Tenants and supervisors clash over proposed Whitman Regional hangar rent hikes; no final vote recorded

Public commenters and county supervisors spent more than an hour debating proposed rent increases for hangars at Whitman Regional Airport, sharply questioning the consultant market study that underpins the county’s proposal and urging a more gradual, CPI‑based approach.

At the start of the public-comment period, Larry Last told the board he could “talk to you for an hour on this hangar rate issue,” but was limited to two minutes. He said the study relied on metropolitan comparables — including Chicago and Detroit — that are not suitable for Winnebago County and warned against applying distant-market data to local rates.

“I feel a couple of supervisors here tonight may have a solution that would be fair to the tenants and the taxpayers,” Last said, urging the board to consider local conditions and the long‑term community benefit from the airport.

Several other tenants made similar points. Jeff Downey, a retired Wisconsin state trooper who rents a hangar, asked the board to inspect hangar conditions before raising rents and suggested the airport committee include people with aviation experience. Brian Everwine, whose lease for a recently constructed hangar is $350 a month, said the consultant’s proposed increases in some cases amount to a near‑tripling and urged limiting future increases to a CPI adjustment already found elsewhere in the ordinance: “So what I’d like to see is that the increase be limited to a CPI.”

Supervisors weighed the competing arguments on the floor. Several members said the airport provides statewide and regional economic value and noted services and amenities at Whitman Field that might justify higher rates. County Executive Damel told the board the market study provided “direction and parameters toward market rates” and said the proposed changes would generate additional revenue to invest in the airport and reduce subsidy from property taxpayers.

Still, multiple supervisors and tenants raised issues with the study’s methodology and baseline rents. Supervisor Halber said she could not, in good conscience, support increases based on a survey she described as “skewed or inaccurate.” Supervisor Swan and others urged consideration of a multi‑pronged approach — including user fees, negotiation with major partners and staged increases — to avoid overburdening long‑time tenants.

Supervisor Gabbard introduced an amendment to change the ordinance’s recommended schedule of fixed increases to “an annual increase equal to 3% or changes in the area’s consumer price index, whichever is greater,” effectively limiting year‑to‑year adjustments to CPI or a 3% floor. Corporate counsel warned that the change would alter the consultant’s recommended language and could create inconsistencies with other ordinance text.

Gabbard later withdrew that amendment, and a motion to postpone consideration to the next board was introduced and seconded. The transcript records a contentious, procedural discussion about whether to proceed at this meeting; it does not show a final roll‑call vote on the hangar‑rate ordinance itself within the provided segments.

What’s next: the airport‑rate item remained on the agenda and multiple supervisors encouraged further committee review, an updated appraisal or a reworked survey before imposing significant base‑rate increases. Tenants asked the board to consider CPI indexing or smaller staged increases and to factor hangar condition and winter usability into any final rate schedule.

Quotes (selection):

• “How would your constituents feel if their property values were determined by using a study from some other state consultant…?” — Larry Last (public commenter)

• “This study was based on many airports from Chicago and the Detroit area.” — Brian Everwine (public commenter)

• “We wanted to make sure we didn't kick the can down the road to the next committee or the next county board.” — Supervisor Buck (supporting a procurement/other ordinance, noted during related debate)

The transcript shows extensive public comment and an extended exchange among supervisors, but a final recorded decision on the hangar rent ordinance does not appear in the provided segments.