Logan-Cache Airport Authority Board Meeting 02-05-2026

Leave it up to them. We just need to make sure that whichever one we start first, we let the people who are impacted know before the construction begins. Okay.

Sounds great. Good point. Any other questions?

Good.

Just a quick update. Judd Hill with Lochner. With regards to the transfer of Logan City, we have been working with the FAA. Historically, the way it had worked with the either grant application or a grant award, that would be signed and approved by the county and county attorney by the city, the city attorney, and then also by the authority, working with the FAA. In theory, it's worked out to where the city has been removed from those signatories. We'll find out, when they actually issue the grant, the next type of grant work. But the FAA is aware of that change and everything should be in line to take care of that. Thank you. And then also would like to introduce a new member of our team. I'll call him up here and he can tell this is Tom. He just joined us. So the thirty second intro. Put put you on the spot. Exactly.

That's me. I've met some of you prior to the meeting. Tom Lyon, a new engineer with Lochner,

sporting projects here. I I started out as an air force civil guy. I can tell you all about the the ins and outs in between then and now, but I'm excited to be back in the aviation world.

Were you actually involved in some development as Hill Air Force Base at one time in your life? Yep. I did do some of that down there.

Some of the runway projects,

both active duty then as a contractor after use.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Glad to have you here, Tom. Alex? Jake?

The the kilo project. Yes. I'm gonna pass these out to you. K. So up this we've just have a little update on Lima. I think we've pretty well got engineering laid out, and this is the proposed roadway. Because we are Thanks. Because we're not building out the full taxi lane at this time, just talking with Bob and John, we figured the best approach is just building a small road that and paving that that leads to to the hangars. And as it as it's built out, that road can just be cut out and replaced with the taxiway. So that's what this is showing. But I mean and and one other note is there's a separation in the hangers and and Kyle can speak more to this, but we can't do the zero, we can't do the zero lot line just because we would have to build footings out for the next building sequentially. And it would be almost impossible to to do that. So there previously, there was the zero lot line. It's it's gonna be very difficult to do. And so this is what we're proposing is you would have separation in the hangars, and you can always encourage duplex hangars in the future if you got two people going together. But what's happened is you just have all these independent entities going. So But we just wanted approval on this, just moving moving ahead.

You've got a request here for Unit Number 5. The previous approval was for the four buildings. Yep. So

got two other requests, actually. So one is on the on the hanger in the additional unit. We would actually label this Unit 7, just the way they're sequenced, just to keep it consistent, John. But we can label it whatever you want. But this is Mountain West Motor, who's applying for it, and they have agreed to build out the other side of the taxi lane. As long as we can work in agreement with the county or the airport board to to be reimbursed when the next person comes along to build, they would cover that cost to the other half of the taxi taxi lane. So we'd have a full tax lane built out in front, and that next lot would be ready to go, our next hangar space. K. So that would just be an agreement that that we'd need to have with the county and them and I think as long as everyone's on board, we could move ahead.

Okay. We're in the process of working with a group on Kelo with regard to their underground improvements, which would involve a reimbursement agreement. And so we would anticipate that we would make that universal so that would also apply to the in format with what's happening on Lima.

Yeah. K. Well, yeah, we could follow we could follow those same lines, John. So as long as everyone on board just to navigate that agreement, these guys are willing to pay for that other half. Okay.

So the other

and I don't know if we need to if you need to vote on that. We will. Okay. The other item is we did a full survey of this entire area. So we have that and we could provide that to the county. Our engineers have told us, we're we're already paying a substantial amount of the main of the engineering for the base here. They can engineer the rest of the taxi lane so that as people come along, you guys have a plan to follow and a plan to execute. And they said that would cost an additional 15,381. So we're paying for these five hangars, we're paying close to about 60,000 for engineering. And they're saying for 15,000 more, you guys will finish it out for the county.

And so we wanted to propose that. But Well, Alex, this would go all the way to the curve, the engineering. It would include taking a look at the underground and sizing the underground so that it would we we could just hook on to it. So you'd have a complete

survey with with markers of what's existing and all the landmarks. You have a topo and then you'd have a full set of engineered construction drawings just to continue executing. And I think it's just I think if you go higher this again, it's probably gonna cost you substantially more. More. So I think this is a good opportunity, but I we wanted to propose it. Well, what you're proposing is that we agree to cover the cost of that

with to to some extent, it's a little bit like pioneering agreement that we would recover the cost as the additional party tie into that engineering, which is that makes all the sense in the world to me. Yeah. And and we've already coordinated with even Logan

City on the majority of the rest of the taxiway anyway. We kinda had to. And so it just give it it just allows you to go forward cleanly. So How many more I mean, assuming the hangars

are the same size as the five that are depicted here,

do you anticipate there's room for seven more? Or We we initially thought 12 total. And what's happening now is you're getting guys that want a 120 wide and then, like, this application's for a 100 by a 100 and the the proposed master plan is 100 by 100, but but then that and then when you separate the buildings because they're not building together, then it extends it a little more. And so you might be I I mean, you might end up with 10 or 11 versus 12, which we were originally proposing. Okay. So that's just kind of the nature of the beast though. I

We need the formal motion. I thought

we need two separate actions. One, let's take the last first. Okay. I would move

that the county agreed to pay the portion of engineering cost due to the additional units on kilo, and that it not exceed $15,000.

So clarification, is that the the county paying or the airport?

It's the airport paying you. Yeah. They're They're the same now. Yeah. I just But it will come out of the airport authority board, and it will be treated as a pioneering advancement toward future development, which will be recovered from additional development when and if it occurs.

Let let's make that to 15,300.

Yeah. I was gonna say it wasn't a '15 yeah. I was gonna say I thought it was a little more. I was gonna have to go back and negotiate that, but that was

Is Is there a second? You said kilo. Is that kilo or Lima? Lima. Lima. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'll second that. It's been moved in second that we approve covering the cost of the additional engineering on Lima to a maximum of $15,300 All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The other item is to expand the size of the development to include a fifth hanger designated as Unit Number 7 on Lima. Is there a motion to accept that application?

I just have one question, Alex. The the line on that is the building. And if we're gonna put space behind between them, wouldn't the line need to be a little further so that there is this half of the space between that and the next hanger included in the

Between 4 And 7. Right?

Right. You follow what I mean is is

There there covers

this half here. Well They're What I'm saying is no aircraft will go beyond that point. Well, I understand. But Or you mean half of half whatever the distance is gonna be? Between that and the next facility, so that we get that I I don't wanna end up with the airport authority board happy to pay for the the taxi lane that's between the two buildings. Oh, yeah. So so that this line move halfway through the open distance right here. Yeah. Whatever the And and the same thing here. Whatever the fire code requires. Yeah. That need to be split there and need to be split there. Okay. You you agree with that? Yeah. Yeah.

That makes sense. That makes sense.

So you're you're saying split the cost of this between this and the new? Yeah. Okay. So this this site

had to include half of the space between that and the next hangar, and so does this one. Okay. And the taxi now need to be built into that area.

Okay. Yes.

Because otherwise, you have a dead space between that is Right. A no man's land. Right.

We need to get that taxi lane That's true. And facilities built halfway through there, and your project need to include

that half. Yeah. But you're you're not are you talking the skirting you're not talking the skirting in between the taxi? The apron. No. We're talking about the taxilane itself. But the so that and that's where Mount West Motor would include that full

the other half. Not that half. He's talking about half of the gap that the fire code requires between seven and nine and ten. Oh, okay. So if the fire code's gonna require a 20 foot spacing between seven and nine and ten

That you would cover 10.

That would cover 10 feet of the 20. How much spacing is between four and seven?

How much spacing between four and seven? Yeah. I can see it. Alright. I'm thinking you've got 40 feet between those. Okay. So then 20 feet on the on the other side of seven would need to be done. When you say that, are you talking paving in between? Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. We can just include that in the construction drawings and build it up. Yeah. Okay. Improvements,

underground

Yeah. And taxi lane. So so that and there's not the reason I wasn't following is because on the other hangers on Jay,

there's no pave paving in between. They've just left They're asking you to pave in between the They're screwing you from here. Here. I think he's just talking about these hangers are splitting the frontage cost of the taxi thing. That's right. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. And the and the underground.

Yeah. Sorry. Having trouble following me on that. Yeah.

Okay. Is there a motion with that?

There I will make the motion that we approve the additional party acknowledging that the development will include half of the space between the last hangars on both sides of the taxi lane, and that will include underground and taxi lane for that additional half distance.

Is there a second? I'll second that. It's been moved in second. We approved the addition of another Taxi Lane on Lima with inherent extension of the improvements. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. I don't believe the Delta Group is here, but they're in process. They've completed their ceothermal survey and they're working on their engineering and they have a number of people who have already placed deposits for expanding into the area on Taxi Lane Delta. Mark Hurd. You get to come to this room occasionally?

I've been here before. Yes. Thank you for inviting me to come and and discuss a little bit about the Hyde Park Irrigation Company canal that runs through under the the runway and through the airport property. Bob and I have met a couple times to talk about some details, and and I think the the airport authority's concern or desire to enclose any of the open waterways and to help protect the, you know, the airport airspace from waterfowl and and reduce the attractants that may come in. So I think my comments will be pretty brief, but I'm here on behalf of the Hyde Park Irrigation Company. I currently serve there. And so we've discussed that what would it take into to enclose the canal? It's all open channel with the exception of this space that runs underneath the existing runways. And, you know, in short, it would be we would have to come up with some modern or current engineering on what capacity should be considered. The easy answer is to match what is under the runway currently. However, we don't have those details presently. I do the the canal company does have, in conjunction with three cities and an engineering firm, we do have a drainage study that was done about eleven years ago that was more looking at the capacities that would be required within the Hyde Park Canal Channel as well as the various ditches or waterways that are around and lead to the airport coming from east to west for stormwater flows. So it does not take into a consideration the irrigation flow through this particular one channel, which would be the canal. So and that data again was from about eleven years ago. And so there are things that have been constructed and and infrastructure that has changed some of that detail, to to the point where we would need to to reevaluate before we could get a a serious number on what capacities would need to be considered for being able to pass water through across the airport property through the Hyde Park Canal Channel alone. I'm not here or talking about the other ditches and waterways that are around the airport where they aren't the purview of the canal company specifically. Yes. They are ditches associated with the canal company, but they're not actually operated by the canal company. Canal company. So with that kind of backdrop, the short answer is match the capacity under the runway, that exists presently, which is estimated to be at between 25 to 35 CFS. And then additionally to that, if we were to work in that direction to enclose these the portions of the canal, then obviously, there would be we'd need to kick start a project. And between the canal company and the airport authority, we'd have to come up with, you know, parameters of the project and you know, similar to what you've just been talking about with with other projects at the airport. So, look to Bob to see if there's anything I missed that you were looking for from my overview.

No. That that pretty much covers it. The reason we started this conversation is we do have a wildlife hazardous plan out out at the airport to, lessen the attractiveness to the airport surroundings and and grounds for birds and wildlife. And we do have a significant, waterfowl problem at the airport, which my staff are constantly chasing off ducks and geese. And, but if we could do away with the water on the airport, that's that's where we're going with this is so the airplane taking off or landing doesn't have ducks and geese to contend with because they're not attracted to the airport any longer.

I know that we don't they're not always reported, but any idea how many bird strikes we have on an annual basis?

They are not always reported. The last one I know of, though, was a red tailed hawk that was chopped into a couple pieces at the approach in the Runway 35. That was probably about six months ago. It happens. I have three months ago. Before. Another one three months ago? It went lost, but it was. But Yeah. So if if let's just say that was a duck or a dense goose, you know, the outcome it it would have to be reported because it would have been a a worse outcome. So that's what we're we're trying to get ahead of this.

Well, an interesting story is when the FAA installed the instrument landing system, they brought in their Lear to test the landing system and on approach, they sucked a duck. And they did not complete the landing. They immediately powered up the remaining engine and headed to somewhere where they could get it repaired. Yep. And

I know we talk in the meeting and outside of the meeting a lot about having a tower and how much it would increase safety and and these things. I see something like this as important because a duck doesn't follow a command from the tower or a goose or, we just need to make it less attractive for them to be at the airport, and closing off those waterways is is a huge step in that direction. That's why we have this presentation. Okay. So all the waterway

High Park Canal? Because they it wouldn't be High Park Canal on the South Side of 35, would it?

So, no, not all the waterways are would be addressed by enclosing the High Park Canal.

And the High Park Canal is on the North side. Right? Yes. If Property

for for orientation. So Hyde Park Center Street or the the road down from Maverick off the highway. The Hyde Park Canal is maybe a block to the north of that Okay. Where it comes into the airport property under the railroad, under the fence. And then it does kinda jog its way a little bit south as it works west, and then crossing in a straight line and a pipe under the runways. And then on the west side of all the airport infrastructure, it does open up again as an open channel, and there is some swamping that is occurring. Mhmm. So, you know, some of the area that has cattails or phragmites in it would in it would be would dry out after this was piped in, and that would that specific area would be a part of any canal enclosure, but not all the waterways would be addressed by by this because they're Because we don't own property

beyond, you know, to the west. So it would only cover the airport property specifically unless you could get a big enough

We do own on the south southern part of the main runway. That fence that fenceway there that that is the border. It appears that if if you just looked at it, you think, well, that's where the end of the property is. And in fact, we own several of those fields to the west of that fence that we currently lease to farmers for cattle and those things.

So But the marshy area there is our But the canal is on the north side of it's on the end of 17.

Right? It's not all the way to the end. It's about three fourths of the way up. It comes under the runway, the taxiway, and fence and turns south and runs along the fence south and then crosses the fence into a marsh, which is our property. So we're we're

looking to So some of that I mean, I'm just you're gonna get into wetland mitigation and all that kind of stuff. So it's an expensive concept to try and get that piped because there's a lot of environmental stuff that's gonna end up in the middle of it as of the historic

flooding. I don't disagree.

I just don't know. Like, the FAA is not gonna pay for something like that. Correct? I wouldn't I wouldn't know. Yeah. I wouldn't I wouldn't think so. The

extent so this canal came into play with the runway extension a couple decades ago. Right. So on the north side, the covering what is covered now was to the extent that the FAA would, have paid for it. So that's why it does extend beyond the or to the left and right of the runway to the runway safety or runway object free areas. So that area was covered, and then it also goes underneath the taxiway. So what the FAA will pay for is what's covered now. Okay.

Cool. Because I think that it's gonna be a I mean, I agree that it's it's a hazard and we have to address it in some way, but that it's gonna be an extremely expensive project.

So, part of the reason I I believe I'm here today to talk about this is to find out if there's interest from this body in in pursuing this project and and defining the parameters of how far we would look to enclose. And it could be phased. Is there there are places where clearly it's it's just the channel that we would be enclosing and that that would be, I I perceive free from any wetlands mitigation requirements because it would be the same as as the canal and every other stretch of the canal east of this point. But when we get to the West Side, it becomes a little less clear if if we would be it's hard for me to say without having been around long enough to have seen what it was like a long time ago to know what was natural swampy area versus what is only in a swamp condition because of the the canal's presence. So Would you be able to get us, like, a diagram of that so we could, like, actually take a look at it? Sure. So yeah. If That'd be really helpful. If that's part of today is if you want, we we can come back with some more, you know, with with presentation that would include, you know, so we can visualize these things with with aerials, etcetera, as well as some more firm numbers on capacity that would be involved in which could kind of then give us a little rough on on the finances.

Is it open

off airport property toward Hyde Park?

Yes. Yeah. So the Hyde Park Irrigation Company canal is totally open with with the exception of, one section in, with two sections, excuse me, from North Logan at 1400 North to, basically, around Lowe's. When when the Lowe's came in, the canal was piped at that point. So there's only two blocks about of piping there. And then another small section within Hyde Park just to an elbow in the canal that was historic to to shore that up or armor it up.

And, other than that, it's a fully open channel canal. I would be interested in exploring this more. So I don't know if everybody else is I think philosophically, you have her support. Okay. I think the airport authority board would wanna not only look at this, consider this, but look at it from a more overarching perspective in terms of what waterways sloughs around private property and attack it from an overall

Well, we had a wildlife study done, and the biologist recommended that we cover all standing water within five miles of the airport. Oh, yeah. That's easier said than done. That had a price with a t. Not a b, not an m. Yeah. That'd be a big c f o. That'd be a big remember.

Roach it's strictly. Yeah. Did

do we have an estimate on what percentage if we covered just the Hyde Park Canal? What percentage of water that would be covering?

But that or is that something that would come next time probably? Yeah. I I mean, you know, if you look at the aerial, you know, with or flyover in the in the summertime, the the areas that are where the the canal comes in versus the other major, waterway that that kinda consolidates. So there's several of the other ditches that come in from the east to the west, and then there's a I don't know if you wanna call it a master ditch or something that's collecting those ditches into one point to then run under the the to go under the runway. It it would be about fifty fifty if we were to do the canal and then that that master ditch. Okay. Assuming that that's where all that water is coming from on the west side of all the infrastructure of the airport. I would think the airport board would wanna look at

coverage per cost and what covers the most for the most cost efficient return on that then yeah. What and then prioritize accordingly.

And as you can get away from the airport runway itself. I mean, obviously, the farther you can get foul away from it, the The better. Better. Yep. Yep. Is there any

Or netting over the waterways.

We have put some we have put some netting over some of the waterways. The the mesh that you put in concrete, those squares, we put that over some of the But is there a

you know how you you have certain noises that repel dogs? Is there anything like that that will repel?

We can certainly look into those things. There are. Yeah. There there are products like that. There there's things. What's that? Yeah.

There's Reflective

materials. There's reflective materials also. Reflective material that that as the wind blows, they they throw off certain reflections and noises and yeah. Those things are possible as well.

And so, again, part of the reason I'm here is just to understand what the airport authority would like to do with this project. And then also to, I think, important to affirm that really the canal company's role in any of this project would be basically just signing off on what is done. It there may be a small component of cost sharing, but realities are that Okay. Where we're not it's it's not a modification or a restoration of the channel for irrigation function. It it would be on the, you know, the property owner that the canal runs through just like any other project would be in any other subdivision or or neighborhood. So but the the Canal Company is, you know, I'm so I'm a board member, but if we were to move forward with conversations, obviously, we'd get the the president of the Canal Company in in conversation with the airport authority and and make sure that we're, you know, all understanding the the details along the way so that what is proposed would be something the canal company could sign off on. K. Would you continue to gather more information and coordinate with Bob? Sure. Absolutely.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Mark, Brian? Oh, sorry.

Yeah. There, Mark.

Good morning. You can hear me right? Okay. So what we're, Mark Lee Coven, Brian, Merrill, what we're proposing is to we're on the wait list. I think we're right behind Craig, two and three. Originally, we were gonna go on to kilo, but after meeting with, Bob and John, I don't think it's financially feasible for us. So we're looking to utilize a space that's already on echo. Even with the $337,000 grant on kilo, it's put it's it's gonna be, probably too expensive for us. So what we're looking to do is utilize that space there and create a building that's actually gonna be 60 by 250. We've talked to Connor, and, even though that map shows, April, he actually was able to redo the map and and fit that size of a building. And so, we've contacted several people on the list. And, you know, with, right of refusal, whoever wants to have a hangar there, the spaces will be ranging probably from fifty, sixty to seventy, sixty, depending on everybody's needs. And that's where we're looking at. We're we're actually just move forward to start doing the engineering. And right now, we have pretty hard cost for, the excavation, for the building itself, for the flat work and the foundation. Hook ups. And hook ups. Yes. Hook ups.

Any questions?

So you're talking about not building 50 fifties, but building something else? It's gonna be, 60 a two fifty by 60 foot deep building. So that length where you see echo, there's gonna be three or four hangars, most likely four hangars that are gonna have entrances to echo, where the echo ends at the end with the new kilo construction. So they're gonna be essentially, take that long building. And instead of four fifty fifties, it's probably gonna be a combination of it's gonna be 10 feet deeper. So it's gonna be, 60 foot deep. And then it's gonna be a combination of fifty, sixty, or 70, depending upon everybody's needs. Do you have that much room? Connor assured us. I'm just going by what he said we could we could put there.

Because it doesn't look like there's enough setback, but that's okay to add extra feet in width or depth, whatever you wanna call it.

I'd defer to Connor on that one.

With that in that area, so the echo taxi lane is set up for the group one, the smaller hangars. Keep in mind that the layouts that you do see normally, they are a guide, not a blueprint. So the idea is you're having narrower hangers, the 50 to 60 foot range, but instead of having just individual boxes, instead you have one long one or two long ones. The depth is gonna be dependent in the initial layout. There was a larger hanger on kilo, and that's where you could get some conflict on the back end by going the extra from 50 feet deep to 60 feet deep. So it all depends on the size of that. That's what hangers end up going into that location.

So is is it fair to say when the fifty fifty lines were drawn, it wasn't like someone went out there with chalk and a laser and measured it exactly. This is just

No. They didn't. It's correct. It's it's a incorrect. It's laid out as a conceptual layout. The idea being in going back to the previous discussion on Lima. That area set aside for on echo for the smaller hangars, kilo for larger, Lima for larger. That's why it can work by going slightly different than what's laid out because it's not specific to that. That's the difference of planning versus engineering. Sure. But it also doesn't impact

future development the way we've specified it

if you make that bigger. If it does go 10 feet deeper to the see, what direction is that? West side. West side. To the west side, it might. It it's that change off of do you go bigger on you have the left and the right. Do is it slightly bigger on the left or slightly bigger on the right? And that's there is no right or wrong answer, but there can only be one There can only be one answer. One answer. Neither either of them could work, but recognize that if you take a little bit more here, you're gonna lose a little here. But we can do both if it's done as specified. Roughly, yes. But we cannot And even the large one, it is a matter of being large, but is it a difference of I can't remember the size of that figure. It's a 120 versus a 110.

Yeah. Roughly a hundred hundred feet deep. 100 feet deep? Yes. So it pushed it to a a 90 foot deep on a kilo, and then you have your 60 feet. So

it could work either way. But, again, you can only have you can only have slightly bigger here or slightly bigger here.

Or okay. Or as specified

in both places. As a proposed or an exhibit layout, it was slightly larger here with a 100 feet deep and 50 feet deep here. But both are economically

feasible? Yes. Okay. That's what we need to make sure. A 100 feet here and then 60 feet here. Okay. But they're both the economically feasible.

So much real estate, and

and 50 by 50 isn't an option for you. It needs to be the 60. Yeah. Just for economy of scale is what we're looking at. That's what we've figured out is what all all of us can afford. K.

So it's also a zero lot line compliant,

the fulfillment proposal. Yes. Unlike the other one? Correct.

Further questions?

Is this mature enough that we could make an approval at this point? I think, yeah.

Subject to the infrastructure

account. And do they need an estimate for ECHO?

For the taxiways?

We're we're still working on those numbers. We've had that discussion with the proponent. Okay. So that could be a condition on Yeah. It could be a condition that they have to pay that perpetual infrastructure fund?

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

There would be a contribution to the, what is being referred to, and has previously been discussed here, the perpetual infrastructure strength, where a hangar is being built on an existing taxi lane. Try to collect funds that can be applied to a future, tax lane to replace that building opportunity. So what we're

proposing is that we'd be exempted from that because so I've been on this for five years. And a half. Four and a half. Yeah. And then, you know, two years ago, we met with the manager of the airport. And at that time, they had the like, they quarter foxtrot, and then they had the the end of Alpha. End of Alpha. And then he also, at that time, proposed. He said, we got Kilo coming. It's gonna get built. If you can just wait two years, you might be helping somebody by giving that spot at the end of Alpha, the 60 wide. And he said it'll be equivalent to for you to to go over to Kilo. And when I heard about Kilo, I'm like, well, yeah. I'm not in a hurry. I'll do that. And then, you know, it's only recently that I've heard this other information about contributing to the, you know, future development. But it was proposed to me that if I pass it up, that it would be equivalent. And that's why I put down the money and I gave up the spot, which I would have definitely not given up. I guarantee you I would have taken that 60 wide. He had somebody ready to go, said he'll be helping this guy, and and and you'll also have more flexibility for an economy of scale when when Kilo opens up. So I I said, sure. I'll I'll wait.

But, John, things have changed in terms of the FAA doesn't pay for taxi lanes anymore, and we right?

But this is a taxi lane that's already existing with the infrastructure.

That's fine. But it's a resource we own, and we're not if we start exempting you, then the next person, we've made a change in that. So so people are less. I I appreciate your arguments, but I'm not gonna vote to approve anything that doesn't pay their share of the cost of these taxi lanes, one way or the other. But are you gonna retroactively

charge the people who are just are building and finishing their I I

Try your arguments on me, and I'll go back and forth with you. But Okay. That that's the policy we have and

But there isn't a policy right now. Right? Yes. There is. There is a policy for paying a thousand dollars Right. For for Square. I thought that was not approved yet.

We can change the rental rate or whatever we need to do, but the idea that someone going to get free taxi lanes and we're gonna pay, it would that that system is gone. So you'll have to work it out.

So do we we essentially would need to agree to a cost that we don't know yet?

Cost is yet. But what we did We can give you a pretty good estimate on the cost. When when would that estimate be coming? It's it's a proportionate share of half of that taxi lane.

Again, what what would that figure be, I guess, is what I'm trying to figure out. And when.

And what I was gonna say is when we approved Alex's, we if I remember right, we were gonna wait to give him the opportunity to refuse it if he didn't like the cost. That was the condition. I don't have a problem with We could do that. Okay.

If the board is Yeah. I don't I don't we're we're working on that.

And just to be clear, I think this is the last spaces available. So there wouldn't be anything after this, because this is the last existing tax lien that's buildable. Just a little bit clearer on that. Yeah. But with the fund we're creating,

we will have money to put to build tax lanes in advance of the obvious demand. And so the same thing would apply at that time as well because those will be existing tax lanes.

Related. And I guess I would say, we entered into what I considered to be an agreement when we put $500 down under an existing set of rules. And it just seems those rules are changing, one. Number two, I would also, point out that there's other ways to increase revenue rather than put the stress on the hanger owners who are not businesses. There are two businesses, essentially, that operate that have far more wear and tear and much more percentage in terms of usage. And I don't know how other, plane owners would feel about this, but I would happily pay a a landing fee of, like, 3 to $5 every time I took off because that's only a couple times a month versus having my lease raised disproportionately in terms of, like I know you guys have have talked about landing fees. I'm not saying raising it for the existing people who are already paying that. But, you know, if there's a $133,000 landings a 133,000 landings, that's $34 is is a lot better funding for the actual usage of the airport rather than, I guess, taxing for the taxi lanes. And then my third point would be, the reason we're not building on Quito is because, again, we were told that we would have that opportunity without any additional cost other than the building itself. And we know that, like, there's $337,000, federal grant that was, allocated for the the airport, and that doesn't seem to impact anybody who's building anything. I'm just curious how that's gonna be allocated as well.

Once again, you know, we're the only people on the list that have that agreement with the manager at the time. I don't know where there's one other person who's not interested in building a hangar. We've talked to him last month. He's not even interested in doing a hangar anymore. So we we are the only people that were given that opportunity, in essence, promised that opportunity, made decisions based on what the what the airport had told us. And then now, you know, going back on that but it's just hard to not see the equivalence to us and the people there on the South End that all have hangers already. I don't I don't see the difference.

Well, the difference is the federal government was paying for taxi lanes. Mhmm. That has stopped. When if they were still doing it, we wouldn't have an issue here. Absolutely. At some point You have to make a change to recognize that. And we're happy to look at your suggestions for other sources of revenue and so on and so forth. But

But isn't couldn't that change be that if you're gonna build Yep. A hanger on space, just you have to pay what you're making people in Lehman Delta?

Postpone the change. Let us get under the wire and then do it to the next person.

Yeah. I I understand where you're coming from. I guess, what I would say is that let us get in under the wire because we'd already made an agreement with the manager of the airport, and you have existing taxi space. It's no different than the South End. I

I'm sorry. I'm I'm happy to Is this something that's okay? To move your proposal forward, but I will vote against it if you're not willing to pay your share of the taxi lane. I I think, again,

I would be willing to discuss that possibility. But, again, I I I'm not willing to say yes to I don't know what. Like, I I don't know the cost. I I don't know the timeline. I don't know anything about it. And so you're asking me to essentially just write you a blank check. Like is to delay your I I think the idea that John fifth? I think what John said would be, you know, would be probably something that I'd agree with or I can't remember who it was. Approval with the possibility of if that information comes available, we have the right of refusal if that happens. I think that I'm I would be happy with that right now. Because I I do we do wanna move forward with this, and we have three other folk who wanna move forward with it as well. So there's, you know, not just the two of us. There's five of us that are interested. Could you work with Yeah. So I'm ready to make a motion that we approve this development

on the condition that the proponent has the right to refuse if they don't if they aren't agreeable to the estimated taxiway proportion

of their responsibility. By by

clarification, by refuse, they would choose not to build the hangar. Not move forward on their development.

I like his wording better. Yeah.

They can't just wave at us to go ahead and start building. They're right. Okay. Yep. Is there a second the way Keenan suggested? I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the hangar request for echo subject to final agreement on contribution to the perpetual infrastructure account. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Get started. Thank you. And we and we will get busy on

the accounting. We appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah.

Are there any other items to bring before the board? In that case, we'll adjourn until the March 5. And again, we appreciate your interest in the airport and your support