WINTERSVILLE — The Jefferson County Regional Airport Authority approved its engineering consultant to get a ballpark estimate for the construction of additional parking at the Jefferson County Airpark, though not without some contentious debate.

During the authority’s regular meeting Thursday, board member Geary Bates initially said he’d been contacted by a local developer who’s interested in leasing a 7,000-to-10,000 square-foot building on the airport’s property. Since the airport currently has no commercial buildings available, Bates raised the idea of the board constructing another on a piece of available property, so as to generate another income stream for the airport.

“We’ve got $3 million and a half in the bank,” Bates remarked. “What’s the purpose of having money if you (don’t use it?)”

Bates estimated a 10,000-square-foot building would cost about $650,000 to construct. Board member Geno Morelli estimated around $700,000, factoring in miscellaneous costs, and suggested a land lease instead for the developer to build as he wishes.

Board member Rich Stenzel countered, saying, “We shouldn’t entertain anything over there that isn’t (related to) aviation. Right now, if you look at any airport, they all have waiting lists for hangars. Why sell property that, in the future, we could put hangars (on)?”

Board President Brandon Reese pointed out there are two prevailing philosophies within the board, those who believe the authority should stick to aviation-related development and those who feel conversely. He invited all board members, as well as an ex-oficio director and the airport manager, to weigh projects they feel should take priority.

Each listed airplane parking as the highest priority. Airport manager Brian Thaxton had reported earlier that a particularly busy period last month resulted in the airport maxing out its parking spaces.

As for where parking would be located, board members preferred where the airport’s wind cone previously sat — an area the board had previously identified as a location for possible future hangar development. Bates claimed the board wouldn’t have to sacrifice parking for hangars or vice versa, but Stenzel remained skeptical.

Using a rough estimate from Lance Wanamaker of Michael Baker International — the board’s engineering consultant — Reese said a 35,000-square-foot pad would cost about $350,000 to construct. Catering to large jets, the pad would be financed entirely by the airport. Reese said grants could be sought, but that would push the project’s timeframe back.

Bates proposed that he could level the pad’s base himself prior to the paving, which he said would save about $100,000.

Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of Bates’ proposal, considering elevation changes in the area, necessary weight accommodations and a nearby waterline that may need to be moved. Ultimately, the rest of the board struck the idea down.

Bates said “we’re going to have a war” if the board would “waste at least $100,000” on the project. He then challenged the board, inquiring what repercussions he’d face if he “got in a … dozer tomorrow and started pushing that dirt in.”

Reese asked Bates not to do that and to “respect the wishes of the board.”

Stenzel noted that the board’s mind hadn’t yet been made up about doing the project, a decision that he said would depend on more accurate estimates from Wanamaker. Bates said the project is simple enough that the engineer’s input shouldn’t be necessary.

Stenzel motioned to have Wanamaker produce feasibility drawings and get a ballpark estimate on the project’s cost.

Bates said he’d have the Jefferson County commissioners weigh in on his proposal at the board’s November meeting, to which Reese asked him not to “undermine the authority of the board.”

Bates voted against Stenzel’s motion, while Stenzel, Reese and board Vice President Dustin Van Fossen voted affirmatively. Morelli had stepped out of the meeting during the debate.

Separately, Stenzel gave the board updated prices for security features on the airport’s planned wildlife exclusion fence.

The first option, an intercom system that connects with a receptionist in the Ralph Freshwater Terminal, would cost $3,700 for one gate, Stenzel said. On the other hand, having a key fob reader would cost $1,285 per gate and $8 per fob. The fob readers can optionally respond to remotes at $475 peer gate, a feature that would be beneficial for maintenance workers in tall trucks, Stenzel added.

Reese said the fob readers would only be placed at two gates, with simple keypads going at all other gates.

Thaxton expressed that he’s not a fan of intercoms, as they need to be staffed, and said a fob and remote system would be the “simplest solution for security.”

The board unanimously authorized up to $5,000 to be spent for security arrangements on the fence, with Thaxton’s approval.

In other business:

• The board set its next meeting for 3 p.m. on Nov. 12.

• The board entered an executive session for personnel matters.