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 3rd 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.