LH City Council Faces Backlash Over Unannounced Fence Installation Blocking Hangar Access at William T. Piper Memorial Airport

By Emily Wright
LOCK HAVEN – At the Lock Haven City Council on Monday evening, council members were met with a handful of airport hangar tenants who came to address them regarding a fence that was installed last Thursday, May 16, blocking off privately owned hangars located along East Water Street and preventing them from accessing their hangars.

As usual, the meeting opened with comments from residents and city taxpayers. The conversation for this portion of the meeting centered around the fence that had been installed without notification at the William T. Piper Memorial Airport. Tenants addressed the council to point out various issues such as the sale of the airport, fees for access, funding for improvements, airport management, and FAA regulations.

Nils Mantzoros, a long-time hangar owner at the airport, addressed the city council after providing each council member with a copy of his prepared statements. Mantzoros’ hangar was fenced off by city public works crews last Thursday.

Mantzoros expressed his belief that City Manager Greg Wilson took steps toward selling the airport without notifying hangar tenants and alleged that Wilson had also made disparaging remarks about plane owners who use the hangars at the airport. Mantzoros added that Wilson failed to respond to tenants’ concerns about modifications to the Through The Fence agreement.

“I would like to advise the Council of recent actions that were taken by the City Manager, Greg Wilson, that demonstrated his unwillingness to negotiate in good faith regarding the Through the Fence agreement. I believe the manager acted unprofessionally and intentionally tried to obtain the negotiations and punish those pilots who are opposed to the airport sale. As you know, in 2023, all the airport tenants were getting notification that he intended to sell the airport,” Mantzoros said.

Council member Barabara Masorti stopped Mantzoros, stating that City Manager Greg Wilson does not make or act on decisions about selling the airport or city property without the council’s approval. She added that the letter hangar tenants received about potentially selling the airport came from the city council, not Mr. Wilson. “I think it’s really important that we make it very clear that it was never anyone’s intention to sell the airport. You were advised that there might be an appraisal of the airport and that we were considering listening to a group of people who had an interest in the airport. Mr. Wilson did not make that decision on his own; that was a decision of council,” she said.

“The point I was trying to make is that since that situation, Mr. Wilson, I believe, has taken it as a personal attack against him, and he’s been attacking the residents of the hangars at the airport and making it very difficult. In several social settings, Mr. Wilson referred to us as a ‘group of rich pilots using the airport as a private country club.’ I myself started my affiliation with the airport in 1972, when I was a corporate pilot. Shortly thereafter, I acquired a vintage Piper Cub,” Mantzoros said.

Mantzoros added that over the following 40 years, he taught his kids how to fly in that plane and has given countless rides to people from around the world without ever accepting payment from them. “I don’t think that qualifies me as a rich pilot using the airport,” he said.

Having been silent thus far, Wilson inquired about the alleged statements made in social settings. “To whom did I make it, and where? And on what occasion? What was the date? To whom did I say it, and where were we located?”

When questioned, Mantzoros was unable to provide that specific information but continued to discuss issues surrounding the Through The Fence Agreement and the city manager’s lack of communication. He said that Wilson failed to respond to a contract modification request and expressed his frustration with Wilson’s lack of negotiation regarding the agreement.

Mantzoros said that on Thursday, May 16, he received notification that the city was putting up a fence and blocking his access to the airport by placing the fence 30 feet inside of the airport’s fence on his privately owned property. As a result, he contacted the state police, who looked at his deed and agreed that the fence was placed on his private property. As a result, the state police asked the city to remove the fence. Mantzoros expressed his frustration about not receiving any communication regarding the fence until he saw it being installed.

In terms of the Through The Fence Contract, Mantzoros discussed issues with the original contract, saying the stipulations it included were unreasonably restrictive, which compelled him to arrange a meeting with City Solicitor Justin Houser to discuss changes. “That original contract was a residential Through The Fence contract, and it used a lot of the stipulations that were involved for the T Hangar rentals… That information was very restrictive: no business activities, the city would have first right of refusal to buy the hangar [meaning that] I couldn’t pass it on to my children… $1 million dollars worth of insurance… So, I notified them that I was unable to sign that contract the way it stood. There was absolutely no communication that I received until last week, and that was on Monday, May 13, when I got the mail,” Mantzoros said.

Mantzoros reported that his meeting with City Solicitor Justin Houser was “very cordial.” “He understood my concerns. We made changes within the contract, he was going to present it to the City Manager, and if it was an agreement, I was willing to sign that contract,” he said. “I received no response whatsoever from Mr. Wilson. On Thursday, May 16, I received information from one of my hangar neighbors that the city was putting up a fence blocking my access to the airport. I notified the authorities that my property is over 30 feet inside the airport fence,” Mantzoros said.

Mantzoros believes that the fence was installed in its specific location because the taxiway would need to be shut down due to not leaving a wide enough clearance for the taxiway.

Mantzoros said that he is not opposed to a Through The Fence Agreement but would like to negotiate it with the use of the FAA guidelines and examples of other airports.

Another hangar owner from Florida, Craig Kehrer, said that he has been speaking with the City Solicitor every day since the fence was installed, but as of the time of the City Council meeting Monday evening, it was still blocking his access. “I never received any of the contracts either at my hangar address, which I keep a mailbox for, or in Florida,” he said. “I did write to the city two months ago today using my Florida address but got no response.”

During a meeting with the City Solicitor on Wednesday, May 15, Attorney Houser confirmed that Kehrer had not provided an agreement. Houser provided him with a copy of the agreement as-is and clarified that it was not correct, but it would at least provide a general understanding. “That was three o’clock on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday morning, the fences were going up in front of my hangar. I’m supposed to be at hangar two, which is a maintenance facility for required annual inspection, and I can’t get there,” Kehrer stressed.

Kehrer reported that he has been in regular contact with Attorney Houser, and on Thursday afternoon, Houser notified him that the fences were coming down. Kehrer has attempted to get to his hangar each day since, including Monday before the City Council meeting, and reported that the fence remains in place. He reemphasized that he needs to be able to access his hangar for maintenance.

Carl Williamson, who has been involved with the airport since 1943 and served on the airport committee for nine years, addressed the council, “Do you actually have an airport advisory board anymore? It’s not on your website; it doesn’t state who is on it or who’s on it that can give advice. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but wouldn’t it be a good idea so we could have a little more back-and-forth without having to fight with certain people and try to get this thing solved?” he questioned. “All I want to do is be your customer– We just want to be your customer; we buy your fuel, and it seems like you’re just running us off. We’ve already lost two businesses; they’re gone, and for the first time in my memory, there’s hangars available. There was always a waiting list,” he emphasized.

Williamson asserted that the airport needs to be run as a business and he questioned why the airport advisory committee was disbanded. He advocated for reestablishing the advisory committee to help solve problems and provide representation for airport users.

Mayor Joel Long asked City Manager Wilson about the Through The Fence agreement and its current status. Wilson reported that on October 19, 2023, there was a meeting with the FAA, Bureau of Aviation, city council members, and the airport committee members. He said that the FAA directed the city to enter into Through The Fence agreements and start charging fees.

Wilson quoted David Cohen, Compliance Program Manager of the FAA Eastern Region Airports Division, who reportedly said at the October meeting, “You can put up a fence, and you can no longer come in until you pay us a lot. There’s no limit to how much you can charge them, and by the way, you can charge them a million dollars each, and they can’t say anything to the FAA,” he quoted. “The city was told that you will enter into those agreements because the city was delinquent in doing that… And that’s a recorded meeting,” Wilson added.

“The agreement that was placed in front of you was provided to the city by the FAA Eastern Region Airports Division Compliance Program Manager David Cohen himself. We did not write it. The only edit we made to that was to put in your individualized information. If you take issue with what there is in that agreement, there’s only so much the city can change. The FAA will want to review those,” Wilson argued. He added that at the conclusion of the October 19 meeting, the city was told to become compliant and to inform hangar tenants on October 20 that they would not have access to the airport unless they paid a fee.

Wilson maintained that hangar tenants received their first copy of the Through The Fence agreement in January 2024 and that, according to the city solicitor, copies were sent to all six tenants using the addresses stated on their tax records.

Wilson clarified that the first copy of the agreement was incorrect because an agreement should have been specifically drafted for commercial pilots rather than residential ones. “Upon learning that, when you all came to council to cry that you had received the wrong agreement, the correct agreement was provided. That was provided on February 14 to either you individually or to the lawyers who stepped forward and sent us letters stating that they were representing you in the Through The Fence Agreement. If you had a lawyer, it was sent to the lawyer,” Wilson said.

After February 14, 2024, Wilson claims that the city did not hear from any of the hangar tenants. He further stated that Through The Fence agreements would need to be signed as of May for the city to receive funding from the FAA. “We are meeting in the first half of June with the Bureau of Aviation and the FAA to beg them, once again, for funding for paving and to sell fuel, but with no Through The Fence agreements, there will be no funding.”

Regarding the fence being installed, Wilson said, “The rest of the fence is on the city’s property. The city has every right to have a fence up; it was told to do it on October 19.”

Nils Mantzoros addressed the council again, stating that he received the first amended agreement on May 13 and that he made an appointment to meet with the city solicitor the following day. “My contention here isn’t about the contract; I’m willing to negotiate; we’re trying to negotiate something that’s fair, and I’m not trying to get out of that. What I’m complaining about is the lack of negotiation. I didn’t get any notification of the airport being blocked off […] absolutely no communication whatsoever,” he said.

Mantzoros again pointed out errors in the contract and emphasized that since the time those errors had been addressed to the city council, he had not received any communication from the city. He added that he has no legal representation, so a lawyer would not have received the agreement on his behalf.

Wilson argued that Mantzoros did, in fact, have representation, and he would happily email a copy of the letter sent to him by the attorney.

“I saw a copy of that letter, and he said he mentioned that he was not representing me,” Mantzoros declared.

Kehrer addressed the city council again to mention that on March 20, 2024, he had sent a letter to Wilson and Mayor Long but received no response. “Like I said, Mr. Houser admitted, ‘Oh yeah, I see you never had that contract.’”

After a back-and-forth dialogue between Kehrer and Wilson, Kehrer reiterated, “I can’t get to the maintenance hangar to get my airplane inspected,” to which Wilson replied, “Well, according to the state police, the orange fence is all removed by someone there.” Kehrer, adamant that the fence is still in blocking him from access, replied, “Sir, that is absolutely not true. At 6:15 tonight, I talked to Mr. Houser, and the fence is up.”

Wilson insisted that he saw the police report, which states, “The orange fence is all rolled up nicely,” but Kehrer persisted: “At 6:15 this evening before I drove up here, it was across the whole front of the five hangars.” Brief silence hung in the air before Wilson responded, “Hmm… I’ll have to look”.

Without knowledge of the decision, Mayor Joel Long asked who had decided to install the fence. “I made that decision to basically get the attention, which it did,” Wilson said. “The reason it was a temporary fence is because it was not expected to stay up long, but no one was moving after two months on these agreements. All I know is what the solicitor told me: Those six individual property owners have all received their updated agreements in both February and March,” he said.

Carl Williamson highlighted that the way the fence was installed and its location suggest that it was put up to block access to the taxiway. He further asserted that it was done illegally because there was no notice put out about it in advance as required by the FAA. He contended that without an “X” marking the fence’s location, planes would not see it if they taxied in at night. “There could have been a disaster if somebody was taxiing down through at 9 or 10 o’clock at night because that taxiway is not lit, so they would’ve come down here and hit that fence,” Williamson said.

To solidify, Craig Kehrer inquired, “So, in good faith, is the fence coming down tomorrow?” Wilson replied, “Yes, I was told it was down.”

Council member Masorti, who is also a member of the airport committee, assured that creating an authority to operate the airport is “something we are actively working on.”