Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates $50,000 request for airport fuel shortfall as questions rise over pricing and margins
Summary
County leaders debated a $50,000 appropriation request to cover an airport fuel shortfall, with the airport director citing invoice totals and inventory values while some commissioners questioned whether taxpayers should subsidize low or loss-leading fuel pricing and whether the airport’s 80¢ markup covers costs including a $1,000/month tanker rental.
Benton County’s commission spent an extended portion of its meeting debating a request from the mayor and the airport director to appropriate $50,000 to the airport’s budget to cover a shortfall in aviation fuel. Airport Director Rita Haslam presented invoices and accounting details she said demonstrated the need; other commissioners pressed on pricing, operational costs, and whether the county should underwrite fuel sales.
Haslam told commissioners the airport had had several large invoice totals during the fiscal year — she cited examples of $18,008.15 and $20,076 for specific loads and said the total spent on fuel this year was about $52,732. She reported an on-site inventory value of about $26,840 and trustee deposits of $59,914.46 into county accounts for the fiscal year. Haslam emphasized operational risk: “The last thing I want to do is run out of fuel... I cannot run out of fuel,” she said, describing scheduled corporate and tenant needs.
Commissioner Murphy and others questioned the airport’s pricing strategy and accounting. Murphy said the airport’s retail prices (a cited advertised price of $3.66 per gallon for jet fuel) and a customary 80¢ per-gallon markup were not producing sufficient margin when overheads — notably a roughly $1,000-a-month tanker rental and labor to pump fuel — were included. Murphy presented a simple calculation suggesting recent five-month sales of roughly $40,000 produced only about $2,000 of nominal margin before labor and other costs were counted.
Discussion turned to competitiveness (nearby airports’ pricing was cited), whether increasing the markup would cut sales and thus be counterproductive, and whether customers who use the airport regularly deliver broader economic benefits by bringing corporate traffic and industry. Some commissioners argued the airport is an economic-development asset whose relatively small local share on large grants has leveraged state and federal funds; others argued taxpayers should not subsidize fuel sales.
Commissioners asked for more precise accounting; several said the airport board and mayor should review the markup, present profit-margin calculations that include the tanker rental and labor, and return with recommendations. The transcript captures robust back-and-forth but does not include a clear roll-call tally for the resolution in the provided segments; several commissioners said they would support providing funds tonight while asking for a follow-up study of margins and operations.
What’s next: Commissioners asked the airport board and mayor to review pricing, costs, and tanker/labor impacts and report back. The county’s audit and fiscal-year close were also referenced as a source of definitive accounting data.
