Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve new Jabara hangar despite commissioner’s objections on cost
Summary
The commission approved construction of a new hangar at Jabara for use by the Kansas Highway Patrol; Commissioner Jim H. said the decision passed 4–1 and warned the county faces increased long-term costs even if the state contributes payments.
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Jim H. said the county commission voted 4–1 to move forward with building a new hangar at Jabara that would be used by the Kansas Highway Patrol. He described current lease arrangements at Cook Airfield ($59,000 per year for hanger space) and contrasted that figure with projected costs tied to the new Jabara hangar and associated long-term bonding.
Jim H. said he opposed the plan because the county could face substantial additional costs over 20 years even if optimistic assumptions hold. "All said and done, it's still going to cost Sedgwick County taxpayers about $1.4 million" more under the scenario he described, he said, and cautioned that insurance, utilities and maintenance could increase the county’s exposure. He added reports that some operational savings or state payments were discussed but not guaranteed by a signed long-term contract.
Commissioners who supported the project emphasized closer organizational ties with state law enforcement leadership and potential operational benefits; Jim H. said he saw the patrol remaining in the region regardless of the hangar location and questioned whether the county’s net benefit justified the cost. The meeting record indicates the motion passed 4–1 at the board-level vote reported during the session.
The decision includes bond payments and a long-term lease with the airport authority; at the meeting the commissioner said lease and bond totals translate into roughly $14–15 million in principal and interest over 20 years for the county’s obligation, and he warned of variability if any of the stated assumptions change.

