Habersham’s airport consultant vote advances, but agreement terms remain unresolved

Habersham County’s planned relationship with Kimley-Horn moved back onto public agendas in August, after commissioners voted 3-1 on June 9 to award the firm the Airport Consultant Planning Services contract. The Airport Commission’s Aug. 11 agenda listed an executed Kimley-Horn agreement for approval or recommendation, and the Board of Commissioners’ Aug. 17 agenda separately listed a Master Agreement with the firm for Airport Consulting Services for consideration and approval. Neither agenda records what its body ultimately did.

The choice matters because an airport planning consultant can shape the studies, designs and recommendations that inform later decisions about the county airport. Commissioners’ June vote chose who would offer that advice, but it did not itself approve a particular airport project, authorize construction funding or determine what work will eventually be built.

The process began with the June 9 commission vote awarding the planning-services contract to Kimley-Horn. Lawrence Bridges made the motion and Justin Schapansky seconded it; Commissioner Andy Anderson cast the lone dissenting vote. Two months later, the Airport Commission agenda described an executed agreement, while the subsequent Board agenda placed a master agreement before commissioners—signals that the award was moving toward formal documentation, not proof that either scheduled action was completed.

A majority of the Board of Commissioners supported selecting Kimley-Horn, while Anderson opposed the award; the approved minutes record the split but do not give reasons for either position. Airport Commission members and county commissioners were then scheduled to consider agreement-related items in August. The agendas identify those bodies’ roles in the next stage, but do not disclose debate, votes or positions on the proposed agreement.

The June planning-services award is an approved county action. By contrast, the August entries are proposals for consideration, not records of approval, execution or work beginning. The minutes for the June vote do not state the contract price, duration, detailed scope or required deliverables, leaving residents unable to determine how much the county would pay, how long Kimley-Horn would serve or precisely what planning products it would provide.

The next public confirmation would be a county record showing whether a Kimley-Horn agreement was executed or approved, followed by documents identifying the consultant’s assigned work and any planning deliverables. Until such a record appears, the agreement’s cost and term, the work it requires and whether its recommendations will lead the county to pursue a specific airport project remain undecided or unverified.