Questions are mounting over the Habersham County Board of Commissioners’ recent approval of a $3.4 million loan to the county airport. Habersham County Airport Commission members claim airport manager Will Regan misled county officials when he presented the proposal to them on November 21 asking for the loan.
Airport commissioners Dee Higgins and Andy Anderson both sent letters to county commissioners disputing Regan’s claims that the airport commission was aware of and in agreement with his plan to request $3,438,798 from the county to build 24 new hangars at the airport in Baldwin. Higgins and Anderson say they never saw the bids for the project, disputing what Regain told county commissioners.
Habersham County Chairman Bruce Palmer addressed the matter at the Airport Commission’s December 5 meeting.
“I’m sure there’s been some false statements that’s been made, and I won’t point fingers at who makes them, but there are things that happen and as Commissioners, we have to research our way through those things,” he said.
Palmer says he was at the Airport Commission meeting on September 12 when the airport commission voted to approve a hangar expansion project at a cost of up to $5.2 million.
“I know right before that, there was some talk about a called meeting to discuss those savings, but from the Board of Commissioners standpoint, whenever you all voted unanimously to approve going forward, that’s what we did, is we went forward,” he said.
At the November 21 meeting, local attorney, Doug McDonald warned the Commissioners that the Airport Hangar project that Regan would present to them that night had not been approved by the Airport Commission. In fact, the Airport Commission had not seen the tabulation sheets for the project’s cost.
Following up on McDonald’s statements, Habersham County Commissioner Bruce Harkness asked Regan several pointed questions.
“You heard Mr. McDonald state that he didn’t believe that this proposal had been brought before the Airport Commission. Do you know if that is true or not true?”
Regan replied, “That is inaccurate. On September 12, the Airport Commission was held and this conversation, the same tabulation, with revenue projections was brought forth to the commission, and it was motioned by Chris Limbach, a member, and that was seconded by Justin Schpansky and voted unanimously by the board for this to be brought to you all tonight.”
McDonald interjected, “The bids weren’t even in then!”
To which Regan responded, “That’s inaccurate as well. The bid tabulation was certified by the Lead Edge Design Group, that’s our consultant, on September 7, 2022. That’s in your packet as well.”
Commissioner Harkness pressed on, asking Regan, “So this was, all these tabulations and all these documents, costs, and everything was presented to the Airport Commission, and then they approved to pass it on to us?”
To that, Regan replied, “Yes sir.”
Based on those assurances, the county commission voted 3-1 to approve the $3.4 million project to add 20 T-hangars and four 60’X60′ corporate-style hangars to the airport.
NowHabersham has reviewed the approved Airport Commission meeting minutes for September 12. In those meeting minutes, the Airport Commission did vote unanimously to move forward with the Airport Hangar/Capacity project up to $5.2 million. However, there is no record of bid tabulations being presented or discussed. Likewise, there is no record of financing options or the Phase 1 Hangar project costing $3,438,798. There also is no record that the Airport Commission discussed or approved utilizing ARPA funds to pay for any portion of the Airport Hangar/Capacity project.
The only discussion related to the Airport Hangar project on September 12 was what revenues should or should not be included in a loan repayment. This discussion resulted in the Airport Commission setting a date for a work session to determine and designate those revenues that would be applied to a loan repayment. That meeting was set for September 22.
There are no meeting minutes for the September 7 meeting when the bid tabulations were reportedly opened and certified by Lead Edge Design Group.
Higgins expressed his concerns about the impact the loan could have on county taxpayers in a letter he sent to the board of commissioners on November 28. In that letter, Higgins directly refutes Regan’s claims.
Portions of his statement were read to the commissioners during the special called county commission meeting on December 1 and copies were made available to the public. Higgins wrote:
“It was brought to my attention that the BOC voted and awarded the bids for construction of two 10 unit T-hangars and two 60’x120’ box hangars at the November 21st, 2022 meeting. I would like to inform the BOC that the AC (Airport Commission) did not review the information that was presented to you. The AC has never been given the chance to see the bid tabulations that were included in the Executive Summary. The AC was never allowed to view any of the bid tabulations until voted on by the BOC. It was the intent of the AC to request/seek approval for funding from the BOC. If funding was approved, the bid tabulations would then be presented to the AC for review. The AC would then determine if the hangar project would be self-supporting based on proposed rental rates, loan information, and the construction contract amounts. A recommendation would then be made to the BOC from the AC regarding the project.
“I do feel that the AC supports the hangar construction, but not at the expense of the county taxpayer….”
In response to Higgins’ statement, county attorney Ralph Taylor sent a letter to the Airport Commission dated December 2. In that letter, Taylor clarifies the role of Airport Commissioners as established by county ordinance. He also defines the role of the county in awarding bids for public contracts. Georgia law is very specific about those procedures: Bids are submitted to the county, following established procedures, and there is no legal requirement for the bids to be presented to the Airport Commission for review or approval before the bid is awarded.
“I would encourage you as commissioners to speak with Commissioner Palmer with regard to any concerns or suggestions that you may have regarding the hangar project, or any other issues pertaining to the airport,” Taylor wrote.
Taylor’s response to the Airport Commission was seen by some as an attempt to circumvent the commission and stifle any discussion or debate.
That prompted Airport Commissioner Andy Anderson to submit his own lengthy letter in defense of Higgins and public discourse.
“…I objectively and subjectively support the hangar project. More so however, I support and respect the right to oppose and the desire to be represented accurately.
“There is herein a formidable mix of compensated public servants, well compensated contractors, as well as those volunteering their expertise and time without compensation. Given that diversity, there will always be conflict of interest and therefore an organizational culture of transparency should inarguably be the goal of all. Right or wrong, as a local government we have gone to significant length to silence or limit public comments and input during taxpayer related government meetings. Whether I agree with him/her or not, I find it impossible for me to silently watch as an appointed sub commission volunteer is indirectly “advised” to be silent or limit the audience for his/her clarifications, communications, and inquiries into matters, customers, and/or sub-contractors directly related to the business of the
commission he/she serves.
“Unfortunately, I am well versed in the inter commission communication as well as private communication related to the series of events that occurred during the BOC meeting on November 21, 2022. I am specifically speaking related to public comments in open meeting by Doug McDonald, questions rephrased multiple times by Bruce Harkness, and answers to those questions provided by the Airport Manager. I do not think any of these individuals had malicious or misleading intent. All three parties play an important role in the democracy of our local affairs, and I consider all three personal friends. Be that as it may, there was inaccurate information relayed that may have influenced the BOC vote. At least four Habersham County affiliated employees or contractors with full knowledge that the AC had never seen bid tabulations sat silent while the miscommunication occurred. Mr. Higgins felt obligated to clarify as he felt misrepresented.
“Mr. Higgins’s clarification email did not challenge the legality of the BOC vote on the bid process. His email did not question legal procedure. His email simply clarified to the BOC that the AC had not reviewed the information as was presented to the BOC.”
Anderson goes on to address his view of how the bid tabulations were handled:
“The hangar bids were opened in a non-closed-door fashion (I hesitate to say public). They were immediately deemed confidential and not shared with the AC. In and of itself, this feels wrong and warrants inquiry. The AC attempted to hold a work session to substantiate the hangar project’s ability to pay for itself. Given the lack of actual bid information, the validity of any numbers discussed was questioned. Whether I agreed with him or not, Mr. Higgins presented substantial opposition to the math suggested by the consultant. The work session ended without conclusion and the AC was told that there would be future opportunity to revisit the hangar rates and self-sustainability topic when actual bid and loan numbers were deemed suitable to be shared with the commission.”
“The answer to Bruce Harkness’s questions asking if the AC had seen this information should have been, “no, the AC has not seen the entirety and/or detail presented here tonight. The AC has not been allowed to see the bid tabulations. There is no legal requirement for the AC to see the bid tabulations. The airport commission evidently supports the project per their motion from the September meeting.
“…My intent is to strongly urge all administration and parties to embrace a culture of transparency, welcome inquiry into large expenses, welcome inquiry about sub-contractor invoices and practices, welcome customer intent verification when major long term liability decisions are being made based on reported intent of a county customer. Humans make mistakes. Commissions make poor choices. Sub commissions make unprepared proposals. We all have the responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. As an appointed subcommittee, if we are not free to clarify, question, correct, inquire and/or if we are advised to limit those efforts to one outlet then we are advocating a culture of censorship in almost totalitarian manner. Great effort was made to dissolve an airport authority for lack of transparency and fairness, poor ethics, poor procedural practice, and basic lack of common sense. If an appointed AC member is not expected to provide a closer level of management oversight than is possible from a BOC position, not allowed to question, inquire, verify, and clarify, then why have a sub-committee at all?
“I am here to serve transparently but not here to tip toe or to be a rubber ‘yes’ stamp. Hopefully I remain a good fit for this Airport Commission.”
The Airport Commission members are appointed by the Board of Commissioners. They act as an advisory board to the county board of commissioners.
The county’s decision to loan the airport $3.4 million comes at a time when the county’s budget is under intense scrutiny. County Manager Alicia Vaughn has awarded top administrators significant salary and benefit increases and commissioners have approved a number of new positions this year while simultaneously raising taxes and informing the public they do not have enough money to fix the county’s roads and bridges or complete building projects voters approved in SPLOST VII.
Now Habersham reached out to Anderson, Higgins, and Vaughn for comment on this article. As of publication time, they had not responded.
