With federal funding threatened, Roanoke votes to increase rent at airport

PROTECTED CONTENT

If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.

Username

Password

Login

Lost your password?

Username and Password Help

Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.

Email

Submit

← Back

The Roanoke City Council Monday approved a significant rent increase for hangar space at the Roanoke Municipal Airport, a move that is intended to eliminate unused aircraft and, in turn, keep federal funding for the facility.

The city has previously charged a paltry rent fee of $200 per year to hangar owners for the use of the land on which the hangars sit. The city does not own the hangars, but owns all of the airport land.

Mayor Adam Melton in Monday’s meeting a letter from local pilot Sid Hare to the owners of the hangars and aircraft at the airport. The letter spelled out the requirements that an airport of Roanoke’s size must meet in order to maintain its federal funding.

“Funding to operate and improve our airport comes from 90 percent federal funding, 5 percent state funding and 5 percent local funding,” the letter read, before going on to say, “The loss of federal funding would almost certainly result in the permanent closure of the airport.”

Roanoke Street Department supervisor Keith Richardson also oversees the airport, and he underscored the importance of federal funding to keeping the facility operational.

“We have a 10-year plan out there, and none of it exists without the federal funding,” Richardson said at Monday’s council meeting.

The immediate threat to that funding, according to Hare’s letter, is the condition of the airport’s “based aircraft.” An airport of Roanoke’s size must have a minimum of 10 based aircraft, which are functional aircraft that are stationed at an airport for at least six months out of the year.

The main word in that description at issue for Roanoke is “functional.”

“The federal guidelines for based aircraft criteria are very explicit,” Hare’s letter said. “Each based aircraft must have a current registration and airworthiness certificate. In addition, if aircraft does not have a current annual maintenance certification then it must at least be able to demonstrate the ability to take off and land.”

Many of the planes currently parked at the Roanoke airport do not meet that criteria.

“Aircraft [that] has not moved in several years…can no longer be counted as one of our based aircraft,” the letter said.

Melton presented photographs of the hangars to the council, with many of the images showing airplanes that clearly have not left the hangar or been airborne in years. It also was evident that some of the hangars were not being used for their intended purpose, and instead were serving as storage areas of non-aircraft-related items for the owners.

City clerk Kim Stone looked into what other municipalities charged as property rent for airport hangars, and reported to the council that Guntersville charges $240 per month. Melton said Tuesday that LaGrange’s rental rate is similar.

“My thought is that we are way too cheap,” Melton said at Monday’s meeting. “You wouldn’t want to go up to an astronomical number on the first year. But you want the hangars to be used for what they’re designed be used for, not as storage. My thought is at least this first year, is to at least match what Guntersville is doing. We may lose some airplanes, but we may gain some that will use them for what they’re designed to be used for.”

The city settled on the amount of $200 per month and unanimously passed a motion to set that as the new price going forward. The city will also draft rental contracts – something the city did not previously have – that must be agreed upon by the hangar and/or aircraft owners.

The goal is clear. Eliminate unused planes and meet the minimum requirement of 10 based aircraft at the airport.

Hare’s letter also mentioned that there is a waiting list of aircraft owners who are interested in renting space in Roanoke.

“The number one problem in aviation right now is hangar space. Nobody has any,” Richardson said.
“All those people that are on that waiting list are not even from here. They’re from different areas.”

Hare’s full letter, addressed to the aircraft and hangar owners, can be read below.

_________________________________________________________

Dear aircraft and hangar owners:

It has come to my attention that we have a serious ongoing problem at the Roanoke municipal airport. Funding to operate and improve our airport comes from 90 percent federal funding, 5 percent state funding and 5 percent local funding.

In our case all of the 5 percent local funding comes from the City of Roanoke general fund. In order to qualify for federal funds the City of Roanoke airport must maintain at least 10 based aircraft. The federal guidelines for based aircraft criteria are very explicit.

Each based aircraft must have a current registration and airworthiness certificate. In addition, if aircraft does not have a current annual maintenance certification then it must at least be able to demonstrate the ability to take off and land. Since your aircraft has not moved in several years, it can no longer be counted as one of our based aircraft. This puts the Roanoke airport in jeopardy of losing its federal funding. The loss of federal funding would almost certainly result in the permanent closure of the airport. We need your help to prevent this from happening.

The simplest solution for you is to sell your aircraft and hangar to one of several people who we have on a waiting list for a hangar at our airport. Our office would be happy to put you in touch with several potential buyers. If that is not appealing to you then we must implore you to repair your aircraft and show proof of registration, airworthiness certificate and current annual inspections.

However, if you would like to demonstrate your aircraft’s ability to take off and land we would be happy to send a representative to wintess that event.

Failure to comply with one of these resolutions will make it necessary for the City of Roanoke to pursue further legal action.