Airport manager outlines $9 million planned work, explains ACIP and grant rules

The Municipal Airport Authority heard a briefing on the Airport Capital Improvement Plan and related federal and state grant programs, including how those programs shape what projects the airport can seek funding for and a near‑term $9 million project plan.

The airport’s manager of maintenance explained that ACIP — the Airport Capital Improvement Plan — is the five‑year planning tool airports use to request federal funding through the state. “The ACIP actually has 2 different things if you wanna look at it. It is airport's capital improvement plan,” the manager said, and added that the federal side requires a state submission by October 1.

Why it matters: ACIP sets priorities that the state and FAA consider when awarding grant money. Changes to the ACIP or missed deadlines can delay projects or change which items receive federal support.

The manager told the board that the airport will submit its ACIP updates through the Tennessee Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division and that the airport is on the federal list of airports that can accept federal money (NPIAS/NPIAS‑type obligations). He said the airport expects to program roughly $9,000,000 in work over the coming years, spread across multiple projects and subject to state and federal review and funding cycles. “Over the next about 3 years, we're planning on spending about $9,000,000 here at this airport in various forms or fashion,” he said.

He walked board members through program distinctions and constraints: nonprimary entitlement (a state/federal set‑aside) provides smaller airports with annual funding (he said small eligible airports receive $150,000 a year as a baseline); BIL (the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) has different priorities and in the airport’s case can be used for revenue‑generating items; and grant assurances attach obligations when airports accept federal grants. He also described an example of a planned use for remaining BIL funds: installing shade ports south of the T‑hangars to provide aircraft protection without the full cost of enclosed hangar doors.

Board members asked for clarification about timing and reporting. The manager said staff will provide financial and planning reports electronically before future meetings and that the ACIP submission cycle and state programming determine when projects appear in a given year’s funded list.

The briefing included discussion of tradeoffs that influence whether a project is coded as “safety,” “preservation” or “revenue‑generating” in state/federal ranking systems — categories that affect prioritization. The manager emphasized that the state and FAA prioritize safety and preservation before revenue generation.

Less critical details: the manager contrasted the airport’s planning with other airports that did not follow a long‑range layout plan, said the airport meets federal standards because of past planning, and encouraged board members to ask questions about acronyms and program rules.

Board action on the briefing was procedural; the board accepted the monthly report for inclusion in meeting materials and will receive ACIP and financial materials electronically going forward.