UPCOMING MEETINGS

• Next Fiscal Court Meeting:  Tuesday, March 4th, at 2:00 p.m., in the Oldham County Fiscal Court Building, second floor.  This is your chance to make a public comment.  Warning…..Judge/Executive Murner keeps a mean stopwatch going–you have 4 minutes to speak your mind!

• Next Airport Board Meeting:  Wednesday, March 5th, at 4:30 p.m., in the Oldham County Fiscal Court Building, second floor.  The Agenda should include an update on financing for the multiple studies the board believes are necessary before proceeding with airport selection.  Should be an interesting meeting!

Letter to Oldham Era by John R. Brooks

note from noa 

letters to the editors reflect the opinion of the writer.

On January 20, 2008 there was a terrible and tragic accident when two general aviation airplanes collided in the skies over Corona, California in which five people were killed including an innocent bystander on the ground.  I lived in Norco, California between 1998 and 2000, my home was within four miles of the airport in Corona and my office was less than a mile from it. (The car dealership, where the debris fell and killed one of their employees, was less than one quarter mile from my office.)  During this period there were constant discussions among my neighbors and co-workers about the obvious risk of the airport being so close to residential and industrial areas, including at least four schools, and within a mile of the only east-west freeway for the thousands of people of Riverside County who commute to Los Angeles.  The Associated Press report indicated that there have been five fatal “accidents” at this airport in the past 10 years. 

Unfortunately incidents of this nature do not only occur in far away California, the Courier-Journal reported on December 8, 2007 that the small private plane that crashed near Bloomfield, KY, killing two people, and nearly hit the home occupied by a woman and her seven year old child.   Is that what County Judge Executive Murner, the Fiscal Court Magistrates, their appointed Airport Board and/or Chamber of Commerce want for Oldham County?  While mid air collisions are thankfully rare, aircraft accidents continue to occur – they are a fact of life around airports.  How would the members of the Oldham County Fiscal Court and/or Airport Board explain “why” to the loved ones of an innocent person killed by falling debris as occurred this past weekend at the Corona tragedy?  

Oldham County does not need a general aviation airport, but the Fiscal Court, the County Judge Executive, Airport Board and Chamber of Commerce seem to eagerly and blindly accept the questionable economic benefits alleged by an out of state airport consultant based upon responses by a mere six general aviation pilots to a survey their paid consultant crafted and sent out.  In my view, County Judge Executive Murner, the Fiscal Court Magistrates, the appointed Airport Board and/or Chamber of Commerce only see the chance to secure $20,000,000 of scarce Federal and State TAXPAYER funds. However, the risks to the citizens and taxpayers of Oldham County by going ahead with their proposed airport are not justified and are not worth the price the residents will have to pay in the long and short run. 

All citizens of Oldham County need to call write or email their magistrate and the Judge Executive to express their view on their proposal for an airport and request one of two things – the immediate disbanding of the Airport Board or better yet, a public referendum on the issue. 

Sincerely, John R. Brooks

Crestwood, KY 40014

Show Me the Money

Funding Facts from the FAA 

The following letter is a response by the Federal Aviation Administration to questions by the Shelby County Airport Committee, about how a general aviation airport might be paid for.  Mr. Tommy DuPree is an airport program manager with the FAA’s Memphis Airport District Office, and provides the FAA’s response on July 20, 2005.  His responses will be in red.  While this report was written in response to questions from the Shelby County Airport Advisory Committee, the information also applies to the proposed Oldham County Airport. 

Most importantly, the letter clearly states that federal funding is never guaranteed at the 95% level.  What’s more, funding for hangars, fueling stations, and other support equipment is limited to a maximum of $150,000 annually, and not guaranteed either.  NOA comments are included to provide clarity.   

Dear Mr. DuPree: 

The Fiscal Court of Shelby County Kentucky is considering whether or not to form an airport board. To gather facts on this issue, the Fiscal Court established an Airport Advisory Committee (the Committee). Thank you for the information that you have already given the Committee in phone calls over the past three months. The Committee is nearing the end of its task. A few loose ends need to be addressed. Thank you for agreeing, in a phone conversation on July 6, to give written comments, on behalf of the FAA, to the following questions. The Committee has been told that an airport could qualify for 95% funding from federal sources to pay for the construction, including land purchases, of a new general aviation airport. There are other airports in Kentucky that have or may apply for similar federal funding.

 Question #1:

Would you please describe the process by which the county would be reimbursed for land acquisitions for an airport and when the payments would be received by the county?  

The first step would always be a site selection study, and thence an environmental assessment (FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook) of the site indicated by such a study. The site selection process would entail determining whether the indicated site meets FAA’s Order 5090.3C (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)).  Once those requirements have been met, the planning agency initiating the proposed airport can petition the FAA to be included in the NPIAS and for federal funding under the Airports Improvement Program (AIP) for land acquisition. 

 NOA COMMENT:  Oldham County Airport Board has  submitted a request to the FAA for inclusion into the NPIAS and was approved.  This request included documentation of the forecast demand (number of aircraft based and flight operations activity) provided by the Entran study.  We believe these forecasts were highly inflated.

It is FAA policy that prior to issuing of federal grants for land acquisition, the requesting agency have in-place some type of negotiated settlement for the requested land purchase.   

NOA ANALYSIS:  As of January, 2008, The Airport Board has not publicly reported on the status of negotiations for land acquisition.  However, the fact that Magistrate Rick Rash has recused himself from further airport debate causes concern.  While we believe Mr. Rash has acted correctly, his recusal indicates the Airport Board may be looking at an airport site that was not one of the three sites recommended by the Entran Feasibility Study—namely the proposed Interstate-71 Airport site.  Property at the Interstate-71 is owned by Kim Rash, the brother of Magistrate Rick Rash.  Entran did list this site as the 3^rd most expensive place to build. 

Given that this would be a new airport, funding would have be in the form of discretionary funding authorized under AIP. Your request for funding would be evaluated and competing with all other aviation needs inKentucky and nationally for limited discretionary funds. There is no funding guarantee, and even if approved for funding, there might not be enough to fund the entire project at 95% federal. 

Question #2:

For what can federal construction grants be used?  

Under the current AIP, and your projected scenario, construction for a new airport would be by discretionary funding and thereby having limitations on what items of development are eligible.  For instance, only runway, taxiways, apron, and applicable marking and lighting would be eligible until a useable landing surface (grass/paved) is in-place.  Once a landing surface is established, then said airport would be eligible to receive its NP [non-primary entitlement] funding; which normally equals $150,000 per year, but is always based on FAA’s annual appropriation. Items such as fuel farms and terminals would be eligible, but using NP dollars only. Discretionary dollars are still limited as previously stated. 

Question #3:

If Shelby County were to qualify for federal funding, would 95% of the cost of the airport construction be paid by federal money?  

 Not necessarily, this would be subject to the availability of funds. AIP funding is always subject to the availability of funds. State, local, or private funding might be required in excess of federal funding.  Phasing of project is one option that would allow as much participation under AIP as possible. 

Question #4:

If Shelby County qualified for a 95% federal contribution, can there be any reimbursement for the 2 ½ % contribution from local sources? 

Federal grants cannot be used for reimbursement of the sponsors 2 ½% if funded at 95% level.  If sponsor does not want to use direct funding of its share, the AIP does allow for in-kind services to account a sponsor’s share, as well as land donations. These types of arrangements would first need FAA approval. For instance, If the sponsor had the capability of small construction skills with its own forces(not hired labor and/or other forces), then the sponsor could quantify the dollar amount of said service, and use this as its share of the project/grant amount.  Land donation is a little more complicated but say the runway project costs $1,000,0000, including the land. The land costs would at a minimum need to be appraised at $25,000, given local share of such a grant. Of course this methodof finance assumes the sponsor has bought the land with its own funds. 

NOA ANALYSIS:  The Oldham County Airport Board may try to use the I-71 property—owned by Kim Rash—as its 2.5% contribution.  We believe the owner is receptive to selling the property for this purpose.  Funds for purchasing this property could come from borrowing, private investors, tax levy, or the issuance of bonds.  However, a bond issuance would require a ballot initiative—that means you would get to vote! We do not believe the fiscal court will allow a bond issuance. 

Question #5:

Under a typical airport construction schedule, what types and amounts of payments from federal sources could Shelby County expect; and, what would be the approximate time between the time of application for funding and when the payment would be received by the county.  

Please reference responses to 1 and 2 above. Again, this would be a new airport, and therefore funding would be totally discretionary until a useable landing surface has been established.  Thence the airport would begin receiving its NP dollars. If all federal requirements, i.e., siting and environmental are met, funding using discretionary would still have to compete nationally and at this time we could not give an acceptable guestimate when your request would be affirmed. It would all bebased on where your particular airport stood relative to other airport projects and the amount of appropriation given AIP under a given year. 

Question #6:

Even if Shelby County were to qualify for federal funding, is the funding mandatory or discretionary?  

As previously stated, the funding would most likely be discretionary. 

Question #7:

Could there be a scenario where the federal monies would less than 95% participation? 

Yes. Funding through the FAA’s AIP is always based upon the availability of funding. For Instance, if there is a request theoretically for $1,000,000, and all we have available is $750,000, the remainder would be funded by the sponsorthrough their funding mechanisms. If on the other hand, a project can be broken into useable units to coincide with the FAA’s available funding, the remainder may be funded in a future year. Again, the remainder would compete nationally again as if it was the whole project.   

Question #8:

Could a general aviation airport be built in Shelby County without federal monies?    

Yes. Public-use airports can be funded without federal dollars.However, if an airport is planning on being open to the public and eligible for future federal funding, there is a set of special conditions and federal guidelines that said airport must adhere to. I have attached a copy.  

Question #9:

If some federal funding were spent on construction of a general aviation airport in Shelby County, can the airport board permanently stop all efforts to construct an airport?  

The use of local funds is all ways your option for improvement of the airport, regardless of federal participation. Most  improvement projects will go way above the NP dollars that you may receive annually. Therefore, if federaldiscretionary dollars are not available and/or secured, local participation through any means would have to be secured.  If federal funds are allocated for development of an airport, federal grant assurances and conditions are made apart thereof. One of those would be the completion and operation of the airport within a specified period of time. If issues arise or that may arise after commencement of construction, the sponsor notifies the FAA promptly. Please reference attached assurances and conditions. 

Question #10:

The Committee has been told that there are yearly grants available, after construction of an airport, for $150,000, presently for the next three years.  If the federal contribution to the airport is at the 95% level, can the $150,000 grants be used for anything other than new construction? 

The annual NP dollars can be used for routine maintenance and operation of the airfield. Salaries and vehicles for personnel would not be eligible. Such requests should be coordinated in advance for FAA eligibility determination. 

Question #11:

If the federal contribution to the airport is less than 95%, can the $150,000 grants be used to pay for the original construction of the airport? 

 If the FAA’s initial participation is less than 95% and local funding is used to make said difference, once it begins receiving NP dollars, the airport can reimburse itself for its share above its normal 2 ½ % participation.   

Question #12:

Can any federal monies be used to pay the interest charges incurred by local funding sources? 

Interest costs from financing costs are not eligible for reimbursement under AIP.

 NOA ANALYSIS:  This is a critical statement.  In order for the airport to generate revenue, it must quickly achieve operational status.  Simply having a runway surface doesn’t produce revenue.  There must be hangars, tie downs, and the availability of fuel.  So, it is highly likely that the Airport Board would accelerate construction by borrowing money.  Any interest costs would most probably be paid for by the taxpayer.   

Question #13:

The Committee has been told that there is a requirement that a new airport be a 30 minutes or more automotive drive time from existing general aviation airports, see FAA Order 5090.3C.Can FAA Order 5090.3C be waived?  

Requirements of Order 5090.3C cannot be waived.

The Powers of an Airport Board

THE POWERS OF AN AIRPORT BOARD, AND HOW THEY RAISE MONEY FOR AN AIRPORT.

 Airport Boards are primarily governed by Kentucky Revised Statutes.  Once appointed by the Fiscal Court, the board is tasked with bringing the concept of an airport into reality.  While you may hear that the Airport Board is only a fact finding board, the reality is that they have very broad and sweeping powers.   The following sections come directly from Kentucky Revised Statute, chapter 183 (aviation).  Please, read these paragraphs carefully! 

183.133 Purpose, duties and powers of the board — Rules and regulations,publication — Enforcement — Promotion of facilities. 

(1) The purpose of the board shall be to establish, maintain, operate, and expand necessary, desirable or appropriate airport and air navigation facilities. It shall have the duty and such powers as may be necessary, or desirable to promote and develop aviation, including air transportation, airports and air navigation facilities.

(2) The board shall establish and fix reasonable rates, charges and fees for the use of the landing area, ramps and other common aviation facilities. In fixing such rates,charges or fees the board may take into consideration, among other factors, the total capital investment by the board or other local or state governmental authority, the revenue needed properly to maintain such facilities, the revenue needed properly to expand the airport and its facilities, the portion of the facilities utilized by the licensee or contracting party and its customers and the volume and type of business conducted. Any party aggrieved by the rates, charges or fees may appeal from the action of the board to the Circuit Court of the county within which the board operates, within ninety (90) days from the date that the board finally publishes such rates, charges or fees and gives notice of same to the contracting party or licensee.  The Circuit Court may hear evidence and determine whether or not the rates,charges or fees are, or are not, reasonable in amount. Appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court may be prosecuted as any other civil appeal.

(3) The board shall likewise have power, from time to time, to fix rates, charges or fees by contract, or by publishing general rates, charges or fees for commercial vendors,concessionaires or other persons for the use or occupancy of terminal or other ground use facilities, under such terms or conditions as it may deem to be in thebest interest of maintaining, operating or expanding necessary airport or air navigation facilities, and the public use thereof.

(4) The board may acquire by contract, lease, purchase, gift, condemnation or otherwise any real or personal property, or rights therein, necessary for establishing, operating or expanding airports and air navigation facilities. The board may erect, equip,operate and maintain on such property, buildings and equipment necessary,desirable or appropriate for airport or air navigation facilities. The board may dispose of any real or personal property, or rights therein, which, in the opinion of the board are no longer needed for operating or expanding the airport or air navigation facilities.

(5) The board or any other governmental unit may by resolution reciting that the property is needed for airport or air navigation purposes direct the condemnation of any property, including navigation or other easements. The procedure for condemnation shall conform to the procedures set out in the Eminent Domain Actof Kentucky. [ NOA Note:  In 1986, there was a Kentucky Supreme Court decision, Bernard versus Russell County Airport Board, that made this power subordinate to a single governing body’s power—such as our fiscal court].

(6) The board or any other governmental unit may from time to time make, adopt and enforce such rules, regulations and ordinances as it may find necessary, desirable or appropriate for carrying into effect the purposes of this chapter, including those relating to the operation and control of the airport, airport facilities or air navigation facilities owned or operated by such board or such other governmental unit. All rules, regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to this section shall be published according to the provisions of KRS 424.130, and the board or other governmental unit adopting them shall keep a permanent record of such rules, regulations and ordinances available for public inspection, on the airport premises. Prosecution for aviolation of any rule, regulation or ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall be in the District Court of any county within which the airport is located.

(7) Any board may engage in activities to promote, encourage or develop the use of airports or air navigation facilities under its control and any board which has members thereof appointed by the Governor shall be assisted in such activities bythe state Cabinet for Economic Development if it requests such assistance from thecabinet.

Effective: July 15, 1986History: Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 347, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1986. — Amended1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 171, effective January 2, 1978. —Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 140, sec. 86. — Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 244, sec. 1.— Amended 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 134, sec. 6. — Created 1960 Ky. Acts ch. 179, sec. 33. 

Kentucky Revised Statute:  183.135 Power to borrow money.

The board may borrow money on its own credit in anticipation of revenue to be derived from taxes, appropriations, or other income. For these purposes, the board may pledge the taxes, appropriations, or income anticipated. The board may pledge the airport and facilities, or any interest in the airport and its facilities, or contract for service from the airport or its facilities, as security for moneys borrowed.

Effective: July 15, 1996History: Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 274, sec. 44, effective July 15, 1996. — Amended1968 Ky. Acts ch. 83, sec. 2. — Created 1960 Ky. Acts ch. 179, sec. 35. 

Kentucky Revised Statute:  183.134 Appropriations for airports — Bond issue, election, tax.

(1) In order to provide money for the purchase of property necessary for the establishment or expansion of airports and to construct, equip, and maintain buildings necessary, desirable, or appropriate for airport purposes, or to acquire rights or interests or contracts for services, the legislative body of any governmental unit owning in whole or part any airport or operating an airport, or having any rightsor interests in an airport or contracts for services from an airport, may make an annual appropriation from its general fund; or the governmental unit may make an annual levy to collect a tax on taxable property situated in the governmental unit for airport development. Any appropriation shall be made by the legislative body in amounts, in proportion and upon terms as the legislative body may determine. All funds derived from an appropriation or tax shall be turned over to the airport board, if any, for the purpose of carrying out the duties and powers of the board.

(2) Whenever a governmental unit deems it necessary to acquire, construct, maintain,expand, finance, or improve any airport facilities or air navigation facilities or rights or interests in any facilities, or to contract for services from the facilities, or for anyor all of these purposes, and the annual funds raised from other sources are not sufficient to accomplish the purpose, the governmental unit shall make a careful estimate of the amount of money required for the purpose and shall certify to the proper tax levying authority the fact that an election for an issue of bonds for aviation purposes shall be held, together with the amount of money for which bonds shall be issued and the purpose to which the proceeds shall be applied. The taxing authority shall then adopt an ordinance or resolution submitting to the qualified voters of the district the question as to whether bonds shall be issued for the purpose. The question shall be so framed that the voter may by his vote answer “For” or “Against.”

(3) The ordinance or resolution shall fix the time the bonds shall run and, if a serial issue, the amount to mature at each time. It shall limit the rate of interest to be permitted on the bonds and the total amount of bonds to be issued, and shall provide for the levy of a tax to pay the interest and to create a sinking fund to retire them attheir maturity.

(4) The election shall be held at a time fixed in the ordinance or resolution, not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days from the time the certificate of the governmental unit is filed with the tax levying authority, and reasonable notice of the election shall be given. The election shall be conducted and carried out in the governmental unit district in all respects as required by the general election laws,and shall be held by the same officers as required by the general election laws. The expense of the election shall be paid by the fiscal court except where the election is held in a district embracing a city of the first five (5) classes, in which case the cost of the election shall be paid by the governing body of the city.

(5) Not withstanding the limitations contained in KRS 132.023, any governmental unit which after March 21, 1968, levies a tax for aviation purposes under this chapter may exclude the tax from consideration in calculating the compensating tax rate as now or subsequently defined in KRS 132.010 or any amendments or other actsubstituted relating to that section.

Effective: July 15, 1996History: Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 274, sec. 43, effective July 15, 1996. — Amended1980 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 137, effective July 15, 1980. — Amended 1968 Ky. Actsch. 83, sec. 1. — Amended 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 134, sec. 7. — Created 1960 Ky. Acts

ch. 179, sec. 34.

Big Meeting Tuesday Night!

Community Forum Event on Tuesday, January 29th, at the John Black Community Center, in Buckner.

It’s an open forum, from 6 to 8 p.m., and NOA encourages everyone to stop by and tell the magistrates that they don’t want an Oldham County Airport.