Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs further work on airport courtesy‑car agreement after lengthy liability debate
Summary
Supervisors voted to allow continuation of a longstanding courtesy‑car practice at Culpeper Regional Airport but asked the Airport Advisory Committee and county attorneys to develop a revised agreement addressing liability; members voiced concern about the county's exposure and about deterring pilots.
After extended discussion on Feb. 4, the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors approved a motion to continue the airport's courtesy‑car practice while directing the Airport Advisory Committee and county attorneys to develop a revised agreement addressing liability and insurance requirements.
Airport Director Tanya Woodward told the board the airport has offered courtesy vehicles "for every bit of probably 20 to 25 years" to visiting pilots who need local transportation while aircraft are serviced. She said recent recommended changes drafted by the county attorney and risk manager created insurance thresholds that prevented several pilots from using the vehicle; she told the board the committee had prepared an alternative agreement intended to be less exclusionary.
"We have had to turn away about 7 different pilots. We've had 3 that have been able to utilize it," Woodward said, describing the committee's concern that a high insurance threshold was deterring users.
Justin Currier, co‑chair of the Airport Advisory Committee and a pilot, urged the board to preserve the courtesy vehicle to support airport business and visiting pilots: "We're talking about pilots who are flying in multimillion dollar jets...it's a very small community," he said, warning that overly strict requirements could push traffic to other airports.
The county risk manager and county attorney emphasized potential liabilities if non‑employees drive county vehicles and noted the state minimum motor‑vehicle liability limits (the risk manager summarized them as roughly $50,000 per person, $100,000 per accident and $25,000 property damage after Jan. 1 changes) and the county's current insurance policies do not necessarily extend the same protections to non‑employee vehicle users.
After debate supervisors voted to accept the Airport Advisory Committee's recommendation in principle but asked the committee and county attorneys to prepare a revised agreement that better addresses insurance coverage, limits and operational safeguards. The board's motion also maintained the posted draft agreement until the committee and counsel present an alternative.
Several board members said they did not favor removing the courtesy car but wanted clearer protections for the county. The motion carried on a voice vote.
