A tentative deal for the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport to sell about 30 acres of land to neighboring New College of Florida was denied earlier this month by federal aviation authorities, who cited a slew of problems with the proposal.
In a five-page letter, the FAA, which has the power to approve or deny sales of airport land, questioned why an airport which describes itself as “the fastest growing in the country” would want to sell any of its land.
“The FAA does not believe the proposal demonstrates a benefit to civil aviation or the national airspace system, other than providing for some operational income that may fund undisclosed aeronautical development,” it said in a letter dated April 10.
The FAA also found major issues with the deal, including a sale price that appeared below fair market value, a faulty appraisal, and a residential use of airport land that was never approved to begin with.
John Schussler, a retired airport properties manager in Sarasota, has raised questions about the deal in recent months, including its low cost and why the airport appeared to be catering to the interests of New College, rather than the airport itself.
“When one political party controls state government, with super majorities in the state senate and house, and has the governorship, Attorney General, and Secretary of State, predictable overreach can occur,” said Schussler.
The failed airport deal is “just an example of this political overreach,” he added. “This is a national problem. It describes Republican-controlled government in Florida. But it also describes Democrat-controlled government in Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington and other states.”
The boards of New College and the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport Authority, which each approved the deal, are appointed by the governor. Some were appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis, others by his predecessor Rick Scott.
Airport CEO Rick Piccolo has denied any political influence.
“The airport does not agree with this initial determination and will pursue further discussions on this matter,” Piccolo said in an email last week, declining further comment.
Peter Kirsch, an aviation lawyer in Denver familiar with such deals, said while it does happen, it’s unusual for airports to sell land to begin with.
"Selling property to a college is probably even more unusual,” said Kirsch.
"The FAA' s job is to make sure that when they approve a transaction like this, that it is good for the airport,” said Kirsch.
“Whether it's good for New College is not relevant. Whether it's good for the community, whether it's good for economic development, none of those are relevant considerations,” he added.
New College has leased the land for decades, and has dormitories, a swimming pool, green space and game fields there. The 99-year lease is scheduled to end in 2056.
New College was recently the subject of a takeover by conservative allies of DeSantis who want to transform it into an institution akin to Hillsdale College in Michigan, with a strong Christian, classical focus.
Here are the main problems with the proposed sale, according to the FAA:
1. College use ‘not compatible’ with airport and may pose risks
“The college contains elements that likely are incompatible with airport operations, such as residential, educational, recreational, and water retention areas that could attract wildlife, which may pose a risk to aviation safety,” said the FAA letter.
New College maintains part of its campus on leased airport property, across the street (Tamiami Trail) from its other classrooms and buildings near the Gulf of Mexico.
There are 15 facilities, constructed between 1965 and 2007, with about 300,000 square feet of space in all, according to the FAA.
Student housing was never supposed be allowed there in the first place, according to federal aviation authorities.
“It appears the land leased to New College was converted from aeronautical use to nonaeronautical educational/residential use without FAA consent,” said the FAA letter.
The FAA also noted that “FAA guidance requires all airport properties to be zoned Airport/Light Industrial, consistent with federal grant assurances.”
Asked for comment on this portion of the letter, Schussler said the FAA is “basically slapping the hands of the airport authority, saying ’you shouldn’t have done that,” but said the FAA would not likely seek to undo the current lease.
2. ‘Fastest growing airport in country?’ Master plan outdated
The FAA noted that SRQ airport described itself as “the fastest growing airport in the country with $200,000,000 of development planned. However, the actual capital improvement needs and proposed projects have not been clearly defined by the Authority.”
The airport authority had argued that the $11.5 million revenue from the sale would save $18 million over the next 30 years in interest from municipal bonds to fund “needed aeronautical development.”
The airport also argued it would not need the land, anyway.
However, the FAA pointed out that airport master plan “is thought to be at least 6 years old and is expected to be outdated, especially in light of the sponsor’s assertions they are the fastest growing airport in the country.”
3. Problems with appraisal
From flaws with comparable properties chosen, to the slice of land that was actually appraised, the FAA pointed to a series of problems with the appraisal on the land.
“It appears the appraisal was conducted for only 8.85(+-) acres of airport property instead of the expected 30.94(+-) acres,” it said.
It also found that the “comparable sales” noted were for a self-storage facility 40 miles away, as well as land zoned “open use/rural” and a residential multifamily development, among others.
“These comparable sales are not thought to be similar to the highest and best use of this property,” the FAA said.
“Further, the appraisal appears to be out of scope and missing certain information, and not an unrestricted appraisal as required by federal guidance. In fact, it appears the appraiser only reviewed the latest and very abbreviated lease assignment document and not the lease in its totality (rates and charges not discussed in the agreement, for example).”
4. Fair market value concerns
The FAA pointed to concerns about the proposed fair market value of the property, a key element in the deal.
The airport authority “indicates the annual lease rate for New College is $108,072, but the authority’s proposal also indicates the fair market value of the property is $1,289,245 per year,” said the FAA.
“However, the proposal also indicates that if the land is leased for compatible nonaeronautical use at fair market value over the next 32+ years, a net benefit of $37,797,536 would be gained. Therefore, it appears a greater benefit results from retaining the property.”
FAA guidelines state that surplus property “should not be released unless there is no greater benefit from retaining the property.”
5. Lease rate issues: ‘Unlawful airport revenue diversion’
Furthermore, the 99-year lease also “appears to place the airport in conflict with federal grant assurances,” said the FAA.
Since the lease does not allow for a re-appraisal of the land or rate escalation, that could “constitute ongoing unlawful airport revenue diversion... in the form of extremely low rent.”
6. Political firestorm ahead?
In an interview with WUSF in February, Piccolo foresaw a political firestorm ahead if the deal did not go through.
“The other issue is one of, even if we wanted to take back the land 30 years from now, for a purpose that was different than what New College was, there'd be a hell of a fight with the state,” Piccolo said.
“And the state may say, ‘Well, wait a second, we're going to invoke eminent domain.’ There's no sense to this political fight and it's not our desire to destroy the university,” he added.
The FAA dismissed concerns that New College may not want to vacate the land at the end of the lease term in the 2050s, and might not be able to pay full price for it at that time, either.
“If evicted at the end of the agreement (and potentially before) the Authority fears the college will initiate costly litigation and/or eminent domain processes that could cause significant political problems. However, it is unclear why the Airport could not lawfully reclaim airport property at the end of a lease,” said the FAA.
7. “Land swap” useless
Another element of the deal that Piccolo said was a benefit to the airport was a land swap that would protect runway access. Known as an “avigation easement,” it restricts development of an area in perpetuity.
The deal would have restricted development on several acres of New College land near the airport.
Piccolo said in his interview with WUSF in February that was necessary and “a big deal” because New College, “under state law, they don't have to follow certain zoning and permitting requirements that would allow them to build… Under this agreement, they will not be allowed to develop in that area.”
However, the FAA said the swap was unnecessary.
The “avigation easements that are proposed to be obtained in exchange for the land sale will enhance the Runway Protection Zone safety for Runway 4," the FAA said.
"However, the Agency believes the airport should already have local zoning protections in place to assure this.”
