Over the course of several Cape May County Commission meetings, members of the public have asked the commissioners to share details of their plans for the county airport.

Interviews with two news outlets and comments made by Commissioner Will Morey provide new insight into the possible future of the airport property.

Some of the new information speaks to the public concern about how many taxpayer dollars the county might have to spend if it does finally terminate its relationship with the Delaware River and Bay Authority, which now leases the airport site.

In June 2024 Commission Director Len Desiderio said the county would likely have to pay between $24 million and $34 million in capital investment reimbursement to the DRBA; he said recently that the figure is still to be determined. Morey has put the amount at $30 million to $32 million.

The county’s yearly cost for running the airport was put at $1 million in the one bid the county received on running the airport; Morey believes that figure will end up closer to $1.5 million.

What became clearer through recent disclosures is how much of the airport property can be developed with mixed-income housing.

Recently the commissioners have spoken more about plans for the development of such housing at the site, talking about a roughly 300-unit complex on approximately 35 acres.

Any change to the current arrangement at the airport will involve discussions with and the need for approvals by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Following is a more detailed breakdown of the airport issue.

Background

For 25 years the 1,000-plus acres of the county airport have been managed by the DRBA based on a 30-year lease agreement with Cape May County. As part of the county arrangement the DRBA has also been the sponsor of the airport with the Federal Aviation Administration. According to the FAA, the airport sponsors “make binding commitments to assure that the public’s interest in civil aviation will be served.” These commitments are based on federal law.

Cape May County owns the land on which the airport sits. That land is located within Lower Township. The DRBA is the airport sponsor with the FAA. It also runs the airport’s operations and oversees the airport improvement fund.

The existing 30-year lease held by the DRBA, for which it pays $1 per year, would have automatically renewed for another 30 years if the county took no action at the beginning of the summer of 2024. Instead in June of that year the county commissioners called a special meeting, approved nonrenewal of the lease, and notified the DRBA of that action. This all happened within days of the date at which the automatic renewal would have taken place.

Earlier in the year county Commissioner Will Morey, who had been the liaison to the DRBA for 12 years and had been central to the county’s activities at the airport, was given other duties and put on the sidelines for county negotiations with the DRBA about the future of the airport. Morey also has 50 years of experience with aviation. He maintains a land lease for a portion of a hangar building for which he pays $100 per month.

Following the notice of nonrenewal sent to DRBA in June 2024, the county prepared for the possibility of becoming not just the owner of the land at the airport but the airport’s sponsor with the FAA, taking over that role from the DRBA with the required FAA approval.

In March the county sought bids for airside operations services, currently provided by the DRBA. The county received only one bid, and it is unusual in that the eventual award to FlightLevel, the solitary bidder, is conditional in ways that mean it may result in no award at all.

FlightLevel is already the fixed base operator at the airport. The company is a provider of aeronautical services with an existing on-the-ground staff. Its website for Cape May Airport advertises services as varied as fuel and maintenance on the one hand and water and coffee on the other.

In its bid FlightLevel says the company can support a “smooth and immediate transition to county-led sponsorship of WWD [Cape May Airport’s designation].” The transition, however, would only take place if the county becomes the airport sponsor. If the county fails to become the sponsor, the public vote of an award to FlightLevel means nothing.

The Reimbursement

One major factor that makes all of this a matter of great public interest is that the county, should it seek FAA approval to become the airport’s sponsor and end the lease with the DRBA, is responsible for reimbursing the DRBA for capital investments made at the airport that have not been fully amortized.

The figure that has most often been used in connection with this reimbursement is $32 million, dollars that would come from taxpayer money. An interview given to another news outlet by Desiderio and Barr suggests that what the county would owe is less precisely known.

In that interview Desiderio said, “We have forensic auditors or accountants looking at everything that is there because we take spending taxpayers’ money very, very seriously.” He added, “And if somebody just comes to us and says it’s $32 million, $24 million, $18 million, we don’t just say OK.”

Morey, who has the longest experience with those investments, said recently that he believes the number will be in the range of $30 million to $32 million.

The point some members of the public have made during public comment at commission meetings is that the county commissioners need to more fully respond to public requests for airport plans before they take actions that commit that level of taxpayer funds.

Revenue and Expense

As an offset to what might be owed to the DRBA, Desiderio is quoted in the interview he and Barr gave as saying roughly $800,000 in rent would be an income flow to the county rather than to the DRBA. Both Desiderio and Barr did not clarify what portion of that money would be discretionary revenue for the county.

Very little, if any, says Morey, who says that almost all the money earned at the airport must go directly into the airport improvement fund, to be used for the airport.

In terms of expense, ending the DRBA’s role as airside operator for the airport and the assumption of sponsorship of the airport by the county would require a new airside operator and would activate the award made to FlightLevel. In its bid response FlightLevel presented a first-year cost estimate of roughly $1 million.

Morey in an interview with the Herald said he feels that number will rise to be closer to $1.5 million soon after any change in the oversight of airport operations. Under the current arrangement with the DRBA, the county pays nothing for airside operations.

The question becomes what does the county gain by terminating its current lease arrangement with the DRBA, and does that represent a good use of the millions, whatever they are determined to be, that taxpayers will have to pay?

Housing

The major issue at hand is a mixed-income housing complex of approximately 300 units. As Desiderio and Barr explained it, the complex would be built on roughly 35 acres at the airport. The county would not be the landlord, Desiderio is quoted as saying. The use of the term landlord implies that this might be rental housing, but the mixed arrangement for the housing was not discussed.

Desiderio described the housing units as places people could afford to live in Cape May County, addressing a major issue of housing affordability. He said the county would likely have a long-term contract with a developer and that contract might involve a PILOT, a payment in lieu of taxes.

In none of the discussion of the housing complex did either Desiderio or Barr mention that discussions have been had with Lower Township. The township would be responsible for any PILOT and would provide all municipal services to the housing complex, and the township’s schools would have the responsibility for education of the children. What role the township has played in the development of the county’s vision for the space is not clear.

At the commission’s meeting Oct.14 Morey focused some attention on the space available for such a housing development. He passed out a complicated map of approximately 125 acres at the airport, saying that most of the rest of the 1,000-plus acres is already fully dedicated to aviation activities. The short version of what Morey presented is that he asserts there are approximately 70 acres available for development if hurdles like FAA approval can be overcome.

Morey admits he is disappointed and even hurt that the county has not seen fit to use his aviation expertise and his 12 years of experience overseeing the airport affairs for the commission. He says he has been cut out of discussions with the DRBA.

He adds that from his vantage point a housing complex of approximately 18 acres is something he would support, but he says that a plan to use roughly 35 acres, which he says is equal to half of all the undeveloped land available to the county at the airport, would be giving up too much of the future, and he would not support it.

Although it has not been mentioned specifically, the airport has also served as a hub for the county’s future plans for economic development.

Morey also suggested that even if the county is successful in getting FAA approval for a housing complex on some portion of the airport land, the county may be required to separate the land used for housing from the airport, essentially changing the boundaries of the total airport complex.

If that were a condition of approval, Morey says that the county would have to pay market price for the land to the airport improvement fund.

Separating from DRBA

Another major issue in this situation is whether the county’s plans require separation from DRBA as sponsor and airside operator.

Morey claims that it may be possible to get agreement from the DRBA for a housing development without going the route of ending the lease agreement that has greatly benefited the county for 25 years, with airport operation, millions of dollars of investment and strong cooperation with county goals.

During the interview given by Desiderio and Barr, Barr is quoted as saying that right now the county and its taxpayers have no say in how the airport is used. “Right now, we have no voice. Our constituents have no voice. We are fighting to give them that voice, housing or not,” he is quoted as saying.

Morey argued at the October commission meeting that this was a misrepresentation of the arrangement. He said the relationship with the DRBA has been characterized by “a significant level of engagement.” He detailed minutes of DRBA meetings in which the county’s voice was clearly heard and acted upon.

The differences between Morey and other members of the commission are significant ones. They go to whether county plans for a housing complex at the airport could be achieved without terminating the arrangement with the DRBA. They involve the level of county faith that the DRBA as the continuing sponsor could successfully sell the housing complex concept to the FAA. They involve differences on how much taxpayers will likely have to pay to support the county vision if it is approved. They also go to the wisdom concerning the proposed size of any housing complex and whether it could remain within the airport boundary.

What is also at issue in this exchange and the controversies surrounding it is the degree to which the public should be informed and involved in major decisions of this sort. Considerable public dollars are at stake, public benefits are claimed, and public interest has been awakened.

So far the public has been treated to press interviews instead of open discussion at meetings where county governance transpires. How necessary that silence is, is an issue members of the public have been left to decide for themselves.

Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.