Airport land purchase to move forward; remonstrance looms

Thursday, November 20, 2014
The Putnam County Airport Authority is planning to purchase 17 acres of land adjacent to the airport as well as (from left) a residence, a hangar and the Dixie Chopper Business Center from Dixie Chopper founder Art Evans. Airport ownership would eliminate a "residential through-the-fence agreement" that is frowned upon by the Federal Aviation Administration.

In the face of arguments for and against the move, the Putnam County Council, in a split decision Tuesday, authorized the allocation of funds from sale of bonds by the Putnam County Regional Airport Authority.

Having already authorized the Airport Authority to sell bonds for a proposed $2.75 million land acquisition during the October meeting, the most recent decision was simply the appropriation of funds from the bond sale.

Without Tuesday's decision, there would be no reason to sell the bonds.

As suggested by a councilman at the October meeting, the majority of the Council supported "the authority" of the Airport Authority, voting "to support what they (airport board members) think is best."

On the strength of affirmative votes from Keith Berry, Roger Deck, Dave Fuhrman and Phil Gick, the Council endorsed the move 4-2, with dissenting votes from Darrel Thomas and Gene Beck. Councilman Larry Parker was absent Tuesday.

The issue centers on the proposed purchase of about 17 acres of adjoining land and structures owned by Dixie Chopper founder Art Evans. The purchase would include the Dixie Chopper Business Center, Evans' hangar and Evans' residence immediately south of the hangar.

The Council's decisions could be rendered moot, however, as opponents of the move -- including two members of the Airport Authority Board -- have already begun the process of filing a remonstrance to stop the acquisition.

While there has been some confusion over the issue, the land acquisition will have no impact on property taxes. A new tax levy was already instated when the County Council established the Airport Authority in late 2013. Any land acquisition will be paid for entirely from the Airport Authority's tax levy, through the debt service fund.

Instead, the debate revolves around how best to use that money.

The need for acquiring the land -- a necessity no one is debating -- springs from a "residential through-the-fence agreement" that gives Evans or any future owner of the property a private access point to the airport.

Such agreements are frowned upon by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and could jeopardize future state and federal grant money.

The chance to purchase the land from Evans first came before the Airport Authority in the spring, with Evans supposedly saying he would sell the land for $1.6 million. From there, the board's discussion moved to possible FAA reimbursement for the purchase.

The problem with FAA funding, however, came with the requirement to pay full appraised value for the land to be in compliance with federal land acquisition guidelines. After two appraisals, Evans' land was deemed to be worth $2.54 million, bringing the full cost of the project to $2.75 million.

These larger figures caused some members of the Airport Authority Board to balk, with the decision to move forward passing by a 3-2 margin.

With the initial decision made, the matter came before the County Council in October, with the Council ultimately endorsing the decision to sell bonds, setting up Tuesday's subsequent decision to authorize the appropriation of the money.

However, the debate continues regarding the wisest way to acquire the land from Evans.

On one hand, the majority decision of Airport Board members J.R. Scott, Duane Skoog and Perry Wainman is to purchase the land at appraised value. While this is nearly $1 million more than the originally-discussed price, the acquisition at fair market value would make the airport eligible to be reimbursed by the FAA for up to 90 percent of the purchase price.

Additionally, the original $1.6 million figure was a discussion, not a written offer to sell.

On the other hand, board members Vern Bothwell Jr. and Rex Eaton would like to see the airport purchase the land at the price originally circulated. While there would be no FAA reimbursement, the land would cost less and could be purchased with a simple loan, not a bond issuance.

"I think all of us on the board are willing to buy this property," Bothwell told the Council Tuesday. "It's just, 'What kind of deal can we get?'"

Adding to the debate are questions about the wisdom of the Airport Authority owning the Dixie Chopper Business Center, with its hotel and restaurant. While the authority is already discussing leasing Evans' hangar to emergency transport service St. Vincent StatFlight, the costs and possible returns on running the business center are less clear.

One way or another, airport and county officials wish to see the through-the-fence agreement nullified, and the surest way to do so is to purchase the land.

The agreement with Evans was set up in 1998, establishing his residence as a so-called "security office," an argument that could be made when Dixie Chopper still operated the airport as Fixed Base Operator. Now that Evans owns the property privately, the argument no longer applies.

The presence of a private residence basically on the grounds of the airport is the fly in the ointment that could spoil future grants from the FAA. The problem is exacerbated further because the agreement is transferable to future owners of the property. As such, ownership of the land by the Airport Authority is the surest way to fix the problem.

While Tuesday's action seemingly clears the way for the sale of bonds in early December, opponent still have until Nov. 30 to gather the required 100 signatures of registered voters and property owners opposed to the bond issuance.

If 100 signatures are gathered and verified, the bond sale will be put on hold, with the Airport Authority then having the choice of canceling the transaction or moving on to phase two of the remonstrance process.

Should it come to that, the next phase would involve those on both sides gathering signatures of supporters and opponents of the move.

Until then, it remains a waiting game, with the Airport Authority ready to issue bonds should no remonstrance be filed.

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Lots of facts to chew and digest here......

    -- Posted by kubotafan on Thu, Nov 20, 2014, at 3:15 PM
  • so buy the hangar since it is going to be leased, and build a fence between the house and the airfield to alleviate the "through the fence" problem. That way the house could be sold separately.

    -- Posted by Geologist on Sat, Nov 22, 2014, at 8:34 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: