Board debates ground-lease rate increases, fuel-flowage revenue and hangar policy to reduce city subsidies
April 12, 2025 | Regional Airport Board Meetings, Guthrie, Logan County, Oklahoma
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Airport staff used the board’s April meeting to outline airport revenue performance and options to boost ground-lease income, proposing a formal rates-and-charges policy and updated lease language to reduce dependence on general-fund transfers from Guthrie and Edmond.
The director presented a quarterly fuel flowage report showing that Jet A accounted for roughly 42–54% of first-quarter fuel sales and said fuel-flowage fee collections rose markedly between 2023 and 2024. The director described the fee structure as “10¢ on all fuel at delivery and then an extra 10¢ at the 100 low lead self-serve tank.” The presentation also noted a 23% decrease in collections for the most recent quarter, which staff attributed to timing of fuel deliveries at the FBO and to weather-related drops in operations.
On ground-lease revenue, staff reported fiscal year 2024 expenditures of about $287,000 and total revenues of roughly $87,000, covering “a little over 30%” of expenditures. Anticipated hangar ground-lease receipts for the current year were about $66,000, with a portion pledged to pay a GPWA loan on utilities for the corporate hangar development area. Staff said when the loan is paid off, the airport will retain more of that revenue.
To increase revenue, staff proposed several policy options: amend renewal-option language in leases so renewal rights are mutual (allowing the airport to assess tenant activity and fuel purchases at renewal), adopt standard rates and charges in a board- and council-approved document, and consider modest application/development fees to demonstrate proponent seriousness. Staff emphasized the need to balance any rate increases so as not to discourage new aviation development.
Staff presented two modeled scenarios to illustrate fiscal impacts if the airport set flat ground-lease rates across the board: a 25¢ per square foot scenario projected roughly $120,000 in revenue (covering about 40% of expenditures), and a 50¢ scenario projected roughly $240,000 (covering a larger share, described in the presentation as about 81% in the model). Staff cautioned these were illustrative and said the board could phase changes rather than apply a single, large increase.
Board members pressed staff on tenant impacts. One board member noted that higher rates typically encourage some inactive leaseholders to vacate; another asked whether the airport had compared peer rates. Staff said local surveys and an annual survey produced by a Max Westheimer program could help benchmark regional rates; Wylie Post Airport was mentioned as charging substantially higher rates (around 70¢ to $1.00 per square foot). Staff said the airport’s current ground-lease rates range from 10¢ (older leases) to 24¢ (recent leases).
Staff also identified specific near-term lease-management items: two hangars currently scheduled to revert to airport control in coming years (leaseholders named in the meeting: Morty Duke and Gail Braden), the need to decide whether the airport will re-lease those hangars or accept buildings back and manage them, and planning for capacity if multiple hangars revert at once. Exact expiration years were not specified in the discussion.
Board members discussed options to address non-aeronautical uses and “hangar queens” — aircraft kept but not flown regularly — including measurement methods (Hobbs meter or tracking landings/takeoffs via tail numbers). Staff said minimum standards and the airport’s new tracking software can provide utilization data and that non-aeronautical storage should be assessed at fair market value.
Other operations notes included an update on the corporate hangar development area (about 6–8 acres currently; staff estimated $15,000–$20,000 annual additional revenue once a loan is paid and land/control is fully in the airport’s name) and runway/apron project planning that will not require demolition of an identified nearby hangar under the current terminal plan.
Next steps staff proposed were: begin drafting a rates-and-charges policy for board and council review; develop standardized lease language with legal counsel and coordinate with both Guthrie and Edmond; and pursue adjacent property acquisition and hangar development as longer-term revenue strategies.
The director presented a quarterly fuel flowage report showing that Jet A accounted for roughly 42–54% of first-quarter fuel sales and said fuel-flowage fee collections rose markedly between 2023 and 2024. The director described the fee structure as “10¢ on all fuel at delivery and then an extra 10¢ at the 100 low lead self-serve tank.” The presentation also noted a 23% decrease in collections for the most recent quarter, which staff attributed to timing of fuel deliveries at the FBO and to weather-related drops in operations.
On ground-lease revenue, staff reported fiscal year 2024 expenditures of about $287,000 and total revenues of roughly $87,000, covering “a little over 30%” of expenditures. Anticipated hangar ground-lease receipts for the current year were about $66,000, with a portion pledged to pay a GPWA loan on utilities for the corporate hangar development area. Staff said when the loan is paid off, the airport will retain more of that revenue.
To increase revenue, staff proposed several policy options: amend renewal-option language in leases so renewal rights are mutual (allowing the airport to assess tenant activity and fuel purchases at renewal), adopt standard rates and charges in a board- and council-approved document, and consider modest application/development fees to demonstrate proponent seriousness. Staff emphasized the need to balance any rate increases so as not to discourage new aviation development.
Staff presented two modeled scenarios to illustrate fiscal impacts if the airport set flat ground-lease rates across the board: a 25¢ per square foot scenario projected roughly $120,000 in revenue (covering about 40% of expenditures), and a 50¢ scenario projected roughly $240,000 (covering a larger share, described in the presentation as about 81% in the model). Staff cautioned these were illustrative and said the board could phase changes rather than apply a single, large increase.
Board members pressed staff on tenant impacts. One board member noted that higher rates typically encourage some inactive leaseholders to vacate; another asked whether the airport had compared peer rates. Staff said local surveys and an annual survey produced by a Max Westheimer program could help benchmark regional rates; Wylie Post Airport was mentioned as charging substantially higher rates (around 70¢ to $1.00 per square foot). Staff said the airport’s current ground-lease rates range from 10¢ (older leases) to 24¢ (recent leases).
Staff also identified specific near-term lease-management items: two hangars currently scheduled to revert to airport control in coming years (leaseholders named in the meeting: Morty Duke and Gail Braden), the need to decide whether the airport will re-lease those hangars or accept buildings back and manage them, and planning for capacity if multiple hangars revert at once. Exact expiration years were not specified in the discussion.
Board members discussed options to address non-aeronautical uses and “hangar queens” — aircraft kept but not flown regularly — including measurement methods (Hobbs meter or tracking landings/takeoffs via tail numbers). Staff said minimum standards and the airport’s new tracking software can provide utilization data and that non-aeronautical storage should be assessed at fair market value.
Other operations notes included an update on the corporate hangar development area (about 6–8 acres currently; staff estimated $15,000–$20,000 annual additional revenue once a loan is paid and land/control is fully in the airport’s name) and runway/apron project planning that will not require demolition of an identified nearby hangar under the current terminal plan.
Next steps staff proposed were: begin drafting a rates-and-charges policy for board and council review; develop standardized lease language with legal counsel and coordinate with both Guthrie and Edmond; and pursue adjacent property acquisition and hangar development as longer-term revenue strategies.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Oklahoma articles free in 2025
