County's airport issue credibility problem

"The county is rural, but the airport is not."

Those were the words the public heard during the last board of county commissioner meeting (April 15). The county manager spoke them voicing his support to hire a national airport management firm to replace our recent airport manager.

Commissioners unanimously approved that firm's contract. Now the county has someone to find a new manager to replace the really good one the county manager just terminated. Makes you wonder doesn't it? And really it's a good deal. We are going to pay this firm $192,000 a year or $16,000 a month or $4,000 a five day, 40-hour work week or $100 per hour for up to a year. What a deal. I did not know the county was so flush.

Oh, I am sure it's a good deal but what happened to the "request for proposal" process where we could have chosen a perhaps better qualified company at a more competitive price? Competition does not appear to be the order of the day for our county manager.

I don't know about this new firm but I was shocked to hear the county manager finally verbalize what we all knew about what the county was trying to do with our airport. That is, making it bigger, making busier. Who cares that the voters have for 20 years been trying to control the growth of the airport, protect our fragile environment and peaceful community. I hope the voters still do.

During the public comment portion of the commissioner meeting I read them the following statement:

Commissions we're about to draft the voter discussion toward presenting the airport weight ordnance to the public for the November elections.

The county wants a weight ordnance that says aircraft weights will be determined by the weight bearing strength of the runways.

And there we have a problem. The county wants to use the two flawed weight surveys that the county commissioned to be done. I use the word "flawed" for two reasons: 1. The county ignored the study analysis done by Mr. Ferree, an airport engineer and designer showing the wrong data was used to do the math. And 2. county staff was contacted several months ago by the senior FAA engineer at the regional office who said the studies are flawed. That is, the runways do not have the weight bearing capacity the County says they have.

Commissioners why hasn't your staff gone to the FAA to ask for a new study? It can't be the cost associated with the study because the FAA will fund 96.75 cents on the dollar to have it done. Can it be that your staff, the county does not want to know the result of the survey?

Commissioners, for the past 20 years this county government has been trying to raise the aircraft weight limits at the airport to accommodate more and bigger traffic. And, for 20 years voters have been saying no, don't do that. To say that the county has a credibility problem in this area would be an understatement.

How can you ask for voter support when it is pretty obvious that we all know you have a flawed study that even the FAA engineers know about and you are not taking action to correct the data?

Commissioners a quality builder wouldn't build a house on a poor foundation because he knows his reputation and future business depends on what he does. How can the county build credibility for this action about to be placed before the voters when You are purposely working from the wrong figures?

Tony Sabino is the owner of Soar Minden