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 under-perform. 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 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
John Whitty says
Councillors are not interested in facts from the competent, only bunk from the unqualified and incompetent.
“The sheer stupidity of the District’s decision to permanently close runway 09/27 despite consistent, overwhelming opposition from many qualified and credible sources is shocking.”
Sheer stupidity is an understatement.
Even when it was crystal clear councillors had been misled by the incompetent for years regarding an alternate runway, that never was viable, they still bought the snake oil.
Unbelievable.
A number of ruses and a plethora of misinformation was used to dupe councillors.
You might think that would be cause for dismissal.
To be fair not all councillors were fooled by the obvious misinformation. Just the majority.
Unlike a previous enlightened council that listened to the competent instead and did the right thing.
Other nearby airports are expanding and thriving.
Muskoka airport is going backwards rapidly due to mismanagement.
All competent airport management around the world knows going backwards from 2 to only 1 runway drastically reduces safety and usability of any airport.
Yet airport mismanagement at Muskoka argued otherwise.
Especially closing the runway that is the one most often into the wind.
For no reason at all.
The latest and earlier consultants stated maintaining two runways is the best long term plan.
They demonstrated proper layouts showing there is plenty of room for development beside instead of on top of a runway.
Trashing a very valuable Muskoka asset entrusted to the District by the federal government.
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/
Earle Robinson says
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.
Paul Smith says
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.
John Whitty says
Current Muskoka airport management is dangerously incompetent.
Are all District employees dangerously incompetent?
Or is it limited to just the airport?
Why is documented, dangerous incompetence and totally false derogatory statements tolerated at the District?
Are all District decisions based on misinformation from staff?
Not all councillors are as gullible as those who are not aware airports are transportation infrastructure like bridges and roads.
The indirect benefit of the airport amounts to millions every year as has been documented.
Far more than it costs.
Other infrastructure like bridges and roads don’t have balanced budgets of course.
But the present and future benefit of the airport has been decimated by current dangerously incompetent management.
Muskoka airport is often no longer usable as it has been for decades due to their dangerous mistakes.
Current airport management needs to be removed for cause and the damage done to our airport reversed before pilots and passengers are killed.
More than half of the board should be local pilots who fly out of Muskoka to prevent further damage and to promote Muskoka as a community airport like other nearby airports that are thriving and going forward not backwards.
There have already been accidents as a result of closing not only the grass runway but the grass area beside the main paved runway as well that pilots use.
Also closed for no reason at all.
Skiplanes are also banned for no reason at all.
Airport staff continue to falsely claim to council there have been no issues with the closures.
Bunk.
Descriptions of the accidents directly from the pilots involved were sent to all councillors.
Why is safety not the top priority at the airport?
Local pilots seem to be the enemy of airport staff.
That alone should be cause for removal.
The airport CEO even made an entirely false, infuriating, very derogatory statement about an extremely experienced test pilot killed at the north end in 2017.
I asked The Transportation Safety board, who investigated that fatal accident, for their report.
The facts from the investigation thoroughly debunked the entirely false statement from the CEO.
I asked that his false statement be retracted from the District record.
Response? Crickets.
Why are entirely false, derogatory statements from staff tolerated by the District?
Current airport management demonstrated how dangerously incompetent they are in an email exchange with myself regarding my many safety concerns of the original, too short, non-viable alternate runway 12-30.
According to airport management “A Cessna 172 take off performance over a 50 foot obstacle only requires 1440 feet of runway.” :…therefore, 1850 feet provides sufficient length”
The correct takeoff length required is 1900 ft not 1440 ft.
1990 ft on long grass as is usually the case here.
Airport management failed to correct for field elevation, temperature and surface (grass vs pavement).
Making very basic aviation mistakes like that is what gets pilots and passengers killed.
Dangerous Incompetence.
Even student pilots are aware much longer takeoff runs are needed under conditions as described.
Dangerously incompetent District employees need to be removed not given more autonomy, obviously.
All of the above has been stated to all councillors multiple times by multiple competent people for years.
Response? Crickets.
The majority of councillors prefer bunk from the dangerously incompetent.
And seem to be willing to waste $343K of taxpayer dollars on them.
Restoring the airport to it’s former safety and usability would cost a small fraction of that.