The Federal Aviation Administration has determined Santa Rosa County practiced economic discrimination between the two fixed-base operators at the county-owned Peter Prince Field in Milton, requiring the county to develop a corrective action plan in order to maintain eligibility for federal grant funding.The conclusion was the result of a formal complaint filed by Aircraft Management Services against the county in 2012 alleging "more favorable" lease terms were given to Peter Prince Aviation Center — formerly Milton Aviation Partners, — a violation of grant obligations at the airport, according to FAA.
After review of AMS's claims, the county's responses and its request to dismiss the complaint, FAA decided that the county agreed to "unjustly discriminatory terms and conditions" in PPAC's lease.
But officials at Peter Prince Aviation Center disagree with FAA's findings, claiming any economic discrimination has been against their company, not AMS, and they are making plans to file a formal complaint of their own with FAA if a fair agreement cannot be reached.
Among the differences in AMS and PPAC's leases is the cost per square foot for office space and maintenance/supply space, both of which are higher for the complainant. AMS pays the county $1 per square foot for office space, compared with 50 cents for PPAC — however, Peter Prince Aviation asserts that it pays for a bigger portion of its buildings than AMS.
Other discrepancies include flowage fees, which are paid by AMS to the county per gallon of fuel sold, and required hours of operation for the companies, which vary between the two leases.
Santa Rosa County is obligated to comply with grant assurances, including economic nondiscrimination, according to the FAA. Peter Prince Field has been funded in part by grants from FAA's Airport Improvement Program, receiving about $3.4 million in AIP grants since 1990, according to County Engineer Roger Blaylock.
If those grants were lost, the impact to the airfield would be "immeasurable," Blaylock said, but would include an estimated $2 million to $3 million for an upcoming runway rehabilitation project, of which FAA would pay about 90 percent. The county is also eligible for another $150,000 annually for qualified projects, including safety improvements.
"It's huge, huge money," Blaylock said. "And if we had to fund that out of the airport, that's going to be a financial burden."
The corrective action plan is due to the Orlando Airports District Office by June 26, but County Attorney Roy Andrews said a 60-day extension has been requested to resolve the issues.
"The direction from the FAA is to make sure both fixed-base operators out there are treated equally and there's no type of economic discrimination with either one of them," Andrews said. "We don't think we did, but we are looking at the terms of the leases to make sure we bring all the provisions in line so they are essentially equal."
Blaylock, who manages the airfield, said the plan will address FAA's findings from AMS's complaints.
"We are in discussion with both MAP and AMS as it relates to a possible modified lease," Blaylock said.
AMS was the first fixed-base operation at the field, approved by the county commission in 2001, joined in 2011 by MAP, later renamed PPAC.
In a response to the FAA, Santa Rosa County contested that the two FBOs are "differently situated," and therefore not subject to being treated in a uniform manner.
The FAA determined the argument to be "without merit," stating the services provided by the two FBOs are similar in type and level of service. Both operations run flight schools for military members and civilians, also offering fuel services and runway access to pilots.
"In this case, the two FBOs were, without adequate justification, not subject to the same lease rates, fees (flowage fee), rentals, and other requirements such as difference in the required leasehold square footage, and operating hours/schedule," FAA concluded.
But partners at PPAC claim FAA isn't getting the full picture by looking solely at what's shown on the leases. Although PPAC does not pay flowage fees to the county on fuel sold, AMS uses a county fuel farm, while PPAC constructed its own, according to the county.
"We have been made to look like we have gotten some kind of sweet deal from the county, when in fact, that's not true," said Bruce Young, a partner at PPAC.
Original article can be found here: http://www.pnj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment