CAA: GA News, "Proposals would protect and threaten Missouri's GA airports"

["Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@cwnet.com>]

Friday, March 31, 2000

Proposals would protect and threaten Missouri’s GA airports
GA News


JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri — Missouri’s general aviation airports could be
faced with a “win one/lose one” scenario if two proposals working their way
through the state Legislature are enacted into law.

One proposal would restrict communications towers and other tall structures
that could affect the safety of airport approaches. The other would create a
new exemption on jet-fuel taxes for certain airlines. If enacted, revenues
earmarked for capital improvements at Missouri’s general aviation airports
would be cut in half.

First, the good news.


TALL TOWERS AND OTHER STRUCTURES NEAR AIRPORTS WOULD BE REGULATED

Missouri House Bill 2018 would regulate the placement of tall structures in
navigable airspace to ensure that they don’t interfere with air navigation.

The bill, sponsored by State Representative Denny Merideth, is currently
before the House Transportation Committee. Under the proposal, anyone who
wanted to put up a tall structure within a certain distance of an airport
would have to have a permit. Permits could be denied if the state determines
that proposed structures would interfere with aerial navigation.

While there may not be time to pass HB 2018 in the current legislative
session, Missouri Aviation Administrator Brian Weiler said the groundwork
has been laid for passing it next fall.

More than 25 states now have similar tall-structure rules in place. In
states that have no such laws, state officials are trying to get them
enacted against strong opposition from broadcasters and telecommunications
companies.

Part 77 of the federal airspace regulations covers tall structures affecting
navigable airspace, but it is only advisory, not regulatory. Federal law
leaves jurisdiction for regulating tall structures at the local and state
levels. Missouri currently has no regulations governing tall structures
around airports.

Missouri broadcasters and telecommunications companies oppose the measure.
Weiler said a coalition of municipal and aviation officials met with
representatives of the telecommunications industry last year to ask for the
industry’s input and to work out a solution.

“We’ve asked them several times for input and received none,” Weiler said.
“We’re seeing a proliferation of tall structures near airports around the
state.”

Telephone calls seeking comment from an industry spokesman were not
returned.

Communications towers are being put up next to airports despite strong
opposition from local, county and state officials, as well as pilots.

“We recognize the importance of the cellular industry, and we don’t want to
hurt that,” Weiler said, “but we want to protect the safety of our airports,
as well as their usability and expandability.”

A tower located off the end of a runway may not create a hazard, Weiler
explained, but the same tower can make it impossible to extend the runway.

The state of Missouri has built five new airports the last five years and is
completing a sixth.

“Each airport gets harder and harder to build,” Weiler added. “It takes
about a decade to pull together all the things you need to build a new
airport. That makes it important to protect the airports we have — to
protect our ability to expand and improve them.”

The proposal would affect only about 3% of Missouri’s land area, Weiler
noted.

“Surely our general aviation system deserves that much.”


LOSS OF JET FUEL TAX REVENUES THREATENS AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS, CONTROL TOWERS

The bad news for Missouri general aviation is Senate Bill 1061, now before
the state Senate Ways & Means Committee.

Airlines headquartered in Missouri currently enjoy a limited exemption from
state and local sales and use taxes on jet fuel. Under current law, no
airline is required to pay more than $1.5 million annually in sales and use
taxes on jet fuel. It’s a limited exemption that applies only to the largest
carriers.

SB 1061 and its companion, House Bill 2064, would exempt certain airlines
from paying any state and local sales and use taxes on jet fuel. To qualify
for the exemption, an airline would have to be headquartered in Missouri and
operate a fleet of airplanes that transports 20 or more passengers. TWA,
based in St. Louis; Vanguard Airlines, based in Kansas City; and the new
Ozark Airlines, in Columbia, would qualify for the new exemption.

The Missouri Department of Aviation currently receives about $4 million a
year from jet-fuel sales and use taxes. The money is used for airport
capital-improvement projects. A nine-cents-per-gallon tax on avgas generates
another half-million dollars a year, which the state uses mainly for runway
pavement preservation and maintenance projects.

The exemption proposed in SB 1061 would cut in half the amount of money
generated each year by the jet-fuel tax, reducing by $2 million the state
funds that are available for airport-improvement projects.

Supporters of the bill point to rising fuel costs and the economic benefits
of having major airlines headquartered in Missouri.

“I understand their position,” Weiler said. “I just hate to see this laid on
the backs of general aviation.”

Besides capital improvements, the cut in funds would also affect
control-tower operations at two of Missouri’s busier GA airports, Jefferson
City (JEF) and Cape Girardeau (CGI). Neither of those control towers
receives federal funds because they don’t meet the cost-benefit criteria for
FAA funding. The state provides a $125,000 subsidy to each airport to help
pay the cost of operating the control towers there. If SB 1061 passes, those
airports will probably lose that subsidy, Weiler said.

Tax revenues from jet-fuel sales were first earmarked for airport capital
improvements just a few years ago.

“What we’ve tried to do with those funds,” Weiler said, “is be far-reaching
by giving advance grants to communities to acquire land and to do the
up-front engineering and planning required for a federal grant. That means
that when the federal grant comes through, we can spend the money more
quickly and more efficiently.”

Revenues from the jet-fuel tax have also allowed the state to work with
communities that do not quality for federal funds for a runway extension or
airport expansion project. Weiler offered two examples.

* Marshall, Missouri, wanted to extend its 3,900- by 75-foot runway to
handle corporate jets, but the airport wasn’t busy enough to qualify for
federal funds.

As Weiler explains it, “Marshal came to us two years ago and said, ‘We’ve
moved 80,000 cubic yards of dirt for this expansion. Will you help us with
the base and the surface?’ I believe in helping those who help themselves.”

The jet-fuel tax revenues gave the aviation department the funds to work
with, and “for about a quarter of a million dollars, we have a $750,000
runway extension, to 4,500 feet,” Weiler said.

* At Potosi, the county wants to extend its runway from 3,300 to 4,000 feet
as part of an economic development plan. County crews are tearing up the
existing runway and moving about 125,000 cubic yards of dirt. The state will
pay for the runway base, surface and lighting.

“(The state) will spend about $450,000 on this project and we’ll get a $1
million runway out of it,” Weiler said. “The revenues from the jet-fuel tax
give us the flexibility to work with these communities. Without the extra
money we may not have that flexibility.”

As this issue of the Flyer went to press, SB 1061 had not been reported out
of the Senate committee.

“It’s late in the session,” Weiler said. “The bill may not get far this
year, but the fact that it was introduced scares me.”

*****************************************
California Aviation Alliance: General Aviation Airport List E-mail Commands
To subscribe to the GA News List, send an email, from the email account you wish to receive your posts on, addressed to listserv@californiaaviation.org and place the following in the first line of the body of the message:
 Subscribe ganews YourFirstName YourLastName YourJobTitle YourAirport/Company 

To unsubscribe from the GA News List, send an email, from the email account you have been receiving your posts on, addressed to listserv@californiaaviation.org and place the following in the first line of the body of the message:
 Unsubscribe ganews YourFirstName YourLastName