Pilots Wary of Proposal to Change Torrance Airport’s Fund Structure

A proposed ballot measure to change the accounting procedures for income from Torrance Municipal Airport is prompting suspicion among local pilots, who charge it could be used to undermine the airport.

City Council members hotly deny that charge, insisting that the ballot measure would be nothing more than “financial housekeeping.”

The council Tuesday night voted unanimously to prepare a measure for the March ballot asking voters to repeal the section of the City Charter that requires airport income to be kept in a separate fund.

Voters originally approved creating the fund in 1957 to meet Federal Aviation Administration requirements that there be an account guaranteeing continued operation of the airport.

Additional provisions spelling out how airport fund money could be used were passed in 1962 to assure that a bond measure approved that same year would be repaid out of airport income only, rather than out of general city funds.

Staff members said in a report to the council that the airport fund no longer is needed because the 1962 bond measure will be completely repaid next year and changes to federal deed restrictions over the years have eliminated federal control over future use of the airport’s land.

If the airport fund is eliminated, Finance Director Mary Giordano said, state law requires that airport income be placed in a separate account, called an enterprise fund, that would protect the money from misuse.

But pilots argued the change would give the city greater power to draw money away from the airport for other city programs.

“This could be an extremely dangerous action with respect to the continued survivability of the airport,” said Ted Stinis, president of the Torrance Area Pilots Assn.

City Councilman Bill Applegate said the measure would only place the airport under the same accounting practices used for other city utilities, such as the Water Department and the transit system.

“It seems of late that every time something is done to try to correct something, that it’s greeted as the start of World War III,” Applegate said. “This is a bookkeeping measure, nothing more.”

The council ordered a draft of the measure brought back for consideration at its Oct. 31 meeting.