Sitka’s assembly has postponed voting on a new airport lease with the state of Alaska. When the group met last night (11-28-23) assembly members agreed to hold off on renewing the 55-year contract, at least until the next meeting. And while controversial parking fees aren’t included in the proposed lease, the issue wasn’t far from several assembly members’ minds:
The city is preparing to receive over $40 million dollars in grant funding to revamp the city-owned airport building, which sits on state-owned land. But earlier this winter, municipal administrator John Leach told the assembly they’d hit a roadblock – the FAA is unlikely to move forward with the grant until the city renews its lease with the state. And some of the new federal and state requirements gave assembly members pause, like a cut of concessions from airport retailers, additional security, and parking fees.
The draft lease the assembly reviewed on November 28 would cost the city around $17,000 a year in rent. Leach told the assembly that without any additional revenue, the city would lose out on millions of dollars over the next several decades, when the rent and other costs of operating the terminal were factored in.
“If we don’t change anything about our fee structure and follow the lease as presented, the net present value over the 55-year-term is a $16.2 million loss to the City and Borough of Sitka. So what I did was I laid out some alternatives,” Leach said of the memo he included in the assembly packet. “These are possible ways that we could recoup those fees to get the airport lease to break even, if the assembly were to decide to move forward with the lease.”
Leach has proposed a few options, like using parking fees or a head tax to offset expenses. The current draft lease doesn’t include parking fees– Leach recommended the assembly deal with those separately. Fees could come before the assembly for consideration down the road, in a separate sublease agreement.
If the city doesn’t renew a lease with the state, it would lose control over most of the airport. Most assembly members, including Tim Pike, agreed that they needed to move forward with the lease as is to keep the ball moving with the state, and tackle issues like parking down the road.
“We want people to have the opportunity to realize that this is a very long-term thing we’re talking about here. And yeah, there’s a big project associated with it,” Pike said of the expansion plans. “But you know, if we don’t sign the lease, the state takes it over. And then we’re gonna get what we get. So I think it’s in city’s best interest to maintain control of its airport, and maintain control of that experience for everybody.”
Thor Christianson said when the parking fee discussion does come before the assembly, he wants the city to consider assuming control of the parking lot, rather than the state.
“It sounds like parking charges are coming whether we do it or the state does it, and I’d rather have control so that we can try and keep it down as low as possible,” Christianson said.
“We would at least be able to listen to people’s concerns and try and make changes,” he continued. “Right now, and the way it is with the state, it’s like talking to a brick wall.”
Assembly member Chris Ystad said he would support the lease, but agreed with other assembly members that, rather than approving the lease right away, they should delay the decision for a couple of weeks.
“The thing for me and for all of us seconds to realize is our airport is going to change for what we know of it,” Ystad said. “More than likely, costs to us, and probably everyone going through it, will go up in one way or another. And though I don’t exactly like change, I think this is a change that we’re going to have to make.”
Ultimately the assembly unanimously decided to postpone a decision on the lease with the state to give the public more time to review the document. They’ll take up the conversation again at their December 12 meeting.
In other business…
Two assembly members are crafting an ordinance that would address one aspect of Sitka’s tourism growth that’s drawn criticism by placing new restrictions on diesel buses.
Assembly member Thor Christianson said he and assembly member Tim Pike plan to introduce an ordinance soon which would require diesel buses to be inspected every year to meet certain emissions standards. And it would require annual permits for the buses.
“There would not be an unlimited number of permits. It would only, by the way, apply to internal combustion engines,” Christianson added and said that electric buses would not need a permit.
“We look at it as a way to control the flow into town, to slow it down,” Christianson said. “So we don’t get overwhelmed with so many all at once.”
Christianson said he’d hoped to introduce the ordinance to the assembly at the Nov 28 meeting, but legal review from the city attorney’s office had been delayed. Nevertheless, he said they hoped to bring a draft of the ordinance to the next tourism task force meeting on Dec 13.
