Can the NC Air Cargo Airport Authority make grants to the Global TransPark Development Commission, or does it have to use a different legal mechanism to send money over?

Plain-English summary

The North Carolina Air Cargo Airport Authority was created by Session Law 1991, Chapter 749 (codified as Chapter 63A of the General Statutes). Its mission was to plan, construct, and operate a major cargo airport complex in eastern North Carolina, the project later known as the Global TransPark. Two years later, Session Law 1993, Chapter 544 (codified in Article 4 of Chapter 158) created a separate body, the Global TransPark Development Commission, to govern the surrounding economic development district. Two authorities, overlapping geography, distinct enabling statutes.

In early 1994, the Authority's executive vice president asked Chief Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. whether the Authority could make grants-in-aid to the Commission. The answer came in two parts.

First, no grants. Chapter 63A does not give the Authority a grant-making power. The opinion's reading is implicit but firm: a public body created by statute has only the powers the legislature gives it, and "make grants" is not on the Authority's list.

Second, yes contracts. G.S. § 63A-4(a)(4) authorizes the Authority "to contract and enter into agreements with the State, local governments, other authorities of North Carolina, and other states for the interchange of business and to facilitate the business of cargo airport complexes." That is a contracting power, and it is broad enough to support payments to the Commission as long as the substantive activity being paid for is one that "facilitates the business of cargo airport complexes" within the Authority's designated cargo airport complex site.

Chapter 63A defines the geographic frame. "Cargo airport complexes" under G.S. § 63A-2(7) are "a cargo airport and all other facilities, including private facilities, related to the cargo airport that are located within the cargo airport complex site." A "cargo airport complex site" under G.S. § 63A-2(a) is "the area designated by the Authority as the location of a cargo airport complex." Outside that designated geography, the contracting power does not reach.

The Commission has its own contracting power in G.S. § 158-37(a)(5), which lets it contract with the United States, the State of North Carolina, and units of local government. So the Commission can be the counterparty on a contract with the Authority.

The opinion's instruction was therefore practical: the Authority and the Commission should match up the Commission's enumerated powers under G.S. § 158-37 against activities that fit the "facilitate" standard within the cargo airport complex site, then write a contract under which the Commission performs those activities on the Authority's behalf and the Authority pays for the cost. That mechanism gets the money across without exceeding the Authority's powers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The North Carolina Air Cargo Airport Authority was later dissolved by statute and its assets folded into other state agencies (the Global TransPark Authority took over the underlying facility). Chapter 63A and Article 4 of Chapter 158 have both been amended significantly. The Global TransPark site near Kinston operates under a different statutory framework today. Anyone analyzing a similar inter-authority payment question should start with the current enabling statutes for whichever body holds the relevant grant or contract power, not with this 1994 opinion's specific citations.

Common questions

Q: Why does it matter whether the payment is called a "grant" or a "contract"?
A: Because the Authority's enabling statute does not give it grant-making power, calling the payment a grant would put it outside the Authority's statutory powers. A contract under G.S. § 63A-4(a)(4) is inside the statutory powers, as long as the contract is for an activity that facilitates cargo airport complex business. The substance has to match the label.

Q: What kinds of activities would "facilitate the business of cargo airport complexes"?
A: The opinion did not enumerate examples. The phrase covers anything that supports the operation of a cargo airport and its related facilities within the designated site: infrastructure planning, marketing, recruitment of cargo tenants, workforce training, logistics coordination. Activities purely off-site or unrelated to cargo airport operations would not fit.

Q: Could the Authority pay the Commission for general economic development work outside the cargo airport complex site?
A: Not under G.S. § 63A-4(a)(4). The statute's geographic anchor is the cargo airport complex site as designated by the Authority. Off-site economic development was outside the contracting power, even though the Commission's own enabling statute gave it broader geographic reach.

Q: Could the Commission accept Authority payments under its own statute?
A: Yes. G.S. § 158-37(a)(5) lets the Commission contract with the United States, the State, and local government units, and Article 4 of Chapter 158 included a list of substantive powers. As long as the activity fell within both the Commission's enumerated powers and the Authority's "facilitate" standard, the contract was authorized on both sides.

Q: Did this opinion say anything about how the contract should be priced?
A: No. The opinion said only that "contractual payments to the Commission for the cost of these activities" were appropriate. Pricing, payment schedules, and accountability mechanisms were left to the contracting parties. Standard state-contracting and procurement rules would apply.

Q: What did the AG mean by saying the Commission would act "on the Authority's behalf"?
A: The opinion's framing is that of an agency relationship: the Authority pays the Commission to perform activities that, in substance, are part of the Authority's own mission to operate the cargo airport complex. The contract should make that agency relationship explicit so that the activities are clearly tied to the Authority's statutory mission, not an unrelated transfer of public money to another public body.

Background and statutory framework

North Carolina built the Global TransPark in eastern NC as a major economic development bet in the early 1990s. The legal architecture put two bodies in the same physical neighborhood: the Air Cargo Airport Authority focused on the airport itself and its directly related facilities, and the TransPark Development Commission focused on the surrounding economic development district. Each had its own enabling statute, its own membership, and its own enumerated powers.

That separation created a recurring practical question: how do the two bodies share money for activities that benefit both? The grants-in-aid model would have been the simplest, but it required express statutory authority that Chapter 63A did not give the Authority. The contract model was the second-best path, and the General Assembly had given the Authority a broad enough contracting power that it could carry most of the necessary money movement.

The opinion's analytical move was conservative. Rather than read a grant-making power into the Authority by implication, Chief Deputy AG Vanore read the contracting power for what it said. The contracting power was substantial. It was just not unlimited; it had to attach to activities that "facilitate the business of cargo airport complexes" within the designated site.

That standard is a real constraint. Activities like funding K-12 schools in surrounding counties, or building general-purpose roads outside the site, or marketing the broader region for non-cargo industries would not fit. Activities like training the cargo workforce, marketing cargo tenants, building cargo-related access infrastructure within the site, or coordinating cargo-supportive logistics with state agencies would fit. The line is whether the substance supports cargo airport business in the defined geography.

Citations

• Session Law 1991, Chapter 749 (codified as Chapter 63A of the General Statutes; NC Air Cargo Airport Authority)
• Session Law 1993, Chapter 544 (codified in Article 4 of Chapter 158; Global TransPark Development Commission)
• G.S. § 63A-2(7) (definition of "cargo airport complexes")
• G.S. § 63A-2(a) (definition of "cargo airport complex site")
• G.S. § 63A-4 (Authority's general powers)
• G.S. § 63A-4(a)(4) (contracting power to facilitate cargo airport complex business)
• G.S. § 158-37 (Commission's general powers)
• G.S. § 158-37(a)(5) (Commission may contract with US, State, and local governments)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/authority-of-the-north-carolina-air-cargo-airport-authority-to-make-grants/

Original opinion text

February 28, 1994

Mr. William T. Powell, Jr. Executive Vice President NC Air Cargo Airport Authority Post Office Box 27406 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7406

Re: Advisory opinion to William T. Powell, Jr. regarding authority of the North Carolina Air Cargo Airport Authority to make grants to the Global TransPark Development Commission. G.S. 63A-4 and G.S. 158-37

Dear Mr. Powell:

You have asked whether the North Carolina Air Cargo Airport Authority (the "Authority") may make grants-in-aid to the Global TransPark Development Commission (the "Commission").

I have reviewed the enabling legislation both for the Authority (Session Law 1991, Chapter 749, codified as Chapter 63A of the General Statutes) and for the Commission (Session Law 1993, Chapter 544, codified in Article 4 of Chapter 158 of the General Statutes).

The Authority is not specifically authorized to make grants-in-aid. However, it does have authority "to contract and enter into agreements with the State, local governments, other authorities of North Carolina, and other states for the interchange of business and to facilitate the business of cargo airport complexes." G.S. 63A-4(a)(4) "Cargo airport complexes" are defined as "a cargo airport and all other facilities, including private facilities, related to the cargo airport that are located within the cargo airport complex site." G.S. 63A-2(7) In turn, "cargo airport complex site" is defined as "the area designated by the Authority as the location of a cargo airport complex…." G.S. 63A-2(a) Therefore, the Authority may enter into agreements to facilitate the business of cargo airport complexes within the areas designated by the Authority as a cargo airport complex site.

The Global TransPark Development Commission governs an economic development district, created pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 158 and surrounding the global transPark complex and cargo airport. Under G.S. 158-37(a)(5) the Commission may enter into contracts "with the United States, the State of North Carolina and units of local government" to undertake the other powers granted by the General Assembly to the Commission under G.S. 158-37.

Therefore, to the extent the Commission identifies among its powers an activity or activities which would "facilitate the business of cargo airport complexes" within the cargo airports complex site, then it would be appropriate for the Authority to provide for contractual payments to the Commission for the cost of these activities when conducted on the Authority's behalf by the Commission.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.

Chief Deputy Attorney General