During last week's airport commission meeting four people reasonably knowledgeable about airport issues struggled to come to a decision about what constitutes an appropriate through-the-fence (TTF) access fee to Creswell's Hobby Field airport.

The fee amount is important because a determination by Federal Aviation Administration officials that it is too low to provide "parity with on-airport users" could jeopardize existing and future federal funding for airport improvements.

The FAA is opposed to TTF access, presumably because of two issues.

First, residential development near airports has in the past and continues to lead to eventual closure of those airports due to pressure from nearby residents who object to the noise inevitably associated with airport operations.

Second, airport security concerns after the terrorist attacks via commercial aircraft of September 11, 2001 have led government officials to urge increased security at all airports, even small general aviation fields such as Creswell's.

It is conceivable that in the not-too-distant future, Hobby Field will be required to be completely fenced with access only through a gated checkpoint. TTF access might well be closed off.

FAA officials have told the city that both the single existing TTF access and the second TTF access under negotiation may continue for the present without jeopardizing federal airport funding, as long as certain requirements are met, including the following.

The city must submit a corrective action plan that prevents any future TTF access to incompatible land uses [i.e. private residences with hangars]; the city's plan must ensure that upon the sale, transfer or assignments of the two homes that have or are projected to have TTF access, such access would be permanently terminated; and the city must ensure that the access fee is at parity with those charged on-airport users.

It is the ambiguity of the last requirement that presents a problem. Just what would constitute parity?

Conversations with FAA Regional Compliance Program Manager Joelle Briggs indicate that many airports charge 115 percent or more of their lowest hangar rates to TTF applicants. At Hobby Field, the lowest hangar fee is $61.73 per month; 115 percent of that would be $70.98 per month.

As far back as October 2007, city council members were considering a TTF access fee of $50 per month. However, airport commission members allowed themselves to be distracted by oral and written testimony from several airport users, all of whom urged commissioners to calculate the fee based on widely disparate methodologies.

The city has been tasked with arriving at a fee that would be defensible should one or more on-airport users file a complaint with the FAA alleging lack of parity; the two TTF access users have no standing with the FAA to file such a complaint.

Understandably, commissioners may be uncomfortable recommending a TTF access fee substantially higher than that charged previously. However, the $35 they voted to recommend to the city council does not appear to meet FAA requirements.

Faced with the final decision as to the amount of the TTF fee to be charged, city council members should not allow the various methods of calculating such a fee to distract them from the FAA's directive.

According to Briggs, a $70.98 monthly fee should protect the city, $50, while low, might skate through, but $35 appears to be inadequate.

Councilors should not place city taxpayers at risk to benefit two individuals, neither of whom reside within the city limits or pay city taxes.

Helen Hollyer