Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clare County board debates $250,000 airport lighting grant and raises long-term funding questions
Summary
The Clare County Board of Commissioners debated whether to accept time-limited state airport funding — a $250,000 lighting award and a related pavement-sealing award — and voted to table final decisions on some elements while taking limited interim steps; residents urged the board to preserve the airport for economic and tourism benefits.
The Clare County Board of Commissioners spent much of its meeting debating whether to accept state aeronautics awards for the county airport and what ongoing costs the county would assume if it moves forward.
The board considered a 2025 State Local Program award that included $250,000 for upgraded lighting on runway 18–36 and a separate award for pavement sealing described in meeting materials. Commissioners and several public commenters pressed for clearer information on future operating costs, property ownership questions and the county’s long-term funding plan before taking full action on the timed grant.
Why it matters: MDOT aeronautics grants are time-limited and require work to be completed by the end of December; if Clare County declines the award the money will likely be allocated to another airport. Supporters said accepting the funding would preserve and enhance a local transportation asset; opponents and cautious commissioners warned that accepting infrastructure without a plan for ongoing operating and maintenance costs could saddle the county with future budget pressures.
Public voices at the meeting framed the stakes. Kim Kaneka, a former airport manager, urged the board to “support your airport” and asked whether the county had renewed talks with neighboring jurisdictions for joint funding. Robert Ash said small airports draw business and warned that if Clare County turns down the grant “it’s just going to go to another airport.” Several residents and aviation supporters described youth-training programs, repair-hangar proposals and expected tourism benefits tied to a functioning airport.
Board discussion focused on several unanswered questions: what the county would have to spend annually to operate upgraded lighting and facilities; which parts of the airport property are county-owned versus state-controlled; how the restaurant and hanger tenants would be affected if the county disbanded airport operations; and whether the county should appropriate operating dollars to sustain improvements.
Action taken: After extended discussion the board voted to table final action on parts of the package to the next meeting pending staff research and answers to specific cost and property questions. The board did move forward with other limited items tied to the airport fund, including a $4,000 appropriation from the general fund to cover an outstanding invoice and to bring the airport fund into compliance.
What’s next: County staff were asked to provide a scope-of-work estimate, clarity on property ownership and a projected annual operating cost for the airport so commissioners can decide whether to accept the timed grant awards at the next regular meeting.
