Airport Board - Regular Meeting

What's going on? I can hear you. Can you hear? Okay, thanks, Lance. We're on the run.

Okay, we are going.

Okay. You ready to call? Yep, yep, yep. You want me to roll call first? Or we can do the pledge. CHAIR BAILET. Call to order.

CHAIR BAILET. JR is absent. Ken? MR. Here.

CHAIR BAILET.

Glenda is absent. Michael Malosh?

MR.

Here. CHAIR BAILET. John Moat? MR. Here. CHAIR BAILET. Don Bonham is en route. And David Pierre is here. And next.

MR. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

How do you do it?

Right here?

To the left? This one?

Come show me. This one? Okay.

That's better. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Technology.

I'd second the motion.

Discussion?

I think maybe we got muted again. Technical difficulties.

So, again, it seems to me we talked about a water level issue because David brought up the fact that he pumped his tank and it was filled back up the day before.

I just had a lotion tank, so we got muted. I think we used that lower left button.

Okay.

There we are. All set. Hey, Ken.

Good evening. Okay.

Hello.

So, again, I think sometime during either the public comment or the time when we were talking about the sewer project being delayed because of the water level at the airport,

Ken, did you catch that?

Please mute. We're getting feedback.

Are we still getting feedback?

Ken's muted now. Somebody else. At any rate, I thought that we talked about that. And Leland suggested that we undo whatever we did to change maybe the water direction. We talked a little bit about looking at the, I don't know, there's a drainage pipe or something, see if that was plugged. And Tim was asked to send a note out to airport users, letting everybody else know not to pump their sewage.

I guess I understand.

What do you mean not to pump our sewage? Right, but how do we capture information from the public as well as board members if we don't write it down? Unless we're gonna document it when we talk about it today, because that's on the agenda for today.

So the conversation is part of the official record with audio and visual. I only capture who's here, who spoke, or any actions.

Yeah.

The video and the audio, if you were to watch it, is the official record of the minutes.

So the only way we know or remind ourselves about that is... Lance, can you hear anything with them?

No, they seem to be getting feedback on their own side because everybody online is muted. I'm not sure why they're getting feedback. Okay. It's just you and me online, but they're muted. We can have our own conversation. I think they can hear us. Oh, okay.

Can you guys hear us now?

We can hear you now. We couldn't hear you before.

What, Tim?

Those guys might have to jump out and come back in.

There might be something that's up in there.

You guys are still getting feedback on your end?

Could you guys jump back off and then back on again and see if that fixes this reverb that we're having?

I can try. I'm guessing it looks like Chris has logged in twice. I'm not sure that's causing it. That's what I was wondering, actually, as well.

there is that better keep talking keep talking talking talking is that any better okay thank you okay thanks id i i didn't hear anything about uh you guys started talking about something about the uh the water flowing out there and that's the last i heard before we were muted don was talking about minutes and the discussion um that we had with regard to the water and

My recollection was that Tim was going to send a note out to, I don't know, whether it was just the south end users, whether it was affected by the water that we talked about. I think there was some public comment regarding checking the drainage pipe and undoing whatever we did. And I don't know if what we did was under the airport project work or if it was under the sewer project work. because it was never really identified, how we would undo what we did with either of those two projects to help with the water flooding issue at the south end of the airport. Right, David?

Yeah, can we do that on old business and take care of this to get approval of our meeting minutes?

Well, yeah, my comment was that the meeting minutes didn't reflect any of the information.

They don't reflect any of that. So it's just what we voted on. So if it came up, it's in discussion of audio-visual. So the only way we get action done is if somebody votes on it?

The board of commissioners did take action on it following the meeting. We had Julie Foster was brought in with that visit with Dave airport engineer. I'm not the airport engineer. Okay.

So, and we're going to discuss that later today.

Brian Hawks. So I missed the meetings, the last part, last month when we discussed airport fees going up for lease fees, and I was just trying to watch because I couldn't get the audio off the video for some reason. Maybe that was my fault, but I couldn't get any audio off of it. I did watch to think through it, but it just made me think about something I think that we can address in general and I think needs to be addressed, and that is that The airport's an asset to the county. I think the county commissioners need to see it in that context as well as the board. The monies, I looked into monies that are generated by the airport. They can't go into the general fund under the federal law 49 USC 47107B. It requires that airport revenue be used for capital or operating costs at the airport. So there's some discrepancy in how those monies are used and what's generated there, and it made me think when Commissioner Holes, which I wish was here, said, well, I work for the county and not for, you know, so I'm just trying to think about some comparisons there when you made a reference to 84 cents cost of a typical lease in town. And there's some great comparisons to be made there that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. And simply, as we think about it, we need to realize that we have an airport and an opportunity for the county to make money generated from taxes. The money that comes from fees, landing fees, other lease, should be done and used for capital improvements, I believe should be managed by the manager and this board as well. for capital improvements, which I don't see are happening there. We should be happy to have the shiniest airport on the hill to quote the late Ronald Reagan, which I actually said to him, because I love that idea, because then we appeal to people and have people come in, generates income for the county, and they have an asset that wasn't paid for by them, was paid for by FAA money. And I think we need to keep that in mind, that before we start looking at some of those thoughts, we do make apples to apples comparison, that you're not paying for the infrastructure. I'd be happy to give up my 50 by 60 hanger and have them pay for the infrastructure. I quantified it real quick, and it's about $11,000 in the 30 years they would make off that, which is 100% return on investment, or they make $75,000, which is what they're grabbing after. We're on a $300,000 investment, which is less than a 0.01% ROI, which sucks. I mean, no bank would take that on, and no county would take that on with any consideration. So they're getting 100% money back on something they didn't pay for, a business that I think we should see as a beautiful, awesome business, effectively, or a self-sustaining asset that the county has that not only pays for its improvements that we can utilize to make it something awesome so that people want to build hangers, want to come there and want to utilize that. And lastly, I'll say that that's my concern, is general aviation is the largest influx and largest user of any of these areas in general. We're the largest, we were the, at one time, the busiest general aviation airport in Montana. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in that context, we should be the nicest and the neatest and one that people love. We're a jumping-off position for the backcountry and a lot of opportunity, a lot of commerce comes through there. It was quantified when they put together the AIP and the airport improvement plan, and they were trying to quantify it. I know Pesha did a good job of basically saying, hey, there's value in this. It drives this much money into your community. It not only brings airports and hangars, but we need to quit looking at it as our bastard child that we're trying to exact money out of and take a pound of flesh out of anyone who has an airplane. Because most of the people that have an airplane are not the jets that come in and out of here. And we shouldn't villainize them either because wealthy is anyone who has more money than you. And so we should realize we're all wealthy to somebody. And some of us choose to spend our money on aircraft. And we are middle income people in the world that have just decided to do that rather than camp and have a camper or do something else with our extra money and our extra time. So I think there needs to be a real thought process shift. It needs to start with the county commissioners. And I was hoping some of them would be here to to say that, because I'm happy to quantify the reason for that, my thought process, and the basis as to why they're not seeing this as for what it should be seen as.

So you have one county commissioner here starting in January. Oh, perfect.

There you go.

What was that code section?

Oh, yeah. It's federal law. It's particularly under 49 U.S.C. 47107B. And what it does, it requires airport revenue be used for capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport, and other federally permitted purposes. And Ravalli can't just generally take, simply take money out of the general fund to pay unrelated county expenses. It has to be used there. And if they do, there's some real violation. The money's not airport-generated. What they quantify as airport-generated revenue is not the taxes from the hangars, but it's hangar leases, airport land leases, fuels, fees, tie-downs, et cetera. They're subject to the FAA requirements, revenue use requirements, because they paid for it. And that's the deal is we're buying you this business. You can generate tax income from this, and you can use the monies that are generated by it to make it awesome so you can get more tax revenue and also so your county and everything else gets some – some ancillary benefit from it which is very sizable it's not it's in the millions and millions of dollars so i remember when they were doing it and i know pesha could speak to that a little more but just sometimes i feel like it's it's someone against the airport and i'm not against anybody i'm happy to be corrected when i'm wrong but i think we're really out of line and even considering that it's just it's just so out there it doesn't even meet the standard mike that would also fall under either grant assurance number 22 or number 24 i can't remember off the top of my head but it's

either 22 or 24, it's called revenue diversion. It speaks about revenue diversion and what can and can't happen with money. In a nutshell, taxes is the only thing that could be utilized by the county.

Correct. Yeah, and that's why I'm not sure when I asked Dan that question. We're good now. That's why. last month when I asked Dan that question directly, was it these deposited for the landing fees, the hanger, into the general fund? And he said, yes, it was. So there may be a contradiction of.

He might not know. I would ask Janet. She might have a better answer. Who, Jana?

I've seen your, I coordinate with Jana with pay requests and budgets and everything every year. Ravalli County keeps a separate airport specific account. I'm 99.9% certain that they track all revenue, including grant funding revenue in an airport specific account. And it's not going into it may be an overall like fund or general fund but there is a specific airport related account that that fund those funds are going in and out of those that grant assurance has existed um since the start of the aip program so all counties are set up with a very similar uh airport specific account that would include any mill levies that may have been levied in the past and are held there. So I'm 99.9% certain that that's being done.

Okay. Thanks, Lance.

Yep.

The financials. Who was doing that?

Commissioner Holes was, but I can tell you what they are if you'd like. Okay. The expenses year-to-date is $10,613.41. The income year-to-date, and year-to-date is from July 1, is $52,109.21. Annual lease payments paid to date are $38,853.90. Whose are projected?

I don't have projected.

Oh, whoops. Yes, I do. Projected. Committed appropriation.

$114,204.00.

is estimated revenue. And then we have 23 invoices not paid.

Those are leases?

Say that again, I'm sorry.

Leases.

Leases, yeah.

How many total leases?

We had 88. So we have 23 left to pay. Thank you. And vector for landing fees is not in.

Motion to pass. Approve these.

It's accept. What's that? Accept the report.

Financials.

I move to accept the financial reports.

John seconds. All approved. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Consent agenda.

guess we could do that water issue now so old business number five you want to go to that oh okay I see it's down there yeah we can do it at that time the scheduling of Airport Road and the cafe parking lot won't happen until after the sewer connections and that won't happen until the water issues are done.

So that's items one and two?

Yeah.

Okay, so Dan's not here for that. Okay, number three.

For the access road, I haven't had time to move gravel. I've been more concerned with water, and I haven't had time to catch up with Ken, who's volunteered graciously to help out with that. The gravel is in place. It just needs to get moved around, and it's been a pretty busy month.

Okay. Okay. Number four.

Before the status of the review for the leasing development construction guidelines, you can go ahead and schedule the committee for it. I would recommend Brian maybe be part of that selection if he's willing to do so.

Tim, will you bring the mic closer, please?

So we're looking at leasing, developing, and construction guidelines. It's more or less just a review of the process and steps that it takes for somebody to do business at the airport. It's also a reference for for staff here at the county level to have some guiding documents that can tell us what to do. Right now we're right over three separate documents, minimum standards, rules and regulations, and then we've got another one for a checklist that's for building standards. So it's kind of all over the place. And so this brings it under one roof and it gets added into our rules and standards updated document. we can go ahead and get that scheduled and I can get that email out to just about wherever you want. Okay.

Hey, Brian. Yes, sir. Would you want to be, we're still just finishing up our rules and regulations, but under the thing we're trying to, as Tim brought up, we're trying to put the construction guidelines, it was actually a checklist and stuff for that. Okay. Would you want, to have input on that as well?

Sure. Yeah, if I can harness my wife. Because she's the one that does all that paperwork stuff. She knows that from start to finish, all that. She's sharp, and I think she can cheat. So can I use a cheat sheet?

So you're volunteering April?

Yeah, she'll be fine with it. I told her she needs it. 31 years ago, yesterday, she had

Especially the words about putting a harness on your wife. That's right.

I'll help out. Okay. Because they're just trying to make a checklist that shows. So we just wanted something to actually.

That we can point him to online to follow through.

I was going to say, for the sake of Brian's relationship, can we extend the invitation to his wife also?

So Tim, Brian, and April, anybody else? Tim, do you schedule that or do you want to schedule it right now?

Whatever's going to be convenient. I'm retired, so don't make any difference. Ken, are you wanting to be part of that? It's more or less looking at process than it is anything else.

You're asking me? Yes, I'll do it.

Okay, perfect.

You'll arrange that via email? Sure. Okay. Number five.

Water issue at the airport. I had some help today from Levi Fox helped me pull the rest of the corrugated pipe through the fence from the neighbor's yard. The water is not increasing. It's decreasing slowly. So it's not really affecting anything at the moment. I left the pipe out there for now along the side of the road just in case we do need to increase that with the storms that were coming in. It's in process right now that we're gonna have a discussion with that same neighbor that allowed us to essentially go over our property and go into the ditch. They're gonna sit down with probably Dan and see if they can come up with an agreement or an easement, something like that, discuss between them about having that culvert extended so that when we have another anomaly like that, it can just get fed over to the other side The engineer for the sewer that came out verified that we wouldn't have any issue going ahead and digging into the road and digging down and then putting a simple four or six-inch pipe through there. So the next step is having a discussion with the neighbor. So that's where that's at.

So just for my application, I'm looking at this. The diagram of the airport. Are we going on that southwest corner we're running that pipe, or where is that going?

Southwest, it's in the new section there, just below the big hangars that are in there. Okay. There's a culvert that runs to the west underneath the taxi lane in between the very last hanger.

Okay, I got that.

So it's between Ellsworth and the other one. So there is other action happening on the water aside from just that correct oh, yeah, okay, yeah And what would that be the action with the water yeah, I just told you we need to do the next step is to have a conversation with the neighbors to see if we can.

Well, I think what I was referring to is with the lady from the county and the engineers that came out, do you know the latest on any of that, or is that all commissioner level?

No, just what we all received via email. Okay. The same one that you were included in on that, same email. On the water? I don't think I got one. Did she come out there?

She came out and looked.

No, I mean after. Once we sat with the commissioners and kind of hashed out what we were going to do.

I'm not aware of anything after that.

Oh, okay. I was told that she was going to come out and visit with you or write an email or whatever the follow-up was with you. I would contact her.

Okay, I guess I'm confused on the timeline. I did meet with her, showed her what the water was. And from what I understood, Dan was having engineers come out to see if they could diagnose where the water was coming from.

Oh, yeah. There's no progress with that regard.

Okay.

Yeah, there's no progress on that. It's scratching his head just as much as all of us were. So I don't have a follow-up to that. I'm not sure. Is Julie back yet?

Maybe this week.

Okay. She's been on vacation.

Is my hangar the only one that's affected where the bathroom is unusable because of the water? From my understanding, yeah.

So what was the change that occurred that caused some of this?

There's a lot of theories we don't know. That's why we're waiting for an engineer to maybe say something about it. and he'll probably have to contact and talk with Lance in that regard. That's combining two different things.

So are there several things that they're looking at? And is there a list?

I can't speak to it. It's in the engineer's hand. He came out. I took him for the tour. He's got the information that he needs, I'm sure, from Julie, so I would ask the city engineer over in Hamilton.

So it's a city engineer, so it has something to do with the sewer installation?

I believe in that. correspondence that we had and even maybe even in that email it was said that for you to take care of your tank.

Sorry?

I think it was stated in that email that you were to take care of your tank. I know the commissioners had met on that the issue with that and they had pointed to the subgrade of your entrance to your tank

I'm unaware of any of that.

My delegation stopped at Julie Foster once that came across them. I understand that. I'm waiting for the... Sure.

Yeah, I know this had gone to the commissioner level, and he had talked, and I was waiting for a response from them. I was just curious if you had any updates.

I don't have anything.

Okay.

on water issue? Okay. You're up, Tim, with the manager's report.

Okay, Forest Service, in addition to the manager's report, did you guys have any questions on that report? Well, if not, Forest Service wildfire operations were the absolute dominant operational activity for the month. At one point we had, I think it was last Monday, we had a total of nine helicopters. So we had even one was included behind the SRE building because we were just out of room to put helicopters. So it's been, that helipad has definitely been serving its utility. We had a sky crane and one of the Blackhawks. And this incident took place twice, which was the downdraft from those sky cranes is pretty hard. And so there was a lot of concern there with the other aircraft being on that helipad. So we ended up having to slide him over onto the asphalt, had no issues there at all. It's been pretty good, but that was a hopping day. There was a lot of sticking with these guys whenever they would come in. They would fly out. They'd be gone for two hours and then come back, and most of the time it was in unison when they were leaving. But there were affected areas like taxi lanes. There were a couple incidents where they had put down the bucket and drop line right in the way of the taxi lane, which we had kind of gone back and forth with and worked out eventually, but it was enough to Warrant sitting out there making sure that they weren't causing any damage to anything or, you know, putting stuff where they shouldn't be putting it down.

That was dragging the bucket, the Bambi buckets and stuff across the taxiway?

Yeah, they would just drop it. And it was usually the guys that were first coming on, first crews that were coming on were dealing with that one. Pavement maintenance project, that wrapped up. However, there was an incident where we did have an aircraft that decided it was going to taxi out, realized something wasn't right. taxied back to their hangar. It was noticed by the engineer that was out there. And next thing she knew, because she had traveled to the other end of the field, there was an aircraft that decided to take off while the airport was closed. Notum had been out for two weeks. The emails had gone out twice about the closure. There was clear evidence. with Xs at the ends of each runway. All of the hash marks down the center and the large threshold marks were covered with asphalt shingle, is what they used for edging. And we still had an aircraft take off, no announcement, anything like that. It was a tenant of ours. They attempted, probably about 20 minutes later, to come back into the airport, announce, The engineer was faster than I was to get on the radio because there was equipment and people on the runway during this time. So everybody was kind of on edge after that occurred, for sure. So the incursion, which is now verifiable, that's gone up to the FISDO. So it's in their hands. They've asked me not to get involved, and I'm not going to.

Okay, so it did get an incident report for a runway incursion? Right, yeah.

I was able to get statements from Mary Bell, the engineer, as well as the contractors that were out there for that incident. And then I got a call from the FISDO, so it's in their hands and they're doing their investigation.

Okay.

Let's see. All right. Tim, before you get off the helicopters, I had somebody ask me this, and it's an interesting question, but the helicopters are owned by private contractors that contract to the Forest Service in many cases.

Yep.

Okay. So they're making money landing their helicopters here to go fight forest fires. Are they paying for the use of the ramp?

No, and that's where we're going with this rules and regulations. There's a In there we've worked on a permitting process for them to do so. We can charge a flowage fee on top of that. It doesn't have to be the standard fee of what we have right now. It's suggested that we're about 10 cents on the gallon anything that's rolling through there, but there would be a permitting process and an application involved in that. That would also require them to provide us with certificate of insurance as well, because that's a big liability sitting out there in bomb form. So yes, now that we have that in place with the Forest Service and that's a leased area, Now we can go ahead and put that mechanism in there for probably next month.

And that would cover wear and tear of the property? Right, yep.

It's to recover that utilization over there.

Right now, there's no way to track the amount of fuel that they upload that they actually bring on themselves onto the airport. So Tim had been working on that, trying to come to some agreement with them.

I've done that with operating sprayers. We go someplace and bring our own fuel. The airport doesn't like that.

We actually started talking to the Forest Service about it back in February, I think it was, when they first brought up the military plan that was going to be out there. So once they were doing this project, it was part of the conversation of recovering the cost.

Yeah.

On our end, it was over 66 hours of my own voluntary time for the time that they were out here. But I didn't log anywhere. So it was quite a bit. And giving that report to the Forest Service, they did an after-action report and a wind-up for that project, and I included that in my report today.

So I have a quick question on the fuel flowage fees, just I guess for my iteration. So are you saying to charge flowage fees to the companies that are coming there that have already paid fuel tax fees for fuel that they're bringing onto the field?

Yeah, because this would be a through-the-fence operation. I don't know anything about that. the previous statement, but as far as from the context of them coming on to the airport to maintain... No, I understand that for the military helicopters.

I guess maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought I heard you say or someone say that you were looking at charging the firefighters fuel flowage fees for having their aircraft there, for using fuel in the aircraft. Did I misunderstand that?

No, as a contractor, that's one way we can recuperate money for wear and tear on the usage of the facility.

So I'd personally say I'd want to think that through. I'm not saying you're wrong. I mean, but one thing I think through is these guys have already paid their fuel fees. They've already paid all their fuel taxes in these semi trucks that they're bringing in their own fuel trucks. It might be something to see how other airports are doing that. And then two, I would give far advanced notice to these operators that you're doing that because they're already paying taxes and fees wherever that they're getting their fuel at already. So maybe it might be something where they'd want to just unload fuel at the airport. And I say this because depending where they're getting their fuel loads from, the fuel fees are different and the taxes are different to some degree wherever if they're picking up in Billings or another state and bring in whatever. It would be something I would think would be well thought out on our end to see how other airports are handling that, one. And then, two, at a minimum, giving considerable notification to these companies that you're looking at doing it. Because as an operator, I would see it as getting taxed twice. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. There's wear and tear. Again, we've got to cover it. There's no dispute with me with that. I'm just trying to forward think from an operator standpoint how that would be. And that might get a little muddy depending on how we handle that. Just a thought.

So four of the six contractors that have been out there, four of them had contacted me directly about flowage fees. Okay, great. We don't have those, but I would be interested to see if there is alternatives that are out there. That's a good point.

I'm just curious.

Yeah, because a lot of times when we used facilities at airports, especially if we didn't get charged, we always bought courtesy fuel, you know, 500 gallons or something to we go walk through their facilities and it was just common courtesy.

Some of these guys did use Ascension when they were coming in late or they were on their initial flights and they didn't have support vehicles in place at the time. So it was good to see that business go over there. I would love to see a deal between the Forest Service that's here and Ascension. That would be an optimal deal. situation for everybody all the way around. But I understand where the Forest Service is at, too. They've got a good contract fuel price. That's really hard to beat.

So this is, would this be something, because we're trying to put something together to address this, is this a rules and regulations area? So this would fall under minimum standards.

Minimum standards. Because it's a commercial aeronautical activity. So we've got it, we've It was actually one of the, it was a crux for us as a group. We had to address it a couple of times, and we were able to get down to the consensus, hey, we need a permitting process and a requirement for this. So that's all coming down the pike for you guys to look at. Got a question behind me.

Yeah, Robin.

So I had two of those tanker drivers bring in fuel trucks and come into the FBO asking where they could pay for their fuel fees. So they aren't familiar with doing that.

Either way, the contractor and Lance and Mary, those guys did a fantastic job with that helipad. It was well thought out. The only other consideration that's going to get looked at at some point is probably a hydrant with the consideration and the thought that should a seat base get established, can we get water closer than the ditch?

Just dig a hole someplace.

I mean, looking at it from my perspective and seeing how much water is on the east side of that runway, if that was focused a little bit, if we could just get a hold of that water and be more efficient with it and getting it into the drainage system out there, that water just comes. Yeah, the I mean, we could put, it wouldn't take anything to put a 30,000-gallon cistern out there, and that thing would just continue. It would just fill. Couldn't keep up with it. Actually, when we started, the guys had come in to start working on the sewer project connections. They had a pump truck that was just not keeping up with any of the water out there, so they spent the day pumping water, and that's about all they got. The water filled right back up. They hit the water table at two feet under the ground so they won't be back for a while. That's all I got on highlights for the manager's report. Thank you.

And then what's that? Lance, yeah.

Yep, I'm unmuted now. Yeah, really? Tim covered everything for the most part. We finished the maintenance final striping. So we're in grant grant close out process for that. The helipad project. Um, they were able to work between operations there and the entire they installed the fixed wing. Parking position tie down anchors. So they got those and start installed for again for fixed wing. They're on the east side of that ramp adjacent kind of to the hella pads. The only remaining punch list item we have on that is the electrical We're trying to get the electricals in at those helipad locations, but that's explosion proof electrical. So there's some specific. Plugs and receptacles that need to be installed there and we needed those to be explosion proof because essentially we can't control when they're fueling out there adjacent to the electrical. So, then, if they're fueling directly at those sites, and we have the electrical right there, we have explosion proof requirements. So we're trying to get the essentially get the, the stand and the reset and the plugs in the cord. Um, installed as part of the installation, it will be separate movable. Um, but basically supply that as part of the project so that the forest service can then make use of those and they don't have to go get those directly. So that's the only punch list item that will come as a change or the actual. Like equipment, because it's not part of that the construction project itself, but that's really the only way that the forest service can make use of those of that electrical. So. That is ongoing. The only other item I had to let you know is that you guys, I sent some emails about Phillipsburg, Granite County. They generated some non-primary entitlement funds with the FAA because they're trying to get into the non-primary entitlement eligible system. So they generated $474,000 that are sitting there. And I don't think they're going to make The FAA eligibility criteria. So I had reached out to him and asked because they had 24,494 dollars that was set to expire. If they didn't use it this year, well, they didn't have ability to use it. So they did agree to transfer you those those funds. If they can make use of those funds, if they make the system and they become eligible, we'd have to pay those funds back. I don't foresee that occurring. So I thought it was a good process to go through because what it does do is it kind of establishes that line of communication because they have 150,000 that's going to expire in each of the next three years. And if they can't become eligible, I want to be able to capture those funds for you all that 450,000 that's going to expire at 150,000 dollars a year. So that 24,000 went into your payment maintenance project. which is kind of funny. It was just the easiest place to install it. We're actually gonna then spend that old money and recover because we had a project under run and now we're under run by that 24,000 as well. And then you'll recover that money back into your non-primary entitlement account with newer funds. So it'll sit in your quote unquote FAA bank account. So I've been putting some effort into that more than the $24,000 is probably worth, but there's $450,000 worth of potential there in the future. The only other item while Tim was talking is fire suppression wells and water rights. There are no water rights for fire suppression wells as long as it's not hooked up to a separate. It's got to be solely a fire suppression well. It can't be hooked into anything else. same goes if you hook into if you do a fire suppression well for a hanger that needs fire sprinklers or anything like that as long as it's not hooked in then hooked into your drinking water or something else your regular well there's no water rights for that fire suppression well so you could probably drill pretty easily drill a very shallow well with the cistern and generate water immediately adjacent so that's something that could be done i would think relatively easily. That's it for me unless anybody has any questions.

No questions.

And I have to run here at four just so you all know, I typically hang on the line and listen to the rest of your meeting, but I have another overlapping meeting at four.

Thanks, Lance. Thank you, Lance. Yeah, thank you, Lance. So no response from the FAA about the meeting for the approach?

He told me August and I said, well, we're past August. I just emailed him again. I've been emailing him every other week. So I'll send another email right now. And, but no, no update on that.

All right, thank you. No response.

So I'll send another email right now though, and I'll copy you.

Okay. New business.

We have a name change for hanger E271N. 5387 taxi lane E from Michael and his wife to the Malosh Trust. Michael and Julie Malosh Trust. I have the new lease form. I have an RTC and I have the recording fees.

Since it's mine, I'll recuse myself from that. So we'll need your help, Ken.

So I would make a motion to go ahead and approve if we're just adjusting. We're also adjusting the timeframe on the lease to a 30-year lease, or what are we doing with that?

Yes.

I would make a motion to go ahead and approve it as stated.

I'd second that.

Okay, all approved? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, passes.

Second one, new hangar construction, Carpe, Tim.

Mr. Carpe would like to build a new hangar for his own personal aeronautical use. You have the documents and the checklist there that were provided.

And he's in the process of buying his airplane for it right now. I do know that as fact. So he'll have an airplane. And, yeah, it's a good use of the space. And I think it'll be a nice hangar. So that's what I would say about it.

I did have one question on the diagram that was sent with the paperwork. It says proposed site. Is he not leased that site yet? Or is that just an old?

there's no lease in place until uh after commissioner approval okay that's that's right now and he was where's the

So I had a question looking at the layout. He shows like 30-foot separation, what, between the next neighboring lots, but usually the lease only extends, what, 10-foot outside the hangar walls. So is that a thing where we're trying to put a 60 by 60 in an area where there's a bigger hangar allotted, and does that cause a shifting of hangars and to No, sure that we, you know, maximize the hangers usage in that area.

No, the, uh, the offset is 30 foot off of the, from the center of the taxi lane is the LFA.

What does it say on there? It's 30 feet on each side of the hanger, as well as 30 feet off the edge of, it appears, edge of taxiway E. Echo.

So, and what's the taxiway? So, that would probably be, I wish Lance was on, that would go with the FAA form. That would have to be submitted to them.

And that was conformal to what we had limited there?

It'll go on that FAA form.

I know, but the 60 feet, it wasn't 50 feet. It was 60 feet there. Where? 40 feet. Where his proposed site is.

So that'll be part of the response from the FAA.

From the front to the back, it wasn't limited to 50. It was a 60-foot in that space.

What's limited? Are you talking about the OFA?

Yeah.

Because I know there was a limitation where I went, but I was going 70 feet there. So I just did it.

It's whatever the current ALP state is.

No, I'm not looking at that. That's it. That doesn't matter. It's what would the depth with the road behind it with the sewer on it. So it is 60 there.

Where is it?

Ellsworth. It's down from Ellsworth, I think.

Oh, down beyond Chris Barrow. Yeah.

Yeah, 60. 60, okay.

Yeah, the only thing they, yeah, I can tell you. I don't know.

Okay.

Oh, as I recall, I couldn't go 70 there because it was limited.

That was what we got into that discussion a while back. Did he call you, right?

He could. I told him to give you a buzz on it. Yeah.

I have a general question, just because this lot came up and it's gonna be down in that area where it's wet. Is there gonna, could it be a suggestion that new builders be aware of this water problem, and it's a suggestion? So him and I talked about it. Sump and water mitigation for the hangar, you know, sump pumps and stuff.

Him and I had talked about that area down there, and I even made the suggestion to him that maybe we, it would be a good first move maybe to give call before you dig a call, and then come out with a mini excavator and just dig a couple test holes to see what you're actually running into. It's only going to help to, and he gets a quote for the foundation of it anyway because he won't know until.

That's actually what I did there is I put some pilot holes in there, and at four feet I had water running in. That was five years ago.

I had Gabe Leonardo do that. right behind the SRE building for a couple spots.

So you could figure out how much material I was going to have to.

Yeah, exactly.

Get out of the airport and also bring in.

It's about 60,000.

It's a prudent decision to do. Yeah, certainly. So the excavator's going to know what he's working with.

Right, yep. So back to my question. So the 30-foot separation, is that 30 foot from... The adjoining hangar and hangar wall to hangar wall.

Yeah, and that's a fire code that was, right, Brian? What's that? The separation between the hangars was fire.

You said that. Huh? If you put a two-hour fire And I think, I know that that one, that one that I did, it's 25 feet off John Miller's, because the FAA, that's where they set it. So maybe since the one was 100, it could have been smaller, they let it go. They kind of know what that separation is. And they'll set it that way at that 7460.

So Lance will look at that and then set the appropriate? FAA will. FAA. Okay. So this is a 3,600-square-foot hangar, right? So it's below 5,000, so should it be 20 feet, 10 and 10? And so that will shift his hangar north? I don't know which hangar is physically, you know, is there an existing hangar there on one side or the other, or is it just a lot in the middle? There's a hangar there. So we set it off of that hanger so that the space on the opposite side opens up for somebody else to put a bigger hanger in if they so choose?

Yeah, it's just going to take the FAA form, hand it to the contractor, look at the coordinates. I think there's already a hanger there north of it, correct? There's a hanger north of that lot, yes.

It's on the plot. So they're already plotted out. Yeah, that's what I have. All right.

What size hangers?

We'll have to get our boards back out again.

Yeah, I just...

I personally don't have... So what was it now, just for the construction notice, and this was the first notice of it for approval to the commissioners?

They have not seen it yet. So this is on you guys right now.

It's on us. You guys would make the recommendation whether or not to move it forward to the commissioners? Yeah, we've got to approve the forwarding of it. Right.

Yeah. I looked at it. It looks fine to me. Is that a motion? I'll make a motion to go ahead.

Yeah, I'm just, so who sets where the hangar gets built? The FAA. Okay.

come in and ask for a 20 by 28 and put it in a 70 by 70 spot and the FAA could come and position that part of the right and leave 40 feet between the two?

So they would not be, it wouldn't do like a 20 by 20 because it wouldn't fit. I mean, we but they will position that and they will make sure the height of it and where it fits in that space. So in some of those spaces on those bigger ones, this is where it would be a good thing for the airport board to say, hey, do we want to make those 100 by 100 spaces? Or this place, for example, had 100 by 60s. But once you go 60 deep, that 100 long really adds very little value. You need longer now to fit that longer wingspan need.

And that kind of gets to where the board is, and we've actually discussed this because in our plan,

We had a lot of large hangers that were dedicated to an area. And reconfiguring some of those to the more, like Brian could probably contest you, the 60 by 60 is probably the most common size in Montana hanger that's been built. And so why wouldn't we want all these 100 by 100s or 100 by 80s or something? And then not having something that was conformal to probably what would be

likely to be built.

Yeah, exactly.

And Lance spoke to that.

Right. And so we can change that or manipulate our plan out. It was on the list, but it's kind of been a lower priority at this time because there is 60 by 60 slots that are available. And then you get actually more density with those, which equates to more tax revenue. Because right now, A lot of the 100 by 100s that we have are not really being used, so it's...

But they're still paying tax. They're still paying tax, but it's... 100 by 100 covers more space, you have less... because it's covering the space. All to the point where you don't have to pay the county fee on the full space.

The lease is the footprint, including the...

Even the non-filled upon footprint. Yes, 10 feet around it.

From a lease standpoint.

Well, no, because in the long term, you're right. The lease you pay on the footprint when you get your initial, you pay an amount to the county based on the full, even 10 feet around it. Oh, I see. I'm asking about the recurring... Yeah, no, the recurring trust. Okay.

except for a lot of the area we have designated for these, we haven't had any requests for them in years for the larger hangers, but there's been.

Do you have a waiting list for 60 by 60 space?

No.

You actually don't have a, you don't have demand for either one at the moment to push us to change. There is demand for it, and generally lies with Robin with the FBO, because children don't wear them.

They'll show up. And quick, too.

So that's all my question was. We've talked about this before. His application, he shows this 30-foot gap between neighboring property lines, but that's not what gets approved, right? For a 60 by 60, it'll be 10 foot. And then the ALP will need to be updated to show different configurations for the other two hangers that are shown currently to the south. But I didn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. You know, is there going to be enough room to put, I don't know, instead of 300 by 60s or two more 100 by 60s, there's room for 360 by 60s down at that taxi lane to maximize the effectiveness of hangar space down there.

Well, and that's why we didn't want somebody to go down to one of our 100 by 100 spots and go, I just want to build a 50 by 40 or 50 by 60 hanger in this great big piece of land. We said, no, these are going to be used for bigger hangers. That was our initial plan.

Right. So as long as Pesha makes that recommendation, but we'll just have to see it when it comes back around that that's the case and it's not... duck in the middle of nowhere like this and eat up an additional 40 feet where it doesn't need to.

Yeah, now. It's kind of like the wish list, right? It's kind of the wish list of what he's proposing, but the FAA is the one that's going to look at that ALP, and they understand that the intent is to build the airport out to its highest and best use.

Yeah, because that was on a color page. where you were seeing that. Was that? It was on a colored page of the last page.

It's in that packet. Hangar layout on proposed lot echo 2-1. It's right after the pictures, yeah.

Oh, it's what you're saying, 30-30, yeah.

And then the map that he included with it.

and see the, I don't know, 20 feet from those or 30 feet?

From between the hangers. Well, for a 3,600 square foot hanger, it should be 10 feet.

Well, and you got 10 feet for the other hanger. Right.

Or is he 20? I don't know what the line is for, right? What is that line? Is that the other hanger or is that the other property line?

That's just a newer map. This one's already in use. That one's in use. Right. So it's these three.

Yep.

Yeah.

And you see what I mean? Because then that way you could, you know, with those, what are those?

You don't have to mention it. See, I think, is this Ellsworth Tiger? Who built that?

Ellsworth Tiger is the next one to the north. Those are 50 by 50s, those two. So Ellsworth is right here.

That's not square, so it's got to be 80 by 60.

Two way type ones, Ellsworth and Burroughs.

Does that need a 20 foot or 30 foot separation between buildings?

We're sitting here just whistling about lines drawn on a piece of paper when the FAs are going to decide how this thing's out. Agreed. And all we're really doing is trying to go, okay, should we approve this to move it forward to the commissioners to have them review it?

And he made a motion. John made a motion to recommend it.

I made a motion to recommend it forward to the commissioners.

I second your motion, John, because all we're doing is it's got to get approved anyway by the FAA and by Pesha. They'll approve it. So we're just kicking a lot of cans here. So I second it to move it forward.

Okay, all approved? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Carpe diem.

I just threw this on here because by the time you guys think that you want to renew, the applications will be due. So three of you. Please and thank you.

So she's not letting you out of the room until you fill that out.

Yeah.

I didn't say that. You didn't. That's all I got on that. I just wanted to bring it up.

Okay. Awesome. Okay, item...

This is the one that you brought up, Michael?

Correct. Item number three. In talking with Tim, we had some discussions...

Hey, Ken, just for reference, Mike's passing out page number 28 of the current rules and rights, just for reference.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't know if you have access to that, Ken.

Pulling it up right now.

It says page 29.

Yeah, pretty much. Okay.

So when we were kind of getting into the rules and regulations on the last meeting we had, noticed there was, on the end of it, for the airport manager and any violations that were occurring into the airport manager, There was a 10-day notice and then there was a 30-day notice of violation, but it really didn't forward any logistical path forward for rectification of any violations. Some of it's gonna need commissioner input and probably also legal input. 103 gave Tim, if there was a violation that was imminent danger or airport issues, that he could have a cease and desist with the thing, but there was also nothing between this and where there was a termination of lease.

Yeah, so outside of... Outside of emergency action or safety action, the only action that I have available to me to deal with violations, if you would, is a 10-day written notice first. The second move after the 10-day, if there's no response from that, is abatement at the owner's cost. And after that, then it goes to the county commissioners.

Sounds like a long way around.

So actually, if I recall right, when this was written, Jeff Burrows was still on this board. And I believe when we tried to dial this in further, Jeff said that something on the commissioner's side, there was contractual rules that the commissioners had in place for any lease. And if JR is there, I think he can speak to it. I think he had some comments about this as well. That We had to find a way to get the action to stop on the field. And then if it was a notice of violation, then it went to a county contract situation. And that was something the commissioners took with from there. um and i believe that there was actually if i recall right and i can't say exactly but i believe there was three or four or possibly even five other things on this page and we deleted them because jeff said that that went to county contracts and how they handle leases and that was in their wheelhouse So I believe that's how this got necked down to these three items, because I think that's what, at the time, Jeff had felt was appropriate.

So what you're saying, Ken, is that at some point, the commissioners have a contract thing they're referencing to that says they're going to knock on the person's door or terminate the lease, all that stuff. up in their program, we're not really dealing with that here, right?

Correct. We had to find a way to stop the negative action. And because I know there was even a lot of conversation about 103, that that stop authority should actually come from the commissioners. And I think we argued that successfully, we argued it. that the airport manager is the one that's there every day. And if he sees a violation, I mean, it's his fiduciary duty to make it stop. I mean, that is quintessential what he is there doing. If he sees a safety violation, he throws that flag and says, this stops right now. And then there's a period of where he can explain to them what was wrong and what needs to be rectified. If that wasn't rectified within the time allotted, it went back to the commissioners because they have a way that they violate the lease. And we were told at the time that that wasn't within our wheelhouse, that that was going to be at the commissioner level then. Okay. I mean, if things change, great, but that was to the point of what we wrote here and what we actually had to delete out of here because they weren't okay with us taking it any further at the time anyway.

So who does Tim call, the manager call, say, hey, I got a problem here. Somebody needs to come down and padlock this guy's door or park a sheriff's car in front of his hangar? Does he have to go to the commissioners and ask permission to get somebody down there to do that?

Well, because you're looking at eviction, that's going to be a county attorney thing, right? Because they're going to want to make sure they have their legal ducks in a row. Now, on a personal side, do I think Tim should have the ability? Tim's running the airport. Of course he should have the ability. That's what it was written in there for before. I mean, Tim's hired to manage that airport, so we should give him all the tools. And that was kind of the thought process before. The airport manager should have all the tools in their tool belt to be able to affect not only the safety violation, but also to affect up through, you know, locking somebody out if we need to, for lack of a better way to say it. But that was something that Jeff didn't feel appropriate because he felt it had to go through legal channels once it went past where we're at with this section here.

Yeah, but it's so ambiguous with this thing, and if it's not a safety violation, but say there's no aeronautical use of the hangar, and he issues a 10-day notice of violation against that, then it really doesn't, there's nothing in between that and the commissioner's kicking somebody out and make it legal? I mean, do they have something in place that I'm not seeing for procedure for this to either find the person after 30 days or in between the 10 and the 30 days of notice thereafter? Because to actually terminate a lease is a pretty good thing, but I mean, it's a high standard to make, but if you, go through this and there is a clear violation of it, shouldn't there be some financial

Well, is there a set of documents that they go by that says, you know, this is the procedure we follow? Because they've got lots of county property out there that people are leasing. They have to have something laid out.

Hey, Chris, that'd probably be a Chris question. So I'm thinking of the folks that own the property that's out there, because I think they were written some documents about being in arrears on a lease or lease violations. Do the commissioners have a... I'm assuming they do, but do they have some kind of process they follow on their side for any kind of violations or penalties or termination of leases, county leases?

The only contract or lease that I know of that was just recently written was for the Kurtz Lane property, which means nothing to you guys, but there's a lot of stuff in there. If you step outside the lines of this lease, There is termination possibilities. It's kind of on a case-by-case basis as far as other county properties go versus the airport in each hangar. So yes, but no.

So the grant assurances can provide some of that guidance?

Exactly, because this is completely different than a local county issue. Because actually, if you look in here, if we we can lose our grant assurances because we've been federally, the county has accepted federal money for the airport.

I would maybe ask.

And Tim, actually, I think you had the exact wording of that one.

It's in that email that I had sent in the very bottom section of that email.

Okay.

It's in the sponsors action portion of it.

Mike Mike to answer your question specifically, that's why those some of the stuff was omitted out of this document. Just to answer that, can this be cleaned up? This entire document will be cleaned up and they'll be more to be added more to taken away, but that's specifically why this was amended the way it was amended.

Just for knowledge, maybe that ask is to for the commissioners to review. Yeah, because it mechanisms for. The airport.

Because the FAA actually.

And basically what it does is it allows if they're not using it, because usually the airports, because they're federally state funded, will have a lot lower rent or square footage lease requirement for normally because it's not funded by the county. It's funded by the FAA and it's home to use. And so they list in here and you can actually, there is an exclusion in there for aeronautical leases to be used for other than non-incidental, non-aeronautical use. But then you go down to the bottom of their section six, the FAA may disapprove an AIP grant for hangar construction. There's existing hangars at the airport being used for non-aeronautical purposes. they can actually terminate any grant money that we would have for federal funding for and or the state probably too.

So in terms of doing any type of hanger inspection, this is the one thing that, this is one of the areas where I stopped because I realized there's no, we can't go forward with that. There needs to be a decision with regards to what you're going down of non-executive Using a hanger for a storage unit or using it for aircraft use. Right. So in a nutshell, if you're using an aircraft hanger for a storage unit because the FAA recognizes it happens, what they want the sponsor to do is to, well, if you're going to allow that to happen, then you're going to have to charge fair market value for what they're doing there. And if you're doing that, then we really suggest that you keep a log of this information. And then they finish their whole caveat, their whole mechanism with, if this is actually happening, you know we can pull your funding for other projects if you continue to allow it. But keep a log. Right.

Yeah, because we couldn't afford to repay it. So it's a matter of... So now it goes back to...

The commissioners want... Choice A, let it happen, charge fair market value and keep a record of it, or do they want to have a no-tolerance policy and stick with the FAs?

What it boils down for you, or talking about the board, is you need an enforcement mechanism when you discover a problem. You can go, okay, this is the level of enforcement I can handle at the airport managers. Anything above this has to go to the commissioners to say, what do we do with this person? Right. But, you know.

And this was all recognized months ago when we started working on this update. But it's a matter of, okay, how do we.

But that's kind of where it got to us. What's needed.

Yeah.

An opening that there was a hole we fell into and it couldn't, because now, like I say, he doesn't have anything other than give an initial notice. And that could go on for years for noncompliance.

John, let me give you another good example outside of that. We constantly have people speeding through there, right? Agreed? Everybody agrees with that. Okay, so there's the enforcement mechanism in place is if I catch somebody speeding through there, I have to send them a notice that they were speeding through there and that was too fast. Can't tell them how fast they're going, can't tell them anything, but I just noticed you were going real fast and kind of reckless or careless, however the case may be. And then, so I got to write them a letter And so that takes 10 days, or it can take up to 10 days. And if he responds back and says, well, I wasn't speeding at all in writing, then it has to go to the commissioners to decide whether or not this guy was speeding. You see the problem? Yeah. So in a different context, same thing, same principle. It's kind of silly, right? But it's a matter of safety or anything else. That's an immediate, for sure. But what are the mechanisms to enforce it? Other than speed bumps, we've already humored that one for a minute. So it's not just like in the context of hangers and violations there, it's across the board. You guys have dealt with all these little issues from time to time all the way across the board. In your history, you could speak to it better than My tenure, for sure.

Or it only leaves him as he gives a 10-day notice, and then it goes into a black hole here at the county, basically, and it can be a long time before any rectification of any of the violations. So that was one of the things that we put for recommendations from people to, put something forth to the commissioners so at least he would have or the commissioners would have some following and it would be in writing of what's the next procedure for that.

I think that should be re-looked at. I know Ken said that that was looked at by Jeff years ago, but maybe it should just be re-looked at again.

Yeah, and I need something for the commissioners, too, to go by, because then it's just a, you know, Dan was talking about the hangar rent, and then what a storage unit was, and that was like apples and watermelons. Because people go out here, they lease land, they put a significant amount of capital in to build a structure there, pay taxes on that, pay insurance on it, and the person that rents a storage unit pays no liability, no capital expenditure, no taxes on it, so it's not really even the same but yet like i say we got hangers out here and i know a couple people that probably would want hangers and i know brian's had people but they're full of crap i mean boats cars i mean that are not an fa defines it you can't obstruct the primary use of the hangers aeronautical use and so we have several of these out here where do we go from that i mean it's

I would ask them to review the grant assurances and utilize the resources that are available to them in that.

So, I mean, if they go past a 30-day violation, do you start charging them a financial amount to have some incentive to either sell a hangar or comply with putting an airplane in it? I think the grant assurances. And on our leases, actually, now, the new leases, we actually have to put a registration number. They call them N numbers. Oh, okay. U.S. registered airplanes are November something or other. So we actually put those on the leases. So now we know there's a aircraft assigned to that hangar. So, but I mean, there's other ones out there, like I say, with a bunch of storage trailers and construction stuff in it and stuff like that. And then poor guys can't afford to build a hangar, but they could buy one for a hundred and something. But I don't know, Brian, what the average cost of what your hangers are building now, Brian?

That's the one question. Do you insulate and do you not? Do you build out the interior or not? Yeah, just a basic hanger.

i know they're also different people yeah yeah but you're starting you know what quarter million nowadays 60 by 60 so substantial amount of capital i think maybe i don't know should we attach this to something and it's to

I think we need to make a recommendation to send this to the commissioners and possible legal for advice.

I second that thought.

That's kind of what I had, but we shortened it way down on the agenda meeting, was it? we come up with some ideas and then recommend it.

Can you come forward to that meeting once it comes to the commissioners?

What's that? Can you come forward?

Can you attend?

Me? Yeah. Absolutely.

That'll help to wrap minds around what's what.

Okay.

So for review and suggestions?

Correct. He's gonna need some more tools in his toolbox, and he doesn't have enough. So I know how frustrating it is.

We've made great progress so far with everything we've got.

Yeah, I think we have.

We have things we think would be cool for him to have, but in reality it's where he and the commissioners can decide what he's allowed to do.

Right, but I mean, with our rules and regulations, when we put that committee together, we've merged three documents into one, And now there's a place where you can go find stuff and not have contradictory information between three different documents. So it's a lot of cleanup. So, yeah, we did make a huge amount of progress in that. Ken was one of the ones that was in there. Dave?

So when this comes up for the agenda for the commissioners, would you let us know so we don't? Absolutely.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, send it to the commissioners and possibly civil counsel for review and suggestions, meaning changes, amendments.

I second that. Okay.

All approved? Aye. Anybody? Aye.

Tim, we'll have to get together and follow up.

No more public comment?

Good. Yeah, just real quick.

If in termination of the lease, I mean, I'm reading at your lease here. You guys are making recommendations to the county commissioners. It's easy to armchair quarterback. I'm not being negative about it in any way. But, you know, it says right here in the lease, termination of the lease, either party may terminate the lease by written notice. If the other party defaults in performance, the term of the condition of this lease falls to cure such default within 30 days after written notice. It's right in the current lease. I know you've updated it. It seems to me like going back to legal and going through this is kind of – I mean, I would be reluctant to give your – to keep defaulting to the county commissioners because it does go into a black hole, it seems like, and just say, hey, we recommend that we write a letter to this person that's in default, and either they cure that and fix it and say, okay, hey, I'm out of line. I need to fix that based off what's come up because when they sign those leases, I'm convinced, and this is on me too as well, with these hangers I built for some of these people because you can't just go build one unless you're building it for commercial. they all of a sudden think they just have carte blanche to park here and there. And I've had to have discussion with Jimmy Kessler and say, you can't do that. Did you read your lease? They'll sign it never having read it. So you do have a lot of teeth already right here to send that, unless I'm out of line thinking so.

It's right in line with that.

And just, it's right there in the lease.

It's kind of contradictory to what the rules are currently. So then what will happen is with this, because this affects policy, so whatever decision as far as enforcement, whatever mechanism that looks like, that'll become part of policy, and then once that complete policy is done, it will go to legal for review naturally, and then anything that has to get dealt with there. Legal will also know that this directly affects leases, so a new lease will have to be created because of the changes that are in there, or an update to the existing lease.

Well, I do believe that the current lease doesn't just say adhere to airport policy. And then whenever it says that, the policy can change.

Well, the lease that you can move with it. Yeah, it can move with it.

Like, you don't have to redo a lease just because it says adhere to airport policy.

No, I'm saying that the verbiage in the lease will have to change mainly because of the minimum standards. And that's just any time that there is an update.

Because they put the minimum standards in the lease. They show them that, or they say... the minimum wage. You shouldn't have to change the lease. Correct. You're right. As long as you keep referencing an external document that's changeable, they have to adhere to that. Now, they can go to court and say that you put a new burden on them by changing rules, regulations, something that would, let's just say, dramatically change the way the situation was when they got there. But I don't think you guys are doing any of that.

No, and it's the minimum standards and the rules and regulations. There was contradictions.

They have to work together. Oh, there were contradictions between the external documents.

Right, right. So we're trying to merge everything to make it correct.

The minimum standards on your master plan. All three of those documents have to line up at one point in time or another. When I say that, I mean that the master plan will change every 30 years or so. but the minimum standards in your rules and regulations should be, they should complement each other, they work together.

That's not on me.

In most instances, when you're updating your minimum standards and rules and regulations, it's suggested in the circular that it's going to affect the lease, and I can I can give you more info on that.

Yeah, because it gets to the thing of the speeding, and it may not even be a leaseholder that's doing the speeding, but then he doesn't have any.

It's like, guys, what have we learned in 20 years that affected the airport in a negative way, and how do you prevent that from happening?

But it does seem like there's different levels. violation right send him a letter he's got 10 days 30 days and 30 days we're gonna terminate your lease you don't fix this and that definitely needs to go to commissioners with legal right and this is something that severe I'm

It's gone illegal because it was suggested by the commissioners to let it go to legal after a go-through review.

Yeah. But if it was an egregious violation like that, when you send him the initial letter, he's got 30 days to fix it. If he doesn't fix it in 30 days, you know, the... Right. We're going to terminate your lease.

It even says that you have to pay the lease if you get kicked out of there of noncompliance. You have to pay the lease. You're required to pay the lease until the county or you sell the spot and they recover that lease from that space. And it says $50. If you're not paid, it's $50. It's written in here.

So that's part of the issue. That's part of the issue is that it's in there, but there's no precedence within either one of these operating documents right now that allow for that. That's the ultimate final bottom line. But there's nothing in anything else that gives me anything to work with.

Can I just ask how big of an issue is this? How many people would you want to evict?

How many people what? How many people are in violation?

Are in violation that you would want to go evict? None.

I don't want to evict any of them.

But we just want to have some teeth.

You just want to have some teeth. How many people are in violation?

There's a lot.

Out of 88 hangers, you said earlier, is it 40 of them?

probably at least. How many? Half. If you're saying 88 leases, then how many are in violation? Well, probably half of that.

Half of them don't have airplanes in their hangar? Well, no, no, no. They have some.

Grass isn't cut, flammable liquid. only vehicles, no airplane, that kind of stuff. I'm just saying, I didn't make that connection there, and I appreciate that. Because here it is, I'm thinking to myself, I'd have a hard time arguing that. I signed that and saying, hey, you're not meeting this. You've got 30 days, fix it. Here's the standard. But if we look around at other airports you go to and we sit and think, okay, let's delineate between someone using it private, let's charge more. That's the people that are speeding. They don't understand the dynamic of airplane movement. And if you go to those airports, A lot of them, if you don't have a pilot's license and an N number, you don't lease a hangar or own one.

So the lease says it, but it's not reflected.

Because they're saying this looks for. I couldn't rent it when I had my, when I was free. Right. And I had to wait until I had my pilot's license to be on the list.

And I'm not sure we go to that level, but still to have an airplane is clearly fun. So anyway, I didn't want to start there. I know you want to quit, but that was my thought, that it seems like it's a pretty good team. So, yeah.

That's what you have the lease for. That lease is saying one thing, but it's not on the other controlling policy document. It's with the county. It's an agreement.

I think we need to look at that, and maybe we can do that and then make the recommendations. We can either send it to a... Well, that's what we were doing.

That's the whole reason we were doing it to begin with.

Right.

Nine months ago. Yeah.

We just need to finish that document out.

Yes. And without having to look at this first, because you're in a black hole, and we're going to make this lap 100 times.

Exactly, and I don't want to go around anymore than I have to. Okay.

Would you like to get a committee together for that? What's that? Would you like to get people to have a committee for that, to go over that again?

I think we did, right?

The committee is just for the leasing and development construction development guidelines. There's two meetings. Do we need another one?

I don't know what you want to do with the waters, but whatever you want to do.

I think not to give it too many committees, because it's getting, I mean, we need to finish up.

This is starting to look like the military, where everything becomes a committee and a staff.

Yeah, no. Finish up what we had to finish with that. So I think, so we'll set a meeting on that, a date on that, Tim.

With the commissioners?

No.

You're talking about leasing the building construction guy, right?

And then complete, because we're almost finished, we just had a couple additions and subtractions out of the rules and regs to finish up from our last meeting we had.

It's just the addition of the leasing development construction guidelines.

Is that what you were talking about, Dave?

Yeah, just combining it in.

Yeah, because we were almost done with that.

Yeah, that's what we're talking about finishing up. Okay. You're on the rules or the violation part right now. Am I confused about something?

The violation, we're going to send it to the commissioners for review and recommendation, right? The R&R is page 29 or 30 or whatever it was? Isn't that what we're talking about or something else?

I think we just kind of discussed it into a circle and decided that maybe we need to take another run at finishing it up before we send it there.

Oh, okay. So you want to rescind your motion?

Yes.

Okay. Rescind motion. Airport board to re-review? Yes.

So we just need to set a date on the next meeting for this, for rules and regulations to finish that? Yeah. Because we had subcontractors are off airport, I think.

We did that one already. Okay.

Okay. All righty. Do we need an adjournment? No further business? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Bye, Ken.

Bye, Ken.