How the airport is funded
The intricacies of government finances can be confusing.
For example (and the reason for this article), the Dubois County Airport Authority holds a unique position in government finance. The airport is a government entity able to levy taxes to fund its operating expenses and cumulative capital fund.
Operating expenses are self-explanatory; they pay for the annual operation of the airport. Cumulative capital funds, on the other hand, are accumulated over time to pay for planned projects and larger purchases of equipment.
The cumulative capital — or cum cap fund — levy was about $0.003 per $100 of assessed value from all property owners in Dubois County in 2015, or about $76,000. The fund currently has about $900,000 available to be used for the current airport expansion and other large projects.
The tax levy for operational expenses amounted to about $0.0047 per $100 of assessed property value in 2015, or about $101,000. For 2016, that amount will be about $106,000 of the airport’s $398,750 proposed budget, meaning about 26.5% of the 2016 budget comes from property taxes. The 2016 levy is unknown at this time but is expected to remain nearly the same; it depends on whether the assessed value of the county has increased or decreased.
The $398,750 represents an increase of about 1.58% over the 2015 budget; again only 26.5 percent funded through property taxes the airport authority levies.
The rest of airport’s budget comes from revenue created through property leases, hangar space rental fees, fixed-base operation fees and fuel sales.
The airport authority’s budget has not exceeded the tax levy allowed by the state.
Now, here is where it gets interesting.
The Dubois County Airport Authority is directed by an appointed board and several years ago the State of Indiana decided an appointed board should not have final approval for its annual budget. In the case of the Dubois County Airport Authority, budget approval was given to the Dubois County Council.
Recently, the Dubois County Council learned the county exceeded its tax levy by about $1.6 million. Council members were concerned with the potential shortfall this year after the $1.3 million shortfall last year. In the end, they decided to pull from the economic development income tax (EDIT) funds to cover the $1.6 million difference for 2016. The council took a similar route in 2015.
Due to the shortfall though, they are more cognizant of expenses, including raises for county employees.
In the midst of the budget discussion/crisis, Huntingburg Airport Manager Travis McQueen and airport board Vice President Michael Cummings presented the airport’s annual budget which included a $5,000 increase in McQueen’s pay cap.
The raise would allow the airport authority to pay the Purdue-educated, 16-year-manager of the airport up to $65,000.
This caused some hesitation on the council’s part, but the discussion between Cummings and council members was amicable during the public hearing.
Cummings explained that the amount of business at the Huntingburg Airport — the Dubois County Airport Authority operates the airport which is named Huntingburg Airport — is comparable to the business conducted by the Bloomington, Columbus and Valparaiso airports. Those managers are making over $80,000 annually.
Additionally, McQueen manages fixed-base operations through which fuel sales and flight instruction occurs. These responsibilities were added to his plate after Dubois County Flight Services decided not to renew their contract in March of 2013.
County Council President Greg Kendall pointed out it would be difficult to approve that much of a pay increase for McQueen when county employee raises had been cut in half for 2016.
Again, this was an increase in the budgeted pay for McQueen; not necessarily the amount he would receive.
Back to Kendall’s remarks though, county funds are not used to operate the airport authority — remember, the airport authority levies its own taxes and submits its own budget to the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) for approval before presenting it to the council for final approval.
In an interview Tuesday morning, Kendall explained he was concerned about increasing McQueen’s pay $5,000. “His pay has gone up considerably since he was hired 16 years ago,” Kendall said. “I am not saying Travis [McQueen] doesn’t work hard. He does a great job out there. But, it is a thing called consistency. When you give one person a $1,000 raise and another guy a $5,000 raise, that is a big difference.”
When the county council approves raises for county employees, airport employees do not receive those increases because they aren’t county employees.
The council is simply the elected forum that approves the budget for the airport authority. The council could cut the airport’s budget in half and it would not impact the $1.6 million deficit recently reported.
The council will have final approval on the airport’s budget including the increase in the line-item expense of the airport manager’s pay ceiling at the upcoming council meeting on August 24 at 4:30 p.m. in the Dubois County Annex building.
“His pay has gone up considerably since he was hired 16 years ago.” Good for you, Mr. Kendall – you got something right for once. Any person’s pay indeed should have gone up considerably over the course of 16 years. But the point is, he’s not a county employee, so although the council does the budget, why is his position (percentage of pay increase) being compared and restricted to that of other county employees? Furthermore, McQueen’s actual salary is not stated in this article – only what he COULD receive within the $5000 increase of the new cap. Seems Mr. Kendall is forgetting this and getting all out-of-joint prematurely. Plus, when you utilize or example percentages, a person making more will get more – it’s called basic math. On the other hand, if you give one employee making $25,000 annually a $1,000 flat raise, should another employee making twice that only receive the same $1,000? I’ll let you figure out which is more fair and equitable. And finally, Mr. Kendall, the fact is, with more responsibility and level of charge (supervision, liability, etc.) comes higher pay and higher increases, and if you can’t look your county employees in the eye and explain such, you ought not to be in the position you’re in. Given the complete fiascos with the county engineer and now the solid waste director positions plus other employee salary and pay issues that have been an embarrassment to all in this county, maybe you ought not to be.