Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses airport managers for options as Skydive City dispute risks $350,000 in FAA funds
Summary
Council discussed whether to pursue litigation, non‑renewal, or a negotiated buyout over Skydive City's RV park after FAA denied corrective action plans; airport director warned the city could lose about $350,000 in annual FAA entitlements if the airport remains non‑compliant.
City council members pressed airport staff April 13 to clarify options for handling Skydive City's RV park after a change in ownership and repeated FAA denials of corrective action plans. Nathan Coleman, Zephyrhills’ airport director, told the council the issue is complex because FAA grant assurances can conflict with lease language and could expose the city to legal risk.
Coleman said the airport still receives safety grants but that continuing the RV park on FAA property makes the airport ineligible for other entitlement funds. "What we know we're losing is roughly $350,000 a year that you're letting sit on the table that rolls over after four years," he told the council, describing the potential annual entitlements the city may forgo while the RV park remains in place.
Coleman outlined several options: negotiate a buyout (city communications earlier referenced a buyout in the range of $7 million); permit a lease extension to keep the RV park and accept limits on FAA funding; let the lease run to expiration and issue an RFP for a new airport user; or pursue litigation to resolve conflicts between the lease and FAA grant assurances. He said the current Skydive City lease expires in 2030 and includes a five‑year option to extend to 2035.
Councilmembers raised the economic trade‑offs: Skydive City is currently a significant rent payer and draws visitors during large events, but losing FAA entitlements could affect capital projects and larger infrastructure investment. Officials said they want a clearer business plan for the airport and asked staff to return with a recommended strategy and, if needed, outside expertise to analyze revenue, FAA compliance risk and possible replacement tenants.
No formal council vote was taken at the meeting; Coleman said staff would brief the council further and schedule a dedicated discussion on airport strategy and potential legal options.
