McCall council reviews who should pay to bring water, sewer and power to airport infield hangar development

McCall City Council and staff spent the bulk of a July 17 special meeting discussing whether the city should help finance extending water, sewer and power to the airport infield so a private developer can build additional hangars.

The topic drew a public comment from a resident, Marsha, who urged the council to reconsider using franchise-fee revenue — a charge paid by McCall electricity customers — for the project. “Franchise fees are fees on the end user, who are the McCall City residents and businesses,” Marsha said, and noted the council’s January ordinance A62 that increased franchise fees from 1% to 3% had been discussed publicly as funding to underground existing overhead lines, improve aesthetics and reduce wildfire risk.

Emily Hart, McCall Airport manager, briefed the council on the project history, infrastructure needs and cost estimates. She said the developer whose RFP the city accepted in April has proposed building up to 17 hangars (the developer’s proposal later mentioned 21–28 leaseholds depending on ASOS relocation) and has offered to install utilities concurrently with building foundations. Hart described the existing utilities in the infield as limited — a 6-inch water line on one side and a sewer manhole installed in 2022 — and said engineering work shows much of the new infield lines must be upsized to 12 inches to meet a 2,500 gallons-per-minute fire-suppression requirement. “This is a first touch for the council,” Hart told members, stressing that council guidance was requested before pursuing contracting or bids.

Staff and council members outlined the main cost drivers and options. Hart and engineering materials in the meeting packet estimated Phases 1–3 of the water/sewer extension at about $463,000 (not including power); one segment of the water upsizing was estimated near $500,000; combined future phases and power estimates put a full project estimate near $1 million. Hart said at current lease rates the airport would recoup an airport-only share of the investment in roughly 14–20 years depending on build-out and CPI adjustments. Council and staff raised three principal funding options: require the developer to pay all utility extension costs, split costs among city/developer/new hangar owners (including mechanisms such as latecomer fees or higher initial lease rates), or use some combination that could include a city contribution for a limited portion of the infrastructure.

Several policy and process limits were emphasized. Nathan Stewart (public works) noted Idaho code and procurement implications if the city provides materials to a contractor and warned that providing city-purchased materials to a private contractor can trigger different tax or procurement requirements. Hart reminded the council that FAA grant assurances obligate the airport sponsor to maximize airport revenue and that the ASOS weather station’s 500-foot radius presently constrains full build-out; ASOS relocation appears in phase 2 of the airport master plan and requires future FAA-funded land acquisition. Staff also described unresolved sewer “E‑4” work that could cost roughly $208,000 to fix if borne solely by the airport, but staff suggested cost-sharing with nearby developments could reduce the airport’s portion to an amount closer to $20,000.

Council members asked for a clearer business case and protections for the city. Several members said they are open to exploring a contribution but want to avoid shouldering the lion’s share of risk for a small segment of beneficiaries. Legal, planning and public-works staff were asked to draft options including: (1) a development agreement or public‑private partnership that specifies cost shares and repayment/latecomer mechanisms; (2) pro forma analyses from potential developers showing sales pricing and timing; and (3) consideration of reissuing or amending the RFP to require more complete submittals (pro forma, utility plan, and sequencing). Staff recommended discussing whether to wait for the sewer E‑4 resolution before committing city funds.

No formal motion to fund the utilities was made or approved. Committee direction at the end of the exchange was for airport staff to work with city planners, public works and legal counsel to return with clearer financial models, development-agreement templates and refined options for council review.

The discussion also touched on franchise fees: staff noted a prior council allocation of $100,000 of franchise-fee revenue to vehicle-charging infrastructure and that ordinance A62’s stated objectives included undergrounding overhead lines, reducing outages and wildfire risk. Council members asked for written clarification of the ordinance intent and prior allocations before considering franchise fees for the airport utilities.

The record shows the conversation remains a “first touch”; staff will return with more detailed options and legal analysis for council consideration.