By Thomas Goyer
Changes to the governing structure of Muskoka Airport could cost the District $343,200.
A report presented to The District of Muskoka Finance and Corporate Services Committee outlines the implementation of a new governing structure for the Muskoka Airport. This new structure would be a Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) which is a corporation whose shares are owned by a municipal government.
In 2017 District Council endorsed a new governing structure for the Muskoka Airport. This led to the creation of a new skills-based board for the airport, a new Strategic Plan and a Master Plan approved in 2021. The Strategic Plan has stated that the airport must build value and gain return from real estate and infrastructure assets. Real estate development refers to attracting large companies to the airport.
Despite these plans and changes, the airport has continued to underperform. Earlier this year the Finance and Corporate Services Committee approved a motion directing staff to develop a report on how to implement the transfer of the Muskoka Airport to a Municipal Services Corporation.
The District can create an MSC after developing a business case study for the proposed MSC, consult with the community about the plan to create the proposed MSC and adopt and maintain policies concerning the transfer of assets. The estimated cost for this implementation was between $50,000 and $250,000, while the total costs of the project could be $343,200.
Issues surrounding the Muskoka Airport have been before District council and committees several times over the last several years. This is a key reason for the change in governing structure and was highlighted by Councillor Peter Koetsier.
“There’s too many things that come in front of this council about the airport,” Koetsier said.
Several councillors expressed concern over the large price associated with implementing an MSC. Councillor Don Smith stated that these resources could be applied towards other municipal needs.
“That money would be better spent towards housing, which was a priority that we identified. It would be much better spent on mental health. It would represent 25% of what we allocated for climate change at our meeting this past Monday and we felt that that was a significant contribution,” Smith said.
District Chief Administrative Officer Julie Stevens stated that the price was due to the uncertain obstacles and choices that the council and committee may make. Stevens stated that this includes asset transfers, tax implications and service requirements. It was stated that because of this uncertainty staff provided a wide margin on budget estimates.
According to District Chair Jeff Lehman, the rationale for the decision was to ensure that the Muskoka Airport runs more effectively.
“The whole point is to create a more agile tool for the airport to accomplish its goals and those goals are economic development and ultimately, you know, return of scheduled service and in doing that it will become more fiscally sustainable,” Lehman said.
Councillor Guy Burry highlighted how rather than being a profit-producing vehicle for economic development, the Muskoka Airport has been subsidized by the District.
“It has been a $2 million subsidy item for a number of years,” Burry said.
Burry stated that political pressure and distractions have prevented airport boards from effectively running an airport. He stated that he supported an MSC because it would allow the airport to operate as a more effective business.
“It will allow a good board to make business decisions around what’s best for the airport, recognizing that one of the things in the shareholder agreement is you’re going to balance the budget. And a good airport, a good Municipal Airport. should be able to have a balanced budget,” Burry said.
Despite the high cost, Burry stated that if there were larger cost savings in the future then it made sense for the District.
“If investing $300,000 to ultimately save $2 million a year is a trade. I’ll make [that trade] all day every day,” Burry said.
Other potential ideas such as delegating authority to the board rather than a MSC were discussed. However, it was determined that an MSC was the best option.
The committee approved the staff report which will lead to further consultation with stakeholders within Muskoka about the future of the Muskoka Airport.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
When I read the December 27 article about the District’s latest plan, where they are proposing to spend over $340,000 to create a Municipal Service Corporation to run the airport, as a tax-payer and full-time resident, I was annoyed.
With over 4 decades working for aviation safety at numerous airports large and small across the country, I can see that they continue to make decisions that are ruining our airport, our community’s valuable asset, and limiting the future economic growth of the District as a result. We need thinking that will enhance Muskoka’s economy so it will be a place with year-round jobs, a place to live and raise our families.
Muskoka Airport was blessed with adequate land to have two runways, with one being a highly sought-after ‘into-the-wind’ runway, but they have made bad decision after bad decision and are destroying that possibility. Closing an ‘into-the-wind’ runway is sheer lunacy and incompatible with their claim of having a skills-based Board. They are also lessening the aviation safety of the airport by allowing tall buildings too close to the active runway and in locations where building turbulence could impact a plane at the most dangerous time, just as it is landing.
And now they want to spend over $340,000 taxpayer dollars to form a corporation with the same Board that will simply follow their ill-conceived airport plan turning the airport into essentially a business park and not focusing on aviation or the good of the District as a whole!
There is so much more that I could say, and have said several times before, but Mr. Robinson has covered several very important facts, point-by-point, professionally and with clarity in his comments. I agree fully with his comments and those of Mr. Whitty and Mr. Austin, including recognizing that an airport is part of the community infrastructure, enabling and supporting the economy as a whole, as do roads, bridges, etc.
Having visited several small community airports since my retirement, I have seen runway improvements, features like restaurants being added or updated, flight training facilities encouraged, and a focus on making the airport safer, friendlier and more useful. Customers are leaving Muskoka Airport for these other locations, and this is hurting existing Muskoka businesses. This must be corrected!
Muskoka should be spending money to improve the airport for the good of aviation and the entire District, not on a Municipal Service Corporation that will continue to degrade the airport.
This Airport Plan and this Airport Board & CEO’s performance is immensely disappointing. “Underperforming” is an understatement. I stated to Council that this Airport Plan was an “Existential threat to aviation safety and to
economic growth”. I still feel this is true.
Spending $343,200 to create a Municipal Corporation is neither cost effective nor warranted, in my view, but it is consistent with continuing efforts which degrade this airport.
Local private and commercial pilots, aircraft and business owners, professional engineers, meteorologists and program managers from
Transport Canada, to name a few, have all been trying to protect this airport from bad decisions for ~15 years. Basic facts were constantly and
selectively misrepresented to Council by some staff and by some hired consultants. It was hoped that broad experience and knowledge would help to guide these poor decision processes.
An early Council listened closely to these concerns. They understood the extreme importance of an “into wind” runway, coveted by all airports, so they placed a moratorium on all development on or near the east/west
runway 09/27 until a comprehensive, broadly considered and competently prepared airport plan was presented to and approved by Council. There was hope. The last Council removed it by accepting a poor plan.
There was hope again, when Council created an Airport Board, as recommended by the Airport Advisory Committee, on which I was a
member. Better guidance was clearly needed.
It is beyond comprehension that, when they did create this Board, several years later, the District staff would provide a very limiting and biased
“Terms-of-Reference” to this new Board. This would predictably result in closing this primary “into wind” runway, discourage small General Aviation aircraft, reduce aviation safety, limit economic potential and simply focus on
building a business park on that land. Oddly, there was no mention of attracting airplanes or pilots. This restrictive view to get the airport to be self sufficient economically is a fool’s errand. Economic benefits are rarely reflected as revenue “to” the airport. They are much broader and much larger. Airport’s are infrastructure and must be funded accordingly, like a bridge.
Councils at the municipal level across Canada have often thought this, but most failed. The Owen Sound airport is a recent example. Their Council put a landing fee in place to increase their revenues “to” the airport. Small aircraft simply went elsewhere and, in a few months, the airport businesses failed and the airport was sold.
So here are a few facts for consideration before it is too late:
1) The prevailing wind is from the west. Tradewinds are taught in grade
school. This is so fundamental yet this Board and staff disagreed. After 3 years of input from Canada’s leading experts they finally accepted
this basic fact only minutes before they closed the prevailing wind runway at the airport. Incredibly Council approved it! The impact of this is serious and it makes this a “Crosswind airport”.
2) The risks of crosswinds to aviation safety have been presented to Council for years but this Board and staff disagree by providing
nonsensical interpretations and opinions to Council. These were challenged. Reduced safety has very real consequences.
3) The risks of building turbulence have been presented in detail to Council but this Board and staff do not accept it. They have now built
several large hangars which add to this hazard. There WILL BE accidents, and liability, as a direct result of this action.
4) The significant economic impact of small general aviation aircraft (GA) at community airports have been presented to Council for years but this Board and staff are focused on only some of the existing businesses at
the airport while disregarding others that depend on the small GA sector. This will cause job losses and is counter to their economic
growth mandate. Council should know this.
5) The economic impact of this airport is Muskoka wide and is not reflected in revenues “to” the airport from fuel sales, landing fees and
ramp fees, among others. The impact today is about $50M annually (in today’s $) across Muskoka which should help to fund mental health, housing and the airport. There is a consultant report on file that fully analyses and supports this, yet some councillors disagree. Why?
6) The Board, staff and Council ignore official recommendations. They can violate regulations, using creative interpretations to justify it, but the only laws that cannot be violated are the laws of physics. These will have much more serious consequences. Council should not approve any more recommendations from this Board or airport staff until this process is revised.
7) Many councillors are now pushing to move this airport into a Municipal Corporation to simply get it off their plate, it seems. Council’s fatigue over this airport is not a justification to abdicate their responsibility, as “elected” officials, for this extremely important infrastructure. This Board is not a decision maker, it is advisory. Who then will make the decisions in a Municipal Corporation and how will the airport be funded?
8) There are many good councillors in Muskoka but there are also some very biased ones now who are not capturing economic growth
opportunities. Their actions speak volumes. Stronger leadership is needed.
9) In my view, the District should restructure this airport management team, revise the Board’s skill set requirements to include community airport & flying experience and broaden the Board’s very narrow Termsof-
Reference to include the GA sector. Agreement by stakeholders and pilots should be mandatory.
Muskoka can and must do much better. Council should definitely NOT approve this Municipal Corporation.
Earle Robinson, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
Current airport management is not just under performing but also destroying valuable infrastructure assets.
For no reason at all.
Muskoka airport must often be avoided now where previously it was usable.
Backwards.
https://southmuskoka.doppleronline.ca/airport-changes-to-cost-an-extra-343200/#comment-69091
Muskoka airport is going backwards rapidly due to mismanagement.
Trashing a very valuable Muskoka asset entrusted to the District by the federal government.
In a functional organization incompetence and presenting misinformation to council would normally be cause for dismissal.
Clearly the District is dysfunctional and unprofessional.
They are planning to waste $343K of taxpayer dollars on mismanagement?
Nearby airports are expanding and thriving with proper management.
The above is all documented on the following website.
One example of a nearby airport properly run is at the end.
https://johnwhitty3.wordpress.com/2023/07/11/snake-oil-salesmen-selling-to-the-gullible/
Once again it proves that no transportation system pays for itself.
The fact is ALL Roads, Airports and Passenger Rail, as necessary transportation services, rely on the public purse to survive.
In this case, airports need traffic / business to survive and roads for folks to get to and from them.
Lets keep that in mind and not pick on the one YOU don’t like and protest that “we can’t afford it”.
I like driving on good roads, taking a plane when necessary and look forward to good passenger rail in Muskoka as soon as it comes available.