Logan-Cache Airport Authority Board Meeting 12-04-2025

Yeah. Well Okay. I will welcome you to

the meeting of the Logan Cash Airport Authority Board for the month of December. We'll begin by asking for an approval of the minutes from the November meeting as they have been provided.

I'll move approval.

It's been moved that we accept the minutes. Is there a bit is there a second? Second. It's been moved to the second. We approve the minutes as provided for the November 6 meeting. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed or changes? A manager's report, Bob.

Good morning, everybody. So, last time we were here, I talked about the grant from the UDOT Aeronautics department that we had applied for. There's a total of $2,000,000 up for up for that grant for the electrification. I did check with them yesterday just to see if there was anything to report to you. The report is that they're still reviewing it and have have not made a decision yet, but they're moving on to the second step in their process shortly. So that's the report on that. Our snowblower I've talked about our snowblower all summer and and and the plan to get it fixed, and that plan has fallen through. The we do have another plan though. We've taken it to another shop who says, oh, we just you take the gear and where the tooth was, you just weld it up and then machine in a new tooth. That seems pretty a lot simpler than what we were trying to do. I wish we'd known that earlier, but that's where that's the that's where we're at with with that piece of machinery, and that's here in the valley. In the meantime, we've looked at a replacement. We found a suitable replacement, but we're waiting to see how long this first piece of equipment takes to get fixed. And if we have remaining funds, we still may look at, the second piece as a backup or run two at the same time. That's to be determined. But we spent some time this last month, focused on fences. We've identified several parts of our fences, specifically some gates where they were sagging and the gates were overlapping. This is out on the field, not at the entrances, but the gates were sagging, overlapping, leaving gaps between the wood posts and the metal posts for wildlife to enter. And, we spent some time fixing that up, shoring that up, drilling holes, putting bolts in, getting it back to where it's supposed to be. Also identified some some spots in some culverts where the fence just goes over the culvert, leaving a gap underneath between the the fence and the and the water for wildlife to enter, and and that's to be addressed also. So, on positive note, Valerie, our one of our part time employees got engaged. So it's your four year boyfriend. So that that's positive. Wanted to share that happy message with you. But that's the manager's report for the month unless there's any questions.

Any questions?

Nope. I'm impressed that you're working on the fences, though. Oh, thanks.

Thank you, Bob. You got it. Connor?

Morning. Connor Butterfield with Lochner Engineers. So tax the in kilo, it's under final review with the FAA. We should have, hopefully, acceptance of the project back this month, and then we'll be able to go out to bid for that. Taxi Lane Charlie, we have a contractor, Staker Parsons, so that'll go out to construction in the spring for the reconstruction of Charlie. And then SRE equipment still on track for this month, to be delivered, but they're gonna

I believe they reached out the airport.

The side plow is taking a bit longer than expected, but they were hoping to deliver, the plow truck with a front front plow attached and then the side plow come later. And then additional projects, we have the pavement maintenance of taxiway bravo that'll happen this summer as well.

And repaint will be obviously part of that? Yes. So pavement maintenance and repainting. Yes. And that that will complete our obligation on the January update. Right? Yep. With the new design, new new font.

Exactly. New spacing, everything will be up to the new AC. So all your paint should be taken care of, and I believe that checks all the boxes for your FAA inspection. Okay. Any other questions? Or It'll be a busy year. Yeah. Lots of construction. So Yeah. That'd be great. Thank you, Connor.

Bob, you've been asked to give us a recommendation for handling the waiting list.

Yeah. So in reference to the waiting list, we once we started looking at the waiting list, we recognize there's a few situations there that needed to be addressed. And so we've gone through and these are recommendations for you to discuss or agree or disagree or tweak. But this is what I've come up with and let me just read through it. I've I've passed out some some papers if you don't have one maybe share with your neighbor. But I I I know I didn't print enough, but so to establish a waiting list for the hangar construction site, we're gonna rigorously honor what's already on on the waiting list when it comes to, okay, it's your turn to build a hangar. We're gonna refer to the waiting list. Okay? If if it comes to your turn, when an individual's name reaches the top of the waiting list and specific available open site, they will have a defined period to accept or decline the offer should the individual decline to offer, build, or, to build for any reason, including, but not limited to financial considerations, change of plans, or, unsuitable site, their name will be immediately or permanently removed from the list. Now this one here, I debated on removing them from the list or just moving them to the bottom of the list. That can be discussed. But but that's the that's that's what I wrote down. Number two, disposition. We we do have someone on the list who's deceased, and so this is the number two is to address that in the unfortunate event of death of an individual currently registered on the waiting list. The $500 site deposit paid by that person will be fully returned to their legal estate upon presentation of necessary documentation. So we intend to take that $500 that he put down to get on the list and give it to his estate, return it. Number three, deposit refund upon external purchase. This is so someone's on the list, but they they purchase an existing hangar before their name comes up on the list, then we would refund that as well. There's several there's there's two people on the list that I think fall under that category. And then moving forward, future site allocation policy, what we're gonna do moving forward, effective immediately and if it the official waiting list is closed. No additional names shall be added to this existing list going forward. A new application based system will be instituted for all hangar site allocations. So currently, to get on the list, you fill out a hangar site request application and submit a $500 check. Moving forward, we would just we would just receive the site request application, but that doesn't guarantee you a spot in line. The airport would would when a site becomes available, we would look through that list and see who has asked for that size of of hanger spot. So if you're looking for a 100 by a 100 and you're number one on the list, we wouldn't go to you if we only have a 50 by 50 spot. We'd go to we'd go to the people that want a 50 by 50.

So, Merrick Yes. So do you anticipate essentially, keeping a file of the applications? So that, essentially, is your becoming your waiting list

with more I mean, with more specific information. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yep. Yeah. We we would keep we would keep those applications, and we'd probably keep them in order, but an official list wouldn't wouldn't be referred to, and there would be no deposit.

So if you have, what, 50 by 50 site available and you have three people that have applied,

how do you make that decision? We would keep them in in the with each one of them has a date on it, and we would just go to the first person and say, are you ready?

Okay. So Yeah. So there is a priority order based on when they apply,

but there isn't a waiting list. There wouldn't be an official waiting list. There would just be this this is to this is to kind of streamline the the streamline the process so there's not this this waiting list out there that that hamstrings us, so so to speak. So we want we want to be able to move a little quicker and and just go to the person that that qualifies for that spot. Meaning, this is what I wrote. This is what I've written down and documented that I want. And so when that spot comes up, we'll come to say say you're the first one that wants a 60 by 60. And we have a spot that fits those dimensions. I would come to you and say, are you ready? You want to build? And so we'd offer that that way without an official list. This is a recommendation. This is this is for you to discuss. So, basically, that's that's the recommendation.

Can we discuss now? Yes. Is there an application fee? No. And the deposit still exists or that goes away

as well? We're doing away with we're doing away with the list and the deposit.

And Everyone on the list should then complete one of the new hangar site request Everyone on the list has already completed one of those. Okay. So you don't need to change that. So you essentially have that information.

Yeah. But for new people going forward, we're not gonna maintain a list. We're gonna we're just gonna collect these site application forms.

Why not take it off?

In order and you're not jumping over and say, oh, so and so, we've, you know, he's been bothering me a lot lately, so I'll give it to him. Again, that was Yeah. What we were trying to avoid with the airport lady waiting list was any kind of favoritism. So as long as you're going by the dates, I mean, it makes sense to match them to the size and, you know Yeah. But I also think they still need to put in a deposit. Yeah. That's that's what I was getting at is because there's probably a cost to administering

the applications, reviewing them, keeping track of them. Okay. And so I think that you could recoup some of the costs that way. The other thing is we should probably if it is FIFO, you know, first in first out priority, we should probably define that in the terms.

Okay. So that'll What number was that? Objective as mayor Danes suggests that First in first out. On the site size, which completely makes sense. Mhmm.

And then probably define who is performing that review Yeah. Just for clarity.

I agree.

So maybe we should put these things down as request for amendments, as a motion, and then start amending this allocation with these requirements. I think to just get that on board, I think if if I put a motion on to approve this proposal subject to amendment, then we can discuss this and begin to put in additional criteria in subsection three, chair. Would that be acceptable with that understanding? I I am favorably inclined to accept any amendments that are approved with respect to my motion, but I would formally move the adoption of the airport waiting list proposal. K.

Is there a second?

I I second that as long as as I look at the agenda, it's noticed as a discussion item, not an action item. Correct. So as long as we feel that that's appropriate, I'm happy to second. But I just wanna make sure it's noted that that it does indicate as an agenda item that it's just a discussion and not an action item. And that suggests that we address it in January, the next meeting Right. For final action. I would I would

suggest that we make any suggestions that we have to the proposed document and then bring it back as an action item in January. I agree with that approach. May I, may I ask a question?

Can, can you, can you guys weigh in on number, on number one here? I would like to weigh in on number one.

Because we are moving from an old system, a legacy to a current new system Yeah. I would support the removal and return the deposit so that we can we can implement quicker into the new system. So I would I would like to have it remain this the the removal so that it does move from an old legacy application system waiting list to your new method. Okay. But I I would I would move that that would be the I mean, that that's the way I would recommend So you would want to know not have any deposits anymore? No. Well I have a different I have a different discussion on that one. You asked you asked discussion on number one. If we're having a legacy system, I think we we as quickly as we can, we take out the legacy system and move to our new system.

Specifically, maybe I should ask this. Specifically, do we wanna remove them from the list, or do we wanna put them at bottom of the list? They decline, we just move them to the bottom of the list. Or I think we remove them from the legacy

system of of tracking, which would be the waiting list to the new system and add them in to their their fit Wherever they date. With the new new method, you're going to say, hey. You're you're top on the list for a 50 by 50. Do you have the financial means right now to do it? Because we need we need you to act now. And I'm like, you know what? I don't right now. I still want to be there, but I want to be in that folder so that when you have another 50 by 50 come up. But I'm not I'm not first in line for the 100 by 100, and I build a 50 by 50 on it. I I I we I think we want to avoid that. With a waiting list, when it's all sequential and I'm the top on the waiting list, Well, you have any spot available, and I should be able to build on that spot as long as I'm the first in priority. Yeah. The I'm seeing that this proposal is is adding flexibility to you to say, hey, I want to fit the right person to the right spot. And if there are 10 right people, then I'll pick the first one that came in. That's right. But if there are if if if my 50 by 50 I have a small plane. If I want a spot and the only one that's available is is a large plane spot, well, I'll build my small spot. And I I worry that I'll never be able to have first priority again, so build me by 50 by 50 on a 100 by 100 spot Yeah. Is not what the airport wants. Correct. Is that am I understanding it correctly? You're dead on. That's why I say, alright. Take them off the waiting list, put them in your folder for that size, and then they can move forward. But then if we're if we're going from a 500 deposit to a something different, and now that's where I'd like to talk on the next one is I would like it an application fee rather than a deposit. Okay. I'd like to say, let's let's have a 50 or $100 application fee, a nonrefundable. It gets you on the list. It gets you in order. It gets you in the folder, but we're not holding these 500 deposits. They're fee would. So so to that point, I would recommend that we add an application fee Okay. And it'd be

$50,100 dollars. Whatever that whatever that's gonna be 50. Give me an amount, and we'll put it on there. $500.

At five hundred, then it's nonrefundable. I'm I'm talking a nonrefundable application fee. You get on the list, you you pay that. I think 500 is maybe a little bit more than it cost you, but but I would say a $100. It's enough to restrict people from everybody applying just in case. I have to be at least a little serious, but I know my my $100 goes into you can have 500 as that's your proposal. I I'm just asking. I agree with 500.

It should cover the cost of your administration.

But it's nonrefundable. It's it's Yeah. It's my application fee and not a refundable deposit. Yeah. Okay. So I think if 500 was understood as a refundable deposit, I'm backing down to that in order so it's

it's recovering the cost of of administering this program. Okay. There's there's a motion on the floor. I I'm not inclined to vote for it, but we probably should do something about that.

There was not a second, so it died. Oh, I thought

Only if it was applicable, and I think the discussion was that Okay. That wasn't. But I think the ruling of the chair should be Yeah. Let's make that explicit. So yeah.

I don't think we need to vote on it because there was not even his was a reserved second with conditions of which have not been met.

I mean, I think, you know, I think George is amenable to kind of the friendly amendments we've made. So if we come up with a a draft in January and vote on it. What what would be nice is is that we could phrase what we want to do to this so that we had it ready to adopt

that subscription. Yeah. I agree. I'd love to leave this meeting having discussed 95% of what we want the next one to look like.

My question about the process, Bob, and I'm new to this, but might an individual say, well, I'd like to be on all the list for all of the sizes. And and, essentially, are there identifiable sizes? There's 50 by 50. There's 100 by a 100.

200 by 200. There's there's all different sizes of hangers out there. And so, I I can't as a paperwork side, as a as a as a keep track of things side, I was gonna put two folders. One with large I was just gonna mark it large hangers, smaller hangers, and then just keep track of them in there. That that sounds manageable.

Yeah. If we have different lists for sixty

hundred feet.

K. It's a 100 by a 100 and the stall would be anything less than a 100? Usually, there's

the 100 by hundreds or larger. And then there's the 40 by forty, forty by fifty, fifty by fifty, forty by 60. So there's usually a pretty good delineation between, it's just that it's just the dimensions of the smaller ones you usually are

a little different than than So when we talk about on the allocation, we would have two lists. One for larger hangers and one for smaller with the dividing line being 100 by 100.

That's the intention. Yes. Again, there's certain taxi lanes that can accommodate the larger hangars, and we don't want small hangars on that. So it's pretty well defined according to the taxiway. Right? So my question would be,

can you based on our master plan, can you tell us how many larger and smaller hangars might be planned if you know, I know we we we specifically might be planned if you know, I know we we we specifically stated that some taxi lanes were to be only larger hangars, and some taxi lanes could be a mix. And I would assume that if you if you that we set them out, like, 50 by 50 or, you know, with 50 foot frontage or something like that, the smaller hangars. And whether they go 40 feet back or 60 feet is,

I guess, a choice. It's like a different group. So you have a group two Uh-huh. Taxi lane, which is gonna be taxi lane kilo. So facilitate larger hangers which are covered by 100 hangers. Okay. And then a group one taxiway would be your smaller. Okay. And then a group one taxiway would be your smaller.

But each lot would be the same size. Right? Or do we do we have smaller lots? An attempt to It's sort of like a subdivision in a way. That's my question. Because it would seem to me that we would say, okay, taxi lane kilo has 100 foot frontage for 10 hangars

or something like that. Correct. And they're not I I would suppose the lots it's not well defined what the actual lot is. It's we have a a general layout for group two where you could build 100 by a 100, but you could also build a 160 by by a 100. So I I think the delineation between large and small would be on your taxi lane specific, and then that kinda enables you to we could put a 40 by 40 or a 50 by 50 or a 60 by 60. And we have those on your master plan, roughly what you could build in this area. So I see his plan working, having kind of the two delineations of, okay, so we built this group two taxi lane, we have roughly 10 spaces depending if you go a bunch of a 100 by hundreds or you go a one sixty by a 100. It's a bit flexible in that regard.

So what happens, I'm gonna be I may be in the weeds here, so I'm sorry. What happens if you've created a taxi lane at level two? So the the 100 by 100 is what you have specified. And you have specified that we can fit eight one hundred foot hangars on that taxi lane on one side of it or both sides of it, whatever. And somebody built a 160, which essentially takes away one of your spaces. Because then you've only got another, you know, you've got a 40 living out there somewhere. Correct. So I what I don't know is do we do we define it like you define a subdivision, and you say there's this many hundreds, and if you wanna build a 160, you have to buy two hundreds.

Like defining the lot size for the parcel. Right. Is that what you're saying? Right. Because then we maximize

the use of the space. Because if somebody does a 160, then you've got a 40 foot loaner out there that technically could be a small hanger, but it's not on a taxi lane where you want them. And so what I wonder is if we we were we would be more efficient if we defined the the quote unquote lot size, and we allocated them by lot size.

And I I think that's kind of the intent of the master plan as we've laid them out in what we feel is the space, the most efficient use of space Mhmm. Where they are those somewhat defined lots. But as Judd has always said, it it's a plan. It's not a blueprint. So it it can be tweaked a little bit. So you you could review, the applications. You know, if somebody wants to build the 50 by 50, but it's better to build a 60 by 60, I I don't know if you could force them into that or what sort of

The the actual add to that, the the nice with the new method would be let let's say we have four on the list, and we we have one that wants a 160, and we have another one that wants maybe that 40. And if he can take and have some flexibility on being able to take, maybe he can take those And and work out the best method to have. Yeah. But if you option

But if you have a

if you have a level two taxi lane,

which is to accommodate larger airplanes, you don't wanna stick a small hangar in there. Not necessary. I mean, this this the small the small plane flies on the same runway as the big plane and and will drive on the same taxiways. We're maximizing rentable space. And and and it is true that we want to to have the largest and most use of Of large planes on the larger taxiway because we'll build build them at taxiway, so we'll build that way. But to have a to have a small space can still be I mean, that that that smaller plane can still fit there and utilize, and and we maximize the use. Now I think to to to your point, the master plan is a 30,000 foot view. It's not we're not done with our responsibility. At some point, we need to get the 10,000 foot view and the 1,000 foot view and the layout of what's actually on the ground. And whether we're involved in we've certainly defined that 30,000 foot view with the master plan. We understand where we want them and what what we want to have there. But then as we get down farther and farther and closer and closer to the weeds So we change the plan? No. No. The plan is is that that is where where the general that size of of hanger and and planes can be because because it has to be built to a certain level to handle certain size of planes Right. Wing width wise. But but if you're left with a 40 foot, and if we can have our manager say, hey. You know what? I have a 160, but I'm gonna match you up with somebody that will take the the next 40 feet. I mean, yeah, you can match the city to it. Oh, right.

And that is And you missed our last meeting, but I thought it was We're looking at a situation where the taxi lanes are no longer a free add on. So if you wanna build on a taxi lane with 100 foot frontages, your proportionate share of that is going to be to build a lane that accommodates larger airplanes. So each when when you talk about putting a 40 by 40 slot on the big taxi lane, we're gonna have the burden of a larger runway. The common expense is gonna have to go you might get the front each full, but the back end is gonna have a a square that's thin and used. The the truth is is we'd be best if we could stack them and size them going down the runway rather than having them defined and having spot to try and fill in the problem. But that absolutely. I I agree with that. That wants a 40 by 40 when we've got a 100 by a 100 lot, it isn't they're gonna be paying three times as much share for the runway, and we're also gonna have a vacant spot behind the 40 by 40 lot. So I think we're gonna have to be a little bit more judicious when we start paying for our taxi lanes.

And my point my point to that I I get that. But my point to that is is if you have a manager that is is working to maximize it on that level, then maybe somebody in that application does fit, and and they can marry two together rather than than have those kind of gaps just off a quick way to do it.

Maximizing revenue here does not occur when you're talking about 40 more people at 40 a foot isn't gonna do much for our economic

situation. I understand, but 40¢ is always greater than zero. Sometimes

zero and waiting is better than 40¢.

Understand. Can I I would just

40¢? It's 40 what is it now? 43. 43¢.

So I would just I would just encourage us to think about, you know, where we did a master plan, and if that master plan specifies 100 foot, 100 foot hangers, then we should be incur We we should we should rent the land or sell the land or, you know, put put them in 100 foot increments.

Or or have them on the end so that the next one fits next to it, not create gaps that are vacant. Right. Well, behind it or if it If we said this is a 100 foot, and then someone comes along and says a 160,

that's fine. But they buttoned. But then they buy the 200.

Well, again You don't want the gap. I don't want the gap. And that's why I'm saying accommodating people sequentially to use on a taxi lane is

taxi lane that holds four At the very end,

that's true. But if you if you put 20 sites and say they're all a 108, and then we start letting random ones go out, we will end up with a bunch of blanks. And that's what I'm saying is sequentially probably a better way to do it.

Can I ask a question based on last meeting? We had three different development groups come to us, and they proposed how to make the puzzle pieces work within defined areas. It's a gut feel. I I don't have anything that I can specifically put my finger on, but it feels like we're overly complicating this. And I wonder if we can defer to developers, much like if we are acting traditionally like a municipality. If somebody that comes along, although we own the land, we retain the land, but we tell them we we offer it out as a bid, and they they they bid on defined packages of parcel boundaries. What I found interesting, and I don't remember which one it was, but one of them had a corner. I think it was the third one out of the three. They had a corner. And to to Ryan's point, to maximize space, that corner one had less frontage, but had that trapezoidal shape. And if we were to defer to them that they take that responsibility on, and we become an authority, like planning and zoning, to just say, yes. We feel like you've met the spirit of what we want, and offload the responsibility to someone else who has the profit motive to figure out how to maximize space, and we simply just authorize it. That set up. Maybe to get back to the bones,

where I'll

set up. Maybe to get back to the bones rather than the weeds. I did have a question of if we wanna stop accepting applications if the waiting list grows to a almost feel like it would be irresponsible to keep taking people's money if they're backed up a 100 deep or something.

Yeah. So right here, right in the middle of the page here, effective immediately, we we would close the waiting list. And so we're not adding to the waiting list, but we would accept applications for hangar feet for the hangar sites.

Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Is at a certain point, do we stop accepting applications, or if someone's willing to pay the 100, we just keep taking them? We haven't defined how much it is. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

I've heard 50, 100, 500. Do we have an auctioneer here that can

I think I think we accept as long as people are willing, but we're also upfront with them and tell them, listen? Here here's where we are. Here's where we are with land. We're this far away at least from building something new. Do you still wanna be on the list? Knowing that it's gonna be a year or two or more, being honest that way and transparent that way, do you still want to catch your spot on the list and and stay Because they might they might want to. They might say, well, it's worth it to me to wait because everywhere else is full too. Yeah. Every airport needs more hangar space. If you still wanna eat at Texas Roadhouse on Saturday night and then Yeah. You wait an hour and a half, then you you have the right to do that, I guess. Yeah. Okay. Those roles. Yep.

Bob Yes? You said that you had already transferred all the people on the waiting list to the application process?

We have not. We still have we still have you said you We still have the list, but we're closing it. We're not accepting any more people on the on the official list.

Okay. And then you're transitioning to them? Transitioning to just collecting the application,

putting them in the file in order. And then as the as the list is extinguished or used or exhausted, whatever the word, then we would transition over to our new system. So do you but those individuals that were on the list, if they

transitioned to an application process, will they stay with the same aging that they Yeah. Yeah.

They still turned it in when they turned it in. K. Yeah. And their date the date the date is on there when they when they submitted that HangerSite application.

From the waiting list? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So that just becomes their application date, essentially, is what I'm hearing. Yeah. Yeah.

Could I make a an effort to try and refine some of the things we're talking about and get them in the text? Okay. On number one, could we add a sentence that said, the application will list for a larger site, a 100 and by a 100 plus, or a smaller site, less than a 100 by a 100 so that we'll have two lists. That would be an addition to number one, Bob. Okay. What what I propose is is do we all want that? And so we add that to the proposal.

I think that's I think that's a very good addition.

Basically, where it says including the including the desired size, we would add to

Just clarify that a little more specifically. Larger or smaller

hangers. And I think that lends itself to the first in first out that's specified by which waiting list you're on.

And with with respect to fees, I would propose that we retain the $500 deposit so as to avoid people putting their name in without making some

With real intent.

Yeah. Because a $100 is pretty easy to come by.

Well, I I just would like people who are realistic about it. So I would and and that's all I'm saying. There may be an application fee too, but I'm saying I'd like to see the $500 deposit remain effective. Well, you could refundable.

Right. That's so you could do the deposit and then have it be partially refundable You wanted to do it that way. Under what conditions would it be refundable?

My proposal isn't that. It's to make it a $500 deposit. If they pull their application, they can have the

Okay. K. So I would say we I would still advocate for an application fee because you still have to manage it. Or I would say you have a $500 deposit, 400 of which is refundable.

Okay. I

I

People need to be serious about this, and a $100 is just too cheap. I wouldn't have a problem if it were a modest amount to be returned, but I would like to make it a So

So I would so I'm hearing you say that $500 would be your minimum refundable, and then we could add an application fee on top of that. Keep their name on the list,

I'd like to have $500.

But I think we should also have an application fee that that

But but So make that So make that additional requirement.

Yeah. So my suggestion isn't directed toward the application fee. It's if you want to be on the list, you must give us a $500 deposit.

That's not saying anything other than that. Bob, how many do you have on the list?

18.

How many? Roughly 18.

18. And how many spots we got?

We're gonna have more than that.

Could I add one other suggestion on item three? Just before the last sentence where it says size stated in the applicant's request, comma, based on order of application. So again, you've said you'll set all the things like size, location, access, which is very appropriate. Yeah. But if everybody meets that criteria, then I do think you should have so it's not a favoritism issue. It's based on order of application. Yep. So I would suggest we add that to item three.

What was the official wording you wanted to add it in there?

So after stated in the applicants request, comma, based on order of application. I can hand you my sheet at the end of the meeting Okay. If others agree with that.

Mhmm. If we can come back to the deposit versus application fee, Too many variables make it more difficult to administer. Let's not have both a refundable and a non refundable and a percentage or whatever. Let's go one way or the other. I think just a deposit. I think

just just Simpler and easier to manage. We are holding their funds, so we're earning some interest and cost can be covered.

I would alter that a little bit and say, let's have a $500 application fee. Period. It's not a deposit. It is an application fee. There's no indication that it is re returnable, but we could say it's non refundable. But we call it just an application fee to make it easier to administer. Because any time we introduce the notion somebody decided, well, you deserve to get this back, or you don't deserve to get it back, and Bob would be able to handle it, but his replacement may not be able to handle it. Handle it, but his replacement may not be able

to. I agree with you, John. I do too.

Yeah. I think fine with that.

How are you with that Are there any other I don't have

refundable. Right. I don't I don't have a problem with that. If someone comes in and said, I wanna remove my name from the list. Fine. We're gonna keep your $500.

Right.

Yep. Yep. If someone says, I'm not ready yet. I wanna stay on the list. They don't have to pay another $500. They can move to the bottom of the list, John,

and stay on the list. Yep. Okay. That would be fine. The disclosure about where they are on the list becomes even more important at that point, though. Like, we have to be very honest because that that would that would create a lot of frustration if you pay $500 thinking you're gonna get something in the next

year, and then it takes 5. Well, that's the way it's been.

Well and and But it's been There is a responsibility for some needs to be taken on the part of the applicant before he writes out the check. He says, how many people have submitted their application ahead of me? Yeah. What are available? Okay. I'll make the decision to move ahead. They need to ask the question and make sure that they're comfortable proceeding. Are there any other we have two verbalized amendments to the proposal. Are there any others? I think we got three, didn't we?

Yeah. She had the first in first out kind of clause.

Right. And we have the larger, smaller The larger, that's on that's on deposit. So there's three changes. Okay. I would hold one additional change, and that is in the allocation criteria. I my concern is that the board have the ability to look at at applications in terms of the goals of the airport. And that's that's a little fuzzy, but my my concern there is that we have some ability to make determinations based upon, the benefit to the airport of certain configurations. For example, if if someone comes in and offers a package of I'll take five one hundred sites, that may be much more valuable to us than having a a 100 foot side. So that would alter the allocation. Yeah. So I and I would reserve that decision making to the board and not Bob Mhmm. So that the the allocation can be modified by the board based upon objective criteria.

Or you could say

Yeah.

With the with the approval of the airport authority board, large scale development on priority sites may supersede the allocation list. Decision of the board during the discussion of the proposal. But it is Then you just can leave it as vague as discretion of the work. Large scale. Yep. Like, that multiple hangers at one time. But there might be other criteria

other than large scale too. Okay. If, for example, we have someone who will provide some financial backing for the tower or something as a result of getting I think we should reserve some some process that the board can make changes in the allocation based upon its objectives.

Okay.

If I could make one clarification, and it relates to what George is referring to. When the master plan is laid out, the size of the hangers appears nowhere in the master plan. The size of the hanger or or the taxi lanes is in the master plan. And that's all that's defined and that's all that the FAA is concerned about. It's up to us to as efficiently as possible and as part of the charge we have from the FAA to use the assets of the land abutting those taxi lanes as efficient possible. It is not covered in the master plan what size hanger will go on kilo. When the engineers drew it out, they drew out the maximum size hanger that would fit in the available space between the fence space between the fence and the and the asphalt. It's up to us to manage that land efficiently. Am I right? Yes. John Michener said yes. He graduated from the FAA to the private world. So with that in mind, we always have the discretion along with the responsibility to determine which hangers go in which spaces. Now, we have four amendments. With these friendly amendments, George, are you willing to submit your

motion again? I think the way we would do this is we would have text written up, and and we're not going to pass it. But at least we would have moved forward, and then we'll we'll have another open discussion before we pass it. John, your comments are what I'm concerned about, and I think we ought to phrase in the allocation that references that so that we're not tied down. Your your statement that using our assets efficiently is a is one of the criteria of allocation. And we just say it that way. Yeah. So that would make it a fifth sentence in there. And I think just a general statement so that the board can say this allocation here is going to be not simply by who submitted in what order Yeah. But for the larger purposes of the airport. But only the board would be in, and we would have to do that in an open meeting. In the absence of a

of a motion, Bob, would you take these suggestions Mhmm. And adopt them into your proposal Sure. And submit that to the board members as efficiently as possible so that they can further consider them in anticipation of it it being addressed formally

in our next meeting. Of course. Can I Except Excuse me? Can I can I address number three on the top there? Can we just do some housekeeping on our current list here? We do have a couple people that were on the list, paid their deposit, but have been able to buy hangars, and they're no longer waiting to build a hangar. Do what about refunding I think there's two.

Are they wanting to still build a hangar once once

No. Gone into a old one? They they've they've purchased one. You're asking if we can refund it? Correct.

Okay. Yeah. I I I also wanna go back to what Ryan said about kinda getting people off the old system. Since the dollar amount is the same, can we just parlay those that wanna retain their spot on the waiting list to an application? When he he said And then it puts them in the new system. Applications. Okay. Yeah. So then

But specifically, what I'm asking is just just for housekeeping going forward, how do I manage the current list of people that are on the list they've paid, but they've since solved their own problem, purchased a hanger.

So how did we feel? How was well, it depends upon how we initially defined that $500.

Yeah. If they if it was with the expectation that they would have it returned to them, then we should fulfill our obligation, of course. But irrespective of how we define it, I would move that we

return the funds to those who have built Purchased. Purchased facility, who paid the deposit to build the paid the deposit to build them. Yep. And their name be removed from the list Okay. At the same

time. I would make that motion. Yeah. Is there a second? Yeah. Is that a second? It's been moved and seconded that return the deposit of those who purchased other hangers. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And what could we apply could we have the same motion with regard to returning the deposit on a paid by a deceased person? Previously, to there being Second. I'll second that one. It's been moved in second. We've proved that we return the deposit to the estate of a person who is deceased. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Just to clarify, going forward, I thought the fee will be not Not refundable. Yes. For the It will be an application fee. It will not be a yeah. We we're gonna try to get deposit out of our vocabulary.

And I I do wanna say that since we are changing some aspects of the application process, I e, large versus small and having to define that, I think those that are on the waiting list now should need to reapply. They get to hold their spot. They can take their 500 and put it towards an application if they so desire, but they need to be in the new application system. That way it moves everyone to the new systems. Are we

I support that. Okay. But I think that didn't you say you were doing that, Bob? Yeah. Yeah. That's what we're doing. Just wanna make that explicit. Yeah. No one loses their spot in line in the transition.

But they do they they now do have to define if it's larger. Right? They they already have to define. Yeah. Okay. So that's taken care of too. On the application, they they have put what size they want.

We're just gonna put them in a different we're just gonna go large, small. And and they will be notified their 500 won't be refundable

as of when this is implemented. Correct. If they want to that that's the part that I just wanna make sure is explicit, that everyone understands.

Okay. I I have one other piece I'd like to add on on the criteria of number three.

Three on the top or the bottom? Three on the bottom.

I the size, location, access, verifiable aviation use. If if I only have a a a Cessna one fifty, but I really like the idea of a 100 by 100. Mhmm. It may not be the priority you want me to be there. I think that some verifiable

aviation use should be part of the criteria. Well, to keep their lease, they have to verify that. And Bob has actually started checking that is my understanding. Yeah. But at at that point,

I think yeah. And I I agree to the point. The reason I bring it up is is is we want certain size of of planes in those. And if that's the criteria, I want it to be verified that that's what's moving in versus just size of hangar.

And I I build a man cave in it as well. I I I still have aviation use with my lease because I have a plane. So are you just trying to I I get your point. So I wanna build a 100 by a 100, but I have a one seventy two, and I've got all this extra space. However, some someone may say, I want that big I'm gonna have a larger plane in the future. Yeah. But in the meantime, I'm gonna lease out my remaining space to other airport airplane owners

that At that point, then that's aviation use, and I'm just generalizing aviation criteria. Yep. And using assets efficiently, I think, would be. Yep. Okay. Anyway, I'm just trying to add that as a criteria of condition of of what we're doing. Point taken. So so could I make one other

point? Maybe we should have a different deposit between large hangars and small hangars.

I agree.

Would it be inappropriate or too much to say a large hanger should we should have a deposit of a thousand dollars for a large hanger and 500

for a small hanger? I think that's up to John. He wanted to keep it simple. You're throwing a wrench in that simplicity now. Well, I don't think that's a bad idea.

And and the numbers could move around. I do say differential may make sense here.

What do you think? Any other comments?

Do you have opinion on that?

Subject to discussion next meeting.

Well, let's have well, if you're okay, Chair, let's have Bob put it in, and we can discuss this as we as we finalize that in the next one. 501,000?

Yep. Yep. K.

K.

And, Bob Yes, sir. Were we to do that, a person who's on your current list, who's on the list for a larger one, would upgrade to the new application process and give us another $500.

Like, how that would They could apply their existing towards the higher. Yeah.

Okay. Any more for Bob?

It was a big Running out of room on the margins here, so I have to turn it over soon.

Okay. Thanks for putting it together. Yeah. No problem. The starting point? Yeah. It's a good starting point. That's Thank you. K.

Tax Lane Delta Development and Ian Kory. These two were the the third entity that made the president's leadership previously, and they've formalized their proposal.

Thank you.

Alright. Alright. You guys, if what we are looking at there is in the bottom Andy Checketts, by the way. Corey Getci. Bottom left corner is we've proposed the hangers and sizes according to We've met with John. We've met with Bob. And correct me if I'm wrong, John, but we're look we're trying to do zero lot line buildings in order to maximize the space so we don't have wasted land. And so what this is is this this part so far is just a rendering of trying to maximize that. The hanger sizes vary from 40 feet 45 feet wide to 50 to some seventies, some sixties in there. This is adjustable. I have taught there's the list that everybody is talking about, I have talked to all but two of the people on that list. Majority of the people not building the large hangers that you're talking about, I have talked to all but two. And if we can get something done and build it in an affordable price range for them, they would like to see us be able to move forward. At this at being able to do this, we would put in the taxiway and the infrastructure for that in in order to move forward.

Yeah. And not to belabor the forty five minute conversation about the list that we just had. But from my again, just my limited view, the challenge and I think it was George who mentioned this and John, challenge you have is when you when you want to maximize the space, it requires you build the big building. Right? But you'll get five, six hangers out of one building. So if we're going zero lot lines and we're smashing them together, that becomes really difficult for a person to come in and say, hey, I wanna build my own hangar. You see what I'm getting at? Somebody's gotta build the whole building. So I guess it I I would defer to you guys in the sense of what you're hoping to accomplish. And then it kinda dictates or it lends itself to somebody developing the entire building. And then I I think, if I could be so bold, the conversation goes away when we start talking about the list and deposit, who's there, who's first. It becomes like an open market. Who's willing to purchase, you know, one fourth, one fifth, almost a like a condominium style hangar project that we would be doing. So again, it's you know, it depends on what you guys would would foresee us doing. We're happy to build the infrastructure, put in the taxiways, and leave it at that. And then if you guys want individual people to come and build, then again, you know, it's tough to say that you're gonna build one building then have somebody build three walls against it who wants to build that. They would have to build the whole building, I would imagine, to carry on, that idea of maximizing those those spaces. So, again, if you want us to build it all, we're happy to build it all. It's just tough to know. And I don't know if there's ordinances or zoning, you know, similar to, like, a city where you look things up and then that, you know, kinda drives the conversation. I'm not aware of that. But, again, so we're we're happy to propose what we've proposed. We're happy to do all of it. We're happy to do just the infrastructure.

You know, this started out as two pilots just wanting a hangar, you know. So It grew. Let me ask you. Have you have you approached these people to see how many of them would sign on to this project?

I I have. And so I've talked to all but two people on the list that would qualify under this. The theory of it is, if it all is a zero lot line building that needs to be built, at the same time, one building.

We would look at the list and say, hey, your number we've got several guys out here. Gio is one of them, with the hat there. You know, we've got several guys out here.

Several guys out here. Geo's one of them with the hat there. You know, we'd say, hey, what is it you want? And we'd adjust the building space. So maybe it leaves a you know, he takes a 60 by 60 and it leaves a 40 by 60 at the end. What we want to do

is respect the people's priority. Yep. And we don't want to coerce them into using you only. But it would be a happy marriage if if their priority and your building could come together. And it seems to me that that we should throw it back on you. You could do a portion of this, not all of it, or you could do all of it.

Why don't you go meet with those people and come back with a So I've already met with them. Here's the problem we're at. We're we're making a dance back and forth of semantics that make it really hard to move forward. I've talked to all the people. I spent hours and hours and hours on the phone. I've talked to the city as far as how do we mitigate fire? How do we, you know, how do we how do we wanna lay these out? How how are we gonna take care of the infrastructure for groundwater? So I have done all that, and I've chased that process. And then I've talked to all of them and saying, hey, as long as we can fit this budget, you know, and we'd have to sit down with them and we would get to a point of saying, this is what it's going to cost. But in order to get to that exact point, we've got to be able to get an approval to go forward.

Well, I think I think the chicken or the egg have to come first here. I think we're gonna have to burden you to go back and get those people see how many on the priority list we'll sign on at the price and the terms you've got there and then come make a collective proposal to us.

I'm I'm sort of not agreeing with that, George. Well, so we got a couple issues. Right?

If we don't have like, we can't go much further than what you've got in front of you if we don't have approval to move forward. And we can't really price out a project until we move forward. Right? So it's I don't know that it's a chicken and an egg situation. It's more of like a square peg in a round hole situation, Because what we have now currently is as far as we can go without knowing that you guys are gonna you know, we don't wanna waste our time. We certainly don't wanna waste anybody else's time. But without knowing how far we can take this project, it prevents us from actually getting pricing from people. We've met with different,

you know I asked just a couple of questions. Subcontractors, but that's as far as we've gone. So your your proposal to us is to build this project

Yeah. We're happy to its entirety. We today, we are proposing we'll finish the taxiway, and we will maximize the square footage. These hangars can change and vary based upon need and based upon what you guys would like to see us and and to match the general plan. We are proposing to finish the taxiway on this area, and these are right here, we've got 15 hangars. So if you built all 15 hangars Yep.

You talk to the people who are on the list, and you had half of them say, yeah, I wanna do that. I wanna buy one of your hangers. Yeah. You're on the hook with the rest of the hangers That's correct. Trying to find an owner for them. Correct? You're gonna condominiumize

them all. Correct? So that the list goes away, and and it becomes a who's willing to pay for X. Hanger. Yeah. They don't want it on this list. Yeah. They can move to a different area list. Yeah. They I mean, they just as as we had just motioned before.

Those that want to buy into this Yeah. Now now get their $500 back and and and Correct. Buy on yours and sign the lease, but but at that point. Right. It opens

up a possibility. Yeah. And you can see we've got different sizes that could match anybody's need.

Both both asphalt and building. Yep. We would we would build it all out. And they're saying to mitigate their risk, they can do $20.80, $60.40,

because they're all it's all one building in It's one building and so we can adapt. And we wanna take priority of the list. I've talked to like I say, I've spent hours talking to them. So I have You would like Yeah. We're on the list. We're on the list. Now, Katie,

you talked to all but two of the nine eighteen, nineteen, whatever you said. So you have 70 on the list. Not necessarily sign them to a document, but how many of them do you fulfill that you you anticipate fulfilling off that list? I I would say

The 19, how many The challenge so so the Ryan, the challenge is they go, okay. Cool. How much is that gonna cost? And so we're like, we don't know. We don't have pricing yet. We're gonna try and keep it as cheap as possible. But until we get an approval you know what I mean? So we're kinda stuck at this Yeah. If you want us to do it, we'll do it. We'll try and maximize it and do it as cheap as we can, and then we come up with pricing But but and help those people out. But to answer you, Ryan, on that list,

I've only not I've got a hold of so if you go down, Craig Adams is the first one, Then you've got four guys that are building the bigger ones. That is what got approved last time with Alex. So those four are off. So then we're down to 13 people. One of them is deceased. Well, they're not getting it. Two of them are us. Two of them are us. So you go we're now at 12, but really we're only at 10 because two of them are us. Of those 10, I've talked to all but two. And as long as we can move forward and be in a price that's competitive for them, they are willing to have us do it. How many said no? I I didn't have one person say no. I had everyone say yes. They just wanted to have the price verified, which we don't know until we get then because to one one problem with it, George, that we're running into is we've gotta go through the FAA. This is John, you're gonna need to tell me is it a it's it's a different classification of taxiway in this area, and so we've gotta build it to the specs.

Am am I It's a lighter weight. Right? Twelve five and under? Different specs.

I think I think it ought to be explored to to figure out if the airport would be willing to build it to state spec if it was under a certain weight category

Yeah. So we can build the road. Savings for litter. Because here's the situation. You're limited to the wing widths. And do you mind saying your name? Yeah. And and maybe do you want me to come to the microphone? Yeah. Come on up. While he's doing that, we're limited to the the width of your wing size. Right? So as you turn these corners, you know, you've got 80 feet. You're not gonna get a big plane there, so you're never gonna have a really heavy plane on the taxiway, which to me, common sense says no need to build it to a spec that would support a heavy plane if a heavy plane's never gonna be through there. So that's just a lead up to it. And back to my earlier statement about the master plan.

Not only is it you talked about the wingspan, but also the weight. Yeah. And and Delta and Hotel were defined as class one aircraft. Narrower, lighter. Yeah.

Yeah. So match delta spec, basically, is what you're getting at. Yeah. So what runway does this become?

Just remind me. It's extension of Delta Okay. Taxi Lane, and that Okay. Leaks up with Taxi Lane Hotel.

You have Delta. At the very top, you have Alpha. Okay. Then this this would be hotel that would be running north and south. Delta. Okay. Delta is at the bottom. Delta is here. At the top. Yes. So we'd be the top. Delta's at the top. Yes.

So we'd be connecting out, but Delta And they're all class one. They're all class one. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. It would I wanna say I wanna I wanna do something. I wanna I wanna move that we approve this project. Yeah. I

second that. And now we can discuss it again. Okay. Should've done it before the court thing. That's what I I was over there saying the same thing. Just let us talk to this. It'd be great. Question. Just looking at the Yes. Site plan that you provided,

Yeah. That's those be 70 by seventy's there to maximize the land? To answer your question, so we've done a lot of due diligence on this, and that's the part of it. There is currently sewer and water lines behind there. Okay. So there wasn't great maximizing when a lot of it. We will add density and maximize space, but we need to be able to move forward so we can pay civil engineers. So we can pay Yeah. A lot of that could change. You know, so we can maximize that. We may have to move some sewer. We may have to move some water. But in order to be able to start investing in it, we need to know that we can go ahead.

The the concern

I have, Jeanne, and generally, is is I I don't want to run afoul of our priority list I in doing this. And and what I'm concerned about is if we approve this, and first, second, third on the small hanger list says, we're not in it. We want to build our own.

That and that's that's fine. Always. The problem is is they can't the way and correct me if I'm wrong, John, if we're wanting zero lot line

They're gonna have to build a whole building. They're gonna have to build a whole building.

So if the guys only One, two, and three

because that's you actually have the way this is designed, like,

lots of three here that are in a group. Right? But but we're gonna this this isn't the end design. So what? We're gonna be maximizing this to to every square inch of the dirt. Yeah.

I I understand that, but my concern is that we do honor the priority list. And I guess, I don't have a problem giving you license to go ahead, but if one, two, and three come to us and say, we're gonna build it with zero lot lines and we're gonna make it work, then we need to look at it. And and that's Back to the the thing that we talked about on this whole thing, which is efficiency, but also

Yeah. Recognizing

the priorities of people. Yeah. Yeah. But how is this different than what we already approved on the last two? Because we approved the the bigger ones.

Yep.

Thing Yep.

As what they did. And so Well, and George, if you'd like, we can we can outline an area for that. Yeah. As long as we get reimbursed for the expense

of taxes. Third parties. That's the difference. Yeah. The difference last week, if we weren't dealing with someone coming in for them, we were dealing with them. You're here saying, I I represent the priorities, and I'm okay with that, but I need a signature from those people that are priorities so that I know that we're honoring their priorities. And

and and we would absolutely offer to them first.

Okay. Well, and the thing is if they decline, these guys are still on the hook too. So the way I see it, they they're willing to wade through bureaucracy. They're willing to build the taxi. They're willing to take the risk if people who have the priorities say no. I think we should have a really good reason if we're gonna

decline this. I don't know I don't know that we can fairly say we represent them, you know. And I don't know that that's what we're telling you. I I I'm not saying that by any means. We're we're saying we've spoken to them. We'll give them we're giving them first right of refusal if they would like to do this, not. If you want us to allow some option, because I I I spoke to that two meetings ago too, where I said, hold on, we got guys that want to build their own. I'm I'm I'm extremely sympathetic to that. If you guys would like to outline a space where that's possible, that's that's wonderful. As long as we get reimbursed for the infrastructure,

we're fine on that. The best thing would be for you to go get them and have them authorize you as to do this and pursue But they need to know the cost. They need to know the cost, and we can't give them the cost. Cost yet. So maybe the maybe the add to the motion is

is adding that you will, give a first right of refusal to Perfect. That list so that we respect it as a first right of refusal. They they get the chance to be they they maintain that. If this isn't theirs to maintain, they still maintain Absolutely. Recorded list of of the next And we could take it a step further and say we'll provide transparency on our numbers as well, and have everything up front. All the leases come back for approval anyway, so we get approved based on that list. We get approved the the the leases anyway. My question would be This is what it comes down to that. Do we approve leases? We have a motion on the floor.

And a second. And a second. And a potential for an amended motion if that fails.

He seconded and amended it. Is that a friendly amendment?

I don't know what he amended it to.

There was a lot of discussion, a lot of chat. Nope. I'll be I'll be clear on my amendment, and then you can see whether it's favorable. That that the amendment is is that you give a first right of refusal in order to respect the waiting list. Absolutely.

I will agree to that. It's been moved and seconded that we allow this group to continue with the development of taxi lane delta and hotel. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Hold on. Hold on. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying approve this?

Yeah. Yes. Okay. I want Ryan's in here. I want to object to

that because you're violating the priorities you just set up. We just Ryan made an amended motion that they have right of first refusal. Right of first refusal means they're given a choice is to buy something at this price or not. Correct. That's not what they bargained for when they put an application in. They bargained for the opportunity to build their hanger. And now you're telling

them, well, all you have is a right to buy from this party. That's a different thing. Let me let me clarify something It takes to build. Just to be fair. I I understand where you're going. When we all put in I'm gonna remove myself from this plan. And anybody that's here on the list, tell me if I'm not stating this right. When we all put our money down, we understood it was a nonrefundable $500. We also understood that there was no fee to build the hangar besides leasing the ground. Those were the two things. Okay? Now, the board has decided that in order to be profitable moving forward, which I can respect, we want to charge a linear foot fee for anybody building from now forward. Is that correct? K? So now the guy, George, me included, if I wanna build a new hanger and I'm gonna build a 70 by 70, I'm gonna have to stroke a check for $70 roughly to build on echo. Before sticking a shovel. Before sticking a shovel in the ground. So when you talk of a moving target, we've been subject to a huge moving target, many of these guys for four or five years. We're trying to just collapse that down and say, we feel that we can do it for a lot less than that, more efficiently, and we can get some hangers built for guys that are waiting, including If if you would like them to have the first right to build their own building, I respect this, and that's what you're objecting for. However, you guys changed the rules to make it zero lot line. You cannot build an individual 70 by seventy zero lot line unless you build them all together like this and condo it out. So I would propose I I I appreciate what you're saying. I would love to come in and have a 70 by 70 of my own, not build in a condo style, but it does not maximize the space. We are simply trying to mold to what you guys have desired. Am I because you desired zero lot line. Is that correct, John? That's correct. So we are simply trying to mold with your new parameter, which is completely different than we signed up for.

If if I were you, I'd stop talking because we already went on forty five minutes, motion, and you got a majority vote. So I'd quit while you're ahead. That that sounds good. But Or we just want we don't want there to be hard feelings.

We don't want there to be hard feelings, and I I Yeah. We can I've I shared George's

thoughts. What what actually is supposed to happen is you make a motion, you make a second, you have a discussion, someone moves the question, and then you vote on whether to have the vote. And we didn't go through that process.

Well, we don't ever do that at city council, so I didn't know.

Well, we're not trying to shortchange anything. We wanna be on the same page. We also had a significant amount of discussion prior to

That's correct. And so, what would mister Roberts tell us to do since we have a past motion?

I don't think you have you have properly done the motion. I think you have to close the discussion and move the motion to a vote. Okay. That that required people to say, this has had an all discussion. The motion. So point of order. K. My point of order is that the vote should not have been taken without a motion to have

a vote on it. Is there further discussion?

Yes. I am in favor of what you're proposing, but I am concerned that the individuals that are on the list priority which they requested. I I'm in favor of what you're doing, but I think we need to respect their priority. We need to give them more than a first right of refusal

to join your building operation. That's my concern. So my question and I I agree with you a 100%. So my question of that would be, lot line buildings?

No. I I'm not suggesting we change to zero lot line. I'm suggesting that both individuals take a look at our current I'm suggesting that both individuals take a look at our current requirements and make a decision whether they want to proceed with So there are lots available

for them. There's three of them currently. Echo currently has three available. So they will have the first opportunity to be able to say yes or no.

This isn't the only real estate. Recognize the priorities. What's that? Is is three enough to recognize the priorities that will have priority?

That that I don't know. I'm I'm not sure why they haven't built already. But to my knowledge, they weren't available. So it's the it's it's kinda hard because we're stuck in this quandary of, you know, we're trying to accomplish many different things and bake it all in to the to one. And we're just, again, we're just

gonna have discussion of that motion that that's been made. And and at some point, we gotta get to the vote of that motion whether passes or fails.

There are he he mentioned there's hangar spots available now. There's four excuse me, John. There's four hangar spots available now that will accommodate four fifty by 50 hangers that's available now. So

Okay. We have a call of the question. There's been a motion discussion and a question. All in favor of proceeding and authorizing this group to continue with the extension of Delta and Hotel,

say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

George said nay. It passes. Now, one point of clarification. I disagree or at least I question your statement that's saying people building the individual hangars cannot build zero lot line.

I I believe that they can. Okay. So you agree? Just add it just add it to the middle of the tunnel. If

you were building the last one of the line, you gotta put in a firewall. If you're joining that firewall, you have to also put in a firewall. And you have to put a firewall on your unattached

Correct. Side of the web.

So it can be done. Yeah. And I It can be done, but you gotta pre plan it that way because you got a footing as well.

Well, that And you also have fire and you got a city that dictates waste. Part of the application process.

When you come in for a stand alone hangar approval, these are gonna be the conditions. You have to plan for zero lot line.

Okay. And you do We'd love to include you on that discussion when it comes to the city because they've got standards too. So maybe we maybe we can get on the same page with that. Yep. That'd be great.

We would hand we would be the gatekeeper on approving the application to ensure that they are aware of what would be required of them in terms of Okay. Requirement for zero allotment. Okay. Sounds great. It can be done. K.

Appreciate that.

Ed, you bring up a really good point. I'll say that everybody on the list fully expected that the FAA would fund all of the taxulates. That's all gone away. So we're all in the brave new world.

And And all I'm saying is we're willing to step out and try to make it work because nobody else is there to to fund them. That's all I'm saying. Yep. Well and that's what needed. Because the FAA has said, you have to fund

taxi lanes locally.

And and And that's fair. And that's fair. Absolutely.

And if they can't make it work financially, I assume then they just say it's not working and then Right. We can have another proposal. Yep. Yep.

Go and do. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other items? I do have one quick item. Tuesday night, Logan City workshopped a resolution to approve Logan's withdrawal from Airport Authority. Now, just a little background on that. As you know, the consultant recommended for a point of governments governance going forward that it made sense to have one entity take take that over. Again, there's always been the double taxation issue. So we've Logan's had great conversations with the county executive and, they think it's a good idea as well. So again, it was workshop Tuesday night. Then on the sixteenth, there will be a vote by the city council members as to whether that moves forward that Logan officially draws withdraws as one of the NTs the county would, potentially waive the six month requirement. I mean, the the original agreement is written so that either entity could withdraw. So we expect I mean, again, the county or the the city council has to vote on that, but, we will know the resolution on that by December 16.

And I should add that the county had received the request from the city and the county will will respond when it receives the request, but our tentative decision is that we will accept the request to withdraw and wait the six month time period. We see this as mutually beneficial

going forward to sort of, again, clarify the government governments.

No. I just That is not to say that the approval of buildings will still go through our planning process because the building it's within Logan City. So that process will maintain will stay the same. Similar to the fairgrounds.

Yeah. I just can't. Can we, but we do. Probably ought to add, Holly, that the county have asked the city to continue to participate on the board and that we will formally have, Logan City representatives on the board going forward. And we welcome and desire Logan City's input

and help with this airport. As far as the board. So, again, just simplifying things. So if you have any comments on that, you're welcome to email the the Logan City Council members before December 16. Again, there was some discussion as to whether or not there would be a public hearing. Right now, it's not scheduled to be a public hearing. So if you again, if you have comments, please contact the Logan City Council.

And if you think there needs to be a public hearing, let me know.

It's like Alex maybe wants to say something.

It'll only be thirty minutes. Thank you.

It'll only be thirty minutes. Yeah.

Cut his neck. So

Alex Berenson, Black River Development. So we're we're doing the Lima, those four hangars initially and and proposing that, and we're it's been surveyed. Geotech would start here pretty soon, but we we just have a question on the airport master plan, and we've we've actually talked with Connor as well, as well as Bob and discussed this. There is a large parking lot in between the hangars, in between Taxiway J and Taxiway Lima. And there's probably like 50 parking spaces there and then a bunch on the end of the runway or the end of the taxiway, excuse me. And what we're proposing to do is just eliminate that parking And because we one, we we don't feel it's needed, but the other thing is you got operating cost to continue to maintain all that asphalt too. So we would ask for approval just to shift that and eliminate the parking in between Taxiway J And L. And and then there's another parking lot on the end of the runway, and we would just ask to replace that with an additional hangar space.

Taxi parking lots are not approved by the FAA. Okay. Only the location of the taxi lane is

Okay.

If if if you're if you're shifting the taxi lane, then we have to go through the FAA. If you're building on what was represented in the drawing as a parking lot and you wanna put a building on it, go for it.

Well, I We would shift. Like to hear from

Yeah. From a lot more outer. And I'm sorry How that would affect the master. I don't have a big if we could pull it up, you could probably better. Okay.

Yeah. I I guess I would like to see exactly I saw a rough rough drawing of how he would like to shift it. So I just need to know exactly dimensionally how he would propose to move the taxi lane. Could you pull up just the AOP twenty twenty five?

I I think it would shift about 30 feet is all. Are you shifting taxi lane? It would shift the taxi lane. Then

you're out of luck. AOP k. For this year because we would have to redraw

the design and get it approved by the FAA. K. Well, in in that case, I would just say, could we I propose that we just don't build that parking lot out. They're not required. K.

And building the six hangar spaces, that would be fine. That's where the parking lot is shown,

on that end here. So you've got five on the lower row and then six on the upper, and basically you would add a sixth on the lower row. And we still think when we're going through design, we can still add parking stalls on the very edge. Yep. The the buildings represented in the master plan

are conceptual.

Okay.

The only thing that is inviolate violate is the location of the taxi lane. Cool.

Yeah. So So we won't shift. We just won't do that parking lot. K?

Anything I said that was not accurate, Connor? Sorry. Was there anything I said that was not accurate? No. Everything you said was correct. Okay. Anything else? We're adjourned until the January meeting, which is currently scheduled for the January 8. We've got things going on the first that would make it difficult first to meet on that first Thursday.