At the September 15, 2026, Warren County Board of Supervisors meeting, I spoke at two airport budget hearings. My questions went back to discussions earlier in the year, so I put together this video compilation to show how the conversation developed.
The video begins at the April 28 meeting, when the then-county administrator explained that delayed audits prevented the County from qualifying for a loan to build airport box hangars. The Board discussed using fund balance instead, alongside grant money. It authorized a supplemental appropriation of up to $1.5 million within the airport fund and allowed staff to seek bids.
When I spoke in May, I was trying to understand that decision in light of the County’s other needs. I had seen hangars removed from a proposed budget described as covering necessities, yet the project was moving ahead. I was concerned about where the local share would come from, especially since school buildings and other county facilities also needed work.
By September 15, the box hangar project was back before the Board as a budget amendment. The Public Works Director described a project total of about $2.216 million and corrected the grant figure to $563,000. I asked whether the County was committing more of its own money than it had authorized in April. I also wanted to understand why this stage required a public hearing when the earlier action had not. Grants, appropriations, bids, and actual county spending are related, but they are difficult to follow when presented at different meetings.
The second hearing concerned runway rehabilitation. I saw that project differently. As discussed at the meeting, a project of roughly $1.5 million would require about $14,000 from the County. I told the Board that was phenomenal. I still asked about an apparent difference of roughly $303,000 between the budgeted amount and the bid: Was more work planned, or was that money being held for possible changes? I did not want to mistake an unspent amount for a saving without knowing what it covered.
I support improving the airport. I also want residents to follow each project from its first authorization through grants, bids, amendments, and final cost. With school and building needs competing for attention, those distinctions matter.
Video guide
- 0:00 — April 28: The then county administrator discusses financing and delayed audits.
- 0:36 — April 28: The Public Works Director discusses the hangar project.
- 1:44 — May 6: I raise concerns about funding priorities.
- 2:33 — September 15: The Public Works Director presents the updated hangar figures.
- 2:48–4:33 — September 15: I ask about the hangar funding and public hearing.
- 5:34–end — September 15: I respond to the runway project and ask about the remaining amount.
You can watch the full September 15 Board meeting in the county’s video archive.
Transcript
0:00
0 secondsUh, Miss Scott and I had a conversation uh with Davenport, who is our bond council or our finance um council, and
0:09
9 secondswe described the situation with them related to whether we go out for a loan to purchase these six
0:18
18 secondshangers or we use part of the fund balance. So off the top they said the
0:24
24 secondscounty would not qualify for a BRA loan because we do not have the audits to support such a loan.
0:33
33 secondsIt looks like uh about a little over half million of this is grant money.
0:38
38 secondsYes, sir. We have $563,000 sitting. I think I mentioned earlier if I don’t use it this year I’ll lose 165
0:45
45 secondsof that. So, so basically it’s a a $2 million project with a 1.5 roughly a 1.5
0:52
52 secondscounty investment that u it sounds like it’s at least in that even in a few years and
1:01
1 minute, 1 secondthen long-term it’s it’s good investment, right?
1:04
1 minute, 4 secondsAnd that doesn’t consider the other part of the project that we’re already under grant for for the site work. It’s pretty much all paid except for hundred,000
1:12
1 minute, 12 secondsover a million dollars. So, so yeah, whatever they whatever that was too is also part of that, right? So, you’re looking at 1.2 million on the front that’s already taken care of.
1:21
1 minute, 21 secondsIf you have a motion.
1:22
1 minute, 22 secondsYes, madam chair. I move that the board of supervisors approve the airport fund supplemental appropriation not to exceed
1:30
1 minute, 30 seconds$1.5 million within the airport fund from use of fund balance. I further move the board of supervisors authorize the
1:38
1 minute, 38 secondsfinance and purchasing department to issue invitations for bids for the boxh hanger construction project. From what I saw with the budget that was presented
1:46
1 minute, 46 secondsto us, we were told that we were doing the bare necessity of what each department needed and the tea hangers were actually removed from that proposed
1:55
1 minute, 55 secondsbudget. And now I saw that we are now fielding uh bids for an RFP
2:03
2 minutes, 3 secondsto use our general fund for that for that budget. And I spoke against using
2:09
2 minutes, 9 secondsthe general fund it against uh because we don’t know what’s actually stable. We don’t have a clear baseline.
2:19
2 minutes, 19 secondsUm and that the the funds were already earmarked. We’ve got schools. We’ve got this building with a leaking roof where
2:28
2 minutes, 28 secondsat least I you know it’s it’s still there. I pointed out before this project will be a total of 2,216,000.
2:37
2 minutes, 37 seconds565 that’s actually I should have a correction there. That should be 563. I missed that. $563,000.
2:46
2 minutes, 46 secondsGood evening supervisors. My name is Lewis Mutton from the North River District. Um, I spoke on this back in
2:53
2 minutes, 53 secondsMay after you approved 1.5 million for for this. Uh, so I’m a little confused why we’re coming back. I But it looks
3:00
3 minuteslike we’ve increased how much we’re spending, but then [snorts] it it’s it’s weird wrapping my head around because I see we have grants
3:09
3 minutes, 9 secondscoming in, but even though it’s not our money we’re spending, it’s still part of our budget that the grants become. So that’s where a lot of the confusion
3:17
3 minutes, 17 secondscomes in. Um, and I did notice with the consent item and this item, it
3:25
3 minutes, 25 secondsseemed like the consent item was short 2500, but I think he just explained there was a mismatch on um what was
3:33
3 minutes, 33 secondssupposed to be on this agenda item versus uh the other one. Um, is there money that we’re actually contributing in addition to back in May?
3:46
3 minutes, 46 secondsBecause back back in April after that, I brought up the issue that we have schools that have like $11 million and
3:55
3 minutes, 55 secondsthat budget was for like absolutely must have these items. Nothing. It was a in addition and I remember there was a time
4:03
4 minutes, 3 secondsissue with losing out money if we don’t spend it with a grant. Um but now we have another school issue where a school is closed now for the year I believe.
4:12
4 minutes, 12 secondsI’m I’m not sure. So we we’re we’re very desperate for funds or or trying to find out where to where to bring up find those funds. Um so that is my concern.
4:23
4 minutes, 23 secondsUh I love the fact that we’re expanding it, but is is there money to expand it? Why why are we coming to a hearing now instead of back in uh May and April? Thank you.
4:35
4 minutes, 35 secondsThe next project is going to cost us $14,000, but it’s a million half dollar project because I’m sensitive to the the school
4:43
4 minutes, 43 secondsfunding needs and and that this may seem to some to be superfluous. Uh but the economic impact is is very real. Um two
4:52
4 minutes, 52 secondsother points are are that uh one um these hangers will turn uh a profit and we have a a break even point which is
5:01
5 minutes, 1 secondsome years away but but they will start bringing money back in. Uh and then lastly, I I brought up at our last
5:07
5 minutes, 7 secondsmeeting that there is a plan um when we are uh ready to do so to to finance this sort of ret retroactively and pay
5:15
5 minutes, 15 secondsourselves back. And and Mr. Ham pointed out there are some legal steps needed to to to clear the path for that, but that that it’s it’s more or less
5:23
5 minutes, 23 secondsadministrative to to do that. And we um it’s legislative to do that and that is included in in your one of your consent agenda items.
5:31
5 minutes, 31 secondsOh, good evening. Lewis Mutton from the North River District. um yeah, like the the budget and understanding where the money is coming
5:39
5 minutes, 39 secondsfrom and if what we’re paying for versus what’s being given to us um with the grants. It’s a little difficult to uh
5:47
5 minutes, 47 secondsget the the broad picture. Um but uh I did want to
5:54
5 minutes, 54 secondssay wow uh we’re getting a makeover of a million and a half for 14,000. That’s phenomenal. And not only that, we’re
6:03
6 minutes, 3 secondssaving more than 50% off the off of air share. Um the one thing I I was wondering about is there’s like this it
6:11
6 minutes, 11 secondswith the the actual bid that came through, it looks like there’s 303,000 uh remaining. So I was just wondering is there more work scheduled or is that also pinned for uh changes or whatnot?
6:24
6 minutes, 24 secondsSo that’s that was the kind of um confusion like is there more work plan because I see $33,45
6:33
6 minutes, 33 secondsout of what was um bid on on that by um Cham Cham Chong Contracting Chamong. What’s that?
6:41
6 minutes, 41 secondsIt’s Chimong. Chimong. Okay. Um so that’s that’s it. Thank you and awesome job.
