Residential Through the Fence Access

topgun260

topgun260

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
312
Display Name
Display name:
Topgun260
Through the Fence Access - How much do you pay?

I just received a certified letter from our Airport Board that outlines their new through the fence agreement. It includes a charge for my "access fee" of .05 cents per square foot of the footprint of my house, not just the hangar portion, per year. This is the same amount that they charge for hangar leases inside the fence. The initial agreement is for 5 years and may be renewed for 3 additional terms.

Is this similar to what all the rest of you are paying? Similar terms?

You would think that they would have had a meeting with all the through the fence landowners to at least talk about what they were planning but they did not.
 
Last edited:
What airport?

Have you consulted with AOPA? Do you have an AOPA ASN rep?
 
Our local AOPA ASN rep is on the airport board. Are land owners at other airports paying similar fees?
 
It is a public airport owned by the county. I believe there are only 5 parcels adjacent to the airport that have deeded access through the fence.
 
What's in your deed, and what's in the recorded covenants? How else do they get the authority to charge you a fee if you own the property? And is it really .05 cents per foot per year? Even if that's supposed to be 5 cents per foot per year, it seems rather cheap.
 
Am I getting this right county airport but your house has its own driveway or taxiway? Sounds fairly unique and perhaps the county shouldn't charge anything but can probably charge whatever they want. Any airport hangar/office budings? If you are paying the same as them you are probably on the hook for it. Kids this is the stuff that happens when the govt builds your playgrounds.
 
Trying to get a little more info, but I sense you're hesitant to share it.

The ASN Rep should have already spoken to AOPA Legal, who are well-briefed in TTF issues.

My "from the hip" is that, to the extent the TTF properties are non-aviation use (eg, homes, not hangars), the fee is a discriminatory practice, and those violative of grant assurances (assuming it is a grant rights airport; if not, all bets off).
 
SCCutler said:
My "from the hip" is that, to the extent the TTF properties are non-aviation use (eg, homes, not hangars), the fee is a discriminatory practice, and those violative of grant assurances (assuming it is a grant rights airport; if not, all bets off).
Click to expand...

Eh? Doesn't appear to be discriminatory at all. The grant assurance says you can't treat legitimate aviation users differently. It appears this is working at parity with the on-field uses (other than possibly assessing the fee on the entire square footage, rather than just the aviation use).

Why should the on-field users subsidize his TTF use?
 
It'd be interesting to read the exact verbiage of the "deeded access."
 
flyingron said:
Eh? Doesn't appear to be discriminatory at all. The grant assurance says you can't treat legitimate aviation users differently. It appears this is working at parity with the on-field uses (other than possibly assessing the fee on the entire square footage, rather than just the aviation use).

Why should the on-field users subsidize his TTF use?
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like anyone is subsidizing anyone to me. it sounds like the on-field users are paying 5 cents for a land lease. This guy apparently owns his land and he likely paid for access when he bought it since the "deeds access" likely inflated the sales price.

Again, it'd be interesting to read the exact wording of the "deeded access." If it was originally sold off by the city/county as excess airport property then it'd be more interesting yet.
 
Last edited:
Absent knowing what his prior access agreement says, you can't make any such statements.

Paying for the deeded access on an ongoing basis is NOT uncommon in TTF activities. He may own the land his hangar is sitting on but the infrastructure to support his TTF activity goes beyond just paying for his land.
 
The fee should have a logical basis. The square footage of a house on private land doesn't seem to be a logical basis for the value of TTF access.
 
For those who are not familiar with the issue of RTTF at federally obligated airports, more information and background can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-16/pdf/2013-16917.pdf

As Ron mentioned, access fees are necessary to for an airport to meet its federal obligation to be "as self sustaining as possible". In essence, a RTTF user who flies in and out of the airport essentially gets to use the airport for free, while tie down tenants and hangar tenants pay for the privilege. As the revenue from tenants goes towards operating costs of the airport, the RTTF folks get to use the runways and taxiways without any costs whatsoever. Sort of like being based at a private airpark, but not having to contribute to the HOA responsible for mowing the grass and maintaining the runway.

Before you ask "don't the RTTF homeowners pay for it through aviation fuel taxes and real estate taxes?"...yes they do, but so does the guy who lives down the street and pays to hangar his aircraft. The idea is that hangar and tie down tenants shouldn't be subsidizing RTTF users on the other side of the runway.

I can't comment on whether the rate is fair, but if you refer to the FAA RTTF toolkit, there is guidance for airports on setting RTTF access rates. That's here: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/residential_through_the_fence/
 
I think it could be easily argued that, at many (most) airports, the TTF guy is subsidizing the on-field tenants and not the other way around.

At H88, I rented a nice new t-hangar with a power bi-fold door, electric and water for $125/mo, well below market value. That building is being subsidized by the taxpayers. The TTF guy payed 100% of his hangar and is doing the local taxpayers a favor.
 
hmmmm, interesting. I sense some hostility towards the TTF users of the airport. Jealousy?

"fair" has nothing to do with the situation. As the legally trained have commented, until the exact language of the deed and easement are known everything else is knee jerk opinion.
 
timwinters said:
I think it could be easily argued that, at many (most) airports, the TTF guy is subsidizing the on-field tenants and not the other way around.

At H88, I rented a nice new t-hangar with a power bi-fold door, electric and water for $125/mo, well below market value. That building is being subsidized by the taxpayers. The TTF guy payed 100% of his hangar and is doing the local taxpayers a favor.
Click to expand...

H88 is not a federally obligated airport.
 
$ 0.05 per square foot is a pretty sizable amount of money. For an acre, that's a couple of thousand dollars a year. But until you see what the deed says, we really can't tell whether it's proper or not.
 
Re: Through the Fence Access - How much do you pay?

topgun260 said:
I just received a certified letter from our Airport Board that outlines their new through the fence agreement. It includes a charge for my "access fee" of .05 cents per square foot of the footprint of my house, not just the hangar portion, per year. This is the same amount that they charge for hangar leases inside the fence. The initial agreement is for 5 years and may be renewed for 3 additional terms.

Is this similar to what all the rest of you are paying? Similar terms?
Click to expand...

Here's what FAA suggests for sponsors:

​
Requiring RTTF users to pay fees which are equal to tenant tie-down charges.

Establishing a fee for RTTF users that is based on the methodology used to establish tenant rates for land rental on the airport. For example, if on airport users pay 25 cents per square foot of land on which they build a hangar, RTTF users would pay a minimum of 25 cents per square foot of the land their off-airport hangar occupies.

Establishing a ground lease for dedicated taxiway connections to off airport properties.

Charging an assessment of capital costs for general infrastructure.

A local tax assessment or levy on off-airport aircraft owners that is dedicated to airport’s account.

A methodology which results in an RTTF user paying an access fee which is less than the fee charged to on-airport tenants and users making similar use of the airport may not be consistent with the law.


http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport...h_the_fence/media/RTTFRateSettingExamples.pdf
 
I would think that charging RTTFs a fee on their hangar space would be entirely reasonable for the subsidization issues mentioned above.

Charging the same square footage fee for their residential homes...not so much.
 
I could see a gate access fee regardless of the size of the hangar, lot, or house. But I think it's horse**** that it be based on size when none of the land is actually ON airport property.
 
EdFred said:
I could see a gate access fee regardless of the size of the hangar, lot, or house. But I think it's horse**** that it be based on size when none of the land is actually ON airport property.
Click to expand...

That would be an acceptable rate methodology as well, but the airport is looking at it from an opportunity cost basis. The airport likely doesn't want to compete with itself for access, creating a situation where a potential hangar builder would choose to go the RTTF route rather than build on airport property.

I'll also mention that for the airport, there are other downsides to RTTF (reasons of which motivated the FAA to restrict it prior to the 2012 Reauthorization bill which reinstated it). For federally obligated airports, nearby houses are generally not a good thing. They limit the ability of the airport to develop and expand. It's much easier for an airport to acquire agricultural or commercial land than buy out individual residences. Airport residents may complain about air traffic that they don't engage in, i.e. helicopters, flight training, 24 hour access, jets, etc. You'd think RTTF residents wouldn't complain about airport noise but they do.

RTTF owners also generally want a say in how the airport is developed. Often their interests are not consistent with the local aviation needs of the airport. I don't disagree...I wouldn't want to live next to an jet engine repair facility either. But it could happen...

...and there's no guarantee that RTTF residents will always be aviators. Housing markets change, demographics change, and todays pilot homeowners may be tomorrow's noise haters. There's no way to limit a person's constitutional right to complain. And those folks vote.

All that said, generally the best place to be a happy hangar home owner is be based at a privately owned airport. There are many such airports that receive no federal funding, but are public use, have instrument approaches, and might even get state money. And the homeowners have a say in how the airport is run, and can restrict operations as necessary.
 
EdFred said:
I could see a gate access fee regardless of the size of the hangar, lot, or house. But I think it's horse**** that it be based on size when none of the land is actually ON airport property.
Click to expand...

That could work too.

One burden you have, though, is showing some kind of equivalent contribution. If you charge $0.05/sq ft for on-field hangars, then you can at least show that you're charging at least equivalent to TTF.
 
Split land into two deeded properties, as is your right. Keep hangar and gate as current. Rest goes to new plot.
 
JeffDG said:
That could work too.

One burden you have, though, is showing some kind of equivalent contribution. If you charge $0.05/sq ft for on-field hangars, then you can at least show that you're charging at least equivalent to TTF.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the reason for a sq ft charge on airport property is because you are using the airport's limited land space. When on your own property it shouldn't matter if you have a 40x40, 60x60, or 100x100 hangar, all you're using is a 20'-30' taxiway to access the rest of the airport. Off airport property it shouldn't matter, it's your property, and whether you build a 40 60 or 100 foot hangar has zero impact on what remains usable on the airport owned property.
 
wsuffa said:
$ 0.05 per square foot is a pretty sizable amount of money. For an acre, that's a couple of thousand dollars a year. But until you see what the deed says, we really can't tell whether it's proper or not.
Click to expand...

OP said it was based on footprint, not lot size.
 
All else equal, the charge should be based upn the aviation-use portion only, or it is de facto discriminatory. The TTF operators must share their respective shares of airport expenses (at a rate no greater than the on-field folks), but the mere fact that property is adjacent to and has access to the airport, does not mean that the entire piece of land is aviation use.

Analogy: charge all on-field renters the same rate on their hangars, and require that they disclose the size of their residence and pay on that at the same rate.
 
I'm not really that upset about a use fee. What I am upset about is that the initial agreement they want me to sign is for 5 years and that it can only be renewed 3 more times. So I purchase this property with the deeded access in place, build my dream home/hangar, and now several years down the road they tell me my access will only be good for 20 more years. While that sounds like a long time guess what that does to resale value? Who wants a house next to the airport with at BIG garage?
 
Last edited:
JoeSelch said:
OP said it was based on footprint, not lot size.
Click to expand...

Oops, you're right. I'd bet that some folks are claiming the hangar portion is smaller than it is, and the house is larger than it is. This is a way the town thinks they can solve it.

topgun260 said:
I'm not really that upset about a use fee. What I am upset about is that the initial agreement they want me to sign is for 5 years and that it can only be renewed 3 more times. So I purchase this property with the deeded access in place, build my dream home/hangar, and now several years down the road they tell me my access will only be good for 20 more years. While that sounds like a long time guess what that does to resale value? Who wants a house next to the airport with at BIG garage?
Click to expand...

Let's make sure we understand. Is that an "option" to renew, or guaranteed renewal? Who's option - yours? theirs? mutual?

Such terms are not uncommon in the business world - for example, a cell phone operator that wants to put antennas on an existing tower might get a term of 20 years with two 10 year renewal options at the option of the cell company. Tower owner is obligated to renew.

In your case, 5 years with 3 five year renewals is pretty short. They really ought to be offering longer terms, but in the end they get to make the rules. If the money you pay is sufficient, they ought to want to strike a new deal at the end of 20 (unless federal grant money runs out...)
 
Ok, except I purchased this property with the deeded access in place and no clause or date that the right to access would cease. That they now want to charge me for it is one thing but to take it away in 20 years?
 
What's that I say about counting on the govt to build your sandboxes?
 
Re: Through the Fence Access - How much do you pay?

topgun260 said:
I just received a certified letter from our Airport Board that outlines their new through the fence agreement. It includes a charge for my "access fee" of .05 cents per square foot of the footprint of my house, not just the hangar portion, per year. This is the same amount that they charge for hangar leases inside the fence. The initial agreement is for 5 years and may be renewed for 3 additional terms.

Is this similar to what all the rest of you are paying? Similar terms?

You would think that they would have had a meeting with all the through the fence landowners to at least talk about what they were planning but they did not.
Click to expand...

Airport Boards come in two forms:


  • Appointed by the local elected political officials having jurisdiction over the airport (i.e. the City Council if the airport is within the city limits, County Commissioners/Supervisors if the airport is in the unincorporated area of the county ...
  • Elected by the electorate of the jurisdiction in which the airport resides. Sometimes airports form special districts that have different rules as to how the Board is elected.
I'll bet the thought of bugging your local elected representative to be appointed if appointed or running for the Board yourself if elected never crossed your mind, did it?


"It doesnt' matter if you have no interest in politics, politics has a real interest in you." (Plato)


Jim
8 years on the Board of Supervisors.
Appointed 2 Airport COmmissioners in that time.
 
Brad Z said:
H88 is not a federally obligated airport.
Click to expand...

Missouri is a block grant state...so no, H88 isn't "directly" federally obligated but, for all intents and purposes, it is. Purse strings come with those block grants and MoDot wields the same stick.
 
Airport Boards come in two forms:


  • Appointed by the local elected political officials having jurisdiction over the airport (i.e. the City Council if the airport is within the city limits, County Commissioners/Supervisors if the airport is in the unincorporated area of the county ...
  • Elected by the electorate of the jurisdiction in which the airport resides. Sometimes airports form special districts that have different rules as to how the Board is elected.
I'll bet the thought of bugging your local elected representative to be appointed if appointed or running for the Board yourself if elected never crossed your mind, did it?


"It doesnt' matter if you have no interest in politics, politics has a real interest in you." (Plato)


Jim
8 years on the Board of Supervisors.
Appointed 2 Airport COmmissioners in that time.
Click to expand...

Actually I have considered being on the board but I didn't know how to go about being selected or even knowing when there was a vacancy.

You seem very knowledgeable about this, is it normal for a board to make major policy changes like this without at least notifying the affected parties and having an open meeting for comments?
 
So what happens if you don't sign it?
Click to expand...

The way I read the agreement if I don't sign and pay the agreement is terminated.
 
If there is no agreement, do they have the power to deny you access? It may be that your present access just gets continued if you don't sign. I don't know. Are you operating under an previous agreement now?
 
topgun260 said:
Actually I have considered being on the board but I didn't know how to go about being selected or even knowing when there was a vacancy.

You seem very knowledgeable about this, is it normal for a board to make major policy changes like this without at least notifying the affected parties and having an open meeting for comments?
Click to expand...

This is exactly why you need to become involved in local politics. Attend thier meetings every month. They should be announced in advance. You learn a lot this way including how you can go after a seat on the airport commision or governing body. This is what I did at our local airport and after a year was able to procure a seat on the commission. Even if you just sit quietly and listen you will learn a lot about what actually goes on. They will have a public comment period which will allow you to voice your thoughts.
 
timwinters said:
Missouri is a block grant state...so no, H88 isn't "directly" federally obligated but, for all intents and purposes, it is. Purse strings come with those block grants and MoDot wields the same stick.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I looked at the FAA form 5010 but missed that it was in Missouri, a block grant state. In that case, if the hangars are leased below the aeronautical market rate, then the airport sponsor is charging too little. Airports are supposed to be as self sustaining as possible.
 
topgun260 said:
Ok, except I purchased this property with the deeded access in place and no clause or date that the right to access would cease. That they now want to charge me for it is one thing but to take it away in 20 years?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone can adequately address your concerns without reviewing the documents that you believe grant you an easement to access the airport. You must not have an unrestricted easement if an additional agreement and payment is required for access. But there may be limits on what steps the airport can take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top