LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional

JUNE 9, 1999, WEDNESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 1611 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
GARY R. SHAFER
AIRPORT MANAGER
BEFORE THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - PRESERVATION & PROMOTION OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS

BODY:

INTRODUCTION
The Southern Illinois Airport is a large general aviation airport located in rural America. As such, we are just one of 2764 similar airports nationwide that depend on the federal government for capital funding assistance in order to sustain us. There are very few general aviation airports that can afford to maintain and improve their facilities without this assistance because of the limited alternative financing sources available to us. We need the continued financial involvement of the Federal and State governments in order to adequately serve the diverse publics which use our facilities and to remain an economic catalyst for the communities we serve. Properly funding general aviation airports will ensure that they are preserved and promoted.
H.R. 1000 is among the most important aviation legislative proposals I have witnessed in my 20 years in the business. It offers significantly greater funding levels for aviation programs, preserves the integrity of the Aviation Trust Fund, sustains an appropriate contribution to aviation from the general fund and imposes no new users fees on general aviation. We thank Chairman Shuster, Chairman Duncan, Representatives Oberstar and Lipinski, the Committee and Subcommittee members and staff for their hard work in crafting what we believe to be landmark legislation. This bill has gained nearly universal support from the aviation community and the Southern Illinois Airport's voice will be added to those who will work for its passage.
OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE BENEFITS TO G.A. AIRPORTS THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE PASSAGE OF H.R. 1000
Over the past few months you have heard from nearly every representative of the aviation community about the importance of balancing the enormous capital needs of aviation against the equally important methods of funding these. We believe H.R. 1000 has achieved that balance and more. Particularly, from a general aviation airport perspective we would like to offer the following comments with regard to several of the bills highlights which will serve to preserve and promote our type of airport:
1. The bill provides substantially more AlP money overall to the airport industry. This is important because of the many ways in which the money is subsequently divided among the various types of airports and uses. Because general aviation airports depend almost entirely on discretionary dollars for our funding, an increase in the overall pot of money will likely result in more discretionary funds available to us.
2. The PFC increase provision, while controversial, offers additional benefits to general aviation airports because of the larger AIP turnback obligation for those airports that implement a higher PFC. Directing these funds toward the needs of small airports acknowledges the ability of most large airports to fund their needs without federal assistance and the inherent inability of most small airports to do so.
3. Providing a three-fold increase in the small airport fund again recognizes the dependence our segment of the industry has upon federal aid as a capital fundingsource. Well documented recent reports by the GAO, CBO and others support this conclusion and the financial reporting we are now required to provide to the FAA document this. There are simply few other funding sources available to us to accomplish the safety, rehabilitation and improvement projects we need as well.
4. The creation of an entitlement provision for all general aviation airports is both a novel and welcomed idea. As the Subcommittee knows, general aviation airports must now compete for every dollar of AIP money we receive on a merit basis. As the AIP dollars have flowed up and down over the past decade, several factors would combine to limit the availability of these funds. The 2764 airports that make up this pool of applicants were, at times, left to compete for even fewer dollars. Thus, for most of us, our repair and improvement plans were placed on hold and our needs became greater. If this trend were to continue, I speculate that many general aviation airports would be forced to close portions of their airfield because the costs of repair would exceed their limited resources. The entitlement provision, while not large enough to fund substantial projects, does provide a measure of support to continue the maintenance of critical portions of the airport.
5. Continuing the State Block Grant Program helps ensure the proper expenditure of AIP dollars. Over the past 10 years, Southern Illinois Airport has been fortunate to receive nearly 7 million dollars in AIP assistance. These dollars funded safety, rehabilitation, standards and capacity projects at our field. We do not believe this level of funding would have occurred for us without the State's involvement. The premise is simple. The State understands and is much closer to the needs of their respective airports than the FAA's Airport District Offices. While the FAA's ADO's are staffed by very good and knowledgeable people, their workload is so great and their travel dollars so few, they can evaluate our airport needs only on paper. As a result, in my 20 years at the airport I have only been visited twice by the staff of the FAA that make funding decisions. In contrast, the personal visits that State employees routinely make to our field gives them a measure of understanding of our needs that can't be obtained from paper. We appreciate the preservation of this program and encourage its expansion.
6. The timing of grant funding is critical to the efficient use of AlP funds. Authority exists within the current and proposed law to allocate money for AIP grants as soon after October 1st as the FAA appropriation bill has been signed. This applies also to the allocation of the State Block Grant money. I raise this issue because, in the past, significant delays have occurred between these two events. This has caused projects at general aviation airports and others to be bid concurrent with large road projects, which can serve to increase the cost of the aviation projects. Ordinarily, in our part of the country, bidding projects during the winter or early spring period usually results in lower project costs, thus making more efficient use of AIP funds. We suggest some oversight of this process may be appropriate.
7. Setting the Aviation Trust Fund off budget is a wise and prudent move. As the Subcommittee knows, Aviation Trust Fund revenues have not been fully used for their intended purposes. Current and forecasted uncommitted funds should not be acceptable at any time, let alone when aviation capital needs are at an all time high. All segments of aviation will benefit from the full collection and expenditure of the Trust Fund revenues as improvements and services are put in place when they areneeded and requested by the aviation users. We applaud the initiatives within this bill and H.R. 111 to accomplish this end.
8. The continued support of the Contract Tower Program by the Subcommittee and Committee is very much appreciated. This program has been proven to yield significant financial benefits to the FAA while providing important services at nearly 170 small airports. Included among these are many general aviation airports, like ours, which experience significant amounts of traffic that require it to be separated and managed by air traffic controllers. Including this provision within H.R 1000 at fully funded levels is an acknowledgement of the programs merits.
9. The provision that allows small communities to fund a runway extension to attract turbine aircraft to their facilities will permit them to more fully participate in the national transportation system and provide a catalyst for their continued economic development. As you know, companies consider the airports capabilities among the most important factors when making expansion or new location decisions.
10. The approach that H.R. 1000 takes to funding the spending programs is prudent and appropriate. It makes maximum use of the available Trust Fund revenues, preserves an appropriate contribution from the general fund for governmental use of the system and permits increased use of PFC revenues where agreed to. What it doesn't do is ask the general aviation users in this country to make additional contributions to the system in the form of increased user fees. For that we are grateful. We cannot preserve and promote general aviation airports if our customers, the general aviation pilot and aircraft owner, reduce their flying or go away all together because of a variety of new fees imposed on their use of the system, as some would promote. We thank you for your recognition of this matter.
SUMMARY
Preserving and promoting general aviation airports means that these facilities must be sustained. As is clear from many previous testimonies and reports, this will require that the Federal government continue to provide adequate funding to maintain and improve this important component of the national transportation system. After all, the majority of airports in this country are general aviation facilities, which provide the only means of aviation access for thousands of communities that do not receive scheduled airline service. Of the nations 3304 airports eligible to receive federal development aid, 83% of these are general aviation airports. H.R. 1000 should improve the prospects for funding this important segment of aviation through its many new and enhanced provisions while maintaining an affordable fee base for general aviation users. Passage of H.R. 1000 will truly make this the Year of Aviation.
END
5

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 1999