Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
Al Lee Gator

Paulding Airport Board rejects BOC proposal to end payments to airport

Recommended Posts

Paulding County Airport Authority (PCAA) met last week and considered a proposal from Post 2 Commissioner Todd Pownall that would remake an intergovernmental agreement and stop requiring county payments for operation of Paulding’s airport.

 

Pownall, whose commission district includes Silver Comet Field, initially introduced his proposal during the Board of Commissioner’s first regularly scheduled meeting last month.

Commissioners voted 3-2 during the Board’s April 28 meeting in support of a proposed second Intergovernmental contract between the county and the Airport Authority, but in order to take effect the Airport Authority needed to also approve the changes.

 

The previous Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 in September to approve the original agreement, which transformed the airport to a self-supporting agency, but included $3 million in guaranteed county funding paid twice-annually over 10 years.

 

Pownall’s requested changes included allowing commissioners to consider payment to the county airport authority rather than requiring payment; and requiring that the airport be available only for general aviation uses unless approved by the county commission and city of Atlanta, which owns adjacent land. As of the first of this year, the majority of the Paulding commission has opposed commercialization efforts.

 

Airport Board member Matt Buzzelli asked Pownall during last week’s meeting if he and his constituents would approve of a Fed-X, or UPS-type operation coming into Paulding’s airport, and if so, added that he was unclear as to what made that okay and why adding limited commercial service was not. Pownall responded that anything that did not require a Part ‘139’ permit would be permissible.

 

Compliance with Part 139 is mandatory for an operator of a U.S. airport that chooses to serve air carrier operations covered by the regulation.

Specifically, Part 139 applies to operators of airports in any state, District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the U.S. serving passenger-carrying operations of a certificated air carrier, if scheduled passenger-carrying operations are conducted in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, and unscheduled passenger-carrying operations are conducted in aircraft designed for at least 31 passenger seats.

 

Pownall was offering the PCAA four options to his proposal that included accepting the changes as presented, accepting it with further changes, doing nothing, or voting in opposition.

After engaging in a lengthy discussion, the PCAA Board ultimately voted in favor of not accepting Pownall’s changes to the IGA.

 

Pownall responded to the Airport Board’s action following the conclusion of last week’s meeting,

 

“I’m not surprised that they didn’t accept it. However, I am surprised that they didn’t send something back to us to show that they would want to work with it; because they had the option to send back what they would want to do, and I wish that they’d have done that,” Pownall said. “But it is what it is and we move on.”

Edited by Al Lee Gator
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paulding County Airport Authority (PCAA) met last week and considered a proposal from Post 2 Commissioner Todd Pownall that would remake an intergovernmental agreement and stop requiring county payments for operation of Paulding’s airport.

 

Pownall, whose commission district includes Silver Comet Field, initially introduced his proposal during the Board of Commissioner’s first regularly scheduled meeting last month.

Commissioners voted 3-2 during the Board’s April 28 meeting in support of a proposed second Intergovernmental contract between the county and the Airport Authority, but in order to take effect the Airport Authority needed to also approve the changes.

 

The previous Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 in September to approve the original agreement, which transformed the airport to a self-supporting agency, but included $3 million in guaranteed county funding paid twice-annually over 10 years.

 

Pownall’s requested changes included allowing commissioners to consider payment to the county airport authority rather than requiring payment; and requiring that the airport be available only for general aviation uses unless approved by the county commission and city of Atlanta, which owns adjacent land. As of the first of this year, the majority of the Paulding commission has opposed commercialization efforts.

 

Airport Board member Matt Buzzelli asked Pownall during last week’s meeting if he and his constituents would approve of a Fed-X, or UPS-type operation coming into Paulding’s airport, and if so, added that he was unclear as to what made that okay and why adding limited commercial service was not. Pownall responded that anything that did not require a Part ‘139’ permit would be permissible.

 

Compliance with Part 139 is mandatory for an operator of a U.S. airport that chooses to serve air carrier operations covered by the regulation.

Specifically, Part 139 applies to operators of airports in any state, District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the U.S. serving passenger-carrying operations of a certificated air carrier, if scheduled passenger-carrying operations are conducted in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, and unscheduled passenger-carrying operations are conducted in aircraft designed for at least 31 passenger seats.

 

Pownall was offering the PCAA four options to his proposal that included accepting the changes as presented, accepting it with further changes, doing nothing, or voting in opposition.

After engaging in a lengthy discussion, the PCAA Board ultimately voted in favor of not accepting Pownall’s changes to the IGA.

 

Pownall responded to the Airport Board’s action following the conclusion of last week’s meeting,

 

“I’m not surprised that they didn’t accept it. However, I am surprised that they didn’t send something back to us to show that they would want to work with it; because they had the option to send back what they would want to do, and I wish that they’d have done that,” Pownall said. “But it is what it is and we move on.”

Not sure of the source you copied and pasted this from. But if you want to get real facts visit https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco

 

Always different opinions folks have playing in the sandbox, but it's a shame when a hint of being anti commercial those folks will want to kick you out of the sandbox prior to even a casual discussion

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tired of hearing about this.....we own a nice airport ,need to do what we got to do to make it work.thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tired of hearing about this.....we own a nice airport ,need to do what we got to do to make it work.thanks

OH, I agree. No doubt it's a nice facility, which has cost just a few million to the taxpayers. Um, if it has not been profitable as a general aviation airport NOT creating any jobs, why do you think a commercial will work?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure of the source you copied and pasted this from. But if you want to get real facts visit https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco

 

Always different opinions folks have playing in the sandbox, but it's a shame when a hint of being anti commercial those folks will want to kick you out of the sandbox prior to even a casual discussion

Actually, he is the author of some of the stories out there.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tired of hearing about this.....we own a nice airport ,need to do what we got to do to make it work.thanks

 

It will never work until it is on it's own. Until we get new people running it we will never

have a airport worth talking about. As it is the county is known all over the area

as the place were there is a war going on against the people by certain folks that

think they know everything and want to get rich at the loss of the county.

It has to stop and the only way is to get it on it's own and let it either fail or make it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It will never work until it is on it's own. Until we get new people running it we will never

have a airport worth talking about. As it is the county is known all over the area

as the place were there is a war going on against the people by certain folks that

think they know everything and want to get rich at the loss of the county.

It has to stop and the only way is to get it on it's own and let it either fail or make it.

Exactly. If folks got informed as who "IS" running it, might be amazed the IBA and PCAA have some very same faces. IMO, if they couldn't make it in general aviation over the years, why put more money in it? Possibly get some one that is knowledgeable in running an airport?? Seriously, you have a person in charge of the airport and movie studio, and neither has been profitable, but a complete drain on the taxpayers. I think just even the studio is up to $6 million plus. Complete failures!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over again and expecting different results?"

 

I ride out to our airport and look at the only thing that's growing is weeds. Not much different today than all the years they had free reign to do as they please.

Then I ride by Cobb County's airport in Kennesaw and I see business busting at the seams.

I can't but wonder if our Airport Authority separated from the BOC & Cobb's Airport Department responsible to their BOC is the main difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they have guaranteed funding from the county to pay their salaries, why work?

 

They have 10 years of the county being their sugar daddy thanks to Dave and his boys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it can't make it on it's own maybe we could have a nice dragstrip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it can't make it on it's own maybe we could have a nice dragstrip.

 

And here I thought you were all against the airport because of the NOISE and congestion on 278? Apparently you never lived in E Paulding when the dragstrip was still open. You could hear it for miles/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And here I thought you were all against the airport because of the NOISE and congestion on 278? Apparently you never lived in E Paulding when the dragstrip was still open. You could hear it for miles/

 

Hearing race cars Friday or Saturday night for a few hours is different then having airplanes go over

several times a day. I remember hearing the drag strip when it was in use. You could go inside and not hear it.

I might even go watch if we made a drag strip. It might make more money then what we have now.

How could we force the drag strip out of business and then put in a noisy airport?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drag strip was there way before those subdivisions, the homeowners ran them out because of the noise. A lot of people grew up going to those races. Why do those near there have more rights than those that live by the airport? Many of whom lived there before the airport was built.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hearing race cars Friday or Saturday night for a few hours is different then having airplanes go over

several times a day. I remember hearing the drag strip when it was in use. You could go inside and not hear it.

I might even go watch if we made a drag strip. It might make more money then what we have now.

How could we force the drag strip out of business and then put in a noisy airport?

Let me see if I have this right?

 

Listening to drag racers for 5 straight hours is preferable to 30 seconds of noise a few times a day as a plane flies past?

 

Righto.

The drag strip was there way before those subdivisions, the homeowners ran them out because of the noise. A lot of people grew up going to those races. Why do those near there have more rights than those that live by the airport? Many of whom lived there before the airport was built.

 

Check your timing on that statement. The subdivisions were built while the dragstrip was in operation. Anybody who bought a house nearby knew (or should of known) that the dragstrip was there and what noise it might produce. The street in front of it was, in fact, "Dragstrip Rd.", not E. Paulding Dr. The fact that the strip was only 1/8 mile instead of the standard 1/4 mile strip had more to do with it's demise than any homeowner complaints.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed the new Paulding airport commercials. Can't wait, like most Paulding citizens, until the commercial service is up and running.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dragstrip closed due to the owners of the land selling the property...the ones that ran the dragstrip only leased the land and owned the business ....the owners of the land sold the land to investors who were going to develop it as a multi use subdivision and commercial venture...the economy tanked and the project to build there did too...no one else could go back and reopen the dragstrip as it would never get a new permit even if they wanted to and the other owners of the business were grandfathered in but once it closed that was no longer an option ....and yes the subdivisions were built long after the dragstrip was in operation as it had been there since the 1950's

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drag strip was there way before those subdivisions, the homeowners ran them out because of the noise. A lot of people grew up going to those races. Why do those near there have more rights than those that live by the airport? Many of whom lived there before the airport was built.

 

You are dead wrong. The dragstrip as a business was closed due to the landowner selling to investors. The business owners leased the land. This all happened just in time for 2008 when the economy nose dived. I believe once the business officially 'closed' any grandfathered use as a dragstrip was lost.

 

I lived across the street from the dragstrip for 25+ years. The sound never really bothered me--my first job when I was 14 was at the dragstrip.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...