Yakima County commissioners signal support for $500,000 airport revenue-guarantee to recruit new flights

Yakima County commissioners agreed in a work session Feb. 27 to pursue a revenue‑guarantee arrangement using county SEED (interest) funds to help recruit commercial air service at Yakima Airport.

The proposal, presented by Yakima County Development Association representatives, would allocate an initial $500,000 from the county’s SEED interest account and establish a recurring contribution mechanism so the fund can be replenished. Commissioners asked staff to draft a revenue‑guarantee agreement, explore a multiyear term (discussion centered on a possible three‑year commitment), and return the contract to a future work session for consideration.

The revenue‑guarantee concept would not pay airlines unless ticket revenues fall short of an agreed threshold. Jonathan, a Yakima County Development Association representative, said the guarantee is meant to give airlines negotiating confidence: “It takes about a million bucks in today's current climate to get a new flight to somewhere like Denver or Salt Lake City or, Las Vegas,” and the county proposal would seek to match funds the City of Yakima has already set aside.

Why it matters: County staff and YCDA said reliable air service affects recruitment and retention for regional employers and the health‑care sector, and that communities often must subsidize new routes early to attract carriers. Commissioners noted prior county investments in airport infrastructure and debated whether a recurring county commitment or a one‑time allocation is appropriate while longer‑term governance changes (port district formation) remain politically unresolved.

Key details and next steps: YCDA representatives said the city of Yakima has approximately $653,000 set aside for air‑service recruitment. County staff reported roughly $3.5 million in unallocated SEED funds and said annual interest/replenishment to the SEED interest account can vary (county finance staff estimated in the meeting that inflows might range from about $100,000 to $200,000 in some years). Commissioners asked staff to draft a revenue‑guarantee contract modeled on the county’s prior ARPA‑funded guarantee, to explore a time‑limited commitment (discussed as up to three years), and to seek a memorandum of understanding with the City of Yakima documenting city contribution or matching.

Commissioner Lindy said she supported the principle but asked for clarity on past usage and on whether the county’s prior $140,000–$150,000 contribution was fully expended; a YCDA representative confirmed earlier ARPA funds were used and ultimately exhausted across the period the guarantee covered. Commissioner Curtis said he remains hesitant to bind county interest dollars to an ongoing obligation without a governance change — noting three prior voter defeats of a port‑district proposal — but agreed to proceed with staff work so the county can respond quickly while airlines evaluate route opportunities.

Staff assignments and timing: Commissioners asked Corporate Counsel Stephanie Wiegand and staff to rework the revenue‑guarantee agreement for up to $500,000, coordinate with YCDA representatives and the city manager on matching commitments or an MOU, and bring a draft back to a future work session. Jonathan said runway negotiations and airline route windows are time sensitive and that the airport’s negotiator needs as much lead time as possible.

Ending: Commissioners reached consensus to move forward with preparing a revenue‑guarantee contract and further outreach to the City of Yakima; no formal vote was recorded during the work session.