Many issues arise in tumultuous meeting
UPDATED — the county commissioners voted 3 to 0 at their February 12th meeting to send a resolution asking for airport authority to be dissolved to the state legislature.]
A meeting last night (Feb. 11) of the Pickens Airport Authority began with an explanation of why and how the commissioners seek to dissolve the authority.
Commission Chair Kris Stancil told the three authority members and a room full of pilots/airport supporters that he intends to seek a vote of the board of commissioners at their February 12 meeting tonight to begin the process of eliminating the authority. To dissolve an authority, legislation has to be introduced at the state legislature, passed, and signed by the governor like any other bill.
Stancil said at this point, airport management is too much for a volunteer board to handle. He said this is not a negative directed at anyone but a situation that is not working. He said if the airport reaches a point of financial self-sufficiency, they may revisit the authority approach.
The volunteer board has worked countless hours, and all would be asked to join whatever new type board they create – but there is a need now for paid county staff with direct accountability to the commissioners to oversee the operations, particularly the long-stalled terminal project there, Stancil said.
Airport Authority Ed Wood said he is “quite thankful” for Stancil making the change.
“There are a lot of projects that need more direct oversight than a volunteer board can give,” Wood said. He said this has been discussed among the authority members, and he is fully supportive of the dissolution.
Discussion at the meeting indicated the airport has several substantial problems that require immediate attention. One is that the county has had to supplement from general fund money to the airport, which last year saw nearly $1.5 million in total expenditures. Records obtained by the Progress through an open records request show that in 2024 the county had to provide $331,000 in general fund money to the airport, including the local match on capital improvement projects. In 2024, $285,000 was transferred to the airport.
A second discussion indicated the planned new terminal, which hasn’t even begun construction, is so far behind schedule that the county may have to pay back FAA and state funds awarded for the construction if it doesn’t get rolling by the end of 2025. Discussion showed the county needs to put to use $750,000 in construction funds they were awarded for the project, which remains held up in the approval stage.
Perhaps because it was shaping up to possibly be the last meeting of the authority, a wide variety of simmering issues arose following the commission chair’s announcement.
• A big topic of the night saw the airport-contracted engineer Phil Eberly with Lead Edge Design discuss the ongoing issue with a relatively new instrument tower to measure wind speed and visibility, among other things, which the FAA has now said is being blocked by the first jet hangar built at the airport.
In a technical discussion, Eberly claimed that part of the problem is that some documents he submitted to the FAA had been “forged.” From his explanation of the delays, it appeared the plans he had turned in had been changed and that this led to the current woes with the tower. The FAA will not approve the terminal work until the tower situation is remedied.
Eberly encouraged the airport authority to get the terminal project rolling first as it is facing stiff financial repayments if not well underway this year. After that they can come back and “update” the instrument tower.
Several pilots gave a chorus of dissent when Eberly said this idea would likely keep them without the tower for six months or more.
Authority Chair Wood said they would have to look at this further.
• There have been 46 people awaiting a hangar spot for many months and 11 people awaiting a tie-down spot. This list has not moved at all, according to the airport manager.
Manager Alexis Walker said she knew this may be controversial but felt some type of plan to eliminate subletting hangars would open up some spots. She said she doesn’t have any exact plan, but feels something needs to be done involving the waiting list, which doesn’t move. Chair Wood said this is something that could be looked at with the new governing body but added that for every person this makes happy by opening a spot, it will make an equal number unhappy by ending their subletting.
• Responding to another question on the t-hangars, Wood said at this point the most recently built ones are still being paid off and have not produced a strong financial return. He said there would be “no appetite” for the county to go further into airport debt to build more, as the current ones aren’t being paid off very quickly. He suggested at least a 30 percent increase in monthly rentals would be needed to make the project more financially attractive.
Secondly, Wood said there is no good spot to put additional t-hangars.
In perhaps the most contentious point, according to the engineers from Lead Edge Design, the funds and plans are in place to fence the entire airport, which will cut off a group of private hangars on property adjacent to the airport.
The engineer said a rough timeline for the fencing is that it could start by fall of this year.
One renter of the hangars, referred to as Lloyd [Thompson]’s Landing after the family that owns the property, said the authority was carrying out a long-known plan to take that property from the family of Lloyd Thompson. He said they were using “strongarm” tactics.
Wood and other members of the authority, Robert Saul and Mark Christensen, said that absolutely is not true. They have no plans to acquire the property. Saul said they hated to see the area cut off and had worked hard to find some exception in the FAA codes to prevent it, adding it is no benefit to the county to shut it down.
Airport Manager Walker said they enjoy serving those pilots and having their fuel sales.
According to discussion, for that area to remain inside the fence or have a gate of some type, it would need to be brought to FAA standards by the owners. The authority has either discussed or sent written information on the requirement to the property owners, which would be costly. It was not clear at the meeting, but it did not appear to be a plan that was moving forward.
Pilots in the room questioned these FAA requirements preventing a “through the fence” operation. Several asked for proof these requirements are as the authority says, with one pilot pointing out there are numerous airports with through-the-fence operations.
In a mostly informal, open meeting where many people spoke, another pilot said they had used that area for 50 years with no problems and that this fence will force all the people with planes there to leave.
