Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weston County delays final action on airport hangar grant, seeks clearer accounting
Summary
Commissioners discussed a roughly $76,000 federal/state reimbursement tied to a Newcastle-area hangar project, questioned who signed grant paperwork and how hangar revenues should be accounted for, and did not adopt a budget amendment pending more information and auditor review.
Weston County commissioners spent an extended portion of their Oct. 7 meeting debating accounting and oversight for a multi‑year airport hangar grant and related revenue, including whether the county should create a dedicated fund for airport revenues and how back lease payments should be recorded.
The discussion centered on a federal draw of approximately $71,008.77 and a state share of about $4,791.85 — together roughly $76,000 — tied to a hangar construction project. Commissioners and staff said a final state or FAA payment remained withheld while the agency confirmed completion items and code issues with subcontractors.
"The hangars are complete. We got the approval from the state fire marshal last week," said Randall, a staff member involved in airport operations. "They're in the process of people releasing them right now."
Commissioners questioned a document that bore the signature of an airport board member, Garrett, and whether the county had properly accepted or budgeted the additional funds. One commissioner said the county had received some payments earlier, but other payments and an apparent amendment were routed in ways that confused the county's accounting records.
County staff described a discrepancy between a pay request and the budget adjustment: the pay request figure discussed was roughly $71,877 while the amount showing as to be brought into the budget was about $76,000. Commissioners asked how penalties or withheld amounts were handled and who would receive or account for any such penalties.
Staff and commissioners debated establishing a designated airport contingency or enterprise fund to hold hangar and lease revenues rather than routing all receipts through the county general fund. Commissioners said such a fund would allow the airport board to use money for small maintenance and emergency repairs — for example, a $500 door repair or an $8,000 emergency repair — while reporting monthly uses back to the county.
Commissioners asked staff to consult the county auditor and to clarify whether the $76,000 reimbursement should be recorded as a grant and how outstanding pay requests and final draws affect the county budget. No budget amendment was finalized at the meeting.
The commissioners also raised an older back‑payment issue: one hangar lease had unpaid years dating to 2013 that surfaced when the seller sought to clear obligations before sale. Staff said that particular lease had been structured so the tenant was responsible for annual payment without receiving a bill.
County staff said they would contact the state and the county auditor to clarify allowable uses and reporting for airport receipts and for any proposed contingency fund. Commissioners indicated they wanted clearer accounting before approving any budget amendment or accepting an amended grant.
The discussion touched on related governance questions: which signatures properly execute grant documentation, and whether the county or the airport board should be the primary signatory for particular grant draws. Commissioners asked for follow‑up from staff and the auditor before taking further formal action.
Randall and other staff agreed to seek additional written clarification from the FAA/state grant administrator and the county auditor, and to return to the board with recommended accounting language and options for a dedicated fund.
