This installment of Airport Compliance Matters deals with the use of fees collected on the airport, airport lighting, and local zoning.
Airport improvement grant contracts specify that all money collected on the airport by the airport sponsor must be used on the airport. There is one exception. Monies derived from mineral royalty where the acquisition of the mineral rights was not obtained with public monies are not obligated to remain on the airport. Otherwise all money collected by the sponsor from activities such as hangar and land leases, landing fees, and even through-the-fence fees, must be deposited into the airport fund and used for the development, operation, and maintenance of the airport. It would be considered as “taking money downtown” for the sponsor of an obligated airport to take money collected on the airport and use it to pave city streets not associated with the airport or to make improvements to the city hall. The grant contracts give the state the authority to audit the airport books at any time for any reason. If misappropriation of funds is suspected, such an audit could be requested. If misappropriations are discovered, the sponsor will be required, as a minimum, to pay back the airport fund with interest.
The wording of airport grants has historically required that runway lighting be “available” from dusk to dawn. Available has been defined as actually being turned on or capable of being turned on by either an on-site attendant or by a pilot (radio controlled lights). Most would agree the lights actually being turned on at the source is by far the best situation. Not all airplanes have radios, therefore, those pilots have no way to contact the attendant. For this reason and to provide availability of lights in the event of radio failure, the wording of recent grant contracts was changed to require the lights be actually turned on at night. An energy saving device can be installed so these lights operate at 10 percent power with the ability for the pilot to increase the percentage to 30 percent or I 00 percent with the aircraft radio even without an attendant being present. Representatives from this office did a statewide airport lighting survey a couple of years ago. The results were quite disturbing in that the number of airports with numerous missing or burned out lights was more than anticipated. It seems that our periodic on-site safety/ compliance inspections, which are conducted in the hours of daylight, do not provide a convenient way to inspect the lights. The results of this lighting survey were provided to each affected airport sponsor and, hopefully, corrections will be made. Remember, your grant assurances require the lights to be available.
Another requirement of the various airport improvement grants is that airport sponsors adopt and enforce local airport zoning regulations. Such zoning is authorized by Section 241 of the Texas Local Government Code. Zoning ordinances are normally based on the pertinent parts of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.25. Any proposed object that would penetrate a zoning surface must be studied by the zoning enforcement officer. Construction of a new obstruction may be prevented by the zoning ordinance if necessary to protect the airport. Neither this office nor the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the ability to prevent an object, such as a cellular antenna, from being constructed near an airport. We can object during the aeronautical review, but there is no mandate for the proponent to abide by those objections. Thankfully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will usually not grant the necessary license without FAA’s concurrence, but this only pertains to a license to transmit, and does not restrict construction. There are no legal provisions authorizing this office or the FAA to prevent the construction of power lines, multi-story buildings, or other tall objects near airports. There must be a way to protect the safety and the investment of public money in an airport, and local zoning is the best way. It gives the local authorities the legal right to prevent the construction of certain objects if those objects would adversely affect an airport.
This is the final installment of “Airport Compliance Matters.” I hope some of the sponsor assurances of various airport improvement grants were brought to light through this series of articles. Should anyone have specific questions pertaining to airport compliance, please feel free to contact the TxDOT Aviation Division. An important item to remember is that only the recipient of a grant (normally a city or county government) is obligated under the sponsor assurances. If a tenant at an airport, even a publicly-owned airport, which has never received a grant from TxDOT or the FAA has a complaint about the airport owner, there is nothing TxDOT or the FAA can do to assist. Since that airport owner has never received an airport improvement grant, they are not obligated by any sponsor assurances.
