Airport(s):
San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
Abstract:
The FAA reviewed preliminary estimates of expenditures made from airport funds for the construction of a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station at San Francisco International Airport and the purchase of certain equipment for that station.|All uses of airport revenues are subject to audit to ensure expenditures are consistent with the requirements of Grant Assurance 25 and compliance with Grant Assurance 25 depends not on estimated amounts but on actual costs finally expended. (p. 3).|Ownership of facilities funded with airport revenue:|"For capital costs that cannot be considered capital costs of the Airport itself, Airport revenue may only be used for facilities owned or operated by the Airport sponsor." (p. 4).|Proration of costs:|"Costs of an item that is only partly airport-related are generally ineligible for AIP or PFC funding. However, the airport-related portion of the costs may be eligible for the use of Airport revenues on a prorated basis." (p. 5).|Construction costs:|Construction costs involving improvements to the existing airport international terminal were airport capital costs eligible for use of airport revenue. (p. 5).|The cost of the Link Building, a new structure connecting the existing international terminal to the new BART station located entirely on the Airport, was directly and substantially related to air transportation and eligible for the use of airport revenue. (pp. 5-6).|The cost of the Airport Rapid Transit (ART), a closed-system people mover contained on the Airport and operated by the sponsor, was an airport capital cost eligible for use of airport revenue. (p. 6).|Transit stations within the airport boundary necessary to connect to the BART and exclusively serving the Airport were eligible for AIP grants and PFC collection as long as the Airport sponsor owned and operated the funded facility. (p. 6).|Airport revenue was eligible for the construction costs of the BART/ART station, because the construction primarily, if not exclusively, served airport passengers, was within the airport boundary, was necessary to connect the Airport to the subway system, and was directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers. (p. 6).|The BART/ART guideway from the subway station to the west boundary of Highway 101 could be funded with airport revenue for the portions of the structure on Airport property. (pp. 6-7).|The portion of the BART/ART guideway from the subway station to the west boundary of Highway 101 crossing over the highway was not "off the airport" for purposes of airport expenditures since both sides of the highway were on the Airport and could be funded by airport revenue, although the Airport sponsor was required to acquire a property interest over the right-of-way sufficient to assure that access to the Airport via the BART system was protected. (p. 7).|The systems elements needed to install and operate the airport extension of the BART were not capital or operating costs of the airport and could therefore be funded by airport revenue only if the facilities were owned or operated by the Airport owner or operator and directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property. (p. 7).|Certain equipment associated with operating systems could be funded by airport revenue if the Airport owned the systems equipment to be funded, the equipment was installed on the Airport or on the adjacent Highway 101 right-of-way with an agreement for continued airport access, and airport funding of the equipment was limited to the portion of the equipment related to the Airport station and not the BART main line. (pp. 7-8).|Programming and labor on the installation related to bringing the airport subway station on line would be eligible for airport revenue funding as part of the costs of the airport subway station, but new software or equipment installed at the central computer location not owned or operated by the Airport was not eligible for airport funding. (p. 8).|To the extent that extra costs incurred on the mainline portion of the BART extension was necessitated by the airport station project, the costs would be eligible for airport funding, but materials used resulting in improvements to the main line not owned or operated by the Airport could not be funded with airport revenue. (p. 8).|Costs of static and dynamic integration/pre-revenue testing and start-up shown to be attributable to the addition of the airport subway station to the BART system were eligible for funding with airport revenue. (p. 9).|The labor costs of bringing the airport station on line were eligible for funding with airport revenue. (p. 9).
Index Terms:
Airport Revenues (Grant Assurance 25)|Revenue diversion|Transit system|Audit|Capital costs