As promised, here are my notes and thoughts from Monday night's Wauchula City Commission workshop on the formation of a new airport advisory board:
_________________________________________________
Notes on the Wauchula City Commission workshop held 2-2-2015:
Although the only item on the agenda was supposed to be: “Discuss the structure of the proposed Wauchula Airport Advisory Board”, the meeting started off with a long discussion seemingly aimed at relieving any fears that the airport tenants may have regarding the ongoing change of management. There was a definite show of appeasement.
This was demonstrated by multiple statements made by both the city manager and the city attorney saying that they didn’t want to do anything that would chase away their customer base. Multiple statements were also made saying that they realized the need to respond to the needs of their customers. Granted, our most outspoken critic, commissioner Ken Lambert, was not in attendance, but it was almost like someone had put a bug in their ear.
I believe I also heard the city manager say something to the effect that they didn’t intend to really change anything because things had been working well for many years. Of course there has been a difference since Jim lost his job. The city crews have made some cosmetic improvements (new painted lines on the pilot lounge parking pad, trimming trees, badly needed weed eating etc. But there have also been at least three serious incidents which jeopardized public safety. And of course Jim would have had these three incidents handled swiftly, correctly and without any safety issues at all.
It was indicated that the chief of police would take on the role of investigator and enforcer for the airport.
Since fuel prices and hangar rental rates have been brought up many times, they reiterated that they would do a cost survey to find the right balance between profit and attractiveness. Of course Jim had not only already done this, but actively monitored these issues and had it fine-tuned.
During the discussion of pricing, several references were made comparing the Wauchula airport to the Flagler airport. I would like to give the city attorney credit for finally interjecting the idea that any cost survey would be invalid unless they were careful to compare apples to apples. Anyone can find rates higher or lower in the surrounding area. But even another small airport the size of Wauchula may be able to justify higher rates depending on their location and function. So, kudos to the attorney for pointing this out.
It’s also important to point out that as the appeasement comments drew to a close, the city attorney was careful to also say that all this sensitivity was contingent upon them not feeling “threatened”.
Now to what the meeting was supposed to be about: “Discuss the structure of the proposed Wauchula Airport Advisory Board”
As we expected, it seemed pretty obvious that talks had already taken place between the city manager, the mayor and the city attorney well before the evening’s workshop. The three of them very quickly steered the discussion to what they seemed to already have in mind.
It was humorous, but sadly true when the city attorney started off with a comment to the effect of “if you can even find people willing to serve on the new board”.
This is also interesting, and we’ve seen this a few times now: Now that the airport “authority” board has been dissolved, the city attorney has stated that the old airport “authority” never exercised their authority, implying that they could have if they wanted to. But before the old board was dissolved, the attorney and the city manager always said that it was just an “advisory” board without any real authority. Hmm………………
One of the old airport “authority” board’s authorities was to provide its own employees. We read the charter to them and explained this. And they said they were very happy with the job Jim had been doing. So are we to now conclude that they could have voted to hire Jim in the first place and avoided this whole debacle?
I seem to remember that the old “authority” did start making the suggestion that they should re-hire Jim. The city’s response was to dissolve the board. Somebody tell me again, what was wrong with the way the airport was being handled under the old board? And why was the old board dissolved?
The general new structure or concept they proposed was a board that really may not even need to meet every month. This was justified by again bringing up the issue of the attendance record of the old “authority” board members. And it is true. They often had attendance problems or even cancelled the airport authority board meetings altogether.
What nobody has said or maybe realized is that these issues were primarily the result of Jim hay doing such a thorough job with his airport management. Jim handled the authorities, the financial affairs, the repairs, the routine maintenance etc. There simply wasn’t much for the board to do. In all honesty, with Jim there, they really didn’t even need a board.
So, that might have been a good idea before they fired Jim. But right now, and especially during this period of transition, I’m inclined to disagree. For at least the near future, I think more frequent oversight might be a better plan.
We also believe that the interim airport managers are realizing that the airport is taking too much time away from their other city jobs. I think the city is really starting to feel Jim’s loss and is going to get a wakeup call about what a big mistake they have made.
The discussion started about the need to re-advertise and take new applications for the new “advisory” board. In a previous meeting, the city manager said that new applications would be taken for all seats on the new board and that the old members would have to re-apply. Then, part of the way through Monday night's discussion, he proposed just shoeing in the old remaining three members and letting them “advise” on the acceptance of the new applicants.
You can read into that whatever you want. But I think that leaving the old members on the board (who would previously not assert their “advice”) and then especially letting them decide on the new applicants, would serve to erode any good faith that might be starting to grow. It would be a huge statement that would say: “We’re not going to be fair and objective. We’re going to make sure we keep the board seated with people who will do what we tell them to do”.
I have no idea who else has applied. I know I would apply, if I met the residency requirements. But as far as I know, Bud Oneal and Trez Vining still have their applications in. And I know there will not be any applicants more qualified than these two gentlemen.
Near the end of the discussion I was pleased to see commissioner Neda Cobb, express concern and ask some questions. She wanted to know:
1. How was the maintenance/supervision currently being handled? The city manager responded by saying that the city crews were making a few trips out to the airport each week to handle things.
2. Was it the city’s intent to put someone else permanently on site and living in the mobile home previously occupied by Jim? I can’t remember exactly what the city manager said, but he did not answer the question. So I raised my hand and re-directed him to the original question. He responded that they were looking into installing someone in the mobile home. This is a good thing.
Because, without someone on site, there are MANY areas of concern:
1. There could be an aircraft accident on a Sunday evening when nobody is at the airport. A pilot could literally lay wounded in the wreckage on the runway until the next day or longer.
2. The chances of a plane hitting a cow on the runway are greatly increased.
3. Anybody could just come out and race their car or motorcycle up and down runway.
4. The probability of theft is increased
5. Pilots depend on the internet connection for flight planning. What if it goes down on a Sunday afternoon?
I’m pretty sure Jim used to sleep with his aircraft radio on and of course monitored 122.9 twenty four hours a day. Even when he was in town at his city jobs, he was never too far to come running when needed. AND IT HAPPENED A LOT!
Yes, we definitely need someone knowledgeable on site 24/7.
In conclusion, yes, it was nice to see some logical and sensible discussion taking place at the meeting. But the proof will be to see what action is actually taken.