At the Port of Orcas something has to give.

The Port cannot complete improvements already planned to the runway and taxiways without continued grant funding from the FAA, and they do not have the means to pay back grant money they have already received if they fail to meet the FAA grant assurances already signed. So they have to do what the FAA has asked of them: charge an access fee to the pilots next door.

Despite the continued dissatisfaction of the Port’s neighbors, who do not want to pay for access, the Port has drafted a resolution that reflects the proposal presented as Plan X at the Aug. 13 meeting.

Referred to by chair Garth Eimers as a working document, the resolution is still a draft and it is now in the hands of the Port commissioners to fine tune the details.

The draft resolution states the Port plans to charge an access fee for each of the private properties that either have an aircraft or hangar on private property with access to the airport. The access fee proposed is equivalent to the fee charged annually to tie-down an aircraft at the Port, which is currently $320. The resolution also includes a planned effort to work with the county to resist any further residential development around the airport.

Chair Garth Eimers spoke of the commission’s fiduciary responsibility to maintain the investment already made in the Port as well as the multiple times the Port has previously accepted money with conditions that needed to be met. The Port commission sees these responsibilities as the reason for adopting the resolution to impose a fee to its neighbors.

Eimers explained adopting the resolution is complicated as it relates to the deeds of the surrounding private properties.

“A pivotal question becomes does the Port have the ability or authority to impose a fee for access?” Eimers explained.

The Port is seeking legal guidance from business attorney Frank Chmelik of Bellingham who has worked with port authorities before. The commissioners hope to have his feedback by the next meeting on Oct. 8.

“The FAA is not explicit about what constitutes a good plan,” Eimers said. “The obligation is to present the FAA with a good faith plan that we’re trying to develop some kind of plan.”

Neighbors are unsatisfied with the Port choice to move forward with Plan X.

Paul Vierthaler and his wife Cathy own property adjacent to the Port.

“Decisions you’re making may effect what I can do with my property,” Vierthaler said. “Even by saying this in a public meeting has affected our property values. That is fact.”

Vierthaler suggested the Port “put on its business hat” and look at what the airport could do to raise revenue without depending on FAA funds.

Eimers responded by relating a development plan that was presented to the community 3 years ago.

“It didn’t get off the ground,” Eimers said.

The Port did not move on the resolution but tabled it until they received a response from Chmelik.

Cathy Vierthaler expressed frustration with the public comment process of the Port meeting, which was moved by Eimers to the beginning of the meeting in order to avoid continued debate of the issue.

“Every point that we brought up has been ignored,” Cathy said.

Eimers said the proposed resolution was a place for the commissioners to start talking.

“Now we have something to engage in discussion,” Eimers said.