Chair Jessica Mackey opened the Richland County Council meeting Tuesday and, after a lengthy public hearing, the council approved an amendment to the county code that changes how ground and fueling services at Hamilton Owens Airport may be provided.

The ordinance, adopted on third reading, removes language that made a full-service fixed-base operator (FBO) mandatory and instead allows the county to use or authorize Specialized Aviation Service Operators (SASO) or multiple providers, an option County Attorney Wright said provides flexibility and “does not remove an operator from the airport.”

Why it matters: Dozens of pilots, long-time hangar tenants and airport vendors urged the council to keep the existing FBO model, arguing that a single, experienced operator provides consolidated training, equipment, insurance and safety oversight. Speakers warned the change could fragment services, increase fuel prices, reduce safety oversight and ultimately reduce the airport’s attractiveness to business users.

During the public hearing, pilots and tenants described tangible concerns. Jim Herbst, who said he is a tenant and pilot, told the council the change “will set the county up for liability” and warned inexperienced, undercapitalized SASOs could raise fuel prices and put the airport’s long-term viability at risk. Thomas Truitt, a corporate pilot, said business operators choose airports with comprehensive FBO services and “If an airport has no FBO, we don’t use it.”

Several speakers, including William DuBose and Rusty Goudlock, emphasized safety and continuity: DuBose, a 30-year hangar tenant and airline transport pilot, said Eagle Aviation “has done a tremendous job for many, many years” and that the skill and safety culture an FBO provides cannot be easily replicated. Goudlock, a former airport commissioner, read the amended language as effectively removing the FBO option and urged rejection.

Eagle Aviation ownership also spoke. Robin Thomas, speaking for her husband who owns Eagle, said Eagle has operated FBOs at multiple airports for decades and told the council it would be “impossible for a private company to profit” under the proposed model without raising fuel prices. A point of information from the council and county attorney reminded attendees that procurement rules could affect bidders who attempt to influence council while participating in a procurement.

In council discussion before the vote, Attorney Wright explained that the current ordinance’s use of “shall” imposes a mandatory FBO requirement, and the amendment replaces that language so the county may choose one full-service provider or allow other arrangements. Several council members asked clarifying questions about whether the change prevents the county from retaining an FBO; Wright answered it does not prevent an FBO but provides alternatives.

The motion to adopt the ordinance was moved and seconded and passed on a roll-call vote. Recorded yes votes in the transcript included Pew, Little, Livingston, Terracia, Cooper, Mackey, English and Newton; Weaver and Aline recorded no votes. The motion was announced as approved and the meeting adjourned.

Next steps: The ordinance took effect according to the county’s usual implementation procedures; council did not record additional implementation details during the meeting. Several speakers urged the council to pursue an economic review and careful procurement process before operational changes take place.