>> BALDWIN COUNTY
In what seems to have become a story that will never end, the local airport dominated the Baldwin County Board of Commissioners’ meeting Tuesday evening, and the decision that resulted clearly pleased most of those present.
Three items regarding the Baldwin County Regional Airport were on the agenda that evening, two concerning lease agreements for proposed new hangers, the other the annual update of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The first two passed unanimously with almost no discussion. The third led to a split vote to table a decision.
The CIP is a five-year plan that must be updated annually. That plan includes projects that will be addressed in various stages each year. County Manager Carlos Tobar has emphasized more than once how important that list is.
“If it isn’t in the CIP, you don’t get money for it,” he said last week. “It has to be in the comprehensive plan, and the airport CIP is in the comprehensive plan.”
The two proposed hangers, for which leases were approved Tuesday, are on what is referred to as the west apron. Tobar told commissioners at the previous meeting, when that vote was tabled, that those hangers are not part of the current CIP. That project is completed and ready for hanger construction.
They will be built and owned by private entities, with ground space lease and ad valorem taxes on the hangers and aircrafts housed there paid to the county.
There are three main components of the current CIP that have received the most attention: The terminal airplane parking lot expansion, the east apron hanger project and the ‘lower ramp’ long-range project. The east apron hangers have attracted considerable opposition, while the lower ramp project has been at least temporarily opposed by two commissioners.
Most of the discussion Tuesday evening focused on those proposed east apron hangers, which would be built in an area of the airport that abuts the Lakeshore Circle subdivision. Prior to the public comments, Tobar explained that an environmental assessment (EA) was going to be done for both the lower ramp and east apron projects at a cost of $150,000, with the county’s share being $15,000. That process likely will take well over six months, perhaps a year.
Several nearby residents for the third time addressed the board, each giving different reasons why the project should be abandoned.
Joan Crumpler spoke first, introducing herself as a 35-year practicing attorney, stating she was focusing on facts. She said hangers have not previously been mentioned in the CIP and added she was told by a Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) official that the environmental assessment (EA) process would take a year to complete. She also asserted that the east apron project was never voted on by the commissioners.
Ricky Giles questioned whether approval of the CIP with the east apron project on it means the hangers will ultimately be built. He did not receive an immediate answer, but his query led to considerable discussion a short time later.
“I believe if you vote for the CIP the way it stands, with the east apron, that you’re voting now to put the actual hangers there. Then, you will have money invested in the east side…I believe your vote for the CIP, unless there is a way for you to take the east apron out, you are voting for it now,” said David Glover.
District 4 commissioner Henry Craig, in whose district the airport is located, assured the audience that nothing would be done until the EA was completed and that the EA would provide the commissioners with needed information. Tobar reassured District 3 commissioner Sammy Hall during discussion that the EA included both the east apron and the lower ramp.
After even more thorough discussion about the CIP, Board chairperson Emily Davis asked commissioners what they would like to do. Westmoreland, Hall, and Davis voted to table the vote on the CIP while Craig and District 2 commissioner Kendrick Butts opposed the motion.
Butts told The Baldwin Bulletin that a no vote on the motion to table the decision is not an indicator of his position on the CIP. Craig stated that he was “disappointed at the lack of profess” and felt that the discussion should not continue to be postponed.
It was reported Wednesday morning that contact was made with a GDOT representative following the meeting Tuesday evening and that additional information was expected Wednesday.
Tobar said two matters were clarified with the Tuesday night call, both relating to the CIP but not the east apron.
“The deadline is actually Nov. 7, not Nov. 1” for submitting the CIP to the state. I have always gotten these done by the end of October,” Tobar said. “The second is that we can request an extension to submit the CIP,” he added.
No response had been received by noon Wednesday as to what would be the consequences if the county deleted the east apron project from the CIP.