Hangar owners and event organizers raise cost and access concerns over FAA-funded fence at Lock Haven Airport

Hangar owners and an air‑show organizer urged Lock Haven City Council during public comment to reconsider elements of a proposed perimeter fence at Lock Haven Airport, saying the planned design and related charges would impose new costs and operational problems for small operators and tenants.

The concerns were aired as the council discussed ongoing airport projects and pending "through‑the‑fence" agreements that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Bureau of Aviation say must be in place before the city can draw down certain grant funds. City staff said the fence design and some contract edits were directed by the FAA and bureau, and that grant funding will cover much of the work but that some city or tenant costs could remain.

Why it matters: the fencing and through‑the‑fence agreements are tied to FAA compliance and to the city’s ability to access federal grant dollars for multiple airport projects. Hangar owners said the design and fee structure could increase their operating costs substantially and reduce access when seasonal conditions — notably snow and grass taxiways — affect rolling gates.

During public comment, an unnamed hangar owner urged council members to inspect his hangar area and said the new fencing would be placed inside the airport’s current perimeter and called the project “quite a waste of money.” He criticized a proposed roller‑gated fence across grass, saying, “In the winter, you can't open them, because of snow removal, so it traps it in there.” He said the fence appeared aimed at improving the city's negotiating position on through‑the‑fence agreements rather than addressing a demonstrated security deficit.

Alan Ewell, president of Sentimental Journey, asked councilors to consider a public aviation event planned for June that would use a fenced portion of the Aviation Industrial Park to separate spectators from aircraft operations. "We'd love to get a helicopter ... bringing kids down, exposing them to the opportunity of military service," Ewell said, and noted the group is trying to expand outreach and attendance for the long‑running air show. He said organizers will submit the formal facility‑use request to the city facilities director so the event can appear on a future council agenda for approval.

Bob Lawrence, who identified himself as the only commercial business operator on the airport property, said he and other tenants first saw a survey indicating where the fence would start and raised multiple concerns about gate placement and lease terms. Lawrence said the plan appears to put two 45‑foot roadway gates over a taxiway and that proposed changes would allow airport staff to inspect tenant buildings and charge tenants monthly fees. He said he pays a monthly lease and objected to the process: “We use the runway maybe 3 times a year ... I don't understand what good the difference between that amount of money is gonna make.”

City staff responded that the fence design and many of the lease edits were requested by the FAA and the Bureau of Aviation and forwarded to tenants via the city solicitor. Staff said the agencies reviewing the projects have not accepted all of the hangar‑proposed edits and that through‑the‑fence agreements must be completed for the city to draw down remaining grant funds. Staff also said the bureau indicated the proposed monthly fee should be $240, with a possible reduced fee for the Piper Museum because of its charitable status; staff noted additional insurance requirements could also apply.

Speakers raised the cost estimates for the fence (one speaker said about $50,000) and the potential added costs for tenants, including monthly fees and required additional insurance. A hangar owner estimated that the combined new fees and insurance could add roughly $400 to the cost of a short flight in his museum aircraft; staff framed that as an individual speaker’s calculation rather than an itemized city estimate.

Staff and multiple speakers referenced a 2005 effort to establish through‑the‑fence agreements that was not completed; staff said the bureau has since determined those agreements are required before certain projects can proceed. Staff also noted the airport currently has three larger projects outstanding — including a self‑fuel system and repaving work — that are part of the FAA and bureau funding picture.

No formal council decision or vote on the fence design, the through‑the‑fence agreements, or the Sentimental Journey facility‑use request took place during the public comments segment. City staff repeatedly advised hangar tenants to review correspondence the city solicitor sent to through‑the‑fence operators and to follow up with the FAA and the Bureau of Aviation, which staff said had offered to meet with tenants but had not yet done so.

Council members and staff did not dispute the speakers’ cost and access concerns in the comments but said the city’s ability to proceed with several FAA‑funded airport projects is tied to the bureau’s compliance requirements and completion of the through‑the‑fence process. Council and staff encouraged further communication between tenants, the city solicitor and the FAA so that outstanding lease‑ and access‑related details can be resolved before the city accepts grant funds or implements construction.