Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
APPENDIX B <br /> RDURALEIGH•DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORI <br /> Route 1, Box 500, Morrisville, N.C. 27560 /919-840-2100 <br /> JOHN C. BRANTLEY WAKE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY <br /> AIRPORT DIRECTOR DURHAM RALEIGH <br /> EUGENE B. HARDIN, JR, BERT COLLINS WILLIAM A.CLEMENT <br /> CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN SECRETARY LUCY H. BODE <br /> G. SMEDES YORK <br /> TREASURER A.C. ELKINS PAUL LUEBKE <br /> THOMAS C.WORTH, JR. <br /> August 27, 1987 <br /> Mr. Pearson E. Stewart, Chairman <br /> Airport Issues Task Force <br /> c/o Orange County Commissioners <br /> 106 East Margaret Lane <br /> Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 <br /> Dear Pearson: <br /> Thank you for providing me a copy of the draft Orange County General <br /> Aviation Airport report for review. I know that you and the other Task <br /> Force members have put in much time and effort debating the issues, and I <br /> believe that you have drawn sensible conclusions and commend you doing <br /> so. I don't propose any changes to the report but would like to offeorrsever- <br /> al observations which I believe are very pertinent to further consideration <br /> of the matter by the Orange County Commissioners. <br /> First, I would strongly recommend that no governmental unit chart a <br /> course toward development of an airport (or any other public facility for <br /> that matter) absent a strong commitment to carry out the program and provide <br /> the necessary financial resources regardless of whether or not income from <br /> the airport's operation will repay the appropriations. To proceed in that <br /> direction based on a belief that those appropriations constitute a loan as <br /> opposed to an investment in a necessary public facility is both unwise and <br /> unsound judgement. Realistically, it is most probable that revenues from <br /> operation of the airport will not fully cover both operation and maintenance <br /> expenses and amortization of capital investment for some years after the <br /> airport is completed (RDU didn't do so until less than 20 years ago), so the <br /> commissioners must avoid misunderstanding in this area. Operation and main- <br /> tenance expenses should be able to be fully covered by operating revenues, <br /> but I would not count on capital improvements costs being fully covered. If <br /> the commissioners believe an airport is needed and want one, then they need <br /> to invest in it and make sure it is developed and thereafter operated and <br /> maintained the right way. <br /> Along this same line, if a new airport is developed, it should be oper- <br /> ated on a completely businesslike basis with user fees and charges that are <br /> fair to the public which provided the facility. Airport operation is a busi- <br /> ness, not a charitable function. The public certainly is nt.Jt the sweetheart <br /> when so-called "sweetheart" deals are made with tenants and users. This <br /> leads me to the very strong recommendation that an airport authority/commis- <br /> , <br />