Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 Detailed Performance Measure Summaries This chapter outlines specific PMs (both influencing measures and reporting measures) being tracked across the country. The PMs are organized by general functional areas, and the discus- sions contain additional detail and subtopics, where appropriate, to further organize the PMs for review. The six functional areas are noted in Figure 4.1, with the subtopics and specific PMs summarized in the following pages. The functional areas are organized based on the fre- quency with which the area appeared in the research, meaning that topics related to airport PMs appeared the most, while topics related to economic impact appeared the least. Figure 4.1 also illustrates six icons that are used throughout the chapter to assist in quickly identifying the functional areas and related PMs. C H A P T E R 4 Icons and Associated Functional Area Functional Area Icon Airport Related Funding Related Project Related Flight Department and Drone Related Education Related Return on Investment and Economic Impact Related Figure 4.1. Icons and associated functional area. During the review of the specific PMs, it was found that many of the metrics could fall into more than one functional area or subtopic. To avoid repetition, those metrics have only been listed in the functional area where they are most likely relevant. Individual state aviation agen- cies should determine the appropriate designation for each PM within their own performance management system. Each summary is identified by a banner that includes the functional area, and a smaller, stand- alone banner is provided for the subtopic (where applicable) and the specific PM. Additionally, the functional area’s corresponding icon is found in the banner to aid the reader in quickly identifying and searching for PMs by functional area. A sample of the banners is shown at the top of the next page.

20 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies Airport-Related PMs Inspections Tall Structures and Zoning • FAA 5010 airport inspections • Height zoning • FAA 5010 corrective actions • Land use zoning • Staffing concerns for airport inspections • Permits received • State airport operating certificates Airport Security Plans • Perimeter fencing • Airport business plans • U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Airport emergency response plans • Wildlife fencing • Airport layout plans Airport Pavement Condition • Airport marketing plans • Annual maintenance • Airport master plans • Benchmark • Airport minimum standards • PCI Studies • • Airport rules and regulations Enplanements/Cargo • Airport security plans • Passenger enplanements • Department of Transportation (DOT) transpor- tation plans Cargo tonnage • Snow removal plans Air Service • Wildlife hazard management plans • Air service development Operations • Effectiveness of funds • Aircraft fuel options • Annual aircraft operations • Backup generators for airfield movement area surfaces • Clear approaches • Collection of traffic counts • Emergency disaster relief • Precision and non-precision approaches • Weather reporting capabilities Funding Related Federal Funding State Funding • Block grants • FAA Airport Improvement Program match • Capital improvement program funding • State funding requested • Federal funds • State grants • Rollover of funds • State/local projects • Transfer of non-primary entitlement funds • State programmed amounts Table 4.1. The functional categories and subtopics discussed in this chapter. FUNCTIONAL AREA Subtopic – Performance Measure The functional categories and subtopics contained in this chapter are those listed in Table 4.1. Also included are the specific PMs highlighted in each section.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 21 Flight Department and Drone Related Flight Departments Internal Department Drone Use • Accident rate • Accidents/incidents • Age of aircraft versus operating costs • Education outreach • Aircraft maintenance • Equipment requests • Flight hours • Information processing • Flights completed versus flights requested • Missions for drones • Hourly rate • Operation time • Maintenance and insurance costs • Resources External Use/Public Use of Drones • Accidents/incidents • Registered drones • Requested drone operations Education Related • Connections/participants • Funding • Dedicated staff times • Grant requests versus funding • Education events • Participants in education events Return on Investment and Economic Impact Related • Air cargo value/tonnage • Leveraging federal funding with state funding • Airport system • Payroll • Aviation jobs • Revenue • Cost per enplanement • Tax generation • Employment Project Related • Closeouts • Invoices • Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) pro- gram goals • Number of projects • Encumbered versus non-encumbered funds • Project cost • FAA priority rating code • Project time • Grants versus projects • Time to solicit projects • Individual project process • Total time Table 4.1. (Continued). AIRPORT-RELATED PMs 4.1 Airport Related This section defines and explains the PMs that are traditionally related to airports and are important for agencies to track. Agencies may be required to give updates to legislative leaders on the status of their respective statewide system of public-use airports. Specifically, the text in this section addresses these subtopics: • Inspections, • Plans, • Operations, • Tall structures and zoning,

22 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies • Airport security, • Airport pavement condition, • Enplanements/cargo, and • Air service. Inspections This subtopic focuses on measuring an agency’s ability to conduct airport inspections to meet either FAA requirements or, in some instances, state requirements (and sometimes both). This may apply to either agency-conducted inspections or inspections contracted through a third party. Additionally, common themes potentially identified through the inspection process could be summarized, and steps to address or mitigate them on a broader scale could be identified. An agency may measure these to demonstrate how frequently airports are reviewed for compliance or to demonstrate the need for staff to conduct the required inspections. Additional summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • FAA 5010 airport inspections, • FAA 5010 corrective actions, • Staffing concerns for airport inspections, and • State airport operating certificates. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Inspections – FAA 5010 Airport Inspections FAA 5010 airport inspections are conducted to ensure that airports are meeting safety standards put in place and to draw attention to any areas of noncompliance. To meet the statutory requirements of FAA 5010 inspections, it is important for agencies to track and monitor the progress of airport inspections, which can be done by tracking the number of airport inspections conducted. Since the agency usually has control over this function, this makes this PM an influencing measure. Due to system size and the number of available inspectors, agencies may need to take different approaches to conducting the inspections. For example, some agencies have such a large system of airports that they have set a target of having all airports inspected every 3 years, while others with smaller systems may conduct annual reviews. By reviewing this measure monthly or quarterly, an agency can determine if it is on target to complete inspections on schedule or can shift resources to increase inspec- tion rates during the year. An aggregate PM is likely used to assess the ability to conduct the inspections annually. In some cases, this target is not necessarily set by the agency, but by a different governing authority. An example of this is in Mississippi, where the state legislature passed legislation that requires the Mississippi Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division to annually complete FAA 5010 airport inspections at the 69 public-use airports in the state. Additionally, it requires the Aeronautics Division to report on the number of airports passing their inspections annually. As shown in Figure 4.2, 100 percent of airports passed their most recent inspection, and all 69 were inspected. The Aeronautics Division is required to report the degree to which the performance targets are being met to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 23 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Inspections – FAA 5010 Corrective Actions Results from FAA 5010 airport inspections may help identify deficiencies or corrective actions that system airports need to address. If the necessary steps to address these issues are not taken, airport safety and the airport’s funding or operation status may be affected. For this reason, an agency may consider tracking the timeliness of an airport completing corrective actions following an inspection. Tracking this information and ensuring that the corrective actions have been completed are common goals of agencies that can enhance the safety of the system. In most cases, this is a reporting measure since the agency does not have direct influence over airport corrective actions. However, in cases where the agency is the sponsor of the airport, this may be an influencing measure. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) Aviation and Airports Group tracks a PM related to this topic. By tracking this PM, the Aviation and Airports Group ensures that inspection deficiencies previously identified are being addressed. Based on the corrective actions identified, the group may also gain valuable data to inform capital project programming for future airport capital infrastructure. Since the DOT&PF owns and operates many of these airports, this is an influencing measure for the agency. Inspections – Staffing Concerns for Airport Inspections Agencies are consistently challenged to cover staffing for the completion of key functions and responsibilities, including FAA 5010 airport inspections. By tracking the number of airport inspections completed by dedicated airport inspectors, an agency may gain insight into whether staffing needs are being met. Tracking this element and assessing the agency’s ability to meet its goals for conducting inspections may shine a light on a need to reallocate resources if the PM is not being met. Conversely, not meeting the PM may indicate that the agency must assess whether it needs to revise the target for the PM to better address the staffing level that is avail- able to conduct the inspections. It is worth noting that some agencies contract the completion of inspections to private companies, which may be another solution to staffing issues. Source: Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2017. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Airports Inspected Airports Passing Inspection 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Figure 4.2. Number of Mississippi airports passing inspections.

24 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies As noted in the discussion of the previous PM, an agency may need to consider conducting the inspections on a rotating basis to account for staffing requirements. As an example, the state of Michigan has 226 public-use airports that it inspects for state licensing, as well as just under 100 for FAA 5010 inspections. It attempts to inspect all of these airports on a 3-year, rotating basis with a staff of approximately three inspectors. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Inspections – State Airport Operating Certificates Several agencies throughout the country issue annual airport operating certificates (or licenses) for their system airports. The issuance of this certificate may be based on the results of FAA 5010 airport inspections or other state-specific licensing criteria. Since the criteria related to this licensure/certification may be separate from the inspection process, an agency may want to track the number of airport operating certificates that are issued to airports in the system. Issuance of these licenses/certificates may be based on payment of a license fee or may be tied to airport inspection results—the basis may vary widely between agencies. The reason for tracking this as a PM is that it may indicate the number of licensed/certificated airports within the state. If changes are noted in the number, either trending up or down, investigation may be needed to address what is causing the changes and to determine if some- thing needs to be done at the agency level to address them. Since the request to obtain or maintain an operating certificate would usually be submitted by the airport, this is typically a reporting measure. However, if the certification is tied to the compliance with an airport inspection, it may also be an influencing measure. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans This subtopic focuses on tracking the status of various planning documents for system airports. There are instances where some of these plans are required to be completed and updated periodically to ensure receipt of FAA or state funding for an airport sponsor or agency; in other instances, the plans are only recommendations. There are a number of plans that agencies may recommend or require an airport to develop and use to guide its operations. As a part of developing a PM related to a specific plan, an agency may wish to develop a template or guide that airports can use to assist them in their develop- ment and to encourage and support meeting the PM. Developing these types of documents can often be a challenge, especially for smaller airports, since their resources are usually limited, and the applicability of the specific plan may be limited to these individual airports. As noted in Chapter 3, this is where assessing the relevance of some PMs to different categories or classifica- tions of airports may be appropriate. Some of these plans, as noted, may be required to address safety or operational activities, while others may be recommended to support the operation/ organization of an airport to maintain or increase utility. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Airport business plans, • Airport emergency response plans, • Airport layout plans,

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 25 • Airport marketing plans, • Airport master plans, • Airport minimum standards, • Airport rules and regulations, • Airport security plans, • DOT transportation plans, • Snow removal plans, and • Wildlife hazard management plans. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Airport Business Plans An agency may want to encourage system airports to develop an airport business plan to enhance their financial viability and increase the impacts of aviation on state economics. An agency may decide to measure the number or percentage of airports that have an up-to-date business plan. Due to the varying sizes of airports across a system, this measure may only look at those of a certain size or role. Since completion of an airport business plan is up to the individual airports, this is typically a reporting measure. Plans – Airport Emergency Response Plans FAA Part 139–certificated airports are required to have an airport emergency response plan as part of their Part 139 airport certification manual. General aviation airports, while encour- aged to have one, are not necessarily required to have a formal airport emergency response plan. Because of this difference, this PM is a prime example of where assessment of the PM may be most effective if categories of airports are used to exclude from the assessment those airports that are not applicable to the goal of the PM. This is generally a reporting measure for the agency since it does not contract them, even though they are a requirement for Part 139 airports. An example from the Kansas Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, illustrates how it uses the Kansas Aviation System Plan to track airports that have adopted an emergency response plan (see Figure 4.3). An airport either meets the benchmark by adopting a plan or does not if the airport does not adopt a plan; however, the agency is only assessing three of its categories of airports. This demonstrates that only 47 percent of the airports that should have adopted an emergency response plan are meeting this benchmark. This example demonstrates the use of the classification discussed in Chapter 3 with regard to reporting showing 100 percent of commercial service airports meeting the benchmark, while 52.9 percent of regional and 100 percent of business airports do not. Source: Burns & McDonnell and CDM Smith, 2016. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 47.1% 100% 100% 52.9% B U S I N E S S R E G I O N A L C O M M E R C I A L S E R V I C E Meets Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark Figure 4.3. NPIAS airports with an adopted emergency response plan.

26 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Airport Layout Plans An ALP is a useful tool that graphically depicts an airport’s existing and planned development. As with the previously discussed planning PM, this is typically a reporting measure. For federally obligated airports, an airport sponsor is required to have an ALP that is kept up to date. There are a number of ways that an agency may be able to use the information gained from tracking the number or percentage of airports with a current ALP. First, it can use that data to remind sponsors of their need to update their plans. It can use the data to support annual capital programming by identifying those airports that may need an update and when that should be programmed to take place. Projects that are expected to be paid for with federal funds must be included in a current ALP. Therefore, to maintain eligibility, it is important for agencies to ensure that ALPs are adequately documenting upcoming projects. Consequently, an agency that tracks this measure may ensure that eligible system airports identify important capital infrastruc- ture projects on their respective ALPs for leveraging federal funding and matching state shares. As part of its aviation system plan, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities identified as a PM the percentage of airports with ALPs that were less than 10 years old. Although this PM was tracked, the agency did not set a specific target percentage that it wanted to meet, but instead simply reported an overall percentage in each of three classifications: less than 10 years old, more than 10 years old, and no ALP. The resulting data are shown in Table 4.2 and are sorted by regional, community, and local NPIAS airports. Class ALP Less Than 10 Years Old ALP Older Than 10 Years Old No ALP Regional 96% 4% 0% Community 70% 19% 11% Local NPIAS 49% 21% 30% Total 67% 18% 15% Source: WHPACIFIC, Inc., 2011. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.2. Alaska airports with ALPs. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Airport Marketing Plans As agencies highlight the economic importance of aviation and airports to legislative leaders, it is important that system airports strive to maximize aeronautical and non-aeronautical development at their respective facilities, which is often achieved with a marketing plan. Because of this, an agency may track the number or percentage of airports that have developed an airport marketing plan. This is a reporting measure. This topic could also generate other PMs, such as the number or percentage of airports working with local economic development agencies to market their airport, or a PM focused on the amount of area an airport may have available for development purposes.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 27 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Airport Master Plans It is critical for airports to use an updated and realistic airport master plan as a resource to identify planned development. For this reason, it may be important to measure which airports have current airport master plans using a reporting measure (unless there are significant state funds being used for master plans, in which case this may be an influencing measure). Agencies can engage with their system airports in updating their respective airport master plans and often their ALPs. As a result of this effort, an agency can better understand anticipated projects at system airports that can contribute to better planning for capital funding to leverage various sources of funds. As a part of its 2017 Airport System Plan Update, the New Mexico Department of Trans- portation included the preservation/protection of investment in airports as one of its goals (Coffman Associates, 2017). Within this goal, it included a target of all facilities within the system having an ALP and master plan that are not more than 5 years old. Figure 4.4 shows the status of this PM. With 26% Without 74% Airports with Current Master Plans With 47%Without 53% Airports with Current Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans Source: Coffman Associates, 2017. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Figure 4.4. New Mexico facility targets. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Airport Minimum Standards The FAA and many state agencies recommend that airports establish airport minimum standards to reduce the potential for violations of airport grant assurances. An agency may wish to track the development and use of minimum standards within the state to assess how many airports have these guiding documents that can assist in the day-to-day operations of individual airfields. As with ALPs, this reporting PM may be effective because the measure looks at the age or relevance of the minimum standards. For example, while an airport may respond that it has minimum standards in place, they may be so outdated that they really are not effective and, therefore, not really meeting the intention of the PM.

28 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies Plans – Airport Rules and Regulations AIRPORT-RELATED PMs It is important that system airports establish rules and regulations to provide effective and safe operations at their facilities. An agency may choose to track which airports have airport rules and regulations in place, and this can often be selected as a reporting PM to support safety as well as management-related goals. The specific PM can be reported as a number or percentage of compliance across the entire system, or it may be targeted at specific categories of airports. Plans – Airport Security Plans Commercial service airports governed by the Part 139 certification rules must have a security plan. Although there is not a regulatory requirement from the Transportation Security Admin- istration for general aviation airports to have an airport security plan, it is recommended that airports collaborate with stakeholders to develop a plan to improve security at their facilities. An agency may wish to consider a phased or stepped approach to this reporting PM when looking at the number or types of airports expected to comply with this PM. The South Dakota Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautical Services has 72 public-use airports across the state. The percentage of system airports with a current airport security plan was a PM identified in its 2010 State Aviation System Plan (EBP, 2010). Plans – DOT Transportation Plans Many agencies are part of their state department of transportation (DOT) and are involved with multimodal transportation plans. Because many DOTs share goals, funding, and other resources, an agency may measure the status of meeting the objectives of the multimodal DOT transportation plan. Tracking this type of PM allows an agency to collaborate with agencies in other transportation modes to achieve statewide multimodal transportation objectives. This may be a reporting or influencing measure, depending on the degree of control that an agency has over achieving multimodal objectives. The Missouri Department of Transportation, Aviation Section (MoDOT Aviation) provides a slight twist to this PM by tracking the historical and current appropriations for multimodal programs as part of its goal to use resources wisely. It has broken the modes down into freight, aviation, waterways, rail, and transit. Figure 4.5 illustrates its recent appropriations by mode.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 29 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Snow Removal Plans Many states experience snowfall, which can complicate airport operations. Tracking the number or percentage of airports with a snow removal plan may be an effective way to demonstrate how airports are taking steps to address snow events. This is likely a reporting measure since the agency typically does not directly control the airport’s planning efforts. Figure 4.6 illustrates how the Kansas Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, used the 2016 Kansas Aviation System Plan and different classifications of airports to meet the PM to track airports that had adopted a snow removal plan. Source: MoDOT, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 0.65 0.85 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.5 11.3 15.0 10.0 12.9 3.5 6.4 4.7 2.1 8.3 12.9 13.7 13.7 12.1 12.1 4.0 3.6 4.8 4.3 4.1 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD 2019 D o lla rs ( in m ill io n s) Fiscal Year Freight Aviation Waterways Rail Transit Figure 4.5. State appropriations for multimodal programs. Source: Burns & McDonnell and CDM Smith, 2016. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 77.3% 90.9% 100.0% 100.0% 22.7% 9.1% C O M M U N I T Y B U S I N E S S R E G I O N A L C O M M E R C I A L S E R V I C E Meets Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark Figure 4.6. NPIAS airports with an adopted snow removal plan.

30 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Plans – Wildlife Hazard Management Plan With an increased focus on reducing the number of aircraft–wildlife strikes at airports throughout the country, it is important for agencies to work closely with the FAA and system airports to encourage the development of wildlife hazard management plans. An agency may choose to set a target and track airports that have a current plan in place based on airport role or size. As a result of this PM, an agency can work closely with the FAA and system airports in updating capital improvement programs to include FAA and state funding for this type of plan and for capital improvement projects, such as wildlife fencing or habitat modification, that may be recommended to address wildlife hazard concerns. As with other airport plans, this is generally a reporting measure. Figure 4.7 shows how the Kansas Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, used the 2016 Kansas Aviation System Plan to track airports that had adopted a wildlife management plan. As shown in the figure, Kansas does not identify the small GA airports as needing a wildlife hazard management plan, and its benchmark of 100 percent only includes commercial service and regional airports. Source: Burns & McDonnell and CDM Smith, 2016. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 17.6% 42.9% 82.4% 57.1% R E G I O N A L C O M M E R C I A L S E R V I C E Meets Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark Figure 4.7. NPIAS airports with an adopted wildlife management plan. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations This subtopic focuses on specific concerns that relate to agencies providing equipment and services that support operations at system airports. The measures in this subtopic can vary since, in some instances, an agency may be contributing funds or other resources, and in other instances, the agency may just be collecting data and using these as reporting measures to demonstrate how airports are functioning. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs:

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 31 • Aircraft fuel options, • Annual aircraft operations, • Backup generators for airfield movement area surfaces, • Clear approaches, • Collection of traffic counts, • Emergency disaster relief, • Precision and non-precision approaches, and • Weather reporting capabilities. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations – Aircraft Fuel Options A key element of providing customer service at airports is the ability for an aircraft to refuel. An agency may wish to track the availability of fuel across its airports. This service is often pro- vided by private businesses on airports or by airport sponsors. This service is rarely something agencies provide, so this is usually a reporting measure. It may become an influencing measure if an agency were contributing to the development of fuel farms. This PM can be further expanded to address the provision of jet fuel (Jet A) and 100 low-lead (LL) fuel if desired to drill deeper into the specific needs of various airports. For example, smaller GA airports that do not experience jet aircraft operations would likely not benefit from the installation of a jet fuel system. Additionally, this PM might take into consideration whether there are self-serve options with credit card readers or some other method of 24-hour service. An agency may also look into the age of fuel systems across its state. This may assist in identifying needs for repair or replacement that may not be eligible for federal funding and, therefore, may point to a need for consideration of state funding. As part of its 2015 Airport System Plan, Louisiana classified each airport in the state according to what role they played in the system and what facilities were needed that best allow the airport to meet and support its users’ needs. Next, it established what facility and service needs were recommended for each role, then measured benchmark achievement. Because the availability of Jet A and 100 LL fuels is critical to the aviation system, these PMs were included as a bench- mark. Figure 4.8 shows the percentage of airports that were meeting the jet fuel availability goal of 100 percent at commercial service, Level 1, and Level 2 airports. Source: CDM Smith, 2015. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 83% 100% 100% 100% 17% Not an Objective Not an Objective 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level 4 (16 Airports) Level 3 (21 Airports) Level 2 (18 Airports) Level 1 (6 Airports) Commercial Service (7 Airports) All Airports (68 Airports) Meets Objective Does Not Meet Objective Figure 4.8. Airports with Jet-A fuel in Louisiana – 2015.

32 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies Operations – Annual Aircraft Operations AIRPORT-RELATED PMs One common function agencies perform is to assess the trends of aircraft operations at system airports. Any measure of aircraft operations is a reporting measure since the agency has no direct influence on this activity. Although an agency may have limited control over the number of operations at an airport, it is often included as a performance indicator, and the trending direction of overall aircraft operations within the system may be worth tracking. This information can allow for agencies to be proactive in identifying how much investment in various types of infrastructure could be required to meet new aircraft operational demands at an airport or across the system as a whole. Table 4.3 shows how the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics tracks annual operations and the year-to-year trends at towered airports—both commercial service and general aviation. Wisconsin Aviation Activity – 2016 Airport Operations at Towered Airports Location/Commercial Airports CY2012 CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 % Change (CY15–16) Milwaukee 133,498 119,540 113,286 111,509 113,715 2 Madison 82,761 84,860 78,956 78,206 81,419 4 Eau Claire 26,708 23,373 21,454 22,347 22,509 1 Green Bay 63,832 48,583 41,853 46,720 49,479 6 Appleton 35,119 34,403 32,980 33,679 34,302 2 La Crosse 22,831 19,441 19,562 22,942 19,323 -16 Mosinee 15,236 14,240 13,266 12,640 12,375 -2 Subtotal 379,985 344,440 321,357 328,043 333,122 2 Location/GA Towered Airports CY2012 CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 % Change (CY15–16) Oshkosh 69,174 68,402 64,146 64,717 66,950 3 Waukesha 54,801 47,224 41,711 34,237 38,178 12 Kenosha 52,738 56,174 48,734 53,139 46,868 -12 Janesville 55,076 41,919 34,894 32,070 31,222 -3 Milwaukee 30,806 30,466 31,467 26,751 24,875 -7 Sparta-Ft. McCoy* 7,400 10,002 12,476 17,170 19,978 16 Subtotal 269,995 254,187 233,428 228,084 228,071 0 Total 649,980 598,627 554,785 556,127 561,193 1 Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics, 2016. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Notes: *Sparta/Ft. McCoy Airport is a joint military/general aviation airport; CY = calendar year. Table 4.3. Wisconsin annual operations.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 33 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations – Backup Generators for Airfield Movement Area Surfaces Power outages and interruptions at system airports may cause impacts to airport users. Ideally, an agency may want to ensure that system airports have a generator for airfield lighting and critical navigational aids. If an agency can fund the acquisition and installation of generators, this may be considered an influencing measure. Otherwise, this would fall under the reporting measure category. To prevent avoidable airport closures, even if temporary, an agency may set a benchmark and measure which airports have generators as well as the capacity of the generators to support airfield needs. This information can assist an agency with determining the need and funding of equipment at system airports and may tie to PMs such as emergency disaster relief, where generators may be an important part of an airport being prepared to respond to an incident. Due to the risk of hurricanes in Louisiana, as part of its 2015 Airport System Plan, the Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development included having backup generators as a benchmark for all but the lowest level of airports. Figure 4.9 shows the percentage of airports that were meeting this goal. Source: CDM Smith, 2015. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 48% 72% 67% 74% 52% 28% 33% 26% Does Not Apply Does Not Apply 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level 4 (16 Airports) Level 3 (21 Airports) Level 2 (18 Airports) Level 1 (6 Airports) Commercial Service (7 Airports) All Airports (68 Airports) Meets Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark Figure 4.9. Airports with backup generators in Louisiana – 2015. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations – Clear Approaches A variety of standards, at both the federal and state level, outline the requirements for clear approach areas at airports. Trees and other structures that result from development on or near airport property can present obstacles to safe approach by aircraft. An agency may elect to track the number of system airports with clear approaches. When an agency can control this measure, either through funding the obstacle clearance efforts or other means, this is an influencing measure. In other cases, it is a reporting measure. This PM may be broken down

34 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies further by focusing on only primary runways or by looking at state requirements. By tracking this measure, agencies may better plan for obstacle removal during capital project program- ming and enhance safety for travelers, aircraft, and passengers while meeting federal standards. Figure 4.10 shows how the Kansas Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, used the 2016 Kansas Aviation System Plan to track the percentage of airports with clear approaches to their primary runways. In this example, the goal or benchmark is 100 percent compliance across the entire system of airports that are within the NPIAS. Source: Burns & McDonnell and CDM Smith, 2016. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 100.0% 9.1% 21.2% 47.1% 71.4% 90.9% 78.8% 52.9% 28.6% B A S I C C O M M U N I T Y B U S I N E S S R E G I O N A L C O M M E R C I A L S E R V I C E Meets Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark Figure 4.10. NPIAS airports with clear approaches on the primary runway. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations – Collection of Traffic Counts Traffic counts are used in almost all forms of transportation and are taken either manually by an observer or automatically by some form of a traffic counter. They assist in calculating total traffic at a facility and can be used as a justification for future planning. Traffic counts may be used and measured by an agency for several reasons, including as a tool to aid in planning and activity forecasting. When an airport does not have an air traffic control tower, aircraft traffic counting may be conducted by the agency to determine estimated annual operations at the facility or the correlation between counts and the completion of a project. This is an influencing measure in cases where the agency is actively conducting the traffic count. A PM that is focused on the collection of traffic counts may target completing a certain number of counts in a year or possibly targeting annual counts at certain types or categories of airports. Table 4.4, based on information from the Indiana Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation, illustrates how the agency reported progress in deploying aircraft traffic counters. The table shows the number and percentage of counters planned for deployment versus the number deployed monthly from July through October of fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 35 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations – Emergency Disaster Relief Airports throughout the United States play a key role in providing access and staging areas when natural or manmade disasters occur. To better prepare for emergencies, an agency may consider tracking how many and which airports participate in disaster relief efforts. Typically, agencies are part of a state’s emergency management organization, and knowing the capabilities and experience of system airports with disaster relief experience is essential. This PM may also drill deeper to address specific airport infrastructure to provide disaster relief support such as through staging areas, aircraft parking areas, and storage areas for materials and resources. Additionally, this PM could be focused to address the number or percentage of airports that participate in emergency disaster relief training. This PM can take on a number of different forms depending on the goals of the agency as well as the capabilities of the airports within the system. In most cases, this would be a reporting measure. Operations – Precision and Non-Precision Approaches Agencies may develop PMs focused on providing precision and non-precision approaches at airports within their system. This may be considered an influencing measure in situations where the agency can fund approaches and control their placement. Otherwise, this becomes a reporting measure, as outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. This PM may take into consideration the existing scenario of how many precision or non-precision approaches exist in the state or it may look at which types of airports have these approaches. This PM could also take into consideration which airports should have these types of approaches but do not and make provisions for future development. The agency could then track the number or percentage of system airports that are meeting these targets. This information can be a useful tool for agencies in planning for avigation easement acquisitions or obstruction removal to allow a precision or non-precision approach to an airport with visual approach runways. This can also be helpful in identifying those airports where business aircraft may be more likely to operate, since they often rely more on having the increased utility offered by a precision or non-precision approach for landing. Planned Versus Actual Aviation Counters Deployed FY 2019 Planned Actual Percentage July 6 6 100 August 2 2 100 September 0 0 100 October 0 0 100 Year to Date 8 8 100 Source: Conversation with M. Blake, 2019. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.4. Air traffic counters deployed.

36 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Operations – Weather Reporting Capabilities The ability of pilots to have access to updated weather information at system airports is critical to aviation safety. Because of this, the percentage of airports with weather reporting capabilities may be a measure that an agency tracks. When the agency can fund the weather reporting equipment, this is an influencing measure. Agencies can work with the FAA on funding for specific equipment at individual airports or may develop a statewide acquisition/ installation program for weather reporting equipment at system airports, which many agencies do today. Reporting this type of PM can often demonstrate a need that should be addressed to improve safety and utility within the system. The Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has developed a weather reporting program to provide pilots operating in Colorado’s mountainous region with more accurate local weather information and to help reduce weather-related accidents. The division tracks the 13 stations it has installed and maintains throughout the Colorado mountains along with the number of system airports with stations, as illustrated in Figure 4.11, which includes stations from both the Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) and the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS). Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, 2019. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. ASOS, 20 AWOS, 32 Type of Automated Stations With Stations, 52 Without Stations, 22 Number of System Airports Figure 4.11. Colorado Division of Aeronautics weather reporting station information. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Tall Structures and Zoning For this subtopic, it is important to realize that the agency itself may have limited ability to control the success of these PMs since the actions of the local municipalities often drive their implementation. Tracking these PMs, however, can be important because it can identify and demonstrate where agency resources may be necessary to support and educate local agencies

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 37 on the need for various zoning-related support for local airports. Airport zoning and tall structure review and regulation are often critical elements to protect and preserve the airspace near airports as well as the quality of life of residents near airports. Tracking these PMs may allow an agency to see how well protected its system airports are from approach obstructions and incompatible land uses. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Height zoning, • Land use zoning, and • Permits received. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Tall Structures and Zoning – Height Zoning Since airspace is a commodity that is important to the operation of airports, keeping the airspace free of obstructions is critical. Communities across the country have passed local height zoning ordinances to minimize the potential impacts to runway approaches at their local airports. Because zoning control is vested in local communities, this is usually a reporting measure. Maintaining records of how airports are located within communities that have enacted and used local height zoning ordinances may be a beneficial PM to track. This can demonstrate which airports may be vulnerable to development if they are not covered by existing height zoning. This PM may also shine a light on the need for education and outreach. In some instances, an agency may have a statewide requirement for height limitation zoning, which may lead to PMs that support the implementation and execution of the zoning ordinance. The Northwest Rural Planning Organization (RPO) is the planning commission in the Northwest Pennsylvania region. As part of the 2015–2040 Northwest Long-Range Transportation Plan, the RPO established a PM for the number of municipalities with airport hazard zoning within the region and compared it to statewide compliance (see Table 4.5). Additionally, the RPO listed the airports within the region, their jurisdictional municipalities, and their compliance status with Act 164. Performance Measure 2015 (Baseline) 2015– 2016 Trend Note Municipalities with airport hazard zoning 29 (out of 39) – – Statewide compliance with Act 164 is currently 45%. Source: Michael Baker International, 2015. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.5. 2015–2040 Northwest Long-Range Transportation Plan. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Tall Structures and Zoning – Land Use Zoning In addition to concerns about the airspace around airports, there are concerns regarding various land uses near airports. Communities across the country have passed local land use zoning ordinances to minimize the potential impacts of incompatible land use surrounding

38 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies their airports. As with height zoning, agencies have little control over land use zoning, so this is a reporting measure. Agencies may consider setting PMs that address land use compatibility. These PMs may need to be variable to address state-specific nuances. Setting a target and measuring how many communities with airports have local land use zoning ordinances can be beneficial to identify those airports that may be vulnerable to incompatible development or may have limited future development potential due to growth off airport property. This is a PM that can often be separated in a number of ways for review, such as by airport classification or by the methods in which the land use regulations are provided. For example, there may be standalone airport zoning ordinances or overlay districts. There could be site plan reviews or statewide initiatives that address these issues. Figure 4.12 shows how the aviation system plan of the Indiana Department of Transpor- tation (INDOT), Office of Aviation, tracked the percentage of communities working with airports on zoning. In the Indiana system plan, having zoning or land use coordination is a recommendation for all airports. To meet this target, an airport must either have airport- specific zoning implemented at the local level or have staff that regularly attend local planning commission meetings or participate in a zoning board to advocate for airport protection. This demonstrates diversity in what the PM is measuring. Having an actual ordinance that addresses land use is not the same as airport staff attending local planning commission meet- ings and advocating for airport protection. Source: Woolpert, 2012. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 75% 100% 44% 26% 23%25% 0% 56% 74% 77% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Primary (4) National (1) Regional (16) Local (35) Basic (13) % Airports Meeting Target % Airports Not Meeting Target Figure 4.12. INDOT minimum service level recommendation: zoning or land use coordination. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Tall Structures and Zoning – Permits Received There are agencies that have regulatory authority to review and approve state airspace applications for proposed construction development within a certain distance of an airport. An agency may want to implement an influencing measure that tracks the number of applica- tions submitted and reviewed by staff. This information can assist agencies in ensuring that adequate staff resources are available for this safety function. Additionally, this information may also be used to report or identify trends in the amount and type of development taking place near system airports. A good example is the recent increase in the construction of wind turbines near airports.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 39 Figure 4.13 illustrates how the Michigan Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics, reported its progress in issuing permits for tall structures. The figure shows the number of permit requests received through 2018. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Airport Security This subtopic focuses on measures that are implemented to increase the security of an airport or of aircraft operations at an airport. Summaries are included for these PMs: • Perimeter fencing, • U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and • Wildlife fencing. Airport Security – Perimeter Fencing As part of an overall statewide program to enhance airport security at airports, an agency may identify a PM focused on airports with an existing airport perimeter fence line. Commercial service airports may be included in this PM; however, their Part 139 certification requires fencing, so their inclusion in this PM may be unnecessary. An agency may evaluate its system based on categories of airport or by level of use to set a target for a PM that looks at the percentage of airports with perimeter fencing. Based on this information, an agency may consider prioritizing and funding capital projects to construct airport perimeter fencing at system airports, or may determine that this may be too great of a task based on broader priorities and goals. For agencies that may fund perimeter fencing projects with their own funding sources, this may be an influencing measure; otherwise it is a reporting measure. Source: L. Smith (MDOT) via email, 2019. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 460 466 369 611 2108 3232 4128 4687 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 Wind Turbine/MET Other Studies Figure 4.13. Permits for tall structures.

40 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies The New Mexico Department of Transportation included the increase/enhancement of safety and security as one of its goals in its airport system plan update. This goal included having perimeter fencing at all primary, non-primary, and limited commercial service airports, as well as at all regional general aviation airports. All required airports met this objective (see Figure 4.14). Source: Coffman Associates, 2017. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Regional GA Limited Commercial Service Non-Primary Primary Figure 4.14. Airports by type with perimeter fencing. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Airport Security – U.S. Customs and Border Protection With the continued expansion of aviation into international markets for business and pleasure travel, numerous airports are vying for the ability to service international flights. Due to this growth, an agency may look at measuring the percentage of airports with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) service. Since an agency usually does not have the authority to establish CBP service, this is typically a reporting measure. If an agency is aware of system airports without CBP service, and there is need for this service, it may be able to work in a collaborative manner with the airport to advocate for its establishment. Knowing where and how many airports have CBP service may be information that can be leveraged for additional economic growth and development. Airport Security – Wildlife Fencing With the increased focus on reducing wildlife strikes at airports, it is important for agencies to promote the installation of wildlife fencing at system airports to improve the safety of aircraft operations. An important step in this process may be to track the percentage of system airports with wildlife fencing to establish a benchmark from which to start. This is an influencing measure if the agency can fund wildlife fencing projects and a reporting measure if an agency is not putting funds into wildlife fencing projects. An agency may then use this information to leverage FAA or state funding to program capital improvement projects focused on the installation of wildlife fencing at eligible system airports. This may also assist in the prioritization of projects along with results from the wildlife hazard manage- ment plan PM.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 41 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Airport Pavement Condition This subtopic focuses on agencies that report the condition of airport pavements system- wide and set specific, targeted condition levels in conjunction with their statewide airport system plans. These PMs are often reported in an effort to demonstrate that the system pavements are being well maintained and meeting FAA grant assurances. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Annual maintenance, • Benchmark, and • Pavement condition index studies. Airport Pavement Condition – Annual Maintenance Airports should be completing annual pavement maintenance to improve or extend the life of airfield pavements. An agency may decide to measure the percentage of system airports that are conducting annual pavement maintenance, making this a reporting measure. If an agency funds activities such as crack sealing, then an agency may make this an influencing measure. This PM can be expanded to look at the type of maintenance, such as crack sealing or seal coating. By understanding the efforts being undertaken by airports, an agency can better prioritize limited federal and state funding for future airport pavement projects and also determine which airports are approaching facility maintenance proactively. Airport Pavement Condition – Benchmark In an effort to improve pavement conditions at system airports, an agency may set a bench- mark for pavement condition indexes (PCIs) for various types of pavements, including runways, taxiways, and aprons. An agency may set a PCI target and track the percentage of airports that are meeting or exceeding this number. This PM can be separated further to consider other factors such as airport type (commercial services versus general aviation), pavement type (runways, taxiways, aprons, etc.), and age. This information could be critical for an agency that is focused on improving pavement conditions at system airports and may be useful in educating legislative leaders. This may be an influencing measure if an agency is actively involved in determining the priority of projects at airports within its system. The Nevada Department of Transportation conducted an airport pavement management system update, which included a thorough breakdown of the PCI by airport type and pavement type and defined the different condition levels. Figure 4.15 illustrates the percentage of pave- ment area by PCI range.

42 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Airport Pavement Condition – Pavement Condition Index Studies Airport pavement is exposed to a variety of weather and aircraft use challenges that affect its rate of deterioration. Some agencies take on the responsibility of conducting statewide PCI studies to determine the condition of pavements. For agencies that perform PCI studies, this is an influencing measure; for all others, it is a reporting measure. An agency could use this information to plan effective use of staff or contractor resources in completing PCI studies in a timely manner. This may be accomplished in several ways, such as by splitting the system into groups that are assessed on a rotating basis, such as every other year or every 3 years, to spread the effort and associated costs across a broader spectrum. One focus of PMs for the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission is to improve the PCI for primary runways at system airports. Its goal is to meet or exceed a 70 PCI on each airport’s primary runway. Unlike the many states that conduct their PCI inspections on a rolling basis, South Carolina had most of their inspections conducted at one time under the 2016 South Carolina Aeronautics Commission Statewide Airfield Pavement Management System Update. Figure 4.16 shows the study results. Source: Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., 2019. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Figure 4.15. Percentage of pavement area by PCI range.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 43 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Enplanements/Cargo This subtopic focuses on agencies that monitor passenger enplanements and cargo tonnage at system airports. Measuring the number of enplanements or the amount of cargo shipped annually can illustrate an increase or decline of aviation systems in a state. It may also suggest economic development. Since many agencies do not contribute to the increase/decrease of enplanements or air cargo, these are most frequently reporting measures. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Passenger enplanements, and • Cargo tonnage. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Enplanements/Cargo – Passenger Enplanements Understanding the trends of passenger enplanements at system airports is important for agencies when planning for strategic capital investments into airfield or landside improve- ments. There are many reasons an agency may track the number of passenger enplanements. This can be reported for the whole system, regionally, by airport classification, or even at the individual airport level. Often this is not a PM that an agency can control but instead a performance indicator, since enplanements are often driven by external factors, such as airline pricing, flight frequency, and passenger demand. For these reasons, this is most often a reporting measure. Source: Jviation. 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Note: SC = South Carolina. 75% 64% 64% 86% 83% 25% 36% 36% 14% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total - All Applicable Airports SC IV - Recreation/Local SC III - Business/Recreation SC II - Corporate Business SC I - Commercial Service Airports Meeting PCI Objectives Airports Not Meeting PCI Objectives Figure 4.16. Percent of airports by role that meet or exceed primary runway pavement condition objectives.

44 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies An agency may track overall passenger enplanements as well as look at additional breakdowns for additional insight. For example, an agency may track the percentage of business passenger enplanements versus leisure passenger enplanements. With this information, an agency can better understand facility requirements at an airport for specific categories of enplanements, since different types of travelers need different types of services and contribute to spending patterns in different ways, which may be advantageous for an agency to understand. The Iowa Department of Transportation Aviation Bureau (Iowa Aviation Bureau) investigated the difference in passenger enplanements in its 2008 Air Service Study. As Figure 4.17 illus- trates, the Iowa Aviation Bureau elected to break the survey responses down further and look at business, vacation, and personal travel, with a fourth category for those that classify as other. Business 51% Personal 28% Vacation 19% Other 1% Source: WIlbur Smith Associates, 2008. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Figure 4.17. Percent of passenger enplanements by reason for travel. AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Enplanements/Cargo – Cargo Tonnage With the increase of online transactions and new air cargo providers such as Amazon entering the market, agencies may be tracking the cargo tonnage moving through system airports. An agency can utilize this information to highlight the economic importance of system airports and the positive impacts of commerce in their respective state. It may also be important to understand this data in light of requests for infrastructure improvements such as apron expansions or runway extensions to support the cargo operations. As with the enplanement PM, cargo tonnage is most frequently a reporting measure. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation performance record summarized in Table 4.6 shows the amount and percent change of enplaned freight at Wisconsin commercial airports, separated by calendar year over a 5-year period.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 45 AIRPORT-RELATED PMs Air Service This subtopic focuses on PMs for agencies that have established statewide programs to establish or enhance air service at system airports. In these instances, the agency’s PMs may be targeted at measuring the source of a program or the return on investment for activities. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Air service development, and • Effectiveness of funds. Air Service – Air Service Development If an agency has a statewide program to enhance air service at system airports, it may choose to monitor air service development funding levels at those airports. More specifically, the agency could look at the amount of state funding invested in the airports based on federal or state airport role categories, which would make this an influencing measure. With this information, the agency can inform, in a transparent manner, state and legislative leaders of strategic investments at airports to enhance air service to a community. This may contribute to the agency’s ability to leverage additional funds or demonstrate the success (or failure) of a program to support air service. Due to Wyoming’s small population and expansive area, there are challenges with retention, attraction, and enhancement of air service to the state’s communities. Because of this, the Wyoming Department of Transportation has established the Air Service Enhancement Program in order to take an active role in the promotion and encouragement of commercial air service within the state. The program was created to support the development of air service through various sponsorships and by helping communities financially support critical new or existing air service that is vital to their economic wellbeing. Air Service – Effectiveness of Funds With the generally limited availability of state funding for programs, it is important to ensure the effectiveness of funding programs such as air service development. An example Location/Commercial Airports CY2012 CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 % Change (15–16) Milwaukee 81,013,968 82,379,328 81,352,020 80,986,752 80,336,000 -1 Madison 14,159,526 24,279,716 25,761,103 25,505,736 15,090,373 -41 Green Bay 133,999 176,036 216,392 168,252 181,034 8 Appleton 10,797,313 9,347,384 9,334,863 9,223,635 9,685,052 5 Mosinee 521,788 1,102,072 1,160,971 884,214 979,526 11 Rhinelander 871,615 718,607 1,794,887 1,851,153 1,693,783 -9 Total – million pounds 107,498,209 118,002,143 119,620,236 118,619,742 107,965,768 -9 Million pounds 107.5 118.0 119.6 118.6 108.0 -9 Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics, 2016. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Note: CY = calendar year. Table 4.6. Enplaned freight at commercial airports.

46 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies of a PM that could be considered would be to track the percentage of new airline service at airports receiving air service funding or the number of enplanements supported by the air service program. Since new air service is usually out of the direct control of an agency, this is traditionally a reporting measure. However, in Wyoming, for instance, this is an influencing measure. By having a greater understanding of the effectiveness of air service funding strategies at system airports, an agency could support decision making for future funding levels of air service development grants. FUNDING-RELATED PMs 4.2 Funding Related This section defines and provides examples of PMs that state aviation agencies may use for funding-related categories. A common key function of agencies is to work closely with the FAA on the implementation of the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or state-funded capital improvement programs (CIPs) and maintenance programs. Specifically, this section will address these subtopics: • Federal funding, and • State funding. Federal Funding This subtopic focuses on measuring an agency’s ability to oversee the implementation of the FAA AIP for capital infrastructure projects at system airports. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Block grants, • Capital Improvement Program funding, • Federal funds, • Rollover of funds, and • Transfer of non-primary entitlement (NPE) funds. FUNDING-RELATED PMs Federal Funding – Block Grants The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 allows for up to 20 states to directly administer the FAA AIP for airports classified as “other than primary.” At the time of this writing, 10 states operate within the Block Grant Program. In order to better manage the requirements that come with being a member of the Block Grant Program, an agency may track a variety of PMs that can support its requirements in the Block Grant Program. One example PM would be assessing the timeliness of staff in completing the required FAA documentation. The agency has direct control over these types of measures, so these are usually influencing measures. An agency in the Block Grant Program is required to submit FAA documentation for eligible airports. Understanding the timeline of processing this required FAA documentation may assist an agency in planning and allocating appropriate staffing levels to complete this task.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 47 Figure 4.18 shows how the Michigan Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics, reported its progress in achieving grant closeouts in 2017. This figure illustrates the number of grants closed by grant type, including block grants, local grants, primary, and non-primary grants. FUNDING-RELATED PMs Federal Funding – Capital Improvement Program Funding Typically, agencies develop unconstrained and constrained airport CIPs for their system air- ports. There are obviously a number of PMs that could be generated related to CIP funding, depending on the specific focus area an agency is interested in evaluating. For example, one PM to consider would be the percentage of the total amount of funding requested from the FAA versus the amount of funding received. Understanding the difference between these amounts can greatly assist an agency in educating legislative leaders of funding shortfalls in the overall airport CIP for system airports. Another PM related to this topic is the number of requests for funding based on project type (safety, construction, planning, etc.) and even by type of funding requested (primary entitlements, NPEs, discretionary funds, etc.). In general, these are usually reporting measures. Table 4.7 provides an example of how the Wisconsin Department of Transportation reports the type and number of projects within its airport system. This summary highlights the type of projects, number of projects for that type, and amount funded in 2016 across the state using federal and state funds. Source: MDOT Office of Aeronautics, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 107 - Individual Non-Primary Grants 29 - Primary Airport Grants 3 - State Block Grants 48 - State/Local Grants Figure 4.18. Grant closeouts completed in 2017.

48 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies FUNDING-RELATED PMs Federal Funding – Federal Funds Agencies are generally committed to leveraging the maximum amount of federal funds for capital improvement projects for their system airports and planning accordingly to fund the state match on eligible projects. To aid in this practice, an agency can calculate the total amount of federal funding being used at system airports, making this a reporting measure. An agency often works closely with representatives of the FAA and system airports in the development of the state’s airport CIP to leverage significant federal funding. Figure 4.19 shows how the Missouri Department of Transportation, Aviation Section (MoDOT Aviation), tracks the balance of its state aviation trust fund against the amount obligated and tentatively allocated for grants. The ultimate objectives are to ensure that the balances are spent and that the funds are fully utilized. This is tracked quarterly. MoDOT Aviation does this also for its federal AIP program funds. Type of Work No. of Projects Amount Funded Rehabilitation of existing pavement 32 $20,280,000 New pavement 5 $8,790,000 Approach clearing and obstruction removal 5 $1,100,000 Runway lighting and pavement marking 11 $2,880,000 Navigational aids 5 $2,380,000 Buildings 13 $16,770,000 Equipment 4 $1,730,000 Land 6 $2,290,000 Noise mitigation 2 $15,424,310 Fuel facilities 2 $1,350,000 Fence 5 $2,980,000 Safety 5 $7,780,000 Statewide studies 4 $920,000 Total 97 $69,250,000 Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics, 2016. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.7. Summary of 2016 projects in Wisconsin.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 49 FUNDING-RELATED PMs Federal Funding – Rollover of Funds As part of the FAA AIP, system airports are designated for various funding streams including, but not limited to, primary entitlement and NPE funding. It is important for agencies to track the rollover/carryover of primary and NPE funding to best leverage the use of these funds across the system. Having this knowledge of rollover funds allows agencies to plan more effectively to ensure that the state matching share is available based on the project status, as well as to maximize the use of funds when they can be transferred or leveraged within the system. Since an agency generally has little control over the amounts carried over, this is typically a reporting measure. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aviation, participates in the FAA State Block Grant Program where it assumes responsibility for administering AIP grants at airports classified as “other than primary” airports. The bureau tracks NPE funds to these airports so that no entitlements expire and go unspent within the system. Its goal is for the airport sponsors to spend 75 percent of their entitlement funds within 6 months of the expiration date and 100 percent by 3 months prior to the expiration date. Federal Funding – Transfer of Non-Primary Entitlement Funds Agencies often collaborate with the FAA and system airports in transferring NPE funds within their system of airports. An agency may track the number of airports that are transfer- ring their NPE funds to assess trends in spending. The ability to transfer NPE funding within a state’s system of airports gives an agency the flexibility to move funds within its system and keep the funds within its state. Tracking the overall dollar amount of NPEs transferred may Source: Missouri Department of Transportation, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. $3,123 $2,808 $2,477 $7,163 $5,703 $6,925 $2,657 $2,172 $1,200 $1,348 $12,546 $12,773 $12,398 $3,703 $3,989 $1,922 $3,528 $3,788 $5,973 $7,093 $9,056 $9,834 $9,418 $8,739 $8,557 $9,042 $4,908 $6,015 $6,738 $7,894 $0 $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 $12,000 $15,000 $18,000 July 1, 2016 Oct. 1, 2016 Jan. 1, 2017 Apr. 1, 2017 July 1, 2017 Oct. 1, 2017 Jan. 1, 2018 Apr. 1, 2018 July 1, 2018 Oct. 1, 2018 Obligated Tentatively Obligated Fund Balance Figure 4.19. State aviation trust fund balance versus amount obligated and tentatively allocated.

50 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies be a PM that is considered, especially if the agency has a larger number of federally eligible GA airports that are receiving NPEs and making transfers. Typically, the agency does not control the number or amount of funds transferred, so this is usually a reporting measure. FUNDING-RELATED PMs State Funding This subtopic focuses on measuring various state-funded airport CIPs and maintenance programs. There are many types of state programs across the country with specific criteria for state-funded projects and funding options. There are too many of these programs to discuss in this report, so only some are included here. Agencies should consider how to expand these to fit their individual state funding structure to address other PMs. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • FAA Airport Improvement Program match, • State funding requested, • State grants, • State/local projects, and • State-programmed amounts. FUNDING-RELATED PMs State Funding – FAA Airport Improvement Program Match In an effort to educate state executive and legislative leaders about capital funding require- ments for system airports, an agency may highlight the importance of available state funding to leverage FAA AIP funds. This can be observed by measuring the comparison of state match funding versus the federal funding amount for eligible projects. By understanding the leveraging capabilities of the FAA AIP, an agency can have the opportunity to articulate the need for additional state match funding for eligible projects at system airports. This measure is often an influencing measure since the level of funding is usually controlled at the state level, even though the federal amount of funds may fluctuate. Table 4.8 shows a breakdown of funding sources for 5 consecutive fiscal years from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division’s (MassDOT Aeronautics) statewide airport system plan. This PM is focused on simply reporting the level of funding across the various sources.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 51 FUNDING-RELATED PMs State Funding – State Funding Requested Typically, agencies are granted funds annually or biannually by their state legislatures for state-funded airport programs, which usually include matching funds for federal dollars. An agency may measure the gap between state airport system needs and actual state funding appropriations. Especially during fiscally challenging times within state governments, agencies compete for state funding within their own DOTs and with other state agencies. It may be advantageous to report to legislators the differences between available funding and requested funding to stress the funding need and demonstrate shortfalls. The agency cannot control the size of the funding gap, so this is a reporting measure. Table 4.9, using data from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation’s 2015 system plan, shows the total system costs for the North Carolina aviation system, broken down by federal/state and local funding sources. The long-term needs amount to approximately $1.2 billion over a 20-year planning period. Project Type Source FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Federal/State/Local Federal Entitlement $12,140,000 $9,480,000 $20,370,000 $10,010,000 $11,530,000 Discretionary $4,950,000 $7,100,000 $19,030,000 $6,300,000 $23,700,000 Federal total $17,090,000 $16,580,000 $39,400,000 $16,310,000 $35,230,000 Local match $520,000 $950,000 $5,010,000 $290,000 $770,000 State match $540,000 $1,560,000 $13,220,000 $650,000 $1,150,000 Total $18,150,000 $19,090,000 $57,630,000 $17,250,000 $37,150,000 State/Local State $454,500 $5,678,700 $240,500 $3,379,800 $95,600 Local $67,000 $335,900 $57,600 $778,100 $23,900 Total $521,000 $6,014,600 $298,100 $4,157,900 $119,500 State $187,500 $55,000 $10,000 $200,000 $0 Total funding $18,859,000 $25,159,600 $57,938,100 $21,607,900 $37,269,500 Total state funding $1,182,000 $7,293,700 $13,470,500 $4,229,800 $1,245,600 Source: MassDOT, 2010. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.8. Massachusetts airports funding, FY 2005–2009.

52 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies FUNDING-RELATED PMs – State Funding State Funding – State Grants Agencies may have dedicated state grant programs to fund a variety of different projects such as capital infrastructure projects or statewide programs not eligible under the FAA AIP. Tracking or reporting PMs related to this topic may provide agencies with information necessary to justify the continuation of these funds so that agencies can adequately program funds in their annual state capital/operating budgets to meet needs. State Funding – State/Local Projects In some instances, agencies are able to develop programs that support projects that are funded with only state and local funds. These are usually small programs, often focused on projects that are not federally eligible or that target airports that are not eligible for federal funding. If an agency has this type of program, it may be advantageous to develop a PM that tracks the use of these funds to demonstrate not only their use, but also the likely demand for additional dollars to be allocated for these programs. As with many other PMs, the projects funded under these programs may be tracked separately to show the diversity of the projects supported (e.g., runways, hangars, fencing, tree removal) or by different categories of air- ports. With the agency in direct control of the distribution of state funds, this is most often an influencing measure. State Funding – State Programmed Amounts In some instances, an agency may find that while it is authorized to spend money to a certain level, for a multiyear program, it may not receive the actual appropriation authority in its annual budget to issue state grants under the authorization/programmed amount. For this reason, an agency may want to track the funding gap between the state authorization/programmed Category State Funding (Including Block Grant and State Aid to Airports) Local/Other Total Airport Projects Commercial service airports $76,000,000 $96,104,000 — $172,104,000 GA airports $881,905,600 $132,418,000 $1,014,324,000 Subtotal – Airport Projects $957,905,600 $228,522,400 $1,186,428,000 Other Programs Wildlife assessments $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Subtotal – other programs $2,000,000 $ – $2,000,000 Total $959,905,600 $228,522,400 $1,188,428,000 Percentage Share 81% 19% 100% Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2015. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.9. Total system requests over 20-year planning period by airport category and funding source.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 53 amount and the actual state grant funding issued. Understanding the difference between funding authorization and actual funding received annually may be helpful for an agency for operations and project programming and for education of system airport representatives. As the agency usually does not control the amount of money appropriated to aviation, this is usually a reporting measure. PROJECT-RELATED PMs 4.3 Project Related For project-related PMs, it is important for state aviation agencies to understand that no two projects are really the same. They are affected by regional differences, funding challenges, construction schedules, contractor concerns, design considerations, and additional items that can have an impact on their ability to get from planning and programming to construction and project closeout. Consequently, for PMs related to projects, agencies may need to take these variations into account when selecting PMs and develop their targets and classifications accordingly. These PMs may be tracked to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of project delivery. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Closeouts, • Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program goals, • Encumbered versus non-encumbered funds, • FAA priority rating code, • Grants versus projects, • Individual project process, • Invoices, • Number of projects, • Project cost, • Project time, • State capital projects processing, • Time to solicit projects, and • Total time. Closeouts Whether an agency is in a block grant state or a channeling state using federal or state funds for a project, closing out grants in a timely manner is important. For this reason, an agency may want to track the number or percentage of project closeouts completed at system airports. By tracking this measure, an agency can ensure that projects are being completed in a timely manner, which may facilitate recovery of any funds that have gone unspent on a project and that can be used on other projects. Some agencies may be part of the closeout process, but others may not, so it is difficult to categorize this PM as influencing or reporting. For those airports that are federally obligated, this may assist in ensuring that they are in compliance with the GONE Act (Grants Oversight and New Efficiency; Public Law No. 114-117). This act requires an airport sponsor to close a grant out within 4 years of acceptance of an FAA grant. This is a PM that may be reported on a regular basis such as quarterly to facilitate timely completion and then also annually to show a broader perspective on overall closeouts.

54 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies PROJECT-RELATED PMs Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Goals Some state agencies may require use of DBEs on projects, and if federal funds are used, an airport likely needs to address the FAA AIP requirements for DBE goal setting. Agencies may collaborate with their system airports to ensure that DBE goals are met or exceeded. An agency may set a target of reaching or exceeding a certain percent of its DBE goals and track the PM to ensure that the goals are being met. For most agencies without direct control over DBE participation, this is likely a reporting measure. This PM might be expanded further into separate measures for different project types. Using this PM might help an agency identify whether a region in a state lacks DBE participation for specific types of projects. Using that information, the agency might be able to coordinate with its state supplier diversity office and assist with the notification of projects for qualified DBE firms. Another option might be to leverage higher DBE participation in areas where DBE firms may be more abundant. Encumbered Versus Non-Encumbered Funds Since most agencies are constantly beginning new projects and closing out old projects, it can be difficult to know how much money has actually been encumbered and needs to be available to support cash flow for payments. As part of the budget tracking process, agencies need to closely track the encumbering of funds for project grants. This PM might be measured by comparing the total dollar value of encumbered funds with that of non-encumbered funds. State DOTs may require agencies to provide their respective project cash flow spending monthly or quarterly to gain a better understanding of the status for line items in budget accounts, making this influ- encing measure a useful tool for the agency if it is involved in the actual grant issuing process. FAA Priority Rating Code Agencies will typically use FAA priority rating codes to rank projects at system airports. When tracking the number of projects, an agency may decide to sort them by type using the priority rating codes. Using this information by project type for a reporting measure can assist an agency in identifying trends. This may showcase that there are needs within the system that do not compete well for FAA funding, demonstrating a need for state and local funds. This PM would likely be useful in demonstrating the diversity of funding requests within a state compared to the federal priorities and can usually be separated into those airports with federal obligations, such as those identified in the NPIAS, and those that are not obligated (non-NPIAS), since their needs are often different, as are the possible funding options. Grants Versus Projects An agency may be required to ensure project equity across system airports. This can be done by tracking the number of airports receiving grants against the number of projects occurring. By providing this information to state legislative leaders and the public, an agency can provide transparent reporting for interested stakeholders and can usually show a greater demand for funding compared to the funding actually available. This PM can also be broken down to look

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 55 at different types of grants or funding for different types of projects. Agencies can use this influencing measure to help allocate grant money. Care should be taken in this type of report- ing since more than one project can be included in a single grant. For example, a single grant at one airport may include a runway rehabilitation, but at another airport the same grant could include a runway rehabilitation, runway edge lighting, and a taxiway rehabilitation. Should these two grants be considered equal compared to the number of projects undertaken with them? The agency needs to consider what information in that instance is most valuable to track and design its PM accordingly. PROJECT-RELATED PMs Individual Project Process Within every agency, there may be opportunities to develop PMs that focus on individual project processes and procedures. An agency needs to determine those that merit development of a PM and those that may not benefit from that process. There are a variety of processes and procedures, which vary by agency, that could be considered. An example of this is where an agency has staff dedicated to reviewing design plan submittals for projects. By setting a timeline benchmark (e.g., 14 or 30 days) to complete a review of design plans, an agency may ensure that comments/feedback can be shared in a timely manner with airport sponsors and consultants. Once a target timeline is set, the agency can track the number of days it takes staff to complete the review to ensure that the benchmark is being met. If the PM is routinely missed, then the agency may want to assess what the cause of the missed target might be and look for ways to improve, such as by determining if the time period needs to be extended, considering a different review process, or assigning additional staff to plan review. These are influencing measures since the PM relates to aspects of project progress that the agency can control. MoDOT Aviation tracks the average design plan review time for each quarter to document MoDOT’s response time to airport sponsors regarding comments generated during the review of plans that are near 100 percent complete for bidding purposes (Figure 4.20). MoDOT Aviation uses the date stamp on the design plan received as the start of the time tracked to review. This measure is in response to MoDOT’s goal of delivering transportation solutions of great value. Source: MoDOT, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 11 5 20 18 10 28 14 14 7 7 10 6 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2015 Qtr 3 2015 Qtr 4 2016 Qtr 1 2016 Qtr 2 2016 Qtr 3 2016 Qtr 4 2017 Qtr 1 2017 Qtr 2 2017 Qtr 3 2017 Qtr 4 2018 Qtr 1 2018 Qtr 2 2018 Qtr 3 Average Number of Days to Review Figure 4.20. Sample of individual project process PM.

56 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies PROJECT-RELATED PMs Invoices Payment of invoices to support projects is an important role for most agencies. An agency may establish an internal benchmark for processing invoices for payment. This PM could focus on expenses associated with the operation of the agency; could be focused on process- ing payments to contractors, consultants, and sponsors; or could be a combination of both. In each of these examples, the agency can control the outcome, so these are influencing measures. For example, a PM could be to report the number or percentage of invoices paid within the number of days established in the benchmark. By setting a timeline benchmark (e.g., 14 days) to process an invoice, an agency may be able to ensure prompt payment for its vendors, contractors, consultants, and so forth. This may have an impact on the previously discussed PM of encumbered versus unencumbered funds and even tie to project closeouts, so it has significant merit as a PM. Number of Projects An agency often needs to justify budget requests to state legislative leaders to fund capital projects at system airports. Because of this, it may be beneficial to track the number of airports undertaking a project in a given time period or track the number of projects that are being undertaken by an agency or the airports within the state. Knowing the number of airports undertaking a project, and likely the funds associated with the project, allows an agency to deliver a budget request for additional projects and grants in a justifiable and equitable manner. As with the grants versus projects PM, this can also be detailed to look at total dollars, different funding sources if an agency has multiple sources, and at types of projects that receive funding. As with other project PMs, this PM may be a reporting or influencing measure depending on how involved the agency is in project selection; however, these are typically reporting measures since the agency has little influence over the number of projects undertaken at system airports. Table 4.10, using information from the Michigan Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics, shows the 18 commercial service airports associated with project work. This is an influencing measure because the agency is actively involved in selecting the airports participating Alpena County Regional Airport, Alpena Capital Regional International Airport, Lansing Willow Run Airport, Detroit Manistee County – Blacker Airport, Manistee Delta County Airport, Escanaba Sawyer International Airport, Marquette Bishop International Airport, Flint Muskegon County Airport, Muskegon Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids Pellston Regional Airport, Pellston Houghton County Memorial Airport, Hancock Oakland County International Airport, Pontiac Ford Airport, Iron Mountain/Kingsford MBS International Airport, Saginaw Gogebic-Iron County Airport, Ironwood Chippewa County Intl. Airport, Sault Ste. Marie Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl. Airport, Kalamazoo Cherry Capital Airport, Traverse City Source: MDOT Office of Aeronautics, 2018. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.10. Summary of airports served by specific state funding for commercial service airports.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 57 in these projects. State funds in the amount of $249,925 were used for projects associated with airport awareness activities, capital improvement and equipment, and aircraft rescue and fire- fighting (ARFF) training. PROJECT-RELATED PMs Project Cost Monitoring project costs is a key responsibility of agencies. It is not uncommon for agencies to report to legislative leaders on how they are performing with regard to project budgets. To keep accurate data, an agency may measure the percentage or total estimated project costs versus actual final project costs. If a project at a system airport is going to exceed the initial budgeted amount, an agency can assist the airport in value engineering to meet budget require- ments. Tracking this PM may also lead to the identification of trends in costs that may need to be addressed such as an increase in per-unit costs for various bid items due to supplier costs or increased demand. Once identified, these can then be addressed in subsequent budgeting/cost estimating exercises. These are typically reporting measures since the agency usually has little or no ability to manage project costs at airports. Figure 4.21 shows how MassDOT Aeronautics includes the percentage of projects completed on/under budget as one of its PMs. In FY 2018, MassDOT Aeronautics awarded a total of 153 contracts; 147 (96 percent) of these were completed on budget. The 2020 target for this measure was 90 percent completed on budget. Source: MassDOT Office of Performance Management and Innovation, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. On Budget, 96.1% Not on Budget, 3.9% Figure 4.21. Percentage of projects completed on/under budget.

58 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies PROJECT-RELATED PMs Project Time Schedules and timelines for completing airport infrastructure projects are critical to minimiz- ing potential operational impacts. An agency may set a target of having a certain percentage or number of projects completed on time and track this by comparing the project schedule to the actual completion date. By tracking project schedules and timelines, agencies can assess funding decisions for projects at system airports. This PM may also tie into other PMs such as closeouts since the time to complete a project may have a direct impact on the grant closeout. Since it is the individual airports and their contractors and consultants that influence and manage the schedules for projects, these are generally reporting measures. Figure 4.22, using data from MassDOT Aeronautics, shows that it includes the percentage of projects completed on/under time as one of its PMs. Of the 153 contracts completed in FY 2018, 113 (74 percent) were completed on time. The 2020 target for this measure was 90 percent of all projects completed within the timeframe established in the contract. On Time, 73.9% Not on Time, 26.1% Source: MassDOT Office of Performance Management and Innovation, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Figure 4.22. Percentage of projects completed on/under time. PROJECT-RELATED PMs Time to Solicit Projects Agencies must follow state or federal procurement laws (depending on where the funding is coming from) when advertising for airport-related projects. Additionally, involvement by agency staff can vary depending on the types of funding used and the associated solicitation methods. PMs related to this topic can vary from looking at how long it takes a project to come to fruition in the initial concept to issuance of a notice to proceed. This PM can range from

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 59 individual project solicitations and project bidding, where an agency may be heavily involved in every step from advertisement to bid letting, to something such as consultant selection, where an agency may only be involved in reviewing a proposed request for qualifications. Depending on the level of involvement by the agency, these may be reporting or influenc- ing measures. When it is the agency in control of the process, this would be an influencing measure. As a reporting measure, agency staff may be able to calculate and track the number of days an airport-related project is advertised to ensure that there are no violations. The agency may also assess how long it takes to get bids completed and to award a project and issue a notice to proceed. As an influencing measure, an agency may track how long it takes to provide a sponsor comment on its consultant advertisement. As these examples illustrate, the specific PMs may vary, but the resulting data may help an agency set a realistic target as to the number of days it needs to allocate for various tasks it is involved in as related to project solicitation. Total Time Agencies have a number of procedures, processes, reviews, and so forth that they may wish to assess through PMs that look at total time. This could be the total time to review a project, the total time to reach a closeout, the total time for a project from initial concept to final project closeout, and so forth. In most cases, the parameter evaluated will be one that the agency can control, resulting in the use of an influencing measure. If an agency elects to develop a PM that assesses total time, it is encouraged to use the results of that PM to continue to refine the specific measure to address concerns related to timeliness that can have impacts on other PMs. For example, an agency uses a PM that is total time for plan set review in the design process. If it is found that this time is extending, it may be slowing down the ability to get a project bid in a timely manner. Delaying the bid may affect the ability to award a grant, which may affect the ability to spend or draw down funds on a project. This may ultimately affect the timeliness of project closeout and grant closeout. This demonstrates how a single PM and the results of tracking it can have connected impacts on other PMs. FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs 4.4 Flight Departments and Drones This section defines and explains the PMs that may guide state aviation agencies that use state flight department and drone activities. Many agencies across the country operate state flight departments and provide transportation services to other state agencies. In addition, a number of agencies have begun to implement statewide drone programs. Specifically, this section addresses these subtopics: • Flight departments, • Internal department drone use, and • External use/public use of drones. Flight Departments This subtopic focuses on assessing the functionality of an agency’s flight department and provides further justification to state legislative leaders by highlighting the benefits of

60 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies operating a state flight department. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Accident rate, • Age of aircraft versus operating costs, • Aircraft maintenance, • Flight hours, • Flights completed versus flights requested, • Hourly rate, and • Maintenance and insurance costs. Flight Departments – Accident Rate FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs An agency with a flight department may choose to develop a PM to track the number of accidents or incidents that involve its fleet, making use of an influencing measure. This infor- mation can be used to identify possible trends with aircraft accidents and support agency staff in identifying possible safety training issues, maintenance issues, or other items that may contribute to these accidents/incidents. Flight Departments – Age of Aircraft Versus Operating Costs An agency may want to understand the cost structure of operations relative to the age of the aircraft fleet. This can be accomplished by comparing the age of each aircraft to the aircraft’s total operating cost. Understanding the cost structure for each aircraft is critical for budgeting and making decisions on purchasing a newer aircraft for the fleet. Use of this influencing measure can be important since, as an aircraft ages, it may cost more to maintain and operate compared to a newer aircraft. Flight Departments – Aircraft Maintenance An agency that owns/operates aircraft must perform maintenance on the aircraft. This provides a number of PMs that could be assessed, ranging from how much time it takes to conduct maintenance to how maintenance is conducted to how much the maintenance costs. For example, maintenance can be handled several ways, from employing staff to perform the maintenance in house, using contracted staff, or the total outsourcing of maintenance. These different methods present different PMs that an agency may consider evaluating. In all of these cases, the agency would typically be in control of the maintenance decisions, resulting in the use of influencing measures. For example, if an agency keeps aircraft maintenance technicians on staff to complete required annual maintenance for its fleet, it may track the number of staff hours required to perform the aircraft maintenance. This information can assist in planning for when aircraft are unavailable due to maintenance and for scheduling the work of aircraft maintenance technicians. This can also assist in the assessment of issues such as determining whether employing dedicated agency maintenance staff would be cost effective compared to contracting for maintenance services. After a consolidation among departments, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Office of Aviation began conducting the maintenance for all state aircraft. The ODOT Office

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 61 of Aviation is an FAA 145 Repair Station and maintains 11 separate models of airframes (both fixed wing and helicopters) and nine engine variants from piston reciprocating to turbine helicopter engines. It supports the operations of three state agencies. Accordingly, ODOT has adopted a PM to ensure that these aircraft are maintained, operating, and available for use by users outside the department as well as internally. ODOT has a goal of completing aircraft inspections in 6 hours or less, so the PM tracks the time it takes to perform these inspections. ODOT also tracks the percentage of the fleet that is available for use daily based on scheduled maintenance. Aircraft that break down are not counted against the agency. The Office of Avia- tion’s Aircraft Support Services and Availability Report shows how the agency tracks these PMs. FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs Flight Departments – Flight Hours An agency that owns or operates aircraft may need to track the number of flight hours for each aircraft annually using an influencing measure. This information is often important from the perspectives of safety, planning, and budgeting and can demonstrate the demand for use of the aircraft, especially if compared to the amount of time it is available for use. Flight Departments – Flights Completed Versus Flights Requested An agency that provides transportation may want to determine the effectiveness of the flight department in completing requested flights and can do this by tracking the percentage or number of flights completed compared to those requested. An agency using this influencing measure can establish a benchmark for the reliability rate of state aviation aircraft completing their missions/flights. Cancellations or diversions of flights may be caused by various reasons that affect the ability of a department to complete a flight. In addition to tracking the number of completed versus requested flights, agencies can further track possible causes of the cancel- lations that can provide insight for future programming. Flight Departments – Hourly Rate For budgeting purposes and for reporting requirements to state legislative leaders, an agency may need to determine the hourly operating cost per aircraft. Staff can measure this by tracking the number of flight hours of an aircraft and dividing this by the costs the aircraft incurs, which yields the hourly operating cost. Use of this influencing measure can allow agencies to accurately determine costs that may need to be charged across departments or toward projects that use aircraft for transportation needs. This can also be used to assist in calculations to determine justification for those wishing to use the aircraft. These operating costs can include costs for fuel used, pilot time, maintenance, insurance, and licensure. Flight Departments – Maintenance and Insurance Costs From a budgeting perspective, agencies with state-owned/operated aircraft may benefit from tracking costs associated with aircraft maintenance and insurance. Understanding the annual budget costs and using these influencing measures can allow an agency to more accu- rately budget these annual costs. This may contribute to an agency determining whether it is too costly to maintain a specific aircraft due to maintenance or insurance rates or may suggest that changes need to be made to address changes in rates.

62 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs Internal Department Drone Use Because the use of drones is an emerging trend for many agencies, defining PMs for the use of drones may be a bit challenging since there are limited historical data to review. Additionally, for drone use that is external to the agency, some of the PMs may be affected by federal regulations or guidance that will need to be taken into consideration. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Accidents/incidents, • Education outreach, • Equipment requests, • Information processing, • Missions for drones, • Operation time, and • Resources. Internal Department Drone Use – Accidents/Incidents As with manned aircraft accidents and incidents, agencies want to minimize the number of drone accidents and incidents with their drone fleets. The information gathered from tracking the number of accidents/incidents could assist in identifying trends with state-owned assets and could promote the safe use of drones by state agencies. The influencing measure for this could be tracking the overall number of accidents/incidents, or the measure could be broken down into more detail-related PMs such as the types of accidents/incidents or the number or percentage of accidents/incidents compared to overall hours of operations. Internal Department Drone Use – Education Outreach With the significant emergence of drone flights throughout the country, many agencies are trying to be proactive in facilitating educational outreach programs about drones. To support these efforts, an agency may establish a PM to track the number of staff hours dedicated to these educational outreach presentations. By conducting these outreach programs, it is hoped that agencies can reduce the number of drone accidents/incidents by state-owned assets, as well as educate those who may be using privately owned/operated drones to also limit the potential for accidents/incidents and other potential impacts. With a focus on staff hours, the agency would make use of an influencing measure. One way to use this PM would be to assess the amount of staff time dedicated to this function. Further details could include the audience for the various outreach activities (internal staff, commercial users, the general public) or the focus of the presentation (safety, FAA requirements, etc.). While the North Carolina Division of Aviation (NCDOT Division of Aviation) does not have a specific PM dedicated to drone outreach, it has had a significant amount of staff time dedicated to participation in public workshops, social media outreach, annual summits, government education, and pilot programs that have exposed businesses, agencies, and residents to the benefits that drones provide. Additionally, the NCDOT Division of Aviation was among 10 teams selected by the U.S. DOT for its 3-year Drone Integration Pilot Program. This program is in place to test and inform national regulations and systems for drone use.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 63 Internal Department Drone Use – Equipment Requests FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs If an agency is maintaining drones for use by itself or others, it may provide shared or enter- prise services to other DOT modes and receive requests for drone operations such as tunnel inspections or disaster relief efforts. Due to the increased use of drones for varying tasks, there may be merit to developing a reporting measure and tracking the number of drone equipment requests received by an agency. By reporting this information to legislative leaders, an agency may highlight the key role of the technology and partnerships with other modes at its DOT or other agencies, as well as the diversity of these requests. Internal Department Drone Use – Information Processing For agencies, an essential part of operating drone aircraft is the processing of data collected during missions. An agency may develop a PM that establishes a target for the amount of time allocated to staff for information processing, which may include the amount of time required for the pre- and post-processing of drone data. An argument for this influencing measure is that agency staff time is often limited, so tracking the amount of staff time necessary for data processing of drone-collected information may assist in determining if agency staff should handle processing or if third-party vendors should. Additionally, this PM can be evaluated to justify the use of software programs that exist for processing data, which may aid in staff time being used more effectively. Internal Department Drone Use – Missions for Drones Agencies with drone aircraft typically identify the types of missions and specific types of aircraft used to complete the missions. By tracking the number of missions for each type of drone, an agency may be better suited to manage its drone fleet utilization by the type of mission. This reporting measure can be further expanded to look at not only the type of mission or drone, but the mission duration, location, and the party that requested the use of the drone. Figure 4.23 summarizes how MassDOT Aeronautics views its drone pilot program, which facilitates the adoption of drones in a way that is safe, cost-effective, and secure, and incentivizes applied research to solve realistic MassDOT Aeronautics drone challenges. Although it currently does not publish information on the number of missions by type, it does list the ways in which drones are being used across the state. Source: MassDOT, 2019. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Department Use: • Infrastructure Inspection • Oversee Construction • Emergency Response At Airports Specifically: • Runway, Fence, and Building Inspections • Obstruction Surveys • Wildlife Surveys • Accident Investigation Figure 4.23. Drone mission types at MassDOT Aeronautics.

64 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs Internal Department Drone Use – Operation Time Agencies with drone aircraft may need to manage the amount of time drones are flying during a certain period, such as quarterly or annually. By tracking the total time of drone operations through an influencing measure, an agency may be able to determine staffing and resource needs to implement a drone aircraft program. Internal Department Drone Use – Resources To successfully implement and manage a drone aircraft program, an agency needs adequate staff available to complete requested drone missions. Tracking the amount of staff time required to support requested missions through an influencing measure is necessary for the planning of staff resources and for identifying trends in the use of drones. This PM could also expand to include tracking the amount or cost of staff training required to support the operation of drones. This can include not only the required time to pilot drones but also pre- and post-processing of collected data, as well as any necessary maintenance. FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs External Use/Public Use of Drones In some instances, agencies are offering workshops and providing opportunities to educate drone operators about the use of drones near airports, as well as overseeing registration and use of drones by the public. Tracking PMs related to these activities would be beneficial to assess their usefulness. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Accidents/incidents, • Registered drones, and • Requested drone operations. External Use/Public Use of Drones – Accidents/Incidents State law enforcement may ask agencies for assistance in evaluating drone accidents/incidents. An agency may choose to measure the number of reported drone accidents/incidents that occur across the state through a reporting measure. This information could assist agencies in identifying trends in accidents/incidents. The PM may be further separated to look at geographic location of accidents/incidents, type or size of drone involved, or additional acci- dent data such as damage involved. Since agencies may not be involved in the reporting of such activities, before this PM is implemented, it may be necessary to assess if these sort of data are being collected by law enforcement. Additionally, the agency may not have a direct role in addressing this issue.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 65 FLIGHT DEPARTMENT AND DRONE-RELATED PMs External Use/Public Use of Drones – Registered Drones With the recent federal requirement for operators to register their drones in a federal database, agencies may be tasked with reporting the number of drones based in their states. If this is the case, a reporting measure can be used to track the number of registered drones in the state. This information would most likely be a simple reporting of data; however, this information could be used for other purposes, such as developing overlay maps for system airports to show where registered drone operators are in proximity to a system airport. North Carolina has a well-established program for unmanned aircraft systems and tracks users across the state. The data in Figure 4.24 represent the number of recreational users and permitted commercial and government operators at the end of 2018. Source: Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University, 2019. Figure 4.24. Public use of drones in North Carolina – 2018. External Use/Public Use of Drones – Requested Drone Operations Under the current FAA Part 107 regulations governing the use of drones, operators are required to contact airports if their drone operations are on or near an airport or other sensitive areas. Creating a reporting measure to track the number of drone operation requests on or near system airports would be useful to analyze these totals and determine potential impacts. A further revision to this PM might be to look at the geographic location of the requests to determine hot spots or possible trends in the frequency of requests or ties to special events that may take place near airports or heavily trafficked areas. This may be helpful when evaluating the approval of requests or the management of drones in a specific area. EDUCATION-RELATED PMs 4.5 Education Educational activities by state aviation agencies vary widely across the country, and therefore, the use of PMs related to education and outreach is likely to be diverse. Many states have limited funds to support dedicated educational activities, while others make a concerted effort to not

66 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies only staff but also participate in extensive educational activities, including funding educational endeavors. Because of this diversity, these PMs are likely to require significant tailoring to the needs of each individual agency. Establishing these PMs may be helpful for an agency to assess the success of its educational activities as well as document demands for more or less effort. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Connections/participants, • Dedicated staff time, • Education events, • Funding, • Grant requests versus funding, and • Participants in education events. EDUCATION-RELATED PMs Connections/Participants Agencies may receive requests to participate in aviation education outreach events spon- sored by other aviation industry stakeholders. The PMs associated with this concept can vary widely, but should generally be influencing measures that focus on aspects of education outreach that the agency can control. For example, an agency may measure how many staff members participate in education outreach events outside of those sponsored by the state. With this information, an agency may determine whether to send staff to support an event sponsored by the aviation industry, or it may track the type of other industry groups it is working with, or may track the geographic location in an effort to assess where its resources are being requested or used. Another example may be to track how many times an agency is asked to participate in industry events but needs to decline due to funding or staffing issues. This PM may be beneficial to track so that it can be used to demonstrate a need for resources to meet these industry demands. The PM illustrated in Figure 4.25, while not directly related to the amount time staff from the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) Division of Aviation spent participating in community education or outreach events, shows how the division supported these types of activities within the airports in the system. The Kansas Aviation System Plan, 2016 (Burns & McDonnell and CDM Smith, 2016) has an objective that encourages airports to have good working relationships with their local communities. This, in turn, provides an opportunity to educate the public about the airport while also allowing the airport to receive comments and Source: Burns & McDonnell and CDM Smith, 2016. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 27.3% 45.5% 76.5% 57.1% 100.0% 72.7% 54.5% 23.5% 42.9% B A S I C C O M M U N I T Y B U S I N E S S R E G I O N A L C O M M E R C I A L S E R V I C E Meets Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark Figure 4.25. NPIAS airports by role with community outreach programs.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 67 concerns about the facility. KDOT tracks this through the Kansas Aviation System Plan as data with a benchmark of every NPIAS airport having a community outreach program. Figure 4.25 shows the results by role. EDUCATION-RELATED PMs Dedicated Staff Time It is often challenging for agencies to dedicate full- or part-time staff to participate in educational events. To address this, an agency may develop an influencing measure that establishes a target number of hours for staff to spend participating in aviation education outreach events. Tracking the number of hours spent can provide agencies with justification for additional funding or resources to support aviation education outreach efforts. A PM could also be included that tracks requests for participation and monitors if some requests go unmet due to funding and staffing restrictions. Education Events Agencies across the country often work diligently to participate in or sponsor aviation education events at system airports. An agency may create an influencing measure to track the number and type of aviation education events it chooses to sponsor. By tracking this measure, an agency may be able to better determine if additional resources are necessary to support these events or if the events are worthwhile for continued participation. This PM can be further refined to look at several additional factors that can assist an agency in the refinement of its participation. These factors may include the types of events, the geographic location, the age group of participants, and the type of involvement by the agency. MoDOT Aviation has a goal of providing outstanding customer service. One PM the agency tracks is the amount of community outreach conducted by its staff. Included as outreach are presentations, news releases, media inquiries, MoDOT publications and newsletters, district visits intended to educate mainstream MoDOT employees about aviation programs, and any external media publications about MoDOT Aviation. Funding As agencies try to increase funding for aviation education outreach programs, constraints often continue to affect the ability to increase overall agency budgets. As part of an agency’s financial planning, it may include a PM that evaluates the percentage of funding that is being spent on aviation education outreach programs and presentations. Based on this influencing measure, an agency may establish a benchmark to increase the percentage of funding for aviation education outreach programs and maintain that level of participation relative to the overall funding of the agency, which may allow it to be more flexible based on various budget issues. Although it does not publish information regarding the percentage of the total budget that is expended, the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission (NDAC) offers educational grants of up to $20,000 each for a variety of purposes. For grants that are issued, NDAC asks for statistics on the number of students who participated in the activity, which it tracks to show the amount of engagement and which serves as a form of PM that can be used to assess the success of the program.

68 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies Grant Requests Versus Funding EDUCATION-RELATED PMs Some agencies that offer educational funding are challenged with more grant requests than available funding. Due to this challenge, an agency may see a benefit to comparing the number or value of grants requested to the total funding available. This reporting measure could be used by agencies to justify further budget increases to support aviation education outreach programs. This PM could also track the types of requests to provide additional refinement to target specific types of grants or outreach efforts or could look at geographic diversity as well as the diversity of the groups or organizations requesting the grants. These data points may provide insight into who is seeking the grants and where they are located. The primary focus of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) Aeronautics Division’s Aviation Outreach and Education program is promotion of the aviation field in Tennessee to influence Tennesseans to pursue aviation education, careers, and activities in the state. The program is a competitive, 100 percent reimbursable grant program for nonprofits, local governments, educational institutions, and private entities working to advance aviation- and aeronautics-related education, career fields, and industry in the state. A requirement of the application process is the use of PMs to determine if the program is meeting its stated goals, objectives, and aviation impacts. While the PMs are not specific to TDOT, there are PMs being included in its evaluation process. Participants in Education Events With limited resources available, it is often important for agencies to estimate the number of participants at events so that they can reach the most people with the least amount of resources. Because of this, an agency may track the number of participants at state-sponsored aviation education outreach events using a reporting measure. It should be noted that this PM does not have to be specifically about the number of attendees but could consider instead the cost per attendee. It could also consider a more qualitative assessment of the amount of engagement. For example, attendance at a fly-in may reach 100 students in a general manner, where atten- dance at a day-long career symposium with 30 students may cost the same but provide a vastly different level of engagement, with both events being considered valuable. Figure 4.26 shows how MassDOT Aeronautics tracked a PM related to specific airport engagement in educational outreach. As a part of its most recent statewide airport system plan, airport managers in the Massachusetts system were asked if their airports had educational outreach programs affiliated with local schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools. The results are illustrated by role.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 69 RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs 4.6 Return on Investment and Economic Impact This section defines and explains the PMs that state aviation agencies can use regarding return on investment (ROI) and the economic impacts of system airports. It is often difficult for agencies to determine the ROI value of state investments in system airports because there are so many variables that contribute to an ROI calculation, many of which are beyond the control of the agency. Therefore, care should be given to the selection of these PMs. Summaries (and examples, where available) are included for these PMs: • Air cargo value/tonnage, • Airport system, • Aviation jobs, • Cost per enplanement, • Employment, • Leveraging federal funding with state funding, • Payroll, • Revenue, and • Tax generation. RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs Air Cargo Value/Tonnage There are agencies with system airports that facilitate significant air cargo operations in their states. While the agency itself may not influence the operations at these airports, using a reporting measure to track the changes they experience may provide valuable information. An agency may decide to establish a PM to track total air cargo tonnage as well as the value of the cargo. This PM could be expanded further to evaluate which airports or users contribute to these numbers. By gaining a better understanding of the quantity and value of air cargo Source: MassDOT, 2010. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 13% 42% 50% 71% 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Essential/Business Community/Business Corporate/Business Commercial Service/Scheduled Charter Applicable Massachusetts Total Figure 4.26. Percentage of airports by role with an educational outreach program.

70 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies tonnage at system airports, an agency may be better able to prioritize limited resources for improvements focused on air cargo infrastructure needs. Since the agency itself has a limited role in this type of PM, it is likely that a target would not be set for a certain level of perfor- mance but that the PM would be used more for a historical record of activity. Figure 4.27, using data from the Florida Air Cargo Study by the Florida Department of Transportation, Aviation and Spaceports Office (Florida Department of Transportation, 2016), shows the trend line for total annual air cargo tonnage. The study also reports the total value of cargo flown through all Florida airports. RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs Airport System One common objective for agencies is to evaluate aviation’s impact on the statewide economy. Tracking the total economic impact of aviation on the state is a common PM that can be looked at in many ways. Effectively delivering this information to legislative leaders and the public helps reinforce the importance of aviation and system airports to the state economy. Ways to present the results of this PM could be via the impact of the total system, impacts by airport type, or regional impacts. Each of these would make use of a reporting measure. Since the agency itself has a limited role in this type of PM, it is likely that a target would not be set for a certain level of performance but that this PM would be used more for a historical record of activity. The aviation industry plays an important role in the economy of the State of Florida. Figure 4.28 shows how Florida tracked the total economic impact that aviation had on the state, and where those specific impacts came from. The Florida Department of Transportation, Aviation and Spaceports Office, continually conducts statewide economic impact studies as well as studies of individual airports. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 2016. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 2,496,262 2,525,108 2,662,377 2,659,304 2,710,994 2,350,000 2,400,000 2,450,000 2,500,000 2,550,000 2,600,000 2,650,000 2,700,000 2,750,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 U .S . S ho rt T on s Figure 4.27. Statewide historic air cargo tonnage 2010–2014.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 71 Aviation Jobs RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs Many agencies periodically conduct economic studies of their state airports. These studies often highlight the number of jobs and income generated from aviation at the airports. Income generated from aviation can be measured by evaluating the financial investment in an airport compared to the number of jobs created at that airport. This can also be applied on a broader scale to look at the total investment at airports across the state versus the number of jobs created. These various reporting measures capture different economic aspects of the system. Based on the information contained in the economic impact study itself, as well as from PMs that are developed that may tie to this information, an agency may promote the positive economic impacts of strategic investment by the state into projects at system airports. Table 4.11, using data from the North Carolina Aviation System Plan, shows example results of tracking this PM. Federal, state, and local investments (totaling nearly $30 million between 1996 and 2012) in the Cape Fear Regional Jetport were evaluated. The table shows the increase in jobs from 1996 to 2012 that resulted from these financial investments, as well as the economic contribution that these jobs brought to the state. These investments resulted in an increase of nearly 500 jobs and over $55 million in economic return over the 16 year period. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 2019. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. $9,815,780,000 $2,281,049,000 $90,732,534,000 $72,014,206,000 Military Spending Industry Reliance Visitor Spending On-Airport Activity Statewide, the economic impact of airports occurred in four primary categories: on-airport activity, visitor spending, industry reliance, and military spending. Together in 2017, these accounted for nearly $175 billion in economic impact from Florida's aviation industry. Figure 4.28. Florida’s statewide benefits from aviation. Economic Impact of Cape Fear Regional Jetport Year 1996 2006 2012 Total jobs 108 261 600 Economic contribution $4,154,000 $26,179,000 $61,730,000 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2015. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.11. Example of economic impact in terms of jobs and economic contribution in North Carolina.

72 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies Cost Per Enplanement RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs There are agencies that use state funding to promote different programs that assist airports beyond matching funds for projects. For example, some offer state funds to support air service, ranging from assisting with subsidies to bring air service to a community to offering support for marketing campaigns. To better evaluate use of state funding, an agency may use a report- ing measure to evaluate the amount of funding per enplanement. These types of PMs may be helpful when preparing information to justify the investments in these programs to audiences such as the public and state legislators. Employment Aviation employment at airports can have a tremendous economic impact. Not only can agencies track jobs at system airports, they can also track the total number of direct/indirect jobs due to aviation in the state. Agencies can use these reporting measures to educate state legislative leaders and the public about the economic importance of aviation at system airports as well as to track trends in employment. This PM can be further refined to look at specific items such as type of employment (on airport, off airport, support services, etc.), type of airports (commercial service versus general aviation), and geographic location of employ- ment centers. The South Carolina Aeronautics Commission (SCAC) evaluated the total economic impact of aviation across several impact categories as a part of its 2018 Statewide Aviation System Plan. SCAC looked at the breakdown of direct and indirect jobs that existed due to aviation. Table 4.12 shows the impact categories and the number of jobs. This varies from the sample shown in the previous PM on aviation jobs because it goes beyond those on the airport (direct) and accounts for the indirect jobs as well. Impact Category Direct and Indirect Jobs Airport management 1,374 Airport tenants 10,987 The Boeing Company 21,773 Capital investment 1,567 General aviation visitors 4,590 Commercial visitors 82,468 Total 122,759 Source: South Carolina Aeronautics Commission, 2018. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.12. Economic impact of aviation in South Carolina.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 73 Leveraging Federal Funding with State Funding RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs Agencies are often focused on leveraging the maximum amount of federal funding (through the FAA AIP) with state funding sources. Because of this, there are benefits to tracking how much state funding is required to match federal funding. By tracking this reporting measure, an agency can illustrate how additional state funding can be leveraged to possibly obtain more federal funding for eligible projects at system airports, assuming additional federal funds are available. Knowing how much state funding is needed to match federal funding can often be important when educating legislators on the needs for increases in state funding. This is a prime example of an ROI calculation where the agency can demonstrate that by contributing x amount of state funds, it is able to leverage y amount of federal funds, which often translates into a considerable return on investment. This calculation can often be heightened if an eco- nomic impact study is completed to show how the core investment of federal and state dollars translates into direct and indirect impacts caused by construction projects within the state or individual communities. Payroll With thousands of jobs related to aviation in a state, aviation-related payroll can have a signifi- cant impact on the state’s economy. To further expand on the employment PMs, through the use of a reporting measure, an agency could evaluate the total amount of payroll dollars that result from aviation-related jobs. The agency could also track a PM related to the collection of state payroll taxes and recirculation of employee payroll dollars into other state taxes. These PM examples can be used to demonstrate the importance of aviation at system airports. Much as with some of the operational PMs, this PM is more informational in nature since the agency is likely not having a direct impact on actual payrolls. MoDOT Aviation evaluated the number of jobs, payroll dollars, and total output of the aviation system as a part of its Statewide Airports Economic Impact Study. The results shown in Table 4.13 include a breakdown of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Statewide Total Airport Economic Impacts Direct (On Airport Businesses) Indirect (Visitors) Induced (Multiplier) Total Jobs 21,4000 39,213 40,008 100,621 Payroll $1,169,385,000 $842,835,000 $1,116,426,000 $3,128,646,000 Output $4,138,213,000 $2,551,803,000 $4,411,683,000 $11,101,699,000 Source: Landrum & Brown, Incorporated, 2012. Table created by Mead & Hunt. Table 4.13. Statewide total airport economic impacts.

74 Performance Measures for State Aviation Agencies Revenue RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs Agencies across the country have a variety of ways to generate revenues. For example, some collect registration fees, others rely on fuel excise tax revenues, and others get allocations from their state general fund. No matter the method, it may be valuable to track these revenues as a reporting measure, either individually or as a whole representing the entire funding program. Agencies may want to closely monitor this information to determine trends in their revenue streams that could affect available funding for their operations and the funding of capital improvement projects at system airports. Figure 4.29, using data from the Colorado Division of Aeronautics, shows the most recent available breakdown from tracking its aviation tax revenue, and what percentage of that revenue was from jet fuel versus aviation gas (avgas). This figure summarizes a specific element within the agency’s overall PM for revenues since it focuses on revenues generated by aviation taxes. Sales Tax All Jet Fuel 2.9% On Retail Excise Tax Jet Fuel (Non-Airline) $0.04/Gallon Excise Tax Avgas $0.06/Gallon 0.7% Excise Tax (Avgas) Source: Colorado Division of Aeronautics, 2019. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. 6.1% Excise Tax (Jet Fuel) 93.2% Sales Tax Figure 4.29. Aviation tax revenue structure. RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT PMs Tax Generation A task commonly performed for a statewide airport economic impact study is to identify the amount of taxes collected on aviation-related activities and how those funds may have an impact on the economy. For example, an increase in a fuel tax may result in additional revenues being generated that may fund various agency programs. Conversely, an agency may receive a large amount of its revenue from fuel taxes, which, when fuel purchases drop, may result in a significant loss of funds. This information could be gathered through a reporting measure and used by agencies to bolster support for increasing state investment in system airports through the implementation of new taxes or the reallocation of existing tax revenues from other sources to aviation-related programs.

Detailed Performance Measure Summaries 75 The South Carolina Aeronautics Commission evaluated the total state tax revenues from airport-supported activities as part of its 2018 system plan (see Figure 4.30). The figure is only based on direct economic impacts that were identified in the analysis and does not include the indirect/induced impacts or the aircraft property taxes that were levied by municipalities. 4.7 Summary The PMs discussed in this chapter are not exhaustive but are meant to be a starting point for agencies to consider when evaluating the development of PMs to meet their individual needs. With nearly 100 PMs discussed, it is not the intent of this guidebook to suggest that an agency should implement all of them, but instead, after careful consideration, the agency should adopt those that make sense for its specific needs and staffing availabilities and tailor them to meet its specific requirements. This includes both types of PMs—influencing measures, which address items that the agency can control, and report- ing measures, which are items that the agency cannot control. Both types of measures can be useful when applied appropriately. Factors addressed in Chapter 3, such as agency goals and available data sources, should also be evaluated when selecting PMs to adapt these general topics to specific requirements. After careful consideration and review of the strategic plan, an agency can adopt those PMs that make the most sense to support its specific needs and staffing availability and tailor them to meet its specific requirements. Source: South Carolina Aeronautics Commission, 2018. Graphic generated by Mead & Hunt. Commercial Service Visitor Sales Tax $254,831,300 39% General Aviation Visitor Sales Tax $14,824,150 2% Employee Sales Tax $45,272,860 7% Employee Income Tax, $211,273,500 32% Sales Tax Airport Management $2,609,220 <1% Sales Tax Airport Tenants $112,157,620 17% Sales Tax Airport and Tenant Capital Investment $16,003,350 3% Total Tax Revenues $656,972,000 Figure 4.30. State tax revenues from airport-supported activities.