bad financial decisions are made and I believe a lot of it could be traced back to the people in charge not knowing what they're doing or spending money on, and relying on people who they think are knowledgeable to guide them. Oftentimes these "knowledgeable people" have self serving missions and make recommendations based on what will help them, without regard for the financial strain it places on airport and the public. I'm not convinced that small town airports have to be a financial burden on the taxpayers but many end up becoming one, simply because of who gets put in charge and the decisions they end up making. When the airport reaches a point where the city leadership sees it as a place that just continues to consume resources without return, then the discussions about closure start. Enjoy them while they last, because I think the closure rate will increase in the years to come.
 
mondtster said:
In general, I don't think a $40k budget is out of line for an airport like Portage but it depends on how that money is spent.

I've been actively involved with the management and daily operations of a similar sized airport and know other people who are as well. The airport I'm at had a $50k budget for a long time, and has a very nice facility. The big difference between here and Portage is that they took grant money to make this facility extremely nice. (It is an overbuilt facility for the size of town and the type of traffic it sees.) The $50k annual budget went into basic facility upkeep while grants, coupled with state and local tax money covers the bigger maintenance projects. Unfortunately, they have minimal income to offset their expenses so the taxpayer burden is fairly high for the amount of use the airport gets. About 30 miles away from me is another facility that I'd characterize as being similar in many ways to Portage. Their budget has generally been between $40-50k, but the city owns the fuel and makes enough money off of it to cover the airport's expenses so the airport in its current state costs the taxpayers very little. Both facilities get used heavily for ag operations in the summer, which provides a justification for the airports to exist, but neither airport gets much revenue from the operators being here. The local CoOps, bars, hotels, etc. are another story.

I've come to the conclusion that many towns are poorly run when it comes to effectively spending taxpayer money. Airports are often on the list of places where bad financial decisions are made and I believe a lot of it could be traced back to the people in charge not knowing what they're doing or spending money on, and relying on people who they think are knowledgeable to guide them. Oftentimes these "knowledgeable people" have self serving missions and make recommendations based on what will help them, without regard for the financial strain it places on airport and the public. I'm not convinced that small town airports have to be a financial burden on the taxpayers but many end up becoming one, simply because of who gets put in charge and the decisions they end up making. When the airport reaches a point where the city leadership sees it as a place that just continues to consume resources without return, then the discussions about closure start. Enjoy them while they last, because I think the closure rate will increase in the years to come.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. The roads that get maintained first are often those near the county commissioner or those who have his ear/interest. Same goes for many positions in local government. Hard to find people who are willing to exercise large budgets and power without being self-serving or without partiality to their friends.
 
mondtster said:
In general, I don't think a $40k budget is out of line for an airport like Portage but it depends on how that money is spent.

I've been actively involved with the management and daily operations of a similar sized airport and know other people who are as well. The airport I'm at had a $50k budget for a long time, and has a very nice facility. The big difference between here and Portage is that they took grant money to make this facility extremely nice. (It is an overbuilt facility for the size of town and the type of traffic it sees.) The $50k annual budget went into basic facility upkeep while grants, coupled with state and local tax money covers the bigger maintenance projects. Unfortunately, they have minimal income to offset their expenses so the taxpayer burden is fairly high for the amount of use the airport gets. About 30 miles away from me is another facility that I'd characterize as being similar in many ways to Portage. Their budget has generally been between $40-50k, but the city owns the fuel and makes enough money off of it to cover the airport's expenses so the airport in its current state costs the taxpayers very little. Both facilities get used heavily for ag operations in the summer, which provides a justification for the airports to exist, but neither airport gets much revenue from the operators being here. The local CoOps, bars, hotels, etc. are another story.

I've come to the conclusion that many towns are poorly run when it comes to effectively spending taxpayer money. Airports are often on the list of places where bad financial decisions are made and I believe a lot of it could be traced back to the people in charge not knowing what they're doing or spending money on, and relying on people who they think are knowledgeable to guide them. Oftentimes these "knowledgeable people" have self serving missions and make recommendations based on what will help them, without regard for the financial strain it places on airport and the public. I'm not convinced that small town airports have to be a financial burden on the taxpayers but many end up becoming one, simply because of who gets put in charge and the decisions they end up making. When the airport reaches a point where the city leadership sees it as a place that just continues to consume resources without return, then the discussions about closure start. Enjoy them while they last, because I think the closure rate will increase in the years to come.
Click to expand...
Town of 6200 by me has a mayor who's a little big for his britches. Has his hands in almost every part of development. He gloats on how the red light camera built their 4 million dollar town hall. Collected 19.2 million off it since 2012. A friend had a meeting to do the excavation for a new pot dispensary. Mayor is there yelling at him that their better not be any dirt on the road. Another contractor had an enclosed trailer with their name on it that had parts and spare hoses if/when something breaks. Mayor said it was free advertising and made them remove it.

On a personal note...that same mayor just lost his house. He built pools...or tried to. Somehow got the contract to build a pool in a high rise. Goofball built a concrete pool. Except a concrete pool in a high rise will fail unless severely reinforced. Got sued out the ass for incompetence. Before attempting to build pools he tried his hand in other enterprises and they ended similarly. But thats the type of people that run for small towns. A little ego goes a long way. My former mayor and current highway commissioner filed for bankruptcy, had his home foreclosed on, and paid his property taxes late 10 of the last 11 years prior to the foreclosure.
 
The role of airport management in many small towns falls on whoever drew the short straw, sometimes a city manager or public works director that has little interest or knowledge of the ins and outs of running an airport. They often don't understand the grant programs available, or the laws and regulations that govern airport operations.

Or in other cases the community contracts out management to the FBO operator. This can work, but there is room for abuse and conflicts of interest.

Even at bigger airports, the role of airport manager can become a political position, hiring a politically convenient yet unprepared manager, bypassing a logical hiring selection process.
 
midwestpa24 said:
sometimes a city manager or public works director that has little interest or knowledge of the ins and outs of running an airport. They often don't understand the grant programs available, or the laws and regulations that govern airport operations.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be nice of a letter organization to reach out to these managers and perhaps help them attain potential grant money and more directly benefitting aircraft owners and pilots?

Maybe they already do. I have no idea. I spoke with a gentleman from AOPA when C81 went up for sale and asked if he had any advice as at one time their were whispers of the local municipality buying it. "We don't want to get involved in private airports"
 
My home drome (S43) has been family owned, operated, and maintained since 1945. How is it a privately owned airport can make a sustaining profit and government owned airports cannot?
 
Domenick said:
My home drome (S43) has been family owned, operated, and maintained since 1945. How is it a privately owned airport can make a sustaining profit and government owned airports cannot?
Click to expand...
Location, location, location?

There have been tons of privately owned airports that shut down also...
 
midwestpa24 said:
The role of airport management in many small towns falls on whoever drew the short straw, sometimes a city manager or public works director that has little interest or knowledge of the ins and outs of running an airport. They often don't understand the grant programs available, or the laws and regulations that govern airport operations.
Click to expand...

Yet that person will take the salary that goes with being the airport manager.

Here where I live the airport manager is the city attorney. 55 per year to attend one, yes one meeting a year. One person had two private hangars that he donated to the airport/city. And they were promptly torn down. Not the nicest hangars around, yet they were useful.

The airport receives federal money that goes straight to the city budget.
 
WDD said:
This is why - if I were King - I'd have necessary public infrastructure funded by State or Federal government. Can you imagine the funding that would be available to build an interstate if every town along the route had to approve and continually fund?
Click to expand...

Some towns used to do that by posting speed traps along their section of road, and pulling over anyone going an whisper over the limit.

As for the "intangibles" penciling out, that's always a difficult calculation to do. Our local small airport has a busy flight school and a good restaurant. Its private, but I believe they do get some state money based on how many aircraft are based there.
 
Racerx said:
Wouldn't it be nice of a letter organization to reach out to these managers and perhaps help them attain potential grant money and more directly benefitting aircraft owners and pilots?

Maybe they already do. I have no idea. I spoke with a gentleman from AOPA when C81 went up for sale and asked if he had any advice as at one time their were whispers of the local municipality buying it. "We don't want to get involved in private airports"
Click to expand...

It would be very nice, but easier said than done. I'm "involved" in one such organization, and it is hard to keep up with current contact info for a lot of small town airports. Small town government often isn't well organized, changes often, and usually doesn't keep up with a lot of fancy professional organizations. We struggle to maintain a good contact list for many of our members, and have some members simply disappear into the mist.

Zeldman said:
Yet that person will take the salary that goes with being the airport manager.

Here where I live the airport manager is the city attorney. 55 per year to attend one, yes one meeting a year. One person had two private hangars that he donated to the airport/city. And they were promptly torn down. Not the nicest hangars around, yet they were useful.

The airport receives federal money that goes straight to the city budget.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to your particular example, but most small town airport managers aren't getting rich anytime soon.

As to your last sentence about federal funding, either there is a misunderstanding of how the accounting works, or the airport and city are violating Federal regulations and should be in big trouble. It is illegal for any Federal aviation funds to be used off airport, and is a big deal.
 
So has anybody heard what happened at the meeting?
 
midwestpa24 said:
It would be very nice, but easier said than done. I'm "involved" in one such organization, and it is hard to keep up with current contact info for a lot of small town airports. Small town government often isn't well organized, changes often, and usually doesn't keep up with a lot of fancy professional organizations. We struggle to maintain a good contact list for many of our members, and have some members simply disappear into the mist.



I can't speak to your particular example, but most small town airport managers aren't getting rich anytime soon.

As to your last sentence about federal funding, either there is a misunderstanding of how the accounting works, or the airport and city are violating Federal regulations and should be in big trouble. It is illegal for any Federal aviation funds to be used off airport, and is a big deal.
Click to expand...
That’s ok, I doubt the city is paying an airport manager $55k a year to attend 1 meeting a year either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top