Airport Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning, good morning, good morning. Thank you very much.

Okay, very good. Live mic. Okay, so City of Lincoln Airport Committee, July 15th, 2026. Let's see. Okay, call to order roll call, please.

Member Bob Piper-Ryder? Yes. Member Clara Ellis will be absent today with notifications. Member Lisa McArdle. Here. Member Byron Maynard. Here. Member Whitney Eklund. Here. And Chairperson Richard Perl.

Here. Thank you very much. Very good. Mr. Foote, would you lead us in the...

pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. Okay. Citizens addressing the committee, do we have anyone who would like to speak on a subject matter that's not on the agenda? All right, do we have anyone on Zoom?

Oh, there is one hand.

Okay.

Let me, Mr. Giboney, I apologize if I had said your name incorrectly. I have unmuted you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, I was hoping to ask about the monthly tie-down spots out at the airport, if there's any information on when they'll become available and the construction information that's on the website.

Matt, do you want to handle that?

Yeah. We're looking at resuming accepting new tie-downs after our Wings and Wheels event. We're compressed on space for that event. But after following that event, we will be open to taking on new tenants for tie-down spaces.

Okay. Awesome.

Okay. And that's August 28th and 29th. So after that, basically beginning in September, we're good to go. Very good. Anyone else you need?

We do not have any other hands raised online.

Thank you very much. Okay. Approval of the minutes of June 17.

Okay.

This is very good. Do I hear a second? All right. Thank you very much. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Two, four, five, zero. Thank you very much. Very good. Okay. Staff update. Okay.

Sure. So we've been working with Mayor Pearl on a modified financial pro forma for the airports and that document is included in your packet. So the intent would be to include this document as well as the financial status report on a quarterly basis going forward instead of a monthly basis, especially because in the airport sentences are just Is it really a lot of change from month to month? Even perform a document is a completely manual document that has to be re-threaded each quarter. There isn't a way to automate it. So because of that additional burden that Mayor Pearl was willing to agree to a quarterly application for it. Do you have questions? We can still make revisions to this. The one that was attached to the agenda, we noticed it was a side formula error. So we corrected that and provided a revised document at your stations for each of the committee members.

I'm just looking at the ones where there's some variation, a variance between the budget on the actual materials and supplies. That's understandable. And credit card fees, you just haven't purchased as much. The lease expense, Nita, can you just tell me what that is? $7,500. Sure. The lease expense, let me pull it up here.

It's the lease expense of $29,000. Yeah, so it's $29,000, but the budgeted was $48,000. I'll have to pull that and get back to you, Bob.

Okay. Next one in that same section is professional services, also lower than budget.

Yeah, so the professional services, that's really just an estimate of what the airport believes that it's going to need in terms of those types of services. I can put you a listing of what has been actually expensed, which might answer your question.

John Pimentel, It is this may one way to answer some of these questions is this. John Pimentel, One one fiscal year.

John Pimentel, or by it's one fiscal year and the budget is always based on the full fiscal year's worth of expenses and even though this document is dated as of the end of June we're still paying invoices for the site you're in June. 2025 or 2026. So that could include some of it, but I doubt that there's 35,000 of professional services out there that are yet to be paid.

We'll pull it, but my guess is that almost undoubtedly that's our airport engineer brand name engineering. And so we plug in a figure based on what we've spent in the prior years. And sometimes we just don't need the services as much as we thought.

And then the last there is the largest variance and that's construction. I assume that's construction that didn't happen.

Correct.

So what was budgeted for the year that didn't happen?

It's probably the apron slurry seal project. I know that's been bid. It hasn't started construction because we had an additional $250,000 grant that we were going to use it or lose it, and we're adding that on to expand that area. So I'd imagine we had planned on starting that project already, and it hasn't started. But there's no projects that have been planned and canceled. Everything's still in the queue. Okay.

And the last item is the transfer out. I assume it's just part of your moving thing back and forth between the city budget.

That's the way, one of the ways that one of the Interfund loans is recorded is through a transfer out process. There is like the debt service that is for the other Interfund loans. So the two loans are managed just slightly differently depending on the way that they were

originally formed. They were almost the end of their term on our hanger rent, hanger construction bond issue, which is good. Yeah. $50,000.

Yeah, I think that's up in 28, 29. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Which will be nice. That was over $2 million originally. The other thing I'm going to point out is that we're doing better than expected. For some reason, it may just be timing on our fuel margin. The budgeted margin was supposed to be 21%, and the actual so far is 50%. That's probably because of timing, so I'm expecting that more money is coming in, more expense is coming in on that because we shouldn't be off that far from budget. That's good. Let me see if there's anything else that popped out at me. Nope. Probably we asked questions that I was going to ask also. We have depreciation in there also. So essentially, we've lost $307,000 so far, of which this always boggles me is that 90% of that depreciation is on federal assets that we're having to be depreciating, unfortunately, which is just crazy. That's the way it is.

Any questions about the financials?

I did notice that we actually have this cash on hand in the airport fund.

Yes, the airport's had cash on hand for a number of years. It's not in a... The fund deficit status doesn't necessarily reflect the cash availability of the fund.

Which is a very good thing because if we were re-budgeting right now and we had a $300,000 hole, we'd be starting at a $300,000 hole. Yeah, right. Which would be nuts. Yes.

Yeah, so we have any other questions on the net? Is not operations. This guy.

Yeah, Scott's not here today. I'm just giving a brief update that he shared. The team's continuing to work on some of the mowing and spraying in preparation for wings and wheels of that. We did hear that there will be some prep work of the, I think, the potential balloon area by March. Western engineers, they're going to rule that area. There's some more hills that are going to flatten out over there, so it's a little bit safer for the wings and wheels event, but we're just continuing prepping for the event. Okay. And actually, I will add one thing. There was a, just as of, I believe, yesterday, there was one pilot that complained about the fuel quality. I guess he had a blockage in his fuel system, and we've looked or anything like that.

Good.

Any questions on operations? All right. Very good.

Fuel sales. Fuel sales, we have the monthly fuel sales report. You can see we're trending in the green, but year over year at the bottom, you can see we actually sold 1% less by volume of avgas and 14% increase in volume for jet fuel for the year. But obviously, we're trending in a good direction. year. And the negative 1% had to do with that test that we did. The negative 1% was by volume. So to imagine it's, you know, whether we had that gloomy period where it's very visibility was really poor for quite a while. I think that had an impact as well as potentially some of the construction activity.

Okay. Good.

Questions on fuel? All right. Um, Flight procedures memo.

The flight procedures memo, I believe you should have all seen a copy. We did the revision. We used Lisa's exhibit, shared that as part of the memo, and I followed up and sent the memo to the regional airports, Auburn, Yuba, Sac County, McClellan. We got an affirmative response back from Yuba that they've shared it with their or we haven't had any complaints, it seems like the memo was well received.

Great. And I shared, I called Mary Wick and Chris Braun, and I just spoke with Byron about it. So all the flight instructors, you know, have received the memo, no pushback, and we'll just, we'll monitor that. We can just go on FlightAware24 and see whether, we know what the theory is now, we'll just see whether the practicality, whether it's actually taking, just by watching the, especially in the critical period, 9 to 11 o'clock in We'll check and look at that, but at least we got out there. It was a good memo, and I think we'll just test it.

Oh, Matt, what about the sound equipment, sound monitoring? I sent you a text message yesterday. I spent 15 minutes typing in every search word I could think to pull up those quotes that you sent, and I couldn't find them. So I sent you a text. Hey, could you forward that to me or remind me of the company name? I just... Usually I couldn't find them, but I know they're in there. I just have thousands and thousands of emails and I was using every query I could think of and I couldn't find it. I was just like, you know, so I just sent you a text like, hey, I'm looking at you. Now I gotta find it. If you could read more, I would super appreciate it. Sorry.

No problem. Okay, good. Any questions on where we stand at this point for the problem, that would be excellent, obviously.

It takes a little while to format. It takes a little while to format.

Absolutely. Well, I think also as we go back through, we'll start doing some testing on FlightAware 24. And if someone is straying out, now we've got the memo was out there. We talked to the flight instructors. And we'll just move it from there. Seeking continued compliance. Safety paramount, of course. Okay, very Thank you very much. Any other questions? And Lisa, thanks for that.

Yes, sir. I wasn't sure if this is the right type of question. Does this change have any impact on the zoning in the area or structures? No.

Now, all we're doing is tightening up the pattern. What we found is that flight, the typical pattern was a mile offset of a downwind, of a downwind from centerline. And so that's at the outer edge, obviously, and that's right over OMS and everything else. So we've suggested strongly to back it up to a quarter mile, no more than three quarters of a mile, which also is much safer from a piloting standpoint. But there's no impact at all on us, on any of the zoning. We're really good right around the airport. Any other questions on that? Any comments, any Zoom? Anyone raise their hands?

There are no hands raising. Go ahead.

management services back. Yeah, management services, that's progressing. We've issued a notice to our union as part of the AB339. There's a 45-day notice period. We've entered that. My understanding, talking to our HR director last night, I believe there's a tentative meeting scheduled, I believe, for Friday, next Friday, maybe this Friday. So that's in progress. We did share the contract with the city attorney and received some preliminary feedback that they did suggest that we, you know, proceed with AV339 process before taking it to council. Okay. So is there a way to, what's the timeline on that, do you think? The timeline will be, well, I think that initial meeting with the union will, you know, be telling. That'll give us another decision point, whether they're in agreement with, you know, coming up with some, you know, side letter or something as far as As far as timing, the 45-day clock, I believe that started about 10 days ago, maybe two weeks ago. So the AB339 just requires that we meet and confer. It doesn't require any other further obligation of the city. So if the city was inclined to move forward and approve that contract after the 45-day period, we'd be in compliance with that assembly bill.

Is there a way to shorten the timeline with everyone's concurrence on our side and the impacted person?

Yes, that would be part of that meet and confer process if there was some agreement. Or they said, go ahead. Sure. I think that's a possibility.

Okay. So we can look forward to doing that on Monday.

I don't know if I'm going to participate in that meeting. I know our HR director is. I'm not sure if our city manager will be in that meeting, but...

Yeah, so just so everybody understands, the AB339 is a law that basically says that represented employees, public employees, if an agency, state, city, whatever, decides to outsource, privatize governmental functions, they can absolutely do that, but they're or whatever. It was a law that I think was kind of created to ensure that labor at least had a seat at the table and privatization was occurring before it occurred because if you go back 30 years, you might have worked in a garbage department or something and show up to work on a Monday and realize you don't have a job anymore. So it sort of closed that loop. This is a slightly different scenario for reasons I don't think we can talk about here, but The way it'll work is, you know, we sit down, we explain the kind of concept, why the city has been moving in this direction, what impact they have to employee or employees, and how we can make sure that we make them, you know, make a whole for them. But that said, notice has gone out. We have received a word from the group that likes to sit down and chat and, you know, report back.

Okay. Great.

We're going to take questions. And Sean, how about the development side of the issue?

Oh, yeah. So what we've been working on is, I think we're going to end up landing is the KT Arrow probably is not going to actually develop property within the 84 acres, meaning fill it. But what they probably will do is we will slice off a small amount of acreage as part of this deal, and we're helping them figure out how they can subdivide that acreage into lots of a sufficient size to sell those to whoever may want to develop it someplace. I don't think they're going to take it through the full building process, but they're going to do what we call papering lots, which means that they'll get everything set up for somebody to come in and go vertical. is to get something out there going yep okay very good questions on the management contract we're almost there so how much land where they get uh we'll work on that right now i think what we're starting off with um for i think qtr feels the same in that uh uh smaller is better because the larger the project Even if you're not building vertically, I mean, you know, Byron, there's lots of expensive costs of getting the lot ready to be built on, you know, water lines and sewer lines and electric lines and roads and curb cuts. And so if we were going to do a big, you know, 25 acre project, that's a very big check that the developer, KTR in this case, have to write. So what we've talked about is smaller in scale, it's probably less than five acres. split into i think probably get you know somewhere between seven ish lots out of that that would be buildable with aviation or light industrial kind of uses and now and what we'll do is is you kind of remember is under the terms of the deal is we will uh evaluate the value of the raw land uh and that will work against as a credit towards their services for the term

Any questions?

I highly recommend both of you for us as a developing land. You love it so much.

OK, no questions. Anyone on line?

There are no hands raised on mine.

Okay, very good. Wings and wheels. We're getting close about to six weeks out. I did get a parachute, a professional parachute drop coming in. So we'll get that with a big American flag part of the opening. That'll be cool. Still working on the T-38 flyover. outside of that everything is coming along with good aircraft and lots of cars and lots of good stuff going on.

It's not the same guy who... No, no.

We ask that they not give us the guy who went to Poland. Is he still doing that? Well, he was actually jumping the next day. Oh, okay. He's all right. I'm not sure if this is the same group. This is the group out of Yolo County. Yolo Skydive or something like that. Skydance. I think it's Skydance. So they're a professional group. And that'll be fine. That'll be the first time we've done something like that. So that'll be fine.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, good. Outside of that is fine. Okay, new business. Hangar waitlist.

Yeah, I provided a pretty detailed staff report with some of the updates and gleaned some information from some of our other regional airports in the area that have already established a program, and many of them have adopted ordinances. So this again, we're continuing to refine our approach. And we've kind of honed in on having. 3 separate wait lists, having a party system where we assign. Points to various. Factors that we value in our tenants, occupy occupant. population there at the airport. So I'm not sure if you want me to go through some of the details or if you're familiar with it, but we do have a timeline where we offer current members of the list to opt into a grandfathering, retaining their original date that we have on the original list, but they would be required to pay the fee, submit all of their information and paperwork to keep their spot on the list. Although it would be ramped based on the new priority system and wherever they fall in line with their score, they would then be sorted by date that they were originally added to the list. So I have received some feedback that, you know, one of the points I put into this, you know, as a starting discussion is it's the $75 annual fee. It's $75 annually. I have heard that some folks think that's too expensive. And some airports, you know, it's all across the board, but some of them apply that fee to... the future rent or deposit, if they go and they are selected, you know, say they've paid five years, $75 a year, a portion of that annual fee could go towards their rent. We could think about that. Right now I have it that it's non-refundable and it doesn't go towards your rent and that we have the full $75, but that's what it was adopted by council. We can always charge less. So I think that's something we might want to discuss. One thing in here that I regret adding was that we notified prospective tenants by certified mail on our track that. I just think we're trying not to burden our staff with a whole bunch of extra work. And I think just email should be sufficient for that communication process. And once we work out the details, I think we can get started once we decide at the committee level. But then it would be my goal to actually have it adopted by ordinance at the city council actual official framework, which would require two public hearings. But I think to get started, we think we can get something started and adjust the future once it's fully adopted.

Okay, very good.

I think it's fair to proportion some of that towards their future needs or costs. I like that idea.

And I did the evaluation last year. Some airports are charging a full month's rent as the application for the waiting list.

Is that reimbursable?

It does apply to award when they get, it is their true first month's rent, but that's how much. So $75 doesn't seem like a. compared to, you know, $1,000 to $2,000 for a first month's rent. So I just, whether we apportion part of it or not.

Yeah.

There is an administrative burden to taking those dollars for applications that, you know, couldn't be approved. We don't have spaces that we had. How long do we hold those funds? When do we return those funds? Exactly. As opposed to a nominal application fee that can be kept. That's an administrative fee for receiving and processing the application regardless of whether it's approved or not.

My preference is it's not reimbursable. It's not creditable to future rent. I think there's a lot of speculators on the list, and I think this will really list, you know, are you serious or not? You know, we're not going to have 125, 150 people we have to track down. you know, the people on the list are going to be very determined to get a hangar space.

And I do see that it says May certified mail. It doesn't say will.

Okay, good. It just says May.

So you left yourself a nice big interval.

I just, I almost took it out and I'm like, I'll leave it. But yeah, I want to take that part out.

Is there a value in doing both? What about Could we bridge the path of the administrative cost by raising it slightly so that it covers that, but also there's still a portion to... Reimbursement is a value in that or no?

I think what we would want to do is lower it to a dollar amount that we're comfortable not having any reimbursement. That would be my preference. Whether it's $50 application fee and $50 a year, if that's more palatable. But I think crediting it towards a future rent, it complicates things.

And even though the airport is an enterprise district, we're still not able to charge a fee that generates a profit. So any administrative charge that we have for taking the application really has to be reflective of the cost of doing the thing. I don't feel like $75 is too much.

We're talking about 10 lattes here.

Maybe it's $75 to apply and then a maintenance fee that's slightly less.

I think the question is, what is the expense that the maintenance fee is paying for? So if they're paying $75 for an application, what are they paying the additional amount? What's the burden on staff? What's the city really paying for to keep them on the list?

Yeah, it's website maintenance. And that's one of the things everybody wants is an active, current, updated list. So we're going to have our IT department working on that. We're going to have staff fielding calls. There is definitely time. commitment as well as verifying people are staying up on their insurance and process. So every year we're going to go back through, we're going to verify the list. Hey, did you pay? How many reminders are we going to send if they didn't pay? And then we're going to give them a notice. Hey, you're going to be dropped from the list. So there is going to be quite a bit of active work necessary. I don't think it's too burdensome. I think we can do it, but it's not going to be maintenance free. This is definitely going to take some effort. I think the fee is just money on 75. Yeah.

Yeah. So what is that number to be neutral?

I think that's a really good question for public works to determine is what's the level of effort involved in this? Because then we can assign a cost to it. And then it will be up to this committee to determine if that cost is too burdensome for what we're trying to do. Because it's challenging for any government agency to truly be full cost recovery and still keep the costs... attainable for most people.

I mean, I just think about it this way. We've been receiving zero dollars for that service. And so I don't know, Matt, but I would assume that when you have an opening, ranch or someone calls down the list and he probably doesn't get the first five or even 10 or 15 or 20 people. And so depending on if that number one person answers, then maybe it only costs the city 30 bucks, but it might cost the city $200 if he's spending a bunch of time trying to track them down. So I think probably in the wash, we end up close enough to neutral. There'll be a very small line item on your final statement here.

I would say that it's not full cost recovery. I know Jason has a very difficult time getting information from the pilot. So just to get complete applications, because we are going to require quite a bit of information to verify that they're, you know, they have a plane, have a pilot's license, they have insurance, they have the requirements. in the application process. So it will take, that initial will take time and to verify someone has all of the requirements to stay on the list, that'll be another effort.

So my thought is just let it ride at $75. We'll check it out as Matt and the crew get experience and what it takes to maintain the list. And we have to increase it fine if it decreases fine. But at least it's right now. It's not a bad start, but non-refundable. I mean, if $75, if you can't afford $75, you shouldn't be flying. Yeah.

Yeah, I have. Like, do we just put it up to 100 and figure it out?

I don't think it needs to go lower.

$1.75.

It doesn't need to go lower. $7.74.99. How's that? Okay. I'll say that, Matt.

I have a question on this. Does this cover all of the hangars or just the city-owned hangars? It's the city-owned hangars. Is there any way in the future... as leases come up, that participation in the waitlist would be a requirement. So that over time, you get everybody through one set of lists and administration. Because now it's totally fractured now, and we're trying to at least clean up the city-owned ones.

but yeah we're not necessarily going to manage if someone has like a ground lease and they have a hanger we're not necessarily going to manage that they have that right to manage their their hanger that they have the ground lease contract for what's the proportion of um owned to city i don't know i'd have to get back to you i'd have to check We do have a list. I just don't know.

In previous meetings, we had the map. And it's only like four rows, five rows of hangers that are city-owned.

Well, no. So now we have the ones that's on the south side also. Yeah. old Nuno hangers, plus the greens.

Still not very many. It's way less than half.

We need to come up with match money for the runway. I want to do ground lease renewals to the people that are that want to do it.

It's on my list.

The mayor wanted it yesterday, but it's on my list for sure. That is an opportunity for us to take care of something that otherwise I don't see any remote mechanism to handle.

Yeah, I have just, there's one, after I kind of and leave myself out of the leasing game after you, Byron. There's one remaining one that's been lagging a little bit. It's Zach Rockwell's piece on a flat line that I have half done, and we've just been wrangling about some of the parking space that he has, and I need to get that done. But what I'd really like, maybe there's something we can have in the future, Jim and I will have Matt, he's so nice, he does most of these I'll write this one up. Maybe what would be really useful for me is if we could set some standards of term The ground ones are all unique and unto themselves and need to be dealt with one by one. But what I found in renewing, like, so we renewed, did we renew yours too? We did, right? Renewed yours. I renewed Jeff Demers a while back. There's a couple more I think that we've done. But what I found during that time is that because sometimes time can lag quite a bit in between renewal A and renewal B, the terms sort of shift and change a little bit and it makes it a little bit difficult for me to negotiate that because while the individual tenant, groundless fee, has their own needs, they really should be dealt generally the same across the board in terms of like, look, this is what the airport committee has now established per square foot ground lease rate. If you want to deviate from that, you'll have to request that directly from this group and the city council. but it'd be nice to be able to come up with a really simple list of like, if you want to renew and get another 25 years or whatever, here are the things that you have to agree to, you know, 80 cents a square foot, if that's what it is, whatever it is, the cam charge, you know, maybe we throw in a little something where we require that they do a little bit of maintenance that may be deferred like that or in and around their anger, but like a short list of things, like here are the things that we have to have if you want more time. because as Matt said a number of times, the FAA's kind of feeling about this nationwide is that And, you know, and there's arguments both ways, right? But like, I do think that if you have people like a Jeff or you that have been out of the airport running businesses for a really long time, like it's to our benefit to renew you. So we keep those places there. I just would, I'm just saying, I'd like some structure so that I'm not counting it up all over the place. Yeah. And I've already created like a draft framework.

Actually. I've talked to Mary Wick, who is very interested in, Being the first on the list, there's, so I've identified like an incentive. But what I need to do is look at if they, so I think she has about 15 years left, right? A renewal, and what we need to talk about, some of the very granular details are, if you're within like a hangar, let's say there's five units in that hangar. Do we want the individual lease to expire at the end of the longest term or can they be individual termination dates? And I think we need to look at the long-term vision you know, that everyone kind of expires around the same time. So I think for each block of hangers, we might have to look at holistically, what's the termination of the hanger lease for this group? And then we would set, you know, if you have 10 years left and you want to go to 30, okay, you can do a 20-year extension. But there is going to be incentive to opting in early and getting your extension. There will be a financial benefit. But I have to look at both just like any tenant would. What's the cost if I... expiration and then renew and do an extension and deferral versus what do I do now? So one of the things how I'm going to incentivize or how I suggest we incentivize is if you opt in before, say, 2029, before January 1, 2029, it's a discounted rate, right? Maybe it's 80% of the deferral. After that date. So we incentivize people. Hey, if you want to save $10,000, you renew now for sure. You can wait until the end of your current lease 15 years from now and do it now. But what is their incentive to paying the higher ground lease right now? Paying. paying a capital upfront charge. Or what most programs do that I've seen, it's actually not an upfront capital. What they do is they see what the total value of the deferral is, and then they amortize that over the duration of the extension of the Okay, their current ground lease rate is say $250. Adding that deferral adds another 250. So now their monthly payment is $500, but they have 30 years. That's not necessarily what we want. We want upfront capital investment. So there's got to be a discount. So it's going to be a multi-tiered program. And I already kind of have figured out in my head, I just need to put it down on paper, but I have talked to Mary Wick about it. She is interested, but as Sean said, you know, the ground lease rate that was adopted per our master fee schedule is eight cents. You know, the cam charge, I think is going into effect. I think the staff have been working on that's going to be attached to the bills starting, I think in October rent payment, that'll be due. We're going to start collecting that money. And as I earlier promised that we would have something before, like by January, and then you said, I want this in the fall. Yeah, I think we'll have it. The framework will be reviewed by this committee before the end of the year, that commitment and sooner, the better. Yes. will be before the end of the year. And as Byron said, with the intent that we have an incentive structure to get upfront capital as soon as possible. And I haven't done the research to see, but we do have it on our list. When are the expiration dates? But some folks really want to lock in. If they have less than half their term remaining, there's folks very interested in extending out.

It's win-win. Yeah. And the airports that have done it, like Bandori, they're just doing really well. People will invest in an airport if they know that there's security and stability there. But I hear horror stories from pilots all over the place of airports that revert and, you know, it just shrinks the airport, turns into a ghost town. People... They just don't like that. They don't want to go from being an owner to a renter.

Yeah. And the more that we can get new ground leases, renewed ground leases online, keep in mind that lots of existing ground leases were on this ridiculous three cents a square thing. And the inflator that was associated with it changed at a fraction of a penny. So, like, some of them have been there a really long time, and they're only paying, like, 3.6 cents a square foot. So, at 8 cents, if we can get most people on to that more reasonable charge, you change your lease rate rather than just quite a bit. I'm not going to start saying that.

It's all going back to the airport. It's win-win.

And it says, honestly, we've done a market analysis on it. It's still in the lower mid area. We're seeing 15 to 20 cents in a number of even smaller airports elsewhere.

It will promote investment here at Lakely.

I would like to turn the attention back to the subject at hand, which is this hangar tie-down wait list. there's quite a bit of detail here and I really liked the committee. I don't think we can do it today, but go through the details and maybe send me an email on your thoughts. Cause there's a, there's a lot of detail here to this wait list and there's a lot of, um, decision points to be made. Um, so I just really, you know, as far as, you know, the point system, but as well as, um, know limits on subleasing you know i think i wrote in here no subleasing you know that's something we need to talk about there's a lot of that going on at the airport yes but there's a lot of very particular kind of uh new regulations kind of built into this for like new tenants so i'd really appreciate if everyone like took a hard look at this and went through it you know maybe use track changes or something because i think some of these could be controversial aircraft you need you know we kind of weeding out those out-of-state speculators that just want to you know get a lease and then turn around and sub-lease it you know not have any active activity on that did we say you needed that or that just gives you more points on the priority Priority is if you're local, but the subleasing is kind of a separate issue, right? Like, say nobody wants that box hangar, local or anywhere else, and you're the next one on the list because you've been there the longest. This would restrict you from subleasing.

Now, there's a caveat to that, and I think we discussed this at a prior meeting, but there are a lot of pilots that have multiple residences. And in the winter, you know, there's people that go north to Canada, go north to Montana. And they do lease their hangar out, sublease it during the summer so it doesn't sit there vacant, which I don't think is bad for the airport because it brings another airplane in here getting fuel and all that. But there are people that are doing that.

Yeah. So that's something we want to consider. Do we want to allow that? Are seasonal subleasing not... you know, permanent subwaysing. Also, you know, maximum amount of hangers, you know, we're saying, you know, you can have two T hangers and one box hangers. So, you know, nobody's out there playing, you know, tenant monopoly and acquiring, you know, six or seven of these because they have that many planes. That's something I wrote in here. Do we want that? Do we not want that? So there's a lot to review here. I just appreciate the feedback. So when we roll it out, we can get the buy-in from the airport users.

Thanks. I have reviewed it very carefully because I didn't start this process. First thing, I want to thank Lisa, and I want to thank you, Matt, for taking a lot of effort to work on this. You know, you did an initial survey that was very helpful, and Matt, you've taken all of those and moved with it. It is a lot of detail. But what we're talking right there, if you put some kind of provision in there that, yes, normally we do not allow these, but the special circumstances may be negotiated because then you can put in, okay, you can sublease to so-and-so and so-and-so, but they've got to have a private pilot's license. They've got to have insurance. You don't want people in there that aren't insured. And so have some way of doing that on a case-by-case basis if needed. But the standard is no subleasing.

Yeah, like if approved by the airport manager. Yeah, we can work that language out.

The limit on the number of hangers I thought was good as an opening. And then also the other thing was the subleasing. Those are the two things that jumped out at me to tighten it up. And then we could just... work to find to it, but it's a great starting point, Matt.

And Lisa, thank you. So yeah, if there's any more feedback, I'd really welcome it. And then I don't know if we want to do more outreach about this, you know, to get a broader community, or we want to refine it and initiate, you know, the We're able to charge the fee starting August 1st. That doesn't mean we need to start this. You know, I'd really like to get it right. So are we on a tight timeline? Not necessarily. But there is interest and people are asking. So and there's a lot of opinions, you know, on the frameworks.

I'm just thinking, posting it online and then getting a hold of the pilot groups and the EAA and just saying, if this is on the table, go look at it and get your opinion. Yeah, we could send it to that stakeholder. And we put it on the website. Yeah, like a draft.

Yeah.

I'm open to doing that.

Any other thoughts? Cool. Okay. One other thing on the wheels and wheels is that we are cautiously optimistic that the ramp will be completed. Just ahead of the wheels and wheels. probably we may have five days grace period, like pretty much what we had last year, the same thing. So nothing like having a little bit of angst towards the end. We'll have some backup. If the ramp is completed by some reason, we'll push everything like we did last year down to the south. If it is completed and we're hopeful, we'll push out the locus of activity. They muscle up against the new hangar, so that'll be fine. The other good thing is that the two big aircraft that we have, one is the Coast Guard C-27 and the A-26 bomber. We had to put them all the way out into the boonies the last time because of prop wash. And this year, what we're doing, we're getting tow bars for both of those aircraft. And so that we'll be able to take them and put them more at show center. So they'll come in, they'll stop, and we'll just tow them to wherever we want them to be. Because there's no reason for them to have an immediate extract. We don't have to worry about that. And we just put them wherever we want, which will be very good. Because last year, the 826 was all the way to the north end, and not many people walked through it. in the heat and so that'll be you know we can push them more towards the center and get more traction that way so that'll that'll be fun the other thing just for uh information and i'm not sure that i mentioned this a couple of months ago uh a consortium got together the city william jessup university uh the Aerospace Museum of California and Sacramento City College to kind of stand up a workforce development site center out at the airport. And we put in for a $5 million grant with the feds. They came back and they gave us, they've approved for going forward for final discussion in the Congress. a million dollars. And so we're pretty hopeful that we're going to get that million dollars, which would be for Jessup and for the Aerospace Museum. It's for bricks and mortar. And so we have to work through that exactly what we can do over here with that. But I think it's This aviation center out here at Lincoln, the best thing that we could do would be to get it on Flightline Drive. That was our original intent, is to put buildings on Flightline Drive, both for the Jessup and for the Aerospace Museum. apply that, go for some more grants that maybe in the future pivot back towards the flight line drive, especially for the museum. so what is the requirement for the million dollars what do you have to do with that money uh we didn't have to oh the only thing there's no requirement except it has to be used in for aviation obviously but but also bricks and water as originally most of the money was from the five mills for bricks and mortar but then we had a whole bunch of other stuff in there for uh flight simulators and a bunch of other things for jessup at an aerospace museum that is not going to be funded out of this particular grant. But next year, we'll look for both this, another HUD grant, but also scouring the FEC database for funding that we could use for Flight Simpsons and the Aerospace Museums. We'll build that up. So we don't have to do anything for it. It's our money.

But you have to spend it on a building?

We have to spend it on bricks and mortar. So are you guys looking to build a building with it then? Well, it could be one of the hangars to Jessup. That's obvious. We're not sure what we can do with the museum because a million dollars, well, it's a lot of money. It doesn't go all that far when you start talking about a couple of hangars. So we're still playing around then on the details. It's not guaranteed, but if it works, it should be in force on October 1st because that's the start of the federal new year. So more to come on that. But it's a great collaboration between a number of different public and private agencies. And we can create this whole thing over there. There's only four... combined sites in the country that offer flight training for scholastic flight training, ATC, a museum, and air traffic control. There's only four, including Embry-Riddle is one. Obviously, UND is another one. And there are two of the ones that are relatively small. So if we're successful in putting this together, we'd be number five in the country. So it's exciting. We'll see what happens. It's a good goal. So that's all I got. Anything else for the good of the order? All right. 11 o'clock. Shortest meeting in a long time. All right.