01-02-2025 LOGAN-CACHE AIRPORT AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING

Port Authority Board meeting. Appreciate your interest in the airport and the support that your attendance suggests. We'll begin by asking for an approval of the minutes from the November meeting.

I review those, and I would move approval of the November 7 minutes.

I'll second that motion. It's been moved and seconded. We approve the minutes from the November 7 meeting. All in favor, say aye. Aye. It's time for election for a board chair for their nominations.

And I am just amazed at John Kerr, and what he has done for the airport over the years. He has been chair of the board for so long, and he spends a lot of time out there, and I think we need to give him a little bit of a break, so, but we still need his institutional memory to help, you know, the county really runs the airport. So I would propose that we, I'd nominate John to be vice chair and David Zook to be the chair. Again with all these kind of changes coming to the airport that we're implementing where the county actually runs the airport and the staff reports to the county, that would be my suggestion if the board's interested is to, so I would nominate David Zook as chair and I would nominate John Kerr as vice chair.

Are there other nominations? Being none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Nominations don't need a second.

Okay. And again a huge thanks to John for what he has done for so many years, and will continue to do, and will kind of guide us all, and guide David, and guide Bob, and because, again, he has more hands on knowledge than I think anyone out there.

Thank you. Thank you, John, and thank you for those kind comments, mayor, and I would like to echo those. I have really appreciated in the past four years that I've served on the board here, the expertise, the knowledge, the the history, even just within the past couple of weeks, we've had a few meetings. And and, thankfully, John was there to be able to to tell us what the FAA regulation said and what the history was on on different issues. And I just really appreciate his willingness to serve, his expertise in so many different areas. Thank you so much for your many years of service chairing, and thank you for being willing to serve as my vice chair to to help me continue to move this this board forward. With that being said, we'll move forward to the next item on our agenda, which is item two c, and, that's the appointment of the Logan City and Cache County economic development directors as ex officio board members. In reviewing the bylaws to our airport authority board, We see that it was anticipated that the economic development directors from Logan City and and Cache County would be able to serve as ex officio members of this board, which which means they can participate. Ex officio, I believe, means that they're not gonna have the ability to vote, but they can participate in our discussions and provide support to us. So with that being said, I'd like to introduce the Cache County Economic Development Director, Sean Milne. And, Sean, if actually, if you'd come up here and join us on the dais, we've got, several seats up here. Sean serves, as our Economic Development director for Cache County. He actually serves in that role for the three county region with Box Elder and Rich County as well. And I've I have had and asked Sean to come and participate and attend these meetings, and he's been my staff's one of my staff support people on this on the airport for the past four years as well Because he he does thankfully have a significant amount of experience with with airports and in his previous roles as elected official and experience at the at the state level, he's been involved in a lot of legislation airports and aviation and been involved with some other aviation related groups around the state in leadership roles even. So I'm I'm excited to, to have him be in a little bit more active of a role with with our board, and thank you for your willingness to serve, Sean. Thank you. Thank you, board members. Appreciate it. And mayor, would you like to introduce your I would. And I think he was wondering just sort of where this is located. It's in the interlocal agreement on

page seven that expresses the City and County Economic Development Director. So Kirk Jansen is the Logan City Economic Development Director. Again, you're welcome to come up and join us as well, Kirk. He has just a great deal of experience with economic development, has worked with some of the various players at the airport, so again just as we we are kind of implementing a new phase, we're trying to, you know, do some new things, you know, just make sure we take care of some things, so we'd like again a little bit of extra bandwidth to do that, so we appreciate their willingness to help us out.

Thank you to both of you. Appreciate your willingness to serve and look forward to your input. And and with that being said, I just I want you to know that we we anticipate that you would you would participate just like the rest of us board members other than, unfortunately, you can't vote, but we we look forward to the rest of your input. Yeah. You can share your opinion. Yeah. For sure. K. And any other thoughts on that? If not, we'll move forward then to number three on our agenda, which is our manager's report.

Good morning and happy new year. Got a couple things to discuss today. So as the year as the year, came to an end, we we identified some money that had gone unused, and we have a purchase order in place so we can buy that FOD mat. FOD FOD is foreign object, debris, gravel, small parts, nuts, bolts that fall out onto the taxi lanes, taxiways, runways. So we've we've been able to order this FODMAP that you pull behind a vehicle that picks up this debris. Instead of being out there with a broom and and a shovel and all these things, we can just drive the truck around or the the jeep around and and pull these things. Just pick these things up and be better at having a clean surface. So that's something that that we've been able to do. Also, as you drive around the airport, you see a lot of, little covers that have lights inside down the taxiways, down the runways. And the birds out there like to sit there and have their meal and, of course, make a mess on the on the lights. So we've we've bought a pressure washer. We bought those. I think John and Casey came up with the idea to to buy those dish racks that have the glasses in them. And so we bought those. And so we're gonna be swapping out and cleaning those top those lens tops incrementally to keep the the keep them clean and keep them so they shine the way they're supposed to. We've also, with some year end money, have been able to order a PAPI digital aiming device kit. So the PAPI is a is a a lighting system as you're coming in on final approach on both ends of the runway. We've had discussions about moving this, control panel before. But the actual light has to be directed at a certain angle to be certified. And we've ordered a device that helps us measure where we're at on on that. You know, if if you're on a three degree plane coming in on final, okay, there it is. It's it's where it's supposed to be. So the next item, I got a phone call. It's probably been since it's probably been about six weeks ago, but we didn't have our last meeting. I got a phone call from the FAA FISDO Flight Standard District Office, which is in Salt Lake City. And they are it was an inspector. So this is this is someone who is investigating an incident. And he didn't wanna talk to me about the incident. He wanted to talk to me about you're allowing paragliders to operate in that in that at that airport. And I I mentioned, well, I didn't think I I didn't think that I had the ability to restrict anybody from operating here. And he says, well, that's true. However, you're so busy up there. You need to restrict it. And so he kinda left me with the impression that day that I needed to restrict paragliders. And so, that was where I I I made some phone calls and said, hey, guys. Sorry you can't come now. He called me the next day, and he said, actually, we've had more discussions at the FISDO among the other inspectors, and we're gonna take it out of your hands. So as the airport, we don't have the ability to restrict or or to approve paragliders. He says, everybody in a paraglider needs to call the ARTC, air route traffic control center. Since your airport is overlaid by controlled airspace, it's starting at 700 feet. He says, you need to call they need to call each time they fly or want to fly and get approval from Air Route Traffic Control Center. I said, how likely are they to get that approval? And he says, not likely. So that's where we're at with paragliders. And so just so the board knows, if you get if you ever hear why we're not letting paragliders operate in and out of the airport, we aren't we aren't denying them. The FAA has has stepped in and said, you're so busy. This thing that came up was significant enough that we want to not have there be a problem. So no more paragliders at the airport as per the FAA.

Bob, could you just explain how is it they have been operating?

They've been operating on the abandoned runway off to the west. They they come in through the gravel road and through a gate, which they have the com they had the combination to that gate, which I've changed. But now they they would come out there, put their flag up for the wind, and operate there in that abandoned runway area away from other traffic. So that has now been stopped.

Bob, how many people does that affect?

Do we have on the property? Less than 10.

Do they have a place to go? I don't know.

I don't know. Along with that, kinda it's not the same thing. This is different. We've had a couple a couple over the last year since I've been here, the gliders that operate in and out of our airport I went up in one of the gliders. I got invited. Hey, Bob. Do you wanna come and go in the glider and see what it's like? Of course I do. And I threw up like crazy. Being a being a pilot, helicopter pilot, I was a little embarrassed, but at the same time realized it's different. And I got sick. And they they thought that was funny, and I do too. But we've had some instances lately where they're parking out in the mud and then tracking the mud back down the taxiway and leaving it for us to clean up. We had recently one someone hit a light and broke it, pretended that they didn't know they broke it until more questions were asked. Oh, yeah. Again, we know who did that, and we'll get you know? And it's like, why are we out there in a car to begin with? So there's gonna be some discussions with about the glider traffic and if we can come to an arrangement that that meets everyone's needs. The first thing, though, is we can't be tracking mud and just leaving it. And

But it sounds like for now, they're just

they're not allowed. So isn't that Is there different We're talking about gliders. Not curve motors. Also, the A glider a glider is towed up by an airplane Oh, okay. And then they let go. Realize you transitioned to something. Yep. K. So but it's kind of been a it's kind of been the Wild West out there with parking cars by the air by the by the runway, which is the safety area. And I that's not that shouldn't be allowed. You know, it's a safety area. And and there will be some people who will disagree because that's how we've always done it and that's how we do it. And and I expect that to I expect that pushback, but we'll see how that conversation goes. They pull them out of their hanger, and then they take them over to the runway, which is fine Yeah. And then take off. They they need to they need a way to get them out there and to get them back. But where's the mud coming from? The cars? It's coming from the vehicles that they pull through off the pavement and into the dirt. Oh, so they're not parking in the parking lot like regular people Correct. Parking in their main room? They're parking out by the runway in the mud Okay. Sometimes. And then sometimes they're parking other places. But the times that they park out in the mud, I mean, it attracts mud. We've had several instances already this this winter where my inspector will call me and say, Bob, I've gotta get to class, but there's this mud everywhere. And it's like,

why are they doing that? So Sounds like you're dealing with that. Yeah.

There I have been approached by an investor, and this investor is likely watching via YouTube. He's from Montreal. And, I've I have signed a nondisclosure agreement with him, but he has given me permission to introduce the topic to you, and then maybe we can form a small committee, you know, in in in in the constraints of the sundowner laws and those sorts of things. But however we however we proceed.

I would think our two economic development directors, this would be a perfect fit for them to work with you and have discussions to see Okay. What kind of a I'll leave that coming.

Yeah. But he, in short yeah. Could we could we put that in so we can talk about what we're talking about?

There's a folder and then there's one file.

It's

a picture of oh,

Okay. I guess it's not

Okay. We'll talk about it, and I'll describe what what what he is. So, basically, he is representing a company that wants to come in and develop some land at our airport, which would be west of the centerline of Runway 35 and north of Runway 28. So that farmland I know it's hard. We were gonna put up a picture, but we didn't I You do have a hard copy if you want to make sure. Okay. It's a lot of land, and we own we own a lot of that land. It's outside of the fence.

Yeah. This general area, this is just a zoomed in area. Yeah. This. Okay.

So let me just walk around and show each of you just for just so we know what we're talking about. So here's our here's our airport. We're talking about all this space up here. This is the main runway. We're talking about all this space right here. So here's our main runway, and we're talking about all of this right here.

Okay. So it's airport land outside of the fence?

We own airport we own we own land that's outside of the fence. Okay. Yes. So it's all of this. I should have taken this line then.

To directors.

All this land right here. It's currently undeveloped. So like I said, he's had me sign a nondisclosure agreement. We've had some conversations. He wants to further the conversation with the board. I I mentioned to him, I can't make the decision. We need to bring it to the board. He has given me permission to give you some information. And so that's what I'm doing today. In short, he has identified a need for large hangars because our airplanes keep getting taller, wider, bigger. And his company wants to come in and build large hangars and lease them out. They want to put in customs so people could fly in from other countries. At their expense, put in a a customs so people could come in, go through customs, and then enter the country at our airport. He wants to pay, at their expense, to widen our runway to a 150 feet instead of a 100 feet that we're currently at. So, in short, this is this is the proposal that's been presented to me, briefly. That's that's to be an explanation. And I said to further the conversation, we need to bring people in. We need to bring Lochner in, of course. We need to bring in our economic development and the board for approval. So he has given me approval to to give you that much information. So we would need to form some sort of committee Yes. Thank you. To then reach out to him or have him reach out to the committee and then further the discussion.

Okay. And I like your recommendation, mayor, that we form a committee with our two economic development directors and Bob. It sounds like Lochner would be helpful there. Is there someone from the board who would like to serve on that committee as well?

I'm happy to do so for you. Okay. Thank you very much, Jean.

Okay. So let's have that committee work on this issue and report back to us if there's any

motion the board needs to take. He mentioned next week would be a good time. Next week would be a good time for him to start the conversation with with the committee that's formed. Okay. Is that k. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Should we just skip to the next thing, which is the

lease Yes. Discussion? That concludes the rest of your report. It does. Ahead and move to the land lease review Okay. For four a on our discussion items.

Okay. Chairman, if I may ask a quick question. Yes, please. With regards to the FAA report, have you gone through most all of those, Bob, and cleared most of those that had deadlines Yeah. Good except for the paint. Yeah. We've got the paint outstanding.

We've got the paint. We've got the PAPI control boxes that we need to move.

The those two haven't been cleared. PAPI's have not been determined yet a 100%, though, that they need to be moved. Correct? Correct. There's still a thought process. And are we getting quotes on the striping? We don't we have that? Yeah. We have it gets more, not How many companies did you get bids from? Four. Four. Okay. Approximately

I mean, what what they're

And

Andrew's okay with that?

Yes. And I emailed Andrew. Yeah. So and, potentially, if we could do a schedule two in the spring, we can activate

to look that up as well. K. Thank you.

Okay. We're gonna move to the lease agreement. Do you have that email that I sent you?

I put a little flash drive, but PC is not.

Okay. Okay. You guys I gave each of the members up here a copy of the of what we've worked on. Brent Hughey, a lot of your recommendations are in this this fine this this copy here. Basically, some language cleanups. But, I wanted to address the last time we had a meeting. I I wasn't here, but Marv Howling gave a presentation. I'd like to thank him for his fairness as he discussed this topic. But he he did have some points, and I have to say I tend to agree with some of them. So his first point was that the lease agreement that we approved last time focuses more penalizes more the small hangar owners. And I think he's right in that because they have small hangars and a large land space around them. And so their lease amount went up more, four times more in some cases, than large hangar owners who have small, you know, extra land around their hangar. So how do we how do we solve this issue? He mentions his his recommendation is that we just do away with that, that we just just charge for the size of the hangar. We could do that. But we when we started this lease discussion, we were 22¢ a square foot, and we John and I had gone to the fall conference for airport operators, and we learned from the UDOT Aeronautics Department that the that the average for the for the state is 43¢ per square foot. And at the time we discussed that in in our meeting here, we went, well, let's do 37¢ plus plus the land. So I guess if we want to do away with with the land around the hangar, we could just go to the state average of 43¢ and then just do the land. Or we could do the 43¢ plus five or 10 feet of land around the hangar. You you guys have some suggestions. We have some comments from I wanna do what's fair. And Marv had a good point here. And and, what do you guys think?

So my question is, who maintains the land between and around

The hanger owners.

They maintain it. They mow the grass. They Well, there's Whatever.

There's really no grass that grows between hangers. And if there is, it's minimal. I know our mower doesn't fit between most of the hangers. We we have that big mower that Right. Yeah. So so the hangar owners typically but they're they're also parking vehicles and trailers and and things around their hangers as well. Which is not we don't want that to happen. Right? Well, no. I mean, if you pull up your vehicle and you need a place to park, of course, you need to park it somewhere. But storing trailers, no. That doesn't comply. You know, like, it's the same as inside of a hangar that is this hang is this space used primarily for aviation related purposes? And if you've got a a trailer that's just sitting out there that's has nothing to do with aviation, that wouldn't necessarily be approved.

Okay. But right now, they're not paying for that space anyway. Right?

Right.

So it it seems interesting to me that they're storing stuff on property that they're not concurrently leasing. Okay. And but at the same time, they're not supposed to store stuff on it anyway. So it's sort of a half and half. You know, It's like Right. If they And this pay for it, nothing could be on it. Right.

And that's why that's why I'm bringing it up today for some guidance for some, hey, what do we do here, guys? Because, you know, what he said here, you know, has merit, that the people being penalized the most are the small hangar owners. So what can we do? What what what are some ideas? I have the I I have an idea of, well, let's just do the 43¢, which is the state average. And we can charge just for the hangar footprint or the hangar footprint plus five or 10 feet on each side. Instead of some of the small hangars, there's, you know, almost 30 feet out in front of them or to the side of them when we were gonna charge for all that. We can't do that for these guys. You know, it's just it's not fair. I don't think so. It seems like that's a really bad use of our property if you've got that much

if you've got that much difference.

And I know These are the old hangers, though, that have been there for fifty years.

I think there's something different between the old hangers and new ones as we look forward. Because if you look forward and and the lease is for an entire, parcel or or piece of that, as defined in you know, if we define that in our master plan and and show what those parcels are, what happens is if we have them parsed out and planned out, and we have the next one that says, hey, you know what? I don't want to have a huge plane. I have I have a small plane. I just want a small hangar. But I'm the next one in line for a lot, and so they put a small hangar on a larger lot. That that's a disadvantage to us. Right? I mean, first of all, that's a disadvantage to us. To to treat the old ones differently, I think, is fair, because they they don't have any control of what what their hangar is or what it looks like now. Mhmm. But new ones, you know, there is building standard that that they could have zero lot lines. They they don't have to have, space between hangars a lot of times. I mean, that that happened in the airport I was at before. They had zero lot line hangars. So that Yeah. At that point and the t hangars are zero lot line hangars. Yeah. So so we don't lose any space and the efficiency gained. We have a limited resource, and at that point, that limited resource becomes an issue when when they're only paying for the footprint they have, and then and gaining 10 feet on around on each side. Right. Or 20 feet or 30 feet. You look at some of those, and and you build a hangar, and you say, well, can a hangar could a hangar fit there? So I I understand his point about the older hangars. Yeah. But going forward, I think we have to make sure that the efficient use of of the limited resource of land we have is effectively used going forward. So So if there if there's a difference, I understand that. But but at some point, we wanna have it build as efficiently as possible. I agree with you. Excellent. Having visited

with John Spanish Fork, and they have those zero lot you know, it's like one hanger right up against the other, and they've got the firewalls between and all that. I get your point. But to solve today's problem, what do we do?

Understand. Understand. And and the old hangers are are a bit different. And I think, you know, being able to come and say, hey. You know what? They've they've entered it at this footprint. I get that. Yeah. So

so how many just for the sake of discussion, how many old hangers fit into that category? Old, smaller hangars? Because it would seem to me, to go with your your comment, that as we plan the airport to do the master plan, if it's a large hangar site, a large hangar has to go there, not a small hangar.

But what's a large hangar? Is that is that from point to point? Is that is that is that 70 feet wide, 80 feet wide, a 100 feet wide? The the

the variation of that Well, it seems to be silly that we would take a 100 foot wide hanger pad and put a 50 foot hanger on it. You know, it just doesn't seem appropriate. It doesn't seem to follow the master plan. The master plan should have small hangar sites and large hangar sites, and we shouldn't let small hangars be on large hangar lots because that really does impact the airport negatively.

So, Gina, you're you're saying we should incentivize the most efficient use of the land? Absolutely.

Or require maybe not incentivized. Require.

Require. Yeah.

And but I think that we could have a I don't know how many hangars, the small hangars or the older hangars category is. But perhaps we have a separate codicil to the lease agreement that affects only those hangars with respect to land. I don't know. I think we could put in

that it was the hangar space if it was built before whatever period of time. Maybe that's now. Maybe we put that in as you know, existing hangars are under one one set and and future hangars are under another. I don't know. How how hard would it be, engineer, how hard would it be to to lay out what that size is that is defined as usable space for a hangar? Understanding storm drainage is not the same, and that can't be counted in the the space, access. You know, there's some things that can't be you know, that that aren't aren't really leased by a hangar op a hangar owner.

What You want I'll get on microphones today. Yeah. Yeah. So

so as far as laying it out when it comes to master planning or layout plans in general, the idea of them is to think of them more it's a guideline, not a blueprint, because the issue is what happens when someone comes in and they still want you know if we call for simple reasoning right now, we'll say small hanger's 50 by 50, a large hanger's a 100 by a 100, just for simple math right now. So the 50 by 50, often there's something behind it, so you can't go that a 100 foot depth, But someone could come in and say, I want a 100 foot wide, 50 foot deep. So, in essence, they're using the space that would be two hangars, two small hangars. They're building one, basically, two small hangars with the missing wall or no wall in between. So it could be laid out, but when you look at your planning documents, you wanna use them to help guide that decision when an investor or builder wants to come up and say, I wanna build smaller hangars. I wanna build tea hangars. Then you take the general layout of where things are going or this area of the airport is set aside for smaller hangars. This area over here is set aside for larger slash corporate hangars, and then you dial into the you get into the actual designing of hangar and taxiway layouts because, you know, it's one where we can definitely we do lay things out within the plan, but we're not going to the very specifics of this is going to be a 50 foot by 50 foot building because someone may have in the most recent one we were involved in, someone's brother-in-law ran a steel company and they had off the shelf 45 by 50 foot buildings. So that's when it came to the actual designing of the hangers going on the ground, it wasn't they built it in areas that were designed for smaller hangers, but when it came to the actual layout, that's where the building engineering came into play. So, we can definitely lay things out, and that's kinda how that's how the master plan is set up of these areas are explicitly set aside for smaller hangars, these for larger hangars, and where that really comes into play from the airport planning side is that there's different classifications of aircraft. There's group one, group two, group three. Group one are gonna be your Cessnas, your Pipers. Group twos are gonna be your citations, and you're larger. And then, obviously, group three, you get into the seven thirty seven kind of things. So that's a lot of what drives where hangars get built on size is based off of the infrastructure that is put in by the airport, taxi lanes specifically of different dimensions because smaller the areas that are set aside for small hangars have narrow taxiways, 79 feet, versus the ones for the corporate or the larger hangars, wider taxiways or taxi lanes and object free, so they're a 115 feet wide.

So on that on that point, though, if it's a larger hangar for intended for a larger plane, it also has more infrastructure beyond the hangar itself. Correct? Very. So at that point, how do we how do we balance between the needs and and and the investment? I guess that's the question I have is how do you balance the need investment back to those, to to hangars? If you only have the hangar space, now the bigger the hanger, the more it pays. Right? Correct. So so I get that. But anyway, I don't know that I have a great spot, but I have seen that that when they have a spot that you say, hey, I come. I want to rent a 50 by 100 space. Well, at that point, it doesn't matter if I put a ninety ninety by 40 hanger on it or a 50 by a 100 hanger on it. To the airport, doesn't necessarily matter, because I'm leasing point to point space to your to yours 50 by 50. If that's not the standard hanger hanger size I can get, but I'm still utilizing that space.

And that's where it comes to your decisions as the board as to whether you approve leasing that size space at that particular location. I mean, I know it's very, very difficult. Let me see if I can

Joe, do you know how many old

I could count, but I can't I don't know off the top of my head,

but I definitely could count. The black hangers here represent the existing small hangar, and there's all areas development of small hangers. There's the yellow and blue indicate places where small hangars could get built out in the future. The yellow would have to be taxi lanes that would have to be added in at, before those hangars can be built. But the example I was showing is someone wanted to build a large one. Here's what's shown as four hangars, so a couple 100 feet wide, but there's only so much room behind them that can be built. So this would be that scenario where someone wanted to build a 100 feet wide, they just they can't go that depth because there's a fence there. So, guess these two buildings here could be turned into one into one long rectangle, but what you want to avoid is over on this taxway where it's a very it's a larger it's the next group two size wise, that is laid out to deal with servicing larger aircraft, so the wider wing tiny squares there? By size, I mean, this building this little tiny square here would actually represent the largest building that would exist on the airport. Talking about the one across the taxiway from that. Here? These buildings are serviced by this taxiway. They would not I'm talking about the You got the direction.

These guys, are they big Those are big.

Those are big. These would actually all represent But bigger than bigger than anything existing on the airport right now. Okay. They were they they looked Quite small. That's what I'm saying. Unfortunately, we only have the hard copy here, but so this would be one where someone came and said I wanted to build a 100 foot wide, 50 foot deep hanger. Over here would be an appropriate location because it's gonna service small aircraft. While there would be space where this very large building is located, this area the infrastructure that you're investing into this area is suited for large aircraft. So as the board, it would be recommended to say, I'm sorry. Even though that space is open, that is not the appropriate use of that space Right. To do a smaller hangar. That's But you look at the real estate that's occupied by the smaller hangars

Mhmm. That cluster, and, you know, that's a substantial portion of the rentable real estate at the airport.

Without future development. But there's no way, even back here, larger hangars could not be built because there's not the space for the planes to get back there from the runway over here. Right. I understand that, but what I'm saying is

I I don't know whether we're cutting off our nose to spite our face by not utilizing the same metric

for all of the property? And this area is just as zoomed in of this particular area. Okay. This would be another development area. This is the parallel taxiway Charlie that goes out. Here's the parallel runway. It's running right here. This area shows lots of space for development for future large hangars. And then but there's also space for these are t hangars for lots of small aircraft with the common wall, the common wall t hangers being developed there. So the plan does show the development spaces that help with both small hangar development here. These are large hangar developments.

But I I'm still stuck on the fact that a quarter of our real estate is occupied by old small hangars. And that if we don't get some sort of return for that property, we're cutting off our nose despite our faces because we still have to maintain it. So I have to Correct. And it still exists. And, I mean, if they tore them all down, we would have a different plan, perhaps.

But And that that is definitely something that can be considered. We did not look at hanger removal. I mean Yeah. But through long discussions, it's like there's lots of space for future development before needing to look at Redevelopment. Redevelopment. I mean, it's not to say that in forty years, that scenario would maybe change here forty, sixty years out. But you there's enough different places for future growth that you can get growth without removal at this time.

So just your you have how many airports do you are you the engineer for? Total or ones that I personally oversee? As a as a group that you'd be aware of is is my Two hundred two hundred and fifty. So what's the common what's the most common method, for for land leases to be? Are they I mean, I look at subdividing. When you subdivide, there isn't any empty space. You have lot line to lot line. Yep. And and from from a from a subdivision, if we subdivided all of this out, we would have a a property lines you know, all the lines would be covered, all the land would be covered by by one, parcel or another. This way, we have a kind of basically a parcel that's the footprint of the of the hangar, but it's really common space around it. Right? What's the what's the most common you see as far as the 200 airports you've you've worked or seen with? What what's your what's your most common? Is it split? It's

split. It goes historically, it has been footprint of the building. That's been the historic. That is you there definitely has been a shift in the last twenty years or so, looking at more of the lot. So, in that lot is often driven by local building codes and local fire departments, because they need to have so much space, whether it's, for man access, be able to run a fire hose along the side of the building, or whatever. Like I said, it truly comes down to local building codes and local fire codes. There's the the what is the individual? I b c the international building code. Or IBC. You know, there are certain sizes or set standards set in there, but local municipalities do have the ability to set their own codes.

So there's not that exact uniform on building spacing. But I find it interesting if you buy a 10 acre lot Mhmm. And you build a thousand square foot house, you still pay for the 10 acre lot.

I guess the difference that you would have with that is you're purchasing property versus leasing it from the local government, in this case, leasing it from the airport authority. Judd, I like how you

pointed out how some of the locations have land around them that's not necessarily usable. What if based on that, we looked at each individual hangar? Because each of these are being negotiated and written individually anyway. Right? We're not doing a a broad brush change to every lease.

Well, we were trying I think the intent was to make them uniform. You know, make the lease Going forward. Right? Yeah. Going forward, as each one comes up for renegotiation

or renewal, we would look at it. My thought is, what if we looked at each one individually and said, this one has extra space around it that's usable. We should charge them for that, or this one has extra space around it, but it's not usable. We shouldn't charge them for that. Well, that's gonna be really arbitrary.

So and that that was one of the points that Marv Haling put in there was it's arbitr who makes a decision, who measures, who you know? And and to his point, I think that makes it kinda confusing, and and it's up to

So I I'd almost rather do the same for every footprint and then those that have land around them, the older hangars that have a lot of land around around them do a well, I'm either footprint at 43 or I'm a little bit less for footprint, but and then a lesser amount for land money.

Okay.

That would be my because I think we have to be consistent with everybody. We can't be negotiating one lot to another lot. Jeanne, would you amount for footprint or and an amount for land around.

So your proposal is that we have two options for determining the lease rate. It's either or. It's either. Either we We only

we do 43 for footprint only, or we do a lesser amount for footprint and then an amount for land around.

And how would we decide which of those scenarios we would go with? No. We'd have to vote for one or the other.

Can I just can I just make one more point? That was that for everyone. So this discussion started based on the report from the report. Doctor Jones. Doctor thank you. We were at 22¢ a square foot. He wants us to become more self sufficient, which I think most of us agree with, if if not all. And so the 43¢ is more than double what we have been charging. So that alone, we're gonna increase our rent just just on the footprint and the and 43¢ a square foot. We're gonna double, when it once every you know, after the leases have kind of cycled through and everyone's resigned, we're gonna double the amount just on the footprint. So with that in mind, I that makes it simple. Yeah.

So I said the teacher will work. Okay. So that would be my thought. It's simpler it's simpler to

have the 43¢, for example, to

But it's gonna I'm sorry. With the understanding that as those leases come due, there's gonna be an increase in that 43¢ because there's gonna be it's not gonna be everybody pays 43¢

with their leases not up for Yeah. Five years. So That's right. I I have a a question or a proposal or maybe a thought about the rate. I in in in thinking about the way that government agencies set rates for other things such as stormwater fee or a water fee or a sewage rate, the normally, the way those rates are established is there's an ordinance adopted that says we're gonna charge this fee for this service, and then that fee is then adjusted from time to time by resolution. So the the the governing board or city council or whatever it is would then adjust those rates maybe annually, maybe every few years, but then the rate is adjusted for everyone. And it Mhmm. Everyone pays the same rate. Well, some people right now have a ten year lease. Yeah. I recognize that. I recognize that we have some people who are in a lease, and we can't just go in and and, with a broad brush, change everybody's rate. But I wonder if that's the direction we should start moving toward so that everyone's being charged the the same thing every year. And we what what I'm thinking is we would we would say in the new leases, you will pay a rate as determined annually by the airport authority board, and the airport authority board would just every year say, okay. What's the market rate? What's the average gross state? What are our financial needs? We would establish that. Language is in this this right say it right here. It's a it's written in here, but the question becomes,

so if you already have a lease for ten years,

can the rate increase every year? Or does it stay the same for that ten years? So right now, under the if you're under the old lease, it says it will increase by 2% each year. And it says 2%. So if you're at 22¢ a square foot this year, you're gonna be at 24 next year. Right. Whatever it may be. So, yeah. So if you're under an old lease, that's that's what it says. So as as the leases expire and we resign, they would be under the current lease. Right now, right now, I have nearly 30 leases that have expired that we're holding off on until we resolve this. So we're gonna, I mean, we're gonna be a third, a quarter, or a third of the leases are gonna be under the new lease. Okay. Yeah.

So my proposal would be that we do 43¢ for footprint, and it follows this with cost of living every year.

I'll second that. Although wait. We have this just as a discussion item, so we really need to make it an action item at our next meeting. I think, again, to give people time if they want to offer more input. Yeah. I think we just need to make sure we keep our action and our discussion items.

Yes. So we we have this on our agenda as a discussion item to review the land lease. And let's give input to our airport manager on what we'd like him to put into this lease document and then we can put the lease document on our agenda for next time as an action item and prove it. That will give us time to review it. And and, Bob, if you could give us, before that next one, a version of this that is a red line version that shows what's changed in relation to the previous. So Okay. And and let's make sure we make that available to the public as well so that everybody can look at what is being proposed to be changed. Okay. So I mean, is this for do do they generally, you know,

think Jeanne's going in the right direction just to give some guidance as to what direction we're going?

Desire? I I think I think, I personally, I would prefer everyone be the same rate.

I don't Regardless of where they're at on the airplane. Yeah. I I think that's

that's gonna be the fairest, the most predictable. Just put everyone at 43¢ instead of some at I think it was 37 and then the flight line at 47. We kind of split. I think if we just come to the middle and just do the state average for everybody, And then then where the argument is, okay. How big of are we charging? The the the footprint, how, you know, how far it goes in the building. So I think it simplifies it.

Historically, the flight line was charged extra because they received additional services from the airport for example snow removal. Okay. The smaller hangars that are not on the flight line responsible for removing their own snow Yeah. To the taxi lane. So that differentiate between the two, it was in a way to compensate the airport for the additional services they were providing.

What should we charge people on the flight line, John?

I don't know. We could look at that as a as a percentage of the what was it? $2.02 2¢ extra that we charge before per foot as as percentage, so 10% more

Okay.

Would would be something to consider.

Okay. Yeah. I I do like the idea of having a differential rate for people on the flight line. I think that that's more valuable real estate. Yeah. It provides access, it's a better location, has additional services.

And we have less of it.

So we had we had a proposal by Genie to give direction to our airport manager to to bring us back a version of this lease that has the 43¢ per square foot of just the hangar space, and there was there was a a second to that proposal. What let let's make sure the the majority of the board is okay with that before we give that direction to Bob. Are there any other thoughts about that concept? Additional

white line piece as well. Okay.

I, appreciate the thought process. I agree with doing the footprint. We don't wanna get into, oh, I'm leasing up to the between the hangers and arguments, who got you know, are we over one foot? Are we off a foot? I just think we retain that property. That's not least, we've allowed them to have the footprint. If there are excess areas, and you're having someone that wants to use that for aviation purposes, I see no reason why we couldn't do if there is 30 feet, why we couldn't do an addendum for that particular area.

Make it the exception, not the norm. Yeah. I know right now in in the the space that we're gonna be developing, there's glider trailers parked there. They could go between hangars. Exactly.

And I wanna impede on the hanger users, but if there's excess space, then I think we ought to be able to figure out if there's a way to maximize. Yeah. And and we can deal with that. That's the exception. The other thing, mister chairman, I know we're running out of time, but a couple things I'd like to point out. As Bob, as you look at this agreement under item c number two, it talks about in there that, the lease may be terminated by either party upon written notice given at least a hundred and eighty days prior to termination. Yeah. So, what I wanna be careful is that that is the ten year termination. That there's no way that if someone is building a hangar and they're putting three to four hangar, there's no way for us to kick them out other than if they are in default. Right. So I just wanna make sure people are very clear on what that means to them. That if they're investing in that hangar, it is not our intent to have them build a and then we're going to jettison them somehow. Right. That would be for they're they're not following the lease. They're Correct. Whatever. Yeah. In default. And and we've got that provision, so we do have that flexibility. Perhaps

Well I think that's a different, I think that's a different, I think that's H. I think this is saying hey if once the ten year term rather than it being renewed, that at the end of that ten year term that you have one hundred and eighty days between that time to be able to say okay you're ten years up, or whatever the length of the term is. I think that's what it was intended for, I I would guess, because it's not

default is is under a different section. If you look at the cost of the hangers going in, they're not getting any cheaper. And some just say, hey. I'm going to do that for ten years, and I'm good with that. But what happens after that? I think it's the assurance that, yes, we intend to renew the lease, but we're not gonna do an automatic, but it's not our intent as a board unless someone feels differently that we're gonna come out. We would have never built the hangar we did Right. If if we knew it was only gonna be there for ten years. I understand. That's one thing. Then the other thing is under the liability, I know that, there was a I apologize for missing the last meeting. They had indicated that, hey, we're concerned. Why are you getting involved with our personal insurance? I don't know what that that liability, that general liability policy is, and the cost of that. I would be interested in knowing what that is. But I can't lease any property without the lessor requiring me to have something to have them as a, AI, additional insureds, and make sure that we are protected if there's an incident or an accident, then what that does is it's not protecting their property. If that policy that we're asking for here is not replacement of their property, that is just if there's a liability general liability claim against us for something that occurred there, then we would have additional insured, coverage under that. And so that if someone if there's an incident, everyone gets named in it, and that would be one policy that would cover, so all the parties would look to that. Okay. I don't know what the cost of that is, but we ought to look at it. We're going to require that. I think we just need to be cognizant of the hanger owners and what what does that really mean to them. And I I suspect we could reach out to some local insurance folks and find out what that is, just so that we understand what we're asking. I don't think that's an unreasonable provision. I I saw his comments. It's a great question that he's asking, but I don't think it's outside the lines. Okay. I agree. If we're gonna approve this lease, and we need to stop kicking the can down the road, and I say that not in a negative way, we wanna make sure it's right before we sign something, but I feel like we ought to just look at all those provisions and make sure we know exactly what it is that we're asking of the hanger lessees.

Okay. So that's that's a proposal for more information, but not necessarily to change that section at this point. That is correct. Okay. Okay. So we have a couple of proposals for modifications to this lease agreement. Are there other changes that you wanted to highlight to us today? Nope. Okay. Are there, as we're sending Bob to, finalize this document and bring it back to us next time, is there anything else that the board would like to propose to be changed this time? Okay. It sounds like you have, some direction. Do you have any questions from us? No. Okay. So we'll look forward to seeing that as an action item on our agenda next time and hopefully get that finalized. That brings us then did you have anything else in your report or anything else in your report? Okay. Thank you so much, Bob. That brings us then to item four b on our agenda, master plan update. Judd?

So,

yeah, Richard, I saw a couple of pages out of the airport layout plan, which is one of the large portions of the master plan. Where we're at now is the entire thing is written and completed in a draft state. The technical advisory committee's been reviewing it, and hopefully get back some any particular comments soon. Probably have a discussion with Bob where there's a potential for development on the North Side and we do show large hangars in the specific area. Again, it's a guideline, not a blueprint, so is what's shown there adequate or do we need to stretch them out more? I mean, it's, again, it's showing that this area is set aside for large scale development on the north end of the runway on the west side on the existing property. So just kind of finalizing those things out, but, once everyone is in agreement, then we'll make whatever changes are needed, and then the last step will kinda have a public hearing. Basically, they probably come in here. We can just set up boards, be here to answer any questions for the public. At that point, we'll submit it to the FAA where they will while they have been giving formal approval of all of the different steps along the way, they then will take the final prod product and, go for their formal final approval of that. And that's an unknown on timeline. Three years ago or six years ago, a master plan would take about six to eight weeks to get that FAA approval. The last three years, they've been averaging six months. So it's unknown. It all depends. I know that they have been hiring some new staff, so, hopefully, that'll help, so or speed that back up. Judd, you mentioned that the technical advisory committee was reviewing the draft report.

Could you remind us who serves on that committee?

There's the email. I know, John Ryan, Brett,

We have Paul and Hart from Logan, public works director. Public works director.

So those are all the people that have been sent I know Aaron also, so it's kind of Josh Campbell. Josh Campbell was added along the lines as well. That's right. So the idea is just as many well, not as many eyes because there you can't have too many cooks in a kitchen, but to have a broad set of eyes with differing opinions and ideas.

So, our economic development directors are not on that committee? He No. No. Okay. No. Okay. No. Because I'd love to have them look at it as well, from an economic development perspective, if they would look at it. Okay. Thank you for that update. Is there anything else to that update? For the master plan, no. Okay. And that brings us then to item four c on our agenda, the 2025 capital projects plan, and Connor's going to report to us on

that. Morning. So, yeah, 2025 is pretty exciting. We have four projects. The paint project, which we previously discussed, has been bid on just waiting on weather. So So essentially, when it's not freezing, then we'll be able to paint. Paint will last longer that way, better use of the money. Then we have the taxi lane kilo project, so that's a federal and state project. And the good news with the federal projects is it's a $95.02 and a half, two and a half split for these next two years. So it's good to squeeze in that project. It's looking to be around 1,100,000.0 total project costs. It's an estimate. So the local share on that would be around $30,000 depending on bids. And then another project we have is snow removal equipment. So, as we discussed with Bob, airport just has a need for new snow removal equipment. We're estimating around $250,000 for that. Again, it's federal and state. So the local share would be around $6.06, $7,000

for What what type of equipment are you talking about for 250,000?

Bob, as as far as Is that a brush? Is that a truck? Is it a blower? I think it was a brush broom. We're looking at the

the the broom. Okay. Yeah.

Just It's pulled by existing equipment. That's not a self propelled. Right? So it's just pulled by existing equipment. Yeah. We would we would be able to attach that room to the front of our front loader.

Thank you. Also be good for removing fog that we talked about at the beginning. But for last night's snow, it would have been perfect. Light, fluffy, you know, dry snow, it went great.

Yes. Thank you.

Third project would be the taxiway Charlie project, and that is gonna be split just state and local. So an $80.20 split. Looking somewhere in the realm of $800,000 project. So local share looking around a $150,000. And then the the PAPI project as well, I just have not heard back from the FAA. Emailed several people, and it's more than likely, I would say, a 90% probability that we are going to have to move the PAPI boxes or the power control unit for the PAPI's on both ends of the runway. So I will follow-up with FAA on that, but that's all the information I have. So any questions on twenty twenty five projects?

Any questions from the board? K. Thank you very much, Connor. Appreciate that. And that brings us then to item four d on our report. And this is not anything that requires actionless or questions, but we've talked about we've talked about providing a financial report and and each month that'll be provided to the board see that. And if you ever have any questions, feel free to bring those up. But that's just a reminder that that financial report is being provided to you each month.

Is that just by email or are you gonna provide it at the meeting?

Was it email? It came by email. Yeah. Will

we be reviewing it at all or just

We Acquiring it. That's up to the board. If you'd like to do some type of review each month or if you'd like us to have our financial analyst from our finance department come and and give a summary or have our manager point out any changes. That that's up to the board. If you'd like any of those things, we can

accommodate that. I would I would personally like it if maybe next meeting, the financial person came in, and just went through the budget with us just for our so that we have a good understanding of what all the different pieces are. Yes. And then I don't think they have to do it again Okay. Just once. Okay. Yeah. We'll do that next time. We'll put that on

our agenda next time to do a review of the budget. And Thank you. That way everybody is familiar with what's in there, how much, what categories, all of that. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for that suggestion. Okay. That brings us then to item four e, open items. Are there any board members here? Aaron. Aaron. Or oh, Baron. Yes. Professor Baron.

Thank you very much. I'll I'll keep this short. I got a couple extra, for the two new board members. For those that don't know, we were, approved last summer to be able to host an airport open house next June on the twenty eighth. I just wanna give a quick update on some of the planning what we're doing. The division of aeronautics is gonna host their one day conference on Friday, the twenty seventh at Utah State. So we'll be hosting an event up there. We'll be having hands on workshops in the maintenance lab. EAA is gonna bring an airplane out. We're gonna have some drone workshops, have the quad available, hopefully our simulator up and running at Utah State. So it'll be a one day event up there. Friday evening, we'll have a a reception at the airport for the annual awards and, like, a hanger hop style with live music. So that's gonna be a a a hands on training and a wonderful event that leads into the airport open house on that Saturday. We're gonna continue to work with Bob and make sure we can coordinate that. I've been working with Scott Weaver and some others on the committee. Thank you for the time with that. We've secured Bob Evans as an air boss. The FAA has changed some of the requirements, and so I have his, bio and and can give it to anybody, but he is approved air boss, lives in Colorado, came recommended by Brad Wursten and others. So right now, we've got Brad Wursten, Barry Hancock, Carl Gashler with, Red Thunder, and Danny Sorensen committed to be performers. We're reaching out to the Guard, the Army, the Air Force, to see if we can get an f 35 up here. And and we've got statics confirmed with Arizona Commemorative Air Force and invited those in Southern Idaho and some others. So not to go through all the details, but we're we're moving forward with some of those operations. We're pretty excited about that. In 2015, the airport authority board provided $2,000 in support, and a lot of this was in in support from the airport manager in helping provide porta potties and those other, support facilities that the airport needed. And we worked with the county to be able to get the, barricades. We need to coordinate them. There's some new requirements about, having on scene, law enforcement as well as medical, whether it's just an ambulance or or a paramedic, during that portion. The proposal is to open up the airport at nine, and then from ten to fifteen hundred, we note them closed, with the understanding that at noon, we would open it up for any departures for about an hour. And so there'll be some performers from ten to noon, and then thirteen hundred to fifteen hundred, one to 3PM, at which time the open house portion of the air demonstrations would end, and give people about an hour to finish getting off the ramp. So that's kind of the proposed outline, very similar to what was done in 2015, but we're anticipating, you know, a large since it's been a while, and this is off Hill Air Force Base, and Bountiful Skypark is not doing an open house. So this will be the only open house in Northern Utah next year. So, any questions for me and and the coordination for this event? Aaron, would you remind me of the date again? Twenty eighth June. It's the June. 2025. With Friday the twenty seventh being at at the Logan Campus for hosting the aero conference.

Any other questions from the board?

Thank you so much, professor Baron. And the last thing is we're gonna be meeting on Friday the tenth at the airport at noon. So if anybody's interested in in coming to that meeting or serving on the committee, please let me know. We wanna make sure that this is a community event. And so again, I'm I'm not wearing my Utah State hat. I'm I'm wearing, with the division of aeronautics, a hat that we're coordinating with a group of folks to help put this on. We appreciate the board's support. Congrats on the new appointment. Thank you, John, for your years of commitment to this airport. And for all those that are here, we're really excited about this opportunity to showcase, aviation to the community, to bring people to the airport, which is always one of the goals of of making sure that the airport gets the visibility. So, Baron, what time on the tenth? On the tenth, noon. Friday the tenth at noon. Thank you.

Thank you, once again, professor Baron, for your work on that. Are there any other open items, that members of the board would like to report on? Just a quick update.

The on the subcommittee, David and Brett and myself, we've had some very positive meetings with the university. They've expressed that the, you know, the part one thirty nine, continuing that is very important to them. So we're just very important to them. So we're just having some positive discussions, nothing finalized yet, but, again, just wanted you to know those discussions are moving forward in a a good way. Any you want any other update on that?

Thank you for that update, mayor.

With regard to the tower, Brian and Bob and I have formulated per the direction from the board a set of specifications which have been sent to three contractors for the repair of the tower and anticipate their

response back in the next ten days or so. And then we were also gonna get a bid just to take it down. That's

part of the That's part of the alternate budget options. Right? Thank you. K. Thank you for that report. Any other reports or open items from the board? Okay. Hearing none, that would conclude our business in our open session today. Number five on our agenda notes that our next scheduled board meeting will be Thursday, February 6 at 08:30AM in this room. And that brings us to number six on our agenda, which is a closed meeting. I would entertain a motion from the board now that we enter into a closed meeting to discuss the purchase exchange or lease of real property.

I so move for Utah code 524205 that we close the meeting or purchase exchange or lease of real property discussion.

K. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second that. We have a motion and a second that we close the meeting for the discussion of real estate. Is there any discussion about that before we vote? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Alright. So at this point, we we could actually go into the conference room here,

or we could ask everyone to leave. Again, we need Janine here to take minutes, so maybe it's just easier because we do have to have minutes in a closed session. So maybe if we just stay here and ask the Yeah.

Let's make sure everything's if we could have yeah. If we could have the three of you stay, actually Okay. That would be helpful. Oh, thank you. And I and I know. Yeah.

Yeah. Good.

Good. Good. Now that's great. Thank you.

See you, buddy. I was just about to check that. The answer is yes. Thank you. So I look forward to it. So you've heard the scale now?

With one day.

Okay. We are reconvening the Logan Cash Airport Authority board meeting after closing the meeting, and before we get to our adjournment, was there anything else from board members?

Yeah. Just following up on the board minutes from last time. So the airport the airport emergency plan, You guys in the board minutes that says you reviewed that, made some changes, you had some committees that got together. Does that need board approval?

So we just reviewed our current we didn't make any changes to it. Okay.

Reviewed

it. You know, if this happens,

their site request, it said that we we approved Leading Edge lease expansion and new site for the maintenance shop. Do we need to further clarify that? Is there something we as a board need to do on that?

I I think my interpretation of what we did at that point is we gave direction to our manager to negotiate the lease. I think Ryan made the motion initially on that, and his Correct. His motion was that, if I remember correctly that we give direct we gave direction to our manager to start the negotiation process, but it was pointed out at that point that there were many steps that had to happen still before a final approval could happen. For example, Jeanne mentioned they'd have to go through the planning committee, planning commission with the city. So I I know some questions came up about what exactly our action meant

when we when we voted at that meeting. I think ours is a support of of the process to move forward. Yeah. I don't think we are the end approval of the building, obviously, but allowing the the lease to be expanded and that it be done through, apparently, the square the the foot the footprint.

So And relocating the other one. And relocating the other one to a new lease. And

intentions.

So as the maker of the motion, Ryan, you're you're you're providing some more clarity on what what your intent was. We were intending to move forward. Is that not

I just wanna make sure they're not leapfrogging someone else on the wait list for a hangar. Say, oh, well, we found them placed for a hangar to take their existing to put it in in that compound area, if you will, to move that and leapfrog anyone else that was in line to have a hangar assigned to them. So I just wanna make sure we're not holding anything up as a board that Scott

and Leading Edge Aviation can be moving forward if in fact He's come to my office and we've discussed this. He is moving forward. He just wanted to make sure that, I had the understanding of what he's moving, I don't see any reason why we couldn't do a long lease as long as, you know, the the ability to to raise Mhmm. You know, the Sure. Keep up with the market value of land lease. So

And the land area that he would he's proposing to move his existing building to over there by the the building he bought with the tower. Is he already leasing that land, the parking lot? I don't remember. He he So that's an argument then. Parking lot does include

is included in his lease.

If I may, to alleviate jumping the line with somebody, one of the projects this year is taxiway kilo, and the development of that is explicitly to, generate space for hangers of that size. So, obviously, if someone's waiting for a 40 by 40 hanger, they're not gonna get the spot anyway if it's a large

It would be nice for us to, at some point, review the lease or review the list so that we know

who has what. Mhmm. Yeah. So we've I've been talking with Janine. We're we're updating that list. It's gonna be online

shortly.

K. Okay. So that will go online. I saw the request to make it public. I didn't know if they would come in and request from you or and then there was a well, it was mister Milne had made a presentation last time about a grant of $20,000 and said, okay. It's up to the board authority how we're going to spend that money. Does that ring a bell? Mhmm. Yes. Yes. So are is someone looking at that? Bob, are you looking for where your salary is picked up. Wait a second. Was that his Christmas problems? Is that what I just heard? So it says the airport authority board needs to make the decision as to how the funds will be spent.

Okay. Basically I haven't started anything on that. No. I haven't done it. And I think it was 18,000.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. What can it be used for? Anything

on the airport. Well, that's not quite right. I think Economic development. I think he said it cannot be used to repair a tower.

The hope from that committee was that it would be used for economic development purposes, but I think it was given with no strings attached as my Yep. Okay. My memory. Maybe we could put a new sign out from Yep. Something like that. Did you have any other follow ups? Right. Okay. Thank you so much. Was there anything else from any, board members before we adjourn? Okay. Seeing nothing, we will be adjourned until our next meeting on February 6. Thank you all. Thank you.