Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Richland County Council rejects airport-ordinance changes after members cite operational concerns

Richland County Council · November 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members voted down proposed amendments to the county airport code at second reading after several members said they needed more time to assess operational impacts; public comment warned losing an FBO could reduce airport traffic and funding.

Richland County Council on Nov. 18 failed to pass proposed amendments to the county airport ordinance on second reading after several members said they wanted more time to understand the operational impacts.

Councilmembers Branham and Aline said they would vote no to keep the item off the consent agenda and to allow further review. The clerk called the roll and the motion failed.

The issue followed public comment by Franklin Schumpert, an aviation professional and long-time pilot, who spoke during citizen input about Hamilton Owens Airport. Schumpert urged the county to retain a full-service fixed-base operator (FBO), saying a professional FBO provides fueling, maintenance and services that sustain traffic; losing those services, he warned, could reduce airport usage and related funding. "If they go away, then you're gonna lose traffic, which affects your funding and everything," Schumpert said.

Council members who opposed moving the ordinance forward said they wanted additional detail on how the proposed code changes would affect airport operations; one councilmember said they preferred the item remain off the consent agenda so staff can provide further analysis.

No further procedural action on the ordinance occurred that evening; the measure failed at second reading by roll call. Councilmembers may revisit the proposal in a future meeting after requested information is provided.

Ending: The ordinance did not advance; staff follow-up was requested by multiple members to clarify operational impacts before further action.