Airport Economic Development Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Alright. I think we can get started because I know Kevin's not coming. Okay. Today is Thursday, February 12. Calling to order the for the, Erie Airport Economic Development Advisory Board. Roll call real quick. Michael Bowden.

Here.

Kevin Kane. Emmett Dowling. Here. All have here. Lyle Martin. Here. McClain. Jennifer Webb.

Here.

Okay. Wanna do it, buddy? Pledge of allegiance. I

pledge allegiance to the flag

of The United States

Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Do we we have the agenda. Right? Everybody's seen it? Mhmm. Comments, questions, concerns? Motion to approve?

Move to approve. Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Do we have previous where are we at in terms of previous? Those are the links here. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Has everybody had a chance to look at them? Comments, questions, concerns? Motion to approve. We'll do both at the same time.

Option.

Second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Excellent. Alright.

Public comment. Thanks for coming.

You're entitled to say whatever you want. You have three minutes. You can ask questions. We can't respond, but thanks for coming.

I'll say. I haven't been by I'm Don Watkins. Oh, nice to meet you. I represent I'm the chief pilot of the is that the World War Museum over at Erie. And I'm from Van Aire, and I'm just kinda taking my finger on the pulse series you guys are talking about and so on and so on. I I heard there might be some fees involved, so I wanted to hear that. So I really can't say much until I hear a lot, then I can say a lot. So I'll maybe come next time. So my name is Don, Don Watkins. I'm an airline pilot, retired, and thirty thousand hours.

Nice to meet you.

Got a tailbear. Thank you, Donnie. Yeah. Mhmm. I just got the heads up on us yesterday, so don't know too much from EAA. EAA. Awesome.

Just say real fast. James Zucker, Colorado Pilots Association. Just like I said, dipping my toe in the water, just here to show some support and, just kinda here to see the airport fees and see just kinda how everything works and give some advice or some opinions wherever it may be needed. Awesome. Hey, Jason. Would you mind coming down here?

The trip's my compiler. In line. She's on-site. So

It'll be nice.

You're gonna fly airplane in the room. Oh, that's better. Wow. So we can do

that a little bit.

Good luck. I couldn't figure it out.

Yeah. I'd basically you swear to tell the truth.

Alright. We all know why we're here for this meeting.

You wanna get one more.

Oh, did you wanna comment, Eddie? I'm just

here to observe. Thank you.

Okay. You should tell everybody who you are because it's very important. He's very important into this.

My name is Kaden Webb. I'm Jennifer's son, and I just have a a good interest in the airport. Oh, there he is.

Not sure I'm Hawaii is very important. Thank you. Alright. Our main goal here at this meeting is to follow-up on where we left off two meetings ago. I feel much better now because we have six out of seven.

Kevin couldn't make it. But the goal is to pick up where we left off in terms of our discussion with relate to fees. I think we've made a huge progress. I don't think we have a whole lot to, I won't say, cover, but determine. But like I told you before we started, my goal here is to not leave here until we have something to go on and present to the council.

Next Tuesday.

Next Tuesday is the presentation.

Correct. But but we're gonna decide today. Right? So I don't know where you wanna I think I should turn to you, my friend, and Master. Kinda kinda give a synopsis of where we are. Sure. And then we'll kinda dovetail back into where we left the last meeting when the mayor was here. Yes. Sorry.

I I just wanna say, like, two minutes for a report before we get into that.

Can we do that? We could put it ahead. Sure. Okay. You bet.

So at Centennial Airport, they one of the one of the FBOs there controls a large amount of hangars, tie downs, covered tie downs, and they just put forth a large fee increase. And as a result of that to the tune of about a 100% increase. $600 hanger now, $1,200. Their covered tie down was, like, going to $5.50 from or 500 from $3.03 50, somewhere in that range. Anyway so that airport, like this airport, takes money and has grand assurances.

And as a result of that large increase, there's been a part 13 complaint filed against the airport because and and I'll kinda paraphrase. There's a there's a expectation that there'd be fair and reasonable prices at the airport. So my thoughts on all of this is that this is like a target. This is like we're moving towards revenue neutral, but I don't think this should happen overnight. I think that represents a potential challenge for the the town as the operator here.

So that's all I have to say.

So We're far from a 100% increase, and we're years behind in doing Well, Like,

the fees need to be updated, but it's just kind of a cautionary Yep. You know?

Mhmm. So could I with direction, whatever the decision is tonight, to to help the board, like, if there's and it whatever the fees are are you guys also gonna decide on, like, is there a recommendation that we recommend if you're, like, you know you know, the if you're going to this amount, you say, I don't know, 25% per year for five years or something like that or you know?

No. And and and I've talked to you all about it. Yeah. And I'm interested in what you all think, and your point is very salient for what I'm about to say. I think our job here is to primarily recommend a structure and initially suggest the fee amounts, but, ultimately, it's not up to us. Oh, okay. It's up to you all. And, happily, you'll be stuck with that rat's nest to figure out how

many So I I hear what you're saying that

You wanna you get what I'm talk what I'm saying is is I wanna I want us to figure out what we both fee structure should be because there's gotta be presumably, the way it works is you're gonna have public comment with the council in terms of this before you all do anything.

Correct.

Yeah. And that's the way it's gonna happen. Yeah. So I don't think it's really as important for us to determine the pricing, if you will, as much as it is the structure of the fees. So having said that, weigh in.

Well and I would say, I think we footnote whatever recommendation you make to the board subject to FAA approval.

Let's Of course.

So rather than do it and then, you know, rather than do it and then ask for forgiveness, let's get permission and then Of course. Because this isn't, you know, a unique fee structure. You know, we're we're we're doing

It is or it isn't.

It is. Yeah. Right. Through defense fees and then an airplane based fee.

And Correct.

You know, that's unique, and we don't know how the FAA is gonna react to that. But we don't end up

with that. Those those Absolutely. Those are a big deal. You know? I think it's part of town's diligence to parse that out. Yes.

I mean, ultimately, this body is making a recommendation to that body. It's all it is. Yep. Correct. This body's proposal, I think when the council, like, back in in August, asked this group to look into it. Ultimately, we were asking this body to make a proposal back to the council. Here's our recommendation for how the fee should be structured. That there's no outside factors outside this room that are being considered other than what's on the screen. Once this body makes a recommendation back to counsel, it's on us as staff to make sure it's legal, talk to the attorneys, talk to FAA, have extensive community engagement. You know, this is a pretty drastic change.

Right. And this is not gonna be made overnight. So we've already discussed with the communications team, you know, whether it's open houses, public forums, meetings at the airport, lots of opportunities for engagement so that folks that are impacted by these changes well know about long before it ever ends up back in any kind of room. So community engagement, public hearings, this is gonna be an extensive process. This body's job is just make that recommendation. And then we all collectively, the four of us, take it from there.

That's how I understood it. Everybody else is you're good with it. Yeah.

Can you describe pipe part thirteenth violation? Jason?

I'm sorry. I mean, I don't know what the particulars are on the part thirteenth. There's various you know, you have grant assurance violations. There's various things that the FAA expects you to do as a public airport. It sounds like this is kind of a a fairness one. I I I don't think it's a it doesn't sound like a grant. I think a

grant assurance is It was it was basically it was filed by an individual and then filing went to the FAA. And then the FAA comes back to the airport and then starts to look at, you know

And scrutinize, you know, how these fees are, whether they're fair. And and there's various ones. Grant assurances are typically, like, a big one. Like, if if someone feels like an airport is violating their grant assurances, they can demand a part whatever investigation, and the FAA has to respond in some manner. I mean, it might be just a quick, yeah, this is no big deal, but then there's ones that, sometimes last for years and would end up costing the town in legal fees, and it will be a big deal.

So I think it's I think it's a great thing to bring up, and that's why I think just as a general from this board that we footnote everything that we this is our recommendation. And, you know, to Julian's point, we just make sure that we're clarifying that we are recommending that we're It's only your recommendation. Yeah. And it's we would seek FAA's blessing ahead of time, you know, or input at the very least.

I think that's what we presumed from the beginning and throughout this process. Yep. I'd like

to say a really similar thing a slightly different way. And in that, I think we as a board have heard, like, competing conceptions of what the best thing for the airport and community might be from current state where the airport is, like, heavily subsidized, is not approaching cost neutral up to the idea that maybe the airport should be cost neutral. And I think there's, like, a lot of arguments in support of anything along that spectrum. What I like about this is it's a structure. I I consider it levers that the council can tune, pull, adjust as necessary to match the right thing for the community against a structure and a set of recommendations that are justifiable, that support up to and then slightly beyond revenue neutrality, and are benchmarked to reasonable like for like matches across the aviation community.

So nothing here is egregiously pulled out of nowhere or a totally novel concept. So so what I like is giving a structure from this board and a recommendation that allows counsel to best match the perceived needs of the community at that point using these tools.

That's how I conceive of it. Well done. Mhmm.

Thank you.

What he said.

Actually, would I be able to say something really fast or is I don't know. Outside of public comment to the sheriff?

I'm good with it.

Okay. And it's and it's just a suggestion along the same lines with everything that is happening at Centennial. It was the big percent increase. It wasn't so much the dollar amount. It was the we're going a 100. We're doubling. Double is a big word. You've got AOPA with Brad Shuster that's got his finger on the pulse of that. This would be that second news article of Centennial did it. Now Erie thinks they can do it. Now everyone's gonna do it. So it's gonna draw higher. I'm not opposed to being as, you know, cost neutral as you possibly can be. I mean, I'm a pilot. I get to be at least a little selfish and be like, yeah.

I want it to be as cheap as it possibly can. We all want that, but it's not feasible. But phasing it in to where it's not a 100% right off the bat, probably a wise approach. So that way, you're not creating that big headline that says, you know, come give me issues.

So my response to that comment, thank you, is that when it comes to public comment to the council Mhmm. You should come back.

Yeah. And I I I absolutely will. Because I I I understand the need to balance the budget. That's that's it has to happen one way or the other, but doing it in a manner that's gonna cause the least amount of fuss and create the least amount of uproar. Like like, me and Eman had discussed on the phone, yeah, there hasn't been any fee increases for years. And Right. You know, we're living in a time of there is inflation. There is cost rising on everything. You need to keep up with it. I mean, even CPA, we did that last year where we finally upped our membership rate by $5, you know, from 25 to 30.

But we we caught some feedback from that because, like, oh, well, it hasn't hasn't gone up. What am I getting for my $5? You're gonna get pushed back either way. But if you double it, you're gonna have a lot larger course than you are just a handful of people that are gonna raise a little stink and then kinda go away. So that's just, again, 2¢ seeing what's going on there, what's happened to us. There's kind of a blueprint for it to follow and say, hey. Look. We should do it this way, and you guys get what your end is, and everybody else kinda falls in line with it with a little bit of stink, but nothing that's gonna go ballistic.

Thank you.

Mhmm. Problem. Kinda everybody's point. The numbers are just numbers. They're just plugs fundamentally in terms of the structure. I wouldn't say they're meaningless, but they're just reference data for the end result because the end result is not up to us. You act like you wanted to say something.

Well, I think we've discussed from the beginning that the intent would be to get to this point that's at some Of course. But never just to jump right to this. I agree. So I I agree a 100% of that. I've been around for three fee increases in thirty years, and every one of them was totally justifiable but raised. But, yeah, if you go from what we have today to this tomorrow, likely be a revolt. Yeah. No. It'll probably be

I don't land

I mean, yes. Sorry. I'm a Missouri building inside the tractor. Yeah.

You like it? Oh, wait. It's having even more grayers in there.

My favorite term, scorched earth.

Yeah. So I guess to, Julie, what you were saying, because I think for us, what I don't know is what is observable. Are you guys going to take that, maybe present to us? Oh, For, okay. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Yeah.

As long as as long as we

get that from somewhere because you don't want me making that choice.

Oh, yeah. It's like that.

I might just add to that. I think our marching words were how do we get to revenue neutral? Correct. The mayor. Numbers represent how we get there. Correct. Meeting once.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Go

ahead. Yeah.

If we really want to be revenue neutral, we gotta get to these numbers.

Okay. Yep. Yep. Ultimately.

Ultimately.

I agree. We do that. I agree.

That was one of the

public's out crisis that you're costing the the town, what have you. You need to get to revenue neutral. We are trying Yeah. To do that. And you can't please everybody all the time if you try to please as many people as you can. You will always have people that dissent any change.

It's in good faith. Yeah. That I think that's the best way to describe that. You're doing things in good faith of we're trying.

Yeah. Alright. Back to you, sir.

Yep. Go for it. Before I dive into it Oh, no. Do you just wanna real quick want me to get an update on the the Hanger RFP? We can do

that later.

There's that.

Yeah. Let's do it.

At the end? I'll do it at

the end? Okay. You're more important, Lachie. Alright. Well, I'm involved in both, so it really doesn't matter to me. Yeah. So I sent this out to the airport board, but this is, my understanding of where we ended the conversation last time in terms of the current versus proposed structure and rates. So here you have the the kind of different, itemized things. So we have through the fence that's currently, structured. We've kind of separated that into three categories, improved residential, unapproved residential, and then commercial.

Just one quick clarification. Currently, the distinction is between whether you have a plane or whether you don't have a plane. The proposal is to switch to not necessarily whether you have a plane, but whether you have improved access to the runway or whether you have unimproved access to the runway, and you can figure out how you want to delineate that in the conversation. Then the commercial is on a square footage basis. The new addition is a base fee, so that would be basically a fee per year per plane, to be based at the Erie Airport.

It would be applied to all planes that reside in hangars, on the airport, around the airport that have, basically, any plane that has through the fence access to to the Erie Airport would also have a a fee per plane. The port to port rates, increasing, on a monthly monthly from, 50 or $60 to a 100 or 125, and the tie down rates increasing from, those are are doubling in the current currently structured, and fuel flowage fees were not changing. So you can see left column, current rate, right column, proposed rate, has the the the changes in in the structure and the numbers, as where you ended up, at the end of your last conversation, but anything here can be changed.

Questions? What about fuel flowage? Was there a discussion on that?

Yeah. I hate to say it because I paid the fuel flow fee, but I feel like it should go up. I would agree. Yeah.

Got any suggestions? I don't know

what the market is bearing right now, but I feel like it's probably closer to almost double that, 15¢.

Is that right? What

was the the number of

gallons per year? 83,000 approximately.

Think you should have missed our number. Yeah.

I feel like the number here.

Should we

Well, I don't know how you wanna structure this as we talk to the different elements at the airport between the airport, the Main Street,

the Yeah. I mean, but this is the we're gonna get to that as we work through this, and that was actually my next

I I would like to specifically talk about a structure for the airpark that is a little

bit different than what we're talking about here. That's fine. That's fine. And I'm I'm reserving in my head, like, coming to you because I know we left with the at the last meeting, when the mayor was here. So let's discuss fuel flows, and then we'll go to you.

And the the the word that I always can I always have in my head is the word parity? And that was kinda where we were with you when we left. So as as we're finished here, we'll get right back to and we'll lead off with you to kind of flush that out because that's really the primary thing that we left in terms of not really resolving. Right? Okay. Fuel flow.

It's it's I mean, at 83,000 gallons, it's not creating you know, to raise it, say, a nickel would would be, what, $4,000

per year.

So it's yeah. Per year. I mean so, you know, it's probably one of the lowest numbers of this total revenue picture.

Yeah. So Jason, you bay you said 15. Double it. 15. Yeah. I'm Facing that on it. Is that what you're looking

at now? What I'm doing is texting the airport managers.

It's just about.

Well, we got going.

It's like trading commodities, buddy. Like

Maybe maybe we could just table that for a bit, unless anyone has some opinions on it. If you

have some thoughts now, let's flesh it out while we're waiting.

And if we don't get to it, then we'll I'd go ahead to you. I would just be curious what the total cost of the fuel per gallon would be, because I know BJC has some of the cheapest fuel in the area. That's just my only question. Well,

it's not it's not a good comp because they're buying volume.

Yeah. They're buying volume.

So the unfortunate part is they're getting a lot more fuel. They're paying a lot less fees. And so our typical 100 low lead is very thin margin. Yep. So Jet A is not bad, but we don't sell much Jet A. So Yeah. I think probably off top of my head, our our margin on 100 low lead is about 50 to 60¢ a gallon. And then we do better on Jet A, but, again, mean, the Jet A sales is probably 20% of our total gallons. Yeah.

What's the current price of low lead right now?

Maybe it was gonna hit

him about this. Yeah. Put it on the group chat.

Sealed prices don't track with inflation and things like that. Maybe it should be tied into the fluctuation in global food prices.

Okay. We're afraid on the phone.

Well I know.

We what we do is we price based on what we pay for the fuel.

Yeah. Right? We try

to be competitive with the other airports around there. So sometimes that markup, you know, we might get a cheaper batch of gas.

Mhmm.

But aviation gas is complicated because sometimes you get it locally. Sometimes

No. I wouldn't base it on what you're charging that day for the thing, but, you know, in general swings

Right.

Fuel is relatively cheap now than what it

was two years ago. So Yeah.

Maybe the the fuel flowage fee should have come down during that two year period.

Yeah. From from my

going up.

From my perspective, it's just a built in fee. I mean, we we order a batch of gas. Yeah. It cost us much. You have the fuel flow fee, then you add your margin. And we have to play with the margin Yep. To compete with the other airports.

And Mhmm.

So where it gets a little sticky or not sticky is a full load of gas is 8,000 gallons. The delivery fee on 8,000 gallons is the same as 2,000 gallons. So in the winter months, you're buying smaller quantities because you don't wanna set, let's say, gas in February because it fluctuates from four to six or whatever gallons. So you don't wanna buy too much at too high of a price and have a big batch of expensive gas. I've been playing this game for a long time.

What this correct me if I'm wrong. This represents a fuel flow fee is Vector Air's 100 low lead typically hovers right around $6. So if you say now there's 7¢ in there, that means of that $6 Seven's what? Seven's in there. So if you're gonna do an additional $8, the $6 gas price would now be $6.08. Right. That's a correct assumption. Yep. I don't think 15¢ is really

And I'm only querying because, you know, maybe it's 20¢ somewhere, but my feeling is it's probably well over 10¢. And to your point, if it's 14¢ at 80,000 gallons, you're talking 4 or $5,000 in a year. So

Self serve between BJC and here is only a 60¢ difference. $5.95 versus 3, or $5.39. So it's not it's not horrible. 5¢ isn't gonna make a Right. Huge deal.

People are not gonna pull up to the gas depot and say, what? 15¢ now for fuel flow fees? I'm out of here. Right. What's not

gonna happen?

We all check it on ForeFlight before we

we know we're gonna have to before

we get here. Exactly. I just checked, and it's not listed. So should we make a recommendation of an amount or make a recommendation of doubling it? You know? What do you guys think? Guys and girls. Sorry.

It's just a formula in the spreadsheet, and it's just a number.

So

I'd say go go up a nickel to 12¢ a gallon.

Mister airport manager? About 15,000,000.

I'd be more inclined to say 15. Yeah. Make it 15, not up 15. Right.

Will that be phased as well?

I don't think so. I think it's such a small amount. And, I mean, if you got a plane that holds 40 gallons of gas, you're paying the extra 7¢ a gallon. It's not

Yeah. I'm not flying today. That's fine. Yep. So

I if everybody's okay with it, I would recommend we say 15 as a recommended increase on the fuel flow.

We're good with that?

Yep. Not gonna move the needle hardly at all. So amen.

I would increase revenue theoretically, assuming it has no effect on gas consumption from 5,800 to 12,400. Okay.

Nice. It's not insignificant.

I'll throw a holiday party with that.

Yeah. Yes. That's yeah.

Alright. Mister Parity, you lead us off there, buddy.

Alright. Well, I I just wanna address the air park part of that seems that's where I live. And what I say, Jennifer may have some some thing to add to it afterwards, whether she agrees to it or not. But I will say that we've developed approach in consultation with some of my neighbors Mhmm. Who I've been kicking this stuff around with as we try to be equitable and fair and parity across the airport.

We'd like to get away from the terms improved and unimproved. Either you have access to the airport or you don't have access to the airport. And that access is either the original taxiway easement shown in the 1978 subplot for the airport, which is mainly all those houses that are along the old runway and the new runway. And the taxiway easements that people have granted by deed. And there's been a number thrown out there, 55 houses, of which 33 had been participating in through the fence payments.

We believe there are a 100 to a 102 houses that have access to the airport through granted deeds. So here's what we're gonna propose. For those residences without permitted hangars because we have many that have no hangar and many that have hangars.

She does not have a hangar.

But for those residents without permitted hangars, including all residents that have either an original taxiway easement or a taxiway easement granted by deed, a through the fence fee of $800 per year shall be assessed as we show up there. I will make a comment about the tie down fee because I believe there is a tie the FAA has made between the tie down fee and the rate that airport residential pay. So if we go to 800 on our fee, we may wanna look at the monthly tie down fee on the airport.

If you're gonna convince somebody that a 102 houses have access to the airport, then that's a fair trade off. I mean

I'm not I'm not gonna convince anybody. I'm gonna say they have access.

Well, I'm curious

Whether they've been using it or not.

Well, I am not the one who dug super deep into it, but, and I can tell you there's a resident that was a consultant that studied the original plotting and everything, and that's where the 55 number came out of. I'm not I've always been an advocate that if you're in the Erie Airport, you pay some kind of a fee. I don't disagree with whether you wanna go improved, not improved. I'm a fan of your plan a 100%.

What we're what we're saying is there's a 102 residents that we believe have access to the airport, deeded or otherwise.

Lawyers will figure it out.

Yeah.

I that was I I could jump in. How would we determine that?

Well, I mean, during the '87 easement, lawsuits, there were consultants that came in, and there was a lot of it's all tied to your properties. And so they went to each property, and my understanding was is that when they flushed everything out, there were actually 55, somewhere in that range, number of homes that actually had in their property rights actual access and easements and ways to get to the runway.

Okay. Okay. So we my neighbor, Scott, who used to be on this board, he presented a document called the area park taxi by easements that shows those lots that either have the original easement or the deeded access. Yep. Is there a date on that? Just out of curiosity. I don't see it. Okay. This is what we're using as a baseline. I I agree the city is gonna have to go through an effort to look at these lots and figure out whether they have deeded access or not. Right. Hold on. Saying is the information we have right now, we believe

there's a 102 that have access. Alright. Hold on a second. Yes, Paul. You know what I'm gonna say. Ask it. You wanna speak to that? Go ahead. Because we've talked about it. If I'm stepping on your road here incorrectly, let me know. But his suggestion, Julian's, and I I agree with it, and I think you and I touched on it, is that the town would expend the money to hire a title company to do the research at the town's cost to determine for certainty what that map looks like today so that we can get an outside third party assessment as to

I think that absolutely has to happen.

Yeah. Perfect. We're good? Thank you. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. So whatever the number is, I'm gonna use a 100 for discussion. Sure. Right? Sure. K. So 100 residents out there. Now I don't know how many have hangars and how many don't have hangars. What I'm suggesting is that those that do not have hangars that have access to the airport shall pay $800 a year. Okay.

For those that have hangars, and this is an effort for trying to be equitable with the rest of the airport. Mhmm. So for those residents with permitted hangars, including those residents that have either original taxable easement or easement granted by d, a through the fence fee of 32¢ per square foot of hangar area shall be assessed. A minimum assessment of $800 shall be shall apply. So if you have a 3,000 square foot hangar, you're gonna pay the 32¢, $900 and change instead of the 800.

You have a 1,500 foot, you'd be below the 800, so you would end up paying a minimum where the 800.

So you're suggesting minimum similar to what we suggested in terms of ground lease minimums? Yes. Kinda along the same lines.

But the idea here is we are gonna charge the rest of the airport, including the airport business district, Main Street hangars, Schofield Hangars, they're gonna all pay 32¢ per foot. We're suggesting people in the airport that have hangars, do they use them for airplanes or not, will pay the same 32¢ a square foot.

No pushback here. I've I've been saying that for ten years.

Okay. The the three defense fees are separate from any imposed aircraft use fee that's gonna be discussed here. Right. There are no grandfathered conditions that shall apply. Mhmm.

We realize of the 100 people, 33 are being paid, so there's gonna be 70 people that are not gonna be real happy with this. But that is part of the discussions that need to be made down the road. There is some discussion around the 1987 agreement, and I'm gonna let Jennifer talk to that more so. I do not know whether the 1987 agreement, which established the fee structure for use of the air force, is applicable post the the bankruptcy in 1993. I don't know if it applies for people that have not been paid since the '87 decisions made, But that adds a little bit of confusion to the mix on how that may apply, but the bottom line is we do not want to impact or get into people's rights that exist now.

So if there are a half dozen people that have some rights based on 1987 agreement that was made that is still valid, then that needs to be considered.

And we Julian, we we talked about that too. We're gonna have part of the town's due diligence is to flush that as well through legal.

Yep. Right.

Okay. So fairly simple. There's no improved or unimproved residents. You you have access, or you don't. Those that don't have access, they're not gonna pay anything. That's they're not part of this team. So if you have access, you pay 800. If you have a hangar, you pay 32¢ a square foot instead of the 800, unless you have a minimum hangar size that puts you at 800.

For what it's worth, well done.

I like it. It's pretty much it.

Yep. Well thought out. What's the total number of lots? You know that number?

I don't

know that number. Just curious.

Add it somewhere. I can probably find it.

Alright. Before you wanna go Jennifer to you now, or do you wanna

Yeah. I'll I'll go ahead.

This first. And Okay.

Yeah. It was yeah. I'll wait.

Alright. You go ahead.

My main concern is that agreement, that easement agreement, which I have. Because in this agreement, there is a fee structure in this agreement.

Yep. I'm very concerned about the validity of this agreement.

You all are.

Yeah. And I can see that people are signing on to this agreement at dates that are way past the date. Like, I have a twenty twelve of someone signing on to this agreement.

What do you mean by signing? They bought the house. It's part of their documents.

The house was bought a

long time ago, but the

agreement that is the same within this easement issue, it's the same one. And so I can see over time this agreement continuing. Also, you were provided a document by one of the neighbors called the white paper memorandum.

Right.

That's right.

And I've read it.

Yeah. And it it goes into it's a really good document.

Goes through

a lot of research

Yeah.

About this agreement, which makes this valid,

in my opinion, when I read this. This is valid.

I would agree with you.

Yeah.

Frank Holmes wrote it. Press code. Press code. Done.

My concern is this is legal, and we can't how do we justify going outside of this structure that's changing?

That's part of the due diligence that the town and the town's legal will have to determine as to whether this what we're proposing is possible on all legal aspects because it's a question, number one, we can't answer, we, the board. And number two, frankly, we shouldn't be answering it because it's not something we do. But it is absolutely positively a major question that needs to be answered before any of this really gets and in my opinion, it's something that legal should determine before staff really even goes to counsel with what they've come up. It's kinda part of the whole package and one of the elements of what it is they're gonna have to present to counsel. But, yeah, it's a major question mark.

I don't know the answer. I did read it. I'm kinda kinda coming away with it with limited legal mind that I have with the same answer, but, honestly, I just don't know. I And think it's gonna have to be careful.

It's just a structure that does not, indicate amounts. Right?

It does. It does. It does include

and it has an escalator, and it has It does have an issue. Nonfluent, penalty. Has Jason has anybody in the airport been paying in accordance with this person?

And there's a there's a a government percentage, like a CPI percentage, and I I Yeah. Jennifer went through the CPI.

It comes out to $550.

I I was just gonna say there's actually a nice little calculator on the government's website, and you can put the date and the percentages, and then I came up with $544 and change. So we must have been on

the same website. Yeah. So, Jason, are you saying that only one person is paying based on that contract, but many people have tried to sign that contract into here?

This is a big can of worms, I can tell you. It was litigated by, I think, three separate parties. I think and don't hold me to all this because I didn't go to every hearing, and I didn't participate. I mean, that's literally was a homeowner thing. And but I know, one was thrown out because of statute of limitations.

I believe one was, the court struck it down because they said it's not enforceable anymore. There are certain aspects of it that are not enforceable. I don't know that the third litigation went anywhere and got completed. So this is and I was foolish enough to think that because, there were people that wanted certain there are a lot of different things in here, including the Crossman Runway, which doesn't exist anymore.

Yeah.

But, this easement or guarantees to exist. And so there are pieces of this that are almost impossible. I think a lot

of people I think just guess, but a lot

of people that I was involved with, the biggest part they wanted was the access to the airport as part of the property rights. So I thought that we could get the three camps together and maybe negotiate with the town to draft a new easement that just had that component to it. But there were people that wanted all of it. There were people that wanted this part of it. There were people that wanted these parts of it.

That's why it was a pretty big can of worms. But Yeah. I think the lawsuit that went the furthest was the Simmons lawsuit, and, I believe that was the one that was, the statute of limitations. And they ended up having to reimburse the town legal fees to work around $30.

But what are all the residents who are not paying the fees dictated in that using as an excuse?

Every every, one person that, you know, is there's one person that is paying this fee. And at the time and to this day, I have 12 checks that are uncashed because the town legal did not want me to take that check and recognize this document. Mhmm. But everybody else has been paying in accordance with the ordinance. Oh, they have been. Yes. Yeah.

So what's the date of the the ordinance is mid nineties?

Yeah. Yeah. But I think I I mean, I'm not sure what's yeah. But when the town took for the airport.

So In accordance with the ordinance, meaning they're paying the $600. Yeah.

Which was $2.50, 400, and 600. Hundreds.

Yeah. I'm just curious from both of you because you live in the airpark. What is the sense don't name names. But what is the sense of your neighbors with respect to the easements, whether they have them or not. And I can I can appreciate because I've had conversations with him, Scott, who used to sit on this board, and he he seemed to believe that a good number of folks who live in the airpark, their philosophy is, well, look? I I'm happy supporting the airport, and the airport needs to be supported and okay. Fine. But that's Scott. I think

that is that is consensus of the neighbors that I've talked

to. Prevalent.

They wanna pay their fair share. Yeah. And we talked how do we get to fair share. Uh-huh. And they agreed that everybody in the airport that has access should participate in supporting the airport. Right. Those less that have nice big hangars, we should pay a little more. Gotcha. And that's where we come up with 32¢ square foot for the hangars, people that have hangars. And we wanted to be equitable across the air force, so we take that argument away from people. So if you're charging Schofield 32, you're charging me 32 for my hangar. And do you

hear and experience the same thing from your side of the neighborhood? Because I

I am different than you. I I have people who this is my right, and I bought the house because of this right. I'm investing in the property because of this right, and I need it protected is when I'm I I hear a lot of that.

That's a really good point. And when I hear that, kinda goes to what you said, and I see a difference between the fee and the fee structure versus a guaranteed right. Hear what I'm saying? And that that was You can express a right which never goes away to a landowner and the right being guaranteed access to an airport.

I think the people that I talked to, that's a given, that we will have guaranteed access to the airport if we pay these fees.

I think if you look in here, the fee is just one small part of this document.

Exactly.

There's a lot of other things that are difficult to enforce. And so that's where in my you know, at one point, I thought I would try to mediate, which that I stepped away from that very

quickly. But,

you know, I understand wanting the property right. And I can tell you where this I remember the day this got dug out of somebody's, you know, bottom drawer. There was a time where the FAA was discussing not allowing through the fence operations, especially residential. I remember when it happened, it was never cutting off existing residential through the fence. It was not allowing future residential through the fence at FAA funded airports.

Yeah. Town manager at the time that interpreted that as the FAA doesn't wanna let residents onto the airport, And they dropped a couple concrete barricades on a couple taxiways for about a day, and then this thing surfaced up and said, I've got a right to be in this airport, which that part, I think, makes the most this document makes the most sense. That's what I would want. I used to live on the inner park. I was I had an 87 easement on my property. When I'd read through it, that's the protection that I want out of it. We're never gonna get across one runway back. That's in the document. It's not feasible. We don't have the money to do it.

There are portions of it that are unenforceable. But they still have the ease even if, you know, if they run. Well and that's and that the problem was was, you know, what part of it do you wanna enforce? I think, from my perspective, everybody wants the property right. I agree with the property right. I wanted the property right. I wanted to know that if I lived on the Erie Airpark, I had access to the airport. I think back in 1987, when it was a private privately owned prop or, community, and it wasn't funded by the FAA, there were also special assessments. So repaving the entire runway would have been a special assessment. Mhmm.

We don't have those things now. And so I think there's things that have definitely dynamically changed. We have federal funding now. We've got things that Parkland doesn't have when Parkland repays their runway. Everybody gets a bill for $20,000. We're gonna have a $5,000,000 runway project here in the next three years. No one's gonna have to pay a dime for that except their through the funds fees. There's things there's dynamics that have changed transitioning from a private airpark community that was open to the public and now a publicly sponsored municipal owned airport. And some of those things don't line up with this. That's just my 2¢.

I'm really you know, when I when I was when I did live on the airport, my what I wanted out of that was my property rate. And, you know, the town took a stab at rewriting it without really getting much input from the residents that had the 87 easement and just put it in the mail and said sign it. That didn't go over very well. So there's a lot of history with the 87 easement, and I definitely get every perspective of it. But things like the crossing runway, which is the easiest one for me to pick out, the town did things that preclude a full length crossing runway from ever existing Yeah.

By selling the two quarter properties on there. And so there are portions of it that are just not enforceable anymore. And so

We we we would hope that by having everybody that has access, mainly deeded access, those accesses, many of them have not been improved. They exist, but they haven't been improved. We would hope that they would be motivated to improve those access because it increases the value of their property. And there's there's studies that have been done what the value increase is, and it's substantial. So by saying that you have this access that you're gonna pay a minimal fee for, that people will look at and say, I need to improve it.

We're not trying to discourage aviation, or we're trying to encourage aviation. And even those people that have hangars that may have cars or motorcycles or boats or other things, you know, they're gonna pay a square footage cost at the rest of the airport. They can continue to have their cars and boats, but maybe someday there'll be airplanes. Absolutely. That's our whole Right.

I think that's a valid argument. I, you know, I've always thought look. I was part of a group of homeowners that wanted to put together a taxiway association fee and actually improve the homeowners. And I'm speaking outside of airport airport manager now. I was a resident on the Ear Park for Mhmm. Ten years, and we tried to motivate or get a movement going to start, like, outside of the HOA, a homeowner's taxiway association so we could improve the existing taxiways and add new taxiways and another can of worms.

So Yeah. No. We got some real challenges in our side. It's outside purview of this. But, you know, it's not all racist on our side.

I think it's I think it's important to just state for the public record, and I'm gonna speak for everybody here because I think I got a pretty good thought on what they think. But if you if you don't agree with me what I'm about to say, speak up. But I think I could speak for everybody here. There is no one in this room who doesn't support residents of the airpark having guaranteed access as part of their property rights. Right? Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So just wanna make sure everybody out there understands.

We believe in that, and we think they should have that. The current way it's written, as you put, kinda creates a little wrinkles in it that we probably need to address the you know, town attorneys need to kinda look at that. But part of it is, yes, we agree that as a resident of the air park, you should have guaranteed right as part of your property ownership, and no one disputes that.

That opens the door for a win win proposal to the people in the airport.

Well, I mean, depends. I mean, not to put Jennifer on the spot, but is that the main thing you like or that you desire out of this agreement? Or that was the problem was that everybody was picking things, and some people wanted everything. And I think that's where you know, I think.

There might be some people who want everything, but, clearly, they can't have everything.

Everything in some cases doesn't exist anymore. Yeah.

Yeah. To have something guaranteed that's enforceable, that's something.

Yeah. Well and so I I think and Jennifer said she bought with this document in place. And, you know, I think that was a lot of the issue. And, again, I'm not I'm speaking outside of airport manager. A lot of the issue was is that, you know, should Jennifer really have to settle for a new document? This came with you know? It's like your car came with air conditioning, and now they come take it away. I mean,

like, that's

But if it's an unenforceable document, trading it Well or an enforceable one.

Yeah. I think it's a matter of an outdated document without losing what you Yeah. What you covet most, which you should. And frankly, if I lived there, I would be doing the same thing as the exact same argument. So I think the approach may be it it really needs to be revised. But what does that mean? I have no idea other than that part of it, the primary part of it, which is guaranteed. Right?

Talks about if you wanna revise something. Alright. Very. And I I wanna make sure that my rights are guaranteed, but I also wanna make sure that we have a fee structure. This is this is given to us.

Do you like the fee structure of that better than what we're proposing?

It doesn't matter if I like it better or not. It's just saying that this is a legal document that has a structure, and are we allowed to go outside that structure?

Legal document, but may not necessarily change.

It may not. And that's what that's I'm not a lawyer, but it exists.

And I don't

What are we doing if we go outside of this structure?

I don't think we can, and I don't think we are even entitled to a value of that. What would a death dead horse. That is the purview of the professionals, the attorneys. And I think what we are all saying here is it needs to be addressed. It needs to be figured out before anything gets presented to the folks on council. Think we're all in agreement in that, but we don't know. Let's find out.

We've even I I mean, we've hired an airport attorney because these questions were coming up. And at the time, Kenner was like, yeah. This is outstanding.

Well, this is classic example of where an airport attorney is a professional in this subject matter

Oh, yeah.

Should be the person who, you know, whatever it's gonna cost to get to the bottom of this and figure it out. I think it's imperative. Now in terms of the fee structure, when you calculate $544 versus $800, that's not a huge delta in my mind in the grand scheme of things given what we're trying to achieve, which is a better airport. That's just me. But they're entitled to their opinions. They're entitled to speak toward their position, but I think we've got to get to the bottom of the legal analysis, and we're punting. And a better

airport benefits everyone who wants to enforce that old agreement in their home values and everything like that. So there's lots of reasons why they should want to move forward with something new and improved.

Riley, you had something else?

No. No. I think we've laid out our voices.

Yeah. Real fast. As you're talking about the taxiway and then kinda doing something at taxiway, HOA, or I I can't remember what you referred to that as.

There was a time where all the people because the taxiway on the Homer side is a mix.

It's atrocious.

Yeah. And so back when I lived on the Air Park, we were trying to get together with the people that lived on the taxiway and put together a 5 or $400 a month, start pooling up some money and make a nice contiguous improvement on all taxiway systems there.

That's where I was thinking with the with that document that's there. If there is revisions that need to be made, you might wanna look into getting ahold of, the cab board and do a state, matched grant to get that taxiway improved and maybe, you know, kind of dangling a carrot of, hey. If we do these fees, we might be able to improve this with the 9010% match. You know, that that way on private property because all

the tax I think I think that's a tough

That's on private. Okay. That I wasn't aware of. I was thinking that was all A little old part

of the world.

The one on the south side of the closed runway is town owned.

The old the old taxiway for the old runway would be potentially eligible, but and there was actually well, I could go into so many things, but there's there's a thing called the OFA, the object free area, which is a distance from the town doesn't own it, but they've got the easement. So the people live along the edge of the runway can't build anything from the edge of the runway to a 150 feet. Again It's all a bunch of gray area. Well, being naive, I thought, you know, maybe the FAA in in exchange for owning that property would make those improvements. Then we would own the OFA because the FAA would rather that we own the OFAs, the object free areas, the RPCs.

They would rather we own that property than have it under easement. I mean and so there was a time where I thought, well and interestingly enough, I lived on the other side of the so I have my own little taxiway. So I I guess I could have gone. Like, I really don't care what the other but I see and recognize an improved taxiway system on the homeowner side as being a huge benefit to the entire community.

Absolutely.

Yeah. You know, I mean, I I know people that have tried sell sell their house in the middle of the homeowner's taxiway, and maybe a guy wants to put a really nice airplane in there, but it's a dirt taxiway and a pavement and then kinda grass fault, they called it over the years. And

It can't improve because it is city property.

Well, no. That's all home. But if they wanna improve it, they gotta if their neighbors so the way it stands right now is each person maintains their little section. Mhmm. And so if their neighbors don't have airplanes or don't wanna improve the taxiway and someone wants a nice asphalt taxiway, they've gotta pave it all the way to the end or try to talk their neighbors into paying for chipping in. So

If And they don't own

a plane, they're gonna tell them to go pound sand. That's Yeah.

Alright. I don't wanna curtail conversation that you all feel is important, but since Paul's threatened to hold everyone hostage until you get the recommendation done

Sorry. It's best to

focus on on what, you know, staff needs from you tonight and what we can actually solve. And the legal the, you know, the applicability of this legal agreement is an important question. It's not one we're gonna be able to to tackle tonight. What we need from you is to debate and discuss and and figure out what is the structure that you wanna recommend for the fee schedule. Should it be for for residences in the airport, should it be on the basis of whether you have unimproved or improved access?

Should it be whether you have legal access to the airport? What's the, the runway whatsoever? Should it be on the basis of whether you have a hangar or whether you don't have a hangar? Should it remain unchanged from the current status where it's on the basis of whether you have a plane or not? There's, like, almost, you know, infinite possibilities here that you could dream up. So what is the I think that's the pertinent question for the airpark is what is the the structure that you wanna put into place for how you differentiate between who pays what amounts.

Oh, I think he his proposal speaks to that. Yeah.

Yeah.

But I want him I've expressed my response to it. I wanna make sure everybody else have an opportunity to speak to what you are suggesting before we go any further. But, yeah, I wanna keep this moving.

I I I like what you've done, and and and I what I wrote down here was, well, residential access with Hanger. You could you could say deeded access and or just residential access, you know, without Hanger. The the unimproved and improved is a little bit vague.

We we agree. We wanna get away from that nomenclature because we felt it was vague and how you define it.

Yep. And then and then legal can figure out, you know, the numbers, then they can, you know, figure out that.

So to recap and to get to where you're looking to get, if you are an airport park residence resident, you are going to pay a minimum of $800, at least we're suggesting you're going to pay a minimum of $800.

Yeah. I'm just gonna say access without a hangar, you pay 800. Access with a hangar, you pay 32¢ a square foot.

Or a minimum. A minimum. If you have no access, you're not even in the calculation. That's correct. So improved versus unimproved needs to be merged into one category that is access versus Access. Airport access versus An improved no air airport access. Right. Okay? And then just like the minimums on the ground leases for hangars regardless of what kind they are. Mhmm. We had we had a minimum. I forget what it was. Help me out here. It's probably on the down portion of it. What did we say? A minimum of, was it

50 a month?

No. For for, like, a box hanger minimum per square foot was, like, a 150 minimum per month, or the square footage price, if it's big enough, it goes above the 150. And I like it because it kinda is the same philosophy and the same

Applies across the airport for hangars. That's what we were trying to get at on the hangar side. Everybody in this airport is gonna pay 32¢ a square foot.

No. Exactly. And that's the parity issue. Mhmm. And that does argue parity because if you have a box hanger and you're leasing it, there is a minimum and then the square footage price for the ground lease. If you have through the fence fee access, there is a minimum, but you are going to pay a per square footage. It's the same price for everybody in terms of that square footage price, but it's it's done across the board. Right? Yep. Understood? It's clear to you because you're

the one who's gonna write this up. Yeah. The current structure, the proposed structure is $800 minimum if you have legal access to, the the runway through the fence access to the runway as a resident of the airpark. It'll be $800 minimum, and it'll be more than that if your, hangar if you have a hangar and its square footage is large enough that it would be

can somebody do a quick reverse calculation? It's 2,500 square feet. Thank you. That's the newest guy. Yeah.

It's amazing. You would adjust the tie down fees to $800 a year Which works out to $66 $66.6.6666666 cents. Or I would like to say $65.

And if we don't do that, we run into foul a foul with the FAA or no?

It's a

it was part of what we came up with with the $100,150 was market analysis based on our neighbors, and they're, like, through the roof, comparatively speaking.

Yeah. I mean, again, this I think this is a gray area, but there has to be some kind of Reasoning? Reasonable fairness. So Can't discriminate. Yeah.

And, I mean, if I'm on the ramp and I'm paying $66, that's $800 a year. And the minimum size or people who don't have hangers are paying $800 a year, everybody's paying $800 a year, then you then you go to the next category, which is people that have bigger footprints than the 32¢ a square foot. I think there's and I think this is the kind of thing that sets off a potential someone, you know, a part 13 investigation, you know, where someone says, well, jeez, my tie downs have gone up to 100. I'm paying 1,200 a year just to park outside down outside with three ropes. And this person over here is paying 800 to get access to the airport.

I think there has to be some reasonable fair equity. I have no problem.

I Yeah. Was making the argument that makes sense in terms of being able to to to do it. Can't just can't be perceived as arbitrary. I don't feel like it is. I mean either. Yeah. Yeah. But I think 66¢

I believe there's a tie there between the FAA and airpark, and not all airports have airparks, and that's why I'm a little bit unique.

Well, but you also tied it to the commercial side of, like, the the Schofield.

That's

true. We're also tying it to the the the t hangars. There's future development, which will be land lease stuff, which will all be at the 32¢ a square foot, or I would anticipate future development, maybe, a box hanger being a minimum of $800. And same thing if that footprint gets bigger than, you know, a 32¢ a square foot.

Directly answer any of the questions. I don't know what is it you're dealing with. Is the FAA

By by comparison, there's Jeffco's current rates for $2,249.96 for a tie down per month.

So how would that compare there? They have no through the fence. That makes it difficult.

They don't yeah. And they have other stuff that just says market rate. So it there was I guess there's kind of a comparison there. But, I mean, I get what you're saying, and we're trying to make everything kinda have a basis and be equitable.

Well and what I don't know you know, because it it the equitable part is so Sure. I mean, what the residents have access to and how they have access to it. You know? I mean, I've I've had people go, well, jeez. You know? If if you charge the same amount for a tie down as you do a residential through the fence, well, you plow the tie downs, but you don't plow the residential side. Like, one plow on the taxiway that goes in front of the tie down. Then I've had people go, well, you know, I don't get three ropes every year, this guy gets three ropes on board. Here's three ropes because I don't know. So, I mean, it does you just go off in the weeds.

Have no problem with $100 a month, especially with Jeffco charging, you know, two fifty. How many tie downs do we have?

50 roughly 50. But they're not all being used. No. You just made the argument, quite frankly, in what you just said. Whereas a tie down does not really equate equally to $800 a month. It's more than that that $800 a year. It's more like $1,200 a year. However, we get eight inches of snow. No one's coming out to plow his taxiway. The town provides

plowing. I'm not really I'm I'm plowing the ramp.

Well, but the ramp gets on it. Right. Right?

So I'm not really plowed. And a lot of times I'm piling snow right in front of these people's tie downs.

Oh, I get it. Yeah.

Sometimes some ways I'm making it worse.

I'm coming from.

It's like it's it's it's hard to say Is it equity? Equitable. We'll define it equitable because they're not equitable situations, quite frankly. But they

make distinctions between different things.

Yeah. Things spell it out.

I mean, let's just say this. I'm totally fine with a 100. I brought it up because I know there's always been this equity thing, and it's always been part of the equation.

But

Are we talking about fifty fifty tie downs? Is that

really how many there are?

Well, it's not that many planes, but that's I think that's about how many there are.

And the difference of $25 is what we're talking?

I I I have no issue I have no issue with the rate. I'm just I'm just talking about the FAA's policy on equity.

And I I think for But

I think for

$1,200, let's just make it $67, and then we don't have an issue.

Or we do a 100 and just subject to the FAA's relief rate.

Yeah. I think we go to we say it's a 100 and

The FAA goes, hey.

Part of this whole flushing it out, we see they will know we'll have all the answers we need because we'll have to address it, and we address it. And, again, what we are doing is making a recommendation based on our assessment, and all of these things need to be detailed out. And we don't know the answers, and we're not going to be able to find out the answers as the board. It's a fact. So I think we keep it moving.

Move on. Keep it at

a 100. And just keep Let's

move on to

Just keep it. That's exactly right. So I don't think there's much else to address in terms of the items with respect to what we're recommending.

I'd like just to bring up one comment about the

Absolutely.

Added to the residence. Is that just a through the fence fee that we're doing here a square foot on the hangers as well?

Your through the fence fee is based on a square foot for a hanger.

And so if the residents are not aviation people and they're just storing whatever, I think you're gonna get some pushback.

Well, we're gonna get some pushback even from those people who are on the commercial side over at NASA's property who don't have airplanes, don't intend to have airplanes, but I think we all had this debate, and that is by virtue of having access and a right to get to the airport through the fence, whether it's from the commercial end or from the residential end, that adds value to your property, and you should participate in what everybody else is, whether you have a hangar I mean, a airplane or not. I think we've debated that.

Why the the fees charged to people who have an easement or access makes sense. But when you do additional fee for a hangar and then

But you can't discriminate one person's conditions versus another. The closer we get to something that applies to everybody exactly the same way, then So Look. People's arguments and the conflict potentially with the FAA's rules won't have you go away.

Well, since since counsel tends to get these kind of things where where we get a lot of lot of these complaints, my my, my answer always is, you know, you'll you look at your neighborhood in Vista Ridge. How many people live in Vista Ridge don't pay golf? Everybody that lives there is helping you know, paying a fee that goes towards golf course. Your your your home retains some value for for, you know, having a home in an air park, you're you're there's an added value just for having your house in the air park, whether you fly or don't fly. And

and so You can look at that on the real estate listings of every house for sale. Yep. And

claim that bringing you value. This document, this white paper document even goes into details of how access gives you added value to your quality. Absolutely. I'm not disputing that whatsoever. I'm just bringing up if then and on top of this access, then we have a charge per square foot for a hangar on top

of that.

Oh, I thought I thought I think it's a little bit additional.

Yeah. It's it's a minimum of 800. And then if your footprint if you have a giant hangar, the the the 32¢ square foot. So everybody's gonna pay 800 if they got a hangar. If they don't have a hangar, if they have access. And then the the one guy that's got the 150 by a 150 hangar is gonna pay 32¢ because he's got 25 airplanes in his hangar. So it it's not Yeah. I mean, might be possible.

I'm gonna pay a thousand dollars instead of the 800 because You

have a hanger slightly larger than

The 800 base that everybody pays no matter what they have, no matter how they use it, is what's equitable across the board.

But it's not a double dip at all.

No. No. It's not an extra.

It's not 800, and then you got a hangar. You pay another 8.

But I think your point is if you're selling

cars and they're not an airplane person, should you have to pay that additional whatever the delta would be between the 832¢ a square foot of your hangar size? That's what you're pointing to, and I did that.

But I think the answer is yes. I hear what you're saying, and the answer for me anyways is absolutely. Because the folks over there at the original box hangers, the 50 by 50 box hangers, they're not all airplanes.

Yeah. The main street hanger folks, you know, they're not doing airplane stuff in there, and they're currently not being charged, but they're gonna be charged. Right.

Exactly. And that's where the parity thing comes out.

Well, some

of them are.

Are. Some of them. Well, the the Odyssey, which is

one of the

main straight names. Oh, wait. No. I'm sorry.

No. Exactly. Now they're separate HOAs.

Sorry, everyone. I have to take off. I stayed

extra Alright. Thanks for coming.

Get ahold of me if you need me.

But but but the parity thing is okay. You look at the the HOA, I mean, the airpark. What you're saying is 800 or a greater number if your square footage price puts you over that, which you said is 2,500 square feet Mhmm. At the 32¢. K?

Schofield, that 107,000 square foot footprint, they're going to pay the same 32¢. How they distribute that amongst the renters of the of the hangars is really up to Schofield. Nassar's development, there's gonna be certain footprints, but from the old from what's existing that I refer to as phase one or phase two, which has yet to be built, but they're clearing out all the land. It's going to be a square foot footprint of those hangars, whether they have a an airplane in there or not or intend to put one. That's how I see where you can argue you rejoin.

You wanna when I struggled in the last meeting

or the two meetings that it was looking at Stofield, a 104,000 square feet. Now they're gonna pay 32. That's a round number. It's 32,000 for a 100 hangar. So they're gonna pay $320 per hangar, whereas the airport folks are gonna pay 800, and in my case, I'm gonna pay a thousand. But the reality is you you got apples and oranges at a different level. Correct. Because I own my property. I gain value from that. They are renting a property. They gain no value.

They get they got nothing other than paying the rent. But but At the end of

the day, if we say they're paying 32, I'm paying 32, you know I'm paying three times as much

as they are. It's like those. It is better, equitable, and undiscriminatory. It's just one of those.

Yeah. Wrap this up into one ball here. Everybody understands where this is and what we're proposing. That's been debated. You know where we're at with that. This is what I think where I think you're at. Okay. We'll rely on you all to impart an explanation to the council. That's not something we really need to get involved in. Right?

What was why why do you have the residential with Yeah.

Is that that's That was that's the current rate. So currently, right, we charge the $600 to every to all of the residences that actually have a plane.

That's not I I think the question is is the wording the residential. So that residential is a residence that has deeded access to be determined, you know,

through wanna make sure we got this. And I I also that rate over there should say 800 or 32¢ per square foot, which the one above it. So if you have access with Hanger Yeah. It's 800 or 32¢ per square foot, whichever is higher.

Or just put on

that 800 minimum. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Let's put it out over here.

Is that better? Where's that spreadsheet?

Essentially, 800 minimum. It's $800 per year or 32¢ per square foot, whichever is greater.

Yep. Yep.

K. Everybody's good with that? Yeah. Okay. And then we got, the commercial rate is now 25. It's gonna be 32 just like everybody else. The base fee for operating an airplane, basing it out of the your airport is 800 per airplane. Small porta ports, minimum proposed rate of a $100 per month, $25 per month for the larger porta ports. Tie downs, that was kinda added. Yep. Monthly tie down, we're still gonna stay at a 100. Fuel flow, we're up to 15, and then we're we're missing the ground lease portion.

The ground lease portion would be the 32¢ as well.

Well, I think we should put you have it as through the fence fees, but we should add a line that is ground lease. K? Well, isn't that the The other

thing is that I don't necessarily think the the so the ground lease, maximum will be 32¢ per square foot because, the way the through the fence works is we can you can charge people more for being off the airport, but you can't charge them less. But, also, we're going through negotiations with, the FBO, which will have a ground lease component to it. And as part of the hangar RFP, there'll be negotiations for Oh, right. For ground lease.

We had in our numbers and in our our spreadsheet that I put together. We had a similar thing for if you're going to have a hangar within the confines of the airport, there will be a ground lease, and that ground lease will be the same cost, 32¢. Okay. But we had a a number, and I frankly don't remember what it was. We had a minimum for a ground lease because if you do a 40 by 45 box hanger at 32¢ Below the 800.

I think we had a a minimum. So similar to what you all have, if you have a box hanger or any type of hanger on the airport grounds, you are going to pay, I think I'm trying to remember, a $150 minimum or 35 32¢ per square foot, whichever is greater. Same thing.

Was the $1.50 a monthly? Yeah. Yeah. It was monthly.

So do we do you do the 800 do you do this exactly the same? It's 800 minimum or 32¢ per square foot per

And this is specifically for box hangers? What's that? That's for any ground

Any hanger. Families within the confines of the airport. And that would apply to this guy here who's negotiating a, you know, a ground lease for the FBO Building should that be ever ever be nailed down. Yep. I think it's important to to And

I would I would also make a note. Typically, for hangars on airport, you have to lease an extra 15% of your square foot.

Correct. We should put, ground lease, footprint plus 15%. So just to do a 40 by 45 times 1.15, that's 20 2,070 for a 40 by 40 box hanger times point three two comes out to $662.40.

Then it's pay 800.

There you go. So it would be a minimum just like over there, just like everybody else.

So with that minimum then just be a flat 800 per year above?

Yeah. So it would be 800 divided by 12 is $66.66 66. These are to the 800 minimum or 32¢.

Yes. And it and we exactly the same. And it says annual. It's exactly what you owe. Perfect. And I think that gets us covers all our bases with respect to both crew defense, commercial, residential, ground leases with minimums. But it's important to have that

in there. To Lockheed's point, I mean, we're negotiating these ground leases right now. So through the RFP and through our process, that number might come out to I mean, this is what you're proposing, the sports proposing. It could be 40¢. It could be 30¢. It could be

Yeah. I'd say, you know, you said some of the numbers are malleable, some but there's also a target. I'd say there's 32¢, the commercial through the fence square, you know, per square foot because that is tied to the ground lease. That's probably the most malleable number in the proposal just because we're going through those negotiations for the ground lease rate. But it begs the question if the if you you call it negotiated ground lease for the RFP and with him, but doesn't that ground lease become

not so much negotiable? It's by code. Because right now, the code is 25¢.

It's adopted by our fee schedule annually. Yeah.

Yeah. So if if it's pegged at 32¢, does the developer get to negotiate a different rate? No. So it's set in stone. No. But what I

was saying is, you know, we've been at 25¢ for eight years, whatever it is. We don't necessarily know what the market rate is. We're going up to 32¢. We have some market research that says the rate is potentially higher than that. Correct. Part of the negotiations with Jason and with our developer will be market research to figure out what they can actually support in terms of a ground lease rate. And if that comes in at 40¢, then we're gonna increase the through the fence commercial probably to to 40¢ to go along with the ground lease.

We can amend our fee schedule.

I think I think you're saying what I'm saying rolling back the other the other

Yeah.

Yeah. I'm saying, well, it's good for the goose. It's good for the gander. Yeah. If you're gonna pay 40¢, well, then everybody needs to pay the 40¢ to maintain that statement of parity. Okay. Perfect. Everybody else everybody's good with that? Alright. I think we all have a solid understanding. Unless there's any further questions or debate, I'm gonna ask for you all guidance in terms of what should we do as a board now in terms of thumbs up or thumbs down.

I mean, we're looking for a recommendation from this body that this overall structure is your recommendation to council as some kind of vote of this body of the voting members. If you have there's 60 if you have at least four of you that say, yay, this will be presented in this form to counsel on Tuesdays. Right. And it's the structure. We're not asking them to approve it. This is just the results of this body's recommendation, and then it will be counsel's responsibility to direct us to pursue it further.

If you have so we don't necessarily need a formal document from us. Basically, all we need is to a motion, a second, to call the question regarding this as it stated and be done with it. Correct?

And then show up on Tuesday and represent it.

And Yeah. Columns a and d are the key to the columns b and c. Yeah. Up to you guys.

And, yeah, that's a study session. Council's having a study session. So even if, you know, these two and everybody else loved it so much, they wanted to approve it that night, They cannot. It's a study session. They're not gonna meet.

Oh, I know. Right. We all understand. There's Yeah. There's not gonna be any decision. And even if it was, it wouldn't happen on Tuesday because there's so many other things that need to happen. This is something that's going to take months Correct. To get to a point where you all vote on it.

So I make a

motion that we accept the fee proposal on the board and extend it to the council for their consideration next Tuesday.

Second. Yes.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? That's what

You only had to hold people hostage till 08:00, and there you go.

Oh, that's not yet. Oh, no. Sorry. Okay.

Gotta see the the grand finale, the impact, like, financials, lucky, like, the very bottom of what the

actual Yeah. I can't do that right now because I have to

change so much.

Yeah. Change a bunch of things.