Airport Advisory Board Meeting – October 2022

Video Description: Airport Advisory Board Meeting – October 2022 Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. Read along below: Unknown Speaker 0:02 All right. Well, good evening, everyone. Welcome to our October 10 2022. Airport Advisory Board meeting. I hope the volume is better this month. Wonderful. Let us know if it isn’t. We’ll kick off with a roll call. Please. Unknown Speaker 0:19 arle Here. BOARD MEMBER bliss board member being Unknown Speaker 0:25 board member Jordan Here. BOARD MEMBER Robinson. Unknown Speaker 0:31 Board Member follow Monte LLC. I’m here Unknown Speaker 0:42 by brown right Unknown Speaker 0:45 here Unknown Speaker 0:51 you have quorum, right? Unknown Speaker 0:54 Yeah, you just might want to note, Kayla, if you just want to introduce yourself as Unknown Speaker 0:59 Thank you. Unknown Speaker 1:01 This is Kayla, and she’s going to fill in for our board secretary for a while today and maybe more. Unknown Speaker 1:09 And also just for the record. So Phil Greenwald, transportation planning managers stuff. And then Marsha Martin. Councilmember Martin is here also. So just to fill that in. We’ll be good. Thank you, Phil. Thank you, Caitlin. Unknown Speaker 1:22 First up on our agenda is our public invited to be heard. I have two people who signed up on the sheet. You’re welcome to come now. You’re welcome to come at the end. Or both if you’d really like to. First on our list is Al Manley Unknown Speaker 1:35 going in order I was going to an order on the signup sheet but I you know if you guys want to mix it up, that’s fine with me. Unknown Speaker 1:43 So if you can start your comments name and address please. You’ve got five minutes, I L manly 940 Rangeview Lane Longmont. Unknown Speaker 1:55 I’m here representing myself and also some members of the Lopa Association Out at the airport. long line operators and Pilots Association Unknown Speaker 2:06 with the Advisory Board packet that came out this afternoon or is when I received it. Unknown Speaker 2:13 Was that the new lease that was in there? Unknown Speaker 2:17 That’s a draft version? Yes. Unknown Speaker 2:20 When will it be adopted? Unknown Speaker 2:24 Can I remind you Oh, helmets have to be addressed? Okay, board. We can’t do a q&a. Unknown Speaker 2:28 Some newbies? No, it’s okay. It’s really frustrating that one? Well, we can’t. When will the advisory board or the advisory board? When will the new lease be adopted? Unknown Speaker 2:39 Anybody answered that? Okay. Okay. No questions. Okay. Well, anyway, the concerns that were that I received, were really two items. Number 120. year leases are not really acceptable. Because most banks will not finance hangar builds or developments with leases that are less than 30 years. Unknown Speaker 3:04 That’s, that’s number one. I mean, this is not just for one person. Number two, the city should not have first right of refusal. first right of purchase. For hanger value is what two parties agree to. Unknown Speaker 3:19 Sometimes it’s difficult to get appraisals on hangers. Unknown Speaker 3:26 For multiple reasons, Unknown Speaker 3:28 no reason hanger sale for one market conditions such as rapid devaluations and currency of currency slash inflation, hanger shortages and individual desires. So these are two big hitters over on the lease. People are very concerned about these, and Unknown Speaker 3:51 it’s very important. Thank you. Thank you very much for the comments. Unknown Speaker 3:56 Next on our list, I have Steve shook if you’d like to. Unknown Speaker 4:00 Again, start with name and address and you have five minutes. Thanks. Again. I’m Steve shook 2022 Braeburn court here in Longmont. Unknown Speaker 4:11 I have submitted my application to join the board. Unknown Speaker 4:16 Just wanted to introduce myself and give you a little bit of background. Unknown Speaker 4:21 I’ve come from Monterey, California, where I’ve been involved with the Monterey airport district for over 30 years. I have a 42 unit hanger development Unknown Speaker 4:34 that I currently manage and built. Unknown Speaker 4:38 Excuse me, I’ve built many projects on the Monterey airport Unknown Speaker 4:44 and have consulted with the previous management on leases and not only my own but Unknown Speaker 4:55 to advise the management on certain issues. Unknown Speaker 5:00 Is with leases. So I have that experience that I could bring to the board. Along with the construction that I’ve done. I’m retired general contractor developer. Unknown Speaker 5:10 And I also own my hangar at the airport, which I have the current lease on. And Unknown Speaker 5:20 I’m retired and have the time to help out if I can. Thank you. Oh, one last thing I wanted to mention. Unknown Speaker 5:29 In regards to the lease, Unknown Speaker 5:33 Ally is correct on the 30 year. Also, he’s Unknown Speaker 5:38 he didn’t mention if a person is going to sell a hanger that has under a 30 year, he can’t do a 1031 exchange. So Unknown Speaker 5:52 that’s one issue. And Unknown Speaker 5:55 which is an important issue when you’re talking about hundreds of 1000s of dollars. Unknown Speaker 6:01 So, just wanted to throw that out there, Toon? Unknown Speaker 6:05 Thank you. Unknown Speaker 6:07 Thank you very much. Unknown Speaker 6:09 Those are the only two that were on the signup sheet. Would anyone else like to come up and speak? Unknown Speaker 6:14 Come on up, please. Unknown Speaker 6:16 Thank you. Unknown Speaker 6:19 Thank you very much. My name is David Paul pa Ula. My address is 3500 Berkeley Avenue, Boulder, Colorado. And I’ve been using your fine airport for decades, maybe a little more. I’ve got a hangar here now. And I got a draft copy of your lease for tonight. And canceled everything else that I had on my agenda for this evening. And came down here. So hi. Unknown Speaker 6:49 And I have a few comments about the hangar lease. And I’m going to address them by the paragraph number in the draft copy. Okay, so 2.1 Unknown Speaker 7:02 My Hangar is a condominium hangar, which I can’t remove under this clause as part of the structure the whole building. And my lease includes my half of the ramp. So if I had to remove the whole thing, I’d have to remove the concrete in the ramp to the midline of the ramp. So 72 foot ramp, I’d be taking out 36 feet of it, this would have an impact on the aircraft, on the hangars directly across from me. And Unknown Speaker 7:35 on the north side of me, which is the end of the ramp area. So that would be kind of an impact, also the cost of the demolition, and where to put it and all that. Unknown Speaker 7:48 If the city is buying my hanger under paragraph 2.2 There’s got to be a time limit, or my purchaser would walk away, leaving me at the city’s mercy. Unknown Speaker 8:00 3.1 the initial rent under this lease shall not be greater than the rent I’m currently paying. It’s not arbitrary. Unknown Speaker 8:11 3.3 This is very open ended, and says that I need to pay the same fees and assessments as commercial operators. I’m just an old retired guy, I use my hanger for my personal non commercial use. So there needs to be a little bit more thought that goes into this because what you would assess to a commercial operator isn’t necessarily applicable to somebody like me. Unknown Speaker 8:40 4.3 I need the ability to hire any maintenance person. I can’t be limited by this clause. Some maintenance requires special capabilities and tools like the biannual pedo static test that I’m required to do by the FAA. I don’t have the capability. There’s none on the airport. But there are a couple of Unknown Speaker 9:02 itinerant people who come by, they’re qualified to do this and they come out to my hangar, spend an hour we chat, they do the job. And and then they leave. Unknown Speaker 9:13 And they may or may not be associated with your airport, they may not have signed in Unknown Speaker 9:21 section or paragraph 4.5. Some amateur built aircraft may be assembled at the hangar periphery a guidelines. They’re not actually airplanes until they’re registered. And before receiving their n number. This could all happen so it might not be possible for every owner to comply with this particular requirement. It’s not an unreasonable requirement. It’s just Unknown Speaker 9:45 it doesn’t cover every situation that could actually occur. Since I’m building an airplane myself. I’m kind of sensitive to this Unknown Speaker 9:57 one, etc. It’s kind of long. Unknown Speaker 10:00 This permits the city to add various new requirements to my hangar without recourse, for example, you might say that I have to have a loft or a bathroom, or, I don’t know, hot and cold running water, I don’t know. Unknown Speaker 10:17 Maybe I have to have a bar, God knows. Five point 1.7 in this paragraph says that I need to come up with a major portion of that money up front, the renovation money, give it to the city as a bond, and doesn’t commit the city to return it to me after completion. So that’s, that’s wrong. You can’t just take my money and say, Okay, thank you. Unknown Speaker 10:44 I understand the temptation Unknown Speaker 10:46 5.2. This doesn’t limit any new utilities, the city might require me to connect to, for example, right now, I’m not connected to the Unknown Speaker 10:56 very fine internet capability was that next slide. I don’t have that. I don’t have running water. I don’t have the bathroom. It’s just a hanger. I store my airplane there. And you guys could rationally say, Well, you should connect to this. Well, why? And Unknown Speaker 11:16 this would require me to do it. So this is kind of a problem. Unknown Speaker 11:21 And Unknown Speaker 11:23 7.1 on signage, I own my hanger. And if I agree to this, that means that I’ve surrendered any first amendment rights I might have. For example, there might be three or five minutes are expired. Oh, okay. Real quick, though. I know you’re welcome to come back at the end and have another five minutes. Thanks. Thank you for the comments. Unknown Speaker 11:45 Would anyone else like to come on up? Unknown Speaker 11:59 Ron, krenzel, 1219, North 61st Longmont, Colorado. Unknown Speaker 12:06 I’m going to change the tone a little. Unknown Speaker 12:10 I haven’t been at these meetings for a long time. They didn’t exist for a while. I was at the last one. And we get so entangled in all this stuff that has nothing to do with aviation, electrification, and plumbing and leases. And Unknown Speaker 12:29 we should sit back and think about this. What is it an airport? Unknown Speaker 12:34 What is an airport? Unknown Speaker 12:36 It’s a runway. It’s a place where planes take off and land. Everything that happens after that is because of the runway. Unknown Speaker 12:48 And we have probably one of the worst runways to do everything we’re talking about in the state of Colorado. Unknown Speaker 13:00 Nothing that you that. That has been discussed and leases and, and electrification and sewers, and F POS and new FBO buildings are all strangled. Because we have a terrible runway. Unknown Speaker 13:18 This has been addressed for at least 15 years, I think maybe more. Unknown Speaker 13:27 It’s very obvious that an FBO cannot survive at the Longmont airport. Unknown Speaker 13:35 If you don’t if a small FBO does not have Unknown Speaker 13:40 the revenue of jet fuel just isn’t possible. General Aviation has changed a lot in the in the last few years. We have an enormous amount of home built small airplanes that belong on airport now. They’re not economic contributors to the airport. You need planes that need maintenance. You need planes that bring people in and take people away. Unknown Speaker 14:07 The long run airport and I think it’s by design on the city’s part. Unknown Speaker 14:13 It isn’t really you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out if you have a shitty runway you don’t you’re not going to get many planes in there. Unknown Speaker 14:21 The opportunity has come before to expand the runway. It should be the only discussion at all Unknown Speaker 14:30 by the city and the airport advisory board if they really are dedicated to make the long run airport, a significant and important economic contributor to the city of Longmont. Unknown Speaker 14:44 If you look at every surrounding town, and I’m not we all know the definitive parameters of the Longmont airport, all that as ever been suggested. Unknown Speaker 15:00 It will allow us safely and effectively. Corporate small jets and personal jets to come in or Turbo props to come in fuel and take off with fuel. Unknown Speaker 15:15 That is the only way an FBO can survive. And it can survive that way because it will attract airplanes on the airport to build hangars that require maintenance that need services. There’s absolutely no reason to build an FBO at the Longmont airport. Because there’s no reason for general commercial aviation, private aviation to come in too long line, they can’t fuel, there’s no services. Unknown Speaker 15:49 And the runway is totally inappropriate. So it’s just a you know, it’s just a different way of looking at the whole goal over the next few years. If the goal is not to do this, which it has been for years and years. Unknown Speaker 16:08 The decision is made. All of this advisory board meeting is a really a waste of time. The people will have their leases that are here, and the airport will not change at all for the next 50 years. Thanks. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 16:27 Would anyone else like to speak? Unknown Speaker 16:30 Come on down I see two more. Unknown Speaker 16:39 And if you can name is Howard Morgan live at 1930 2am with us in Longmont. Unknown Speaker 16:45 Former Chairman of this body president of the hangar Owners Association, which is Longmont owners and Pilots Association. Unknown Speaker 16:55 My first comment is, we’re supposed to get this, I really desired to get this notification of the meeting days before the meeting. I got her three o’clock this afternoon. Unknown Speaker 17:09 Fortunately, one of our members found it in the city. Unknown Speaker 17:15 website. So it needs to be sent out. We’ve asked for it before it hasn’t gone out, needs to go out to everybody on an airport, at least five days before the meeting. So we know what we’re talking about. Unknown Speaker 17:31 Number two, like I said, I’ve only had a couple of hours to look at this thing. And this lease aggravates the hell out of me, I’ll tell you, we LPA people have worked hard with this Unknown Speaker 17:46 population to get 30 year leases. And we did on the last Unknown Speaker 17:52 election get the city charter changed to where everybody in the city can get a 30 year lease. Now, the airport’s coming up with a 20 year lease. The problem with a 20 year lease is Unknown Speaker 18:07 it kills any investment in the airport because people can borrow money on a 20 year lease on leased property on leased land. So you’ve killed any investment, Unknown Speaker 18:19 which has been killed for years anyhow. On airport. So and we’ve already seen some 30 year leases with 30 year extensions which Unknown Speaker 18:32 we hear a rumor that that there’s a 50 year limit which is untrue. I’ve talked to the regional manager of FAA and Seattle to talk to the EO pa also talked to the manager over to Greeley. Greeley has a 30 year lease with a 30 year extension. Also in this lease, read real quick a buyout provision which I don’t understand and I have serious doubts about where that’s going. I can’t see the city buying hangars and then competing with the investors on the airport. Unknown Speaker 19:11 And the investors on the airport are the hangar owners and their people are rent hanging hangers. And if the hangers would go away and the investors go away, this airport would die a sudden death because we the hangar owners support this airport with our somewhere around a half Major League I could tell you a half million dollars a year Unknown Speaker 19:36 and Unknown Speaker 19:39 and frankly, the city teaches tea Unknown Speaker 19:43 treats us like crap as being one of the biggest investors in an area. Unknown Speaker 19:52 Another point once you may not know is recent Unknown Speaker 19:57 impact statement economic impact Unknown Speaker 20:00 statement Unknown Speaker 20:02 gives the airport a number of 60.0 $4,000,000.60 440 $4 million. And a city won’t put a nickel in this airport. If you go to any or any city with 100,000 population and compare it to this airport, you’ll find that this airport Unknown Speaker 20:27 is bad. It’s one of the worst in the country. Unknown Speaker 20:33 We need a 30 year lease so we can get some investment, we need the city to put some money into this. To make it a real airport. We have jet traffic in here almost every day now. And other high end airplanes. They’re not coming here for lunch. They’re coming here to do business. And I can tell you is as a former corporate pilot, people enough position, look at the airport and and Unknown Speaker 20:58 relay that to the whole city management. Unknown Speaker 21:04 We don’t look very good. Unknown Speaker 21:06 We got a terrible FBO the city needs to build one Unknown Speaker 21:11 and Unknown Speaker 21:13 get somebody to operate it and start making this airport Unknown Speaker 21:18 do something he needs a longer runway, which we Unknown Speaker 21:22 back in 2012 We did a master plan. And one of the things on that plan was 1000 extra feet of runway. Not extra l actually just didn’t 1000 feet wouldn’t be extra. And so far we’ve gotten nowhere on that. So I would love to see some aggressive action on the city’s part to make this airport a real airport. And I’d also like to see this lease thing. Thanks. So I’m gonna throw expired and get a 30 year lease. Thanks. Thank you Unknown Speaker 22:04 David shank, Unknown Speaker 22:06 box four six for Longmont. Unknown Speaker 22:10 I have a thing that I would like to hand out to all of the members of the advisory board if you could do that, please. Unknown Speaker 22:17 There’s questions here. This was written by Keith Griffith, one of the more intelligent people out in the airport. Very good questions. In addition to those questions, which I think we should all deserve answers to tonight during the discussion of the lease. I would like to know what other departments within the city has restricted the lease to 20 years. It just seems like there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for that. Please up I’ve handed out all these questions. I’d like to see the all discussed. I know that I could ask these questions, but none of you were to answer them. So please discuss them during your discussion tonight. Unknown Speaker 22:56 Thank you very much. Unknown Speaker 22:59 Would anyone else like to speak? Unknown Speaker 23:03 Seeing no one here. We’ll move on to approval of September 2022 minutes. Unknown Speaker 23:10 I know at least I have some revisions as does Melinda Would anyone like to start off comments on this? Unknown Speaker 23:20 Vice Chair Jordan. Unknown Speaker 23:22 On six information items the item wonder I the lease term update. It says leave I stated that going forward all new leases will be 30 years with the renewal option of another 20 years not to exceed a maximum of 50. I heard 2020 at that point. And then in looking at the lease document I see in the draft 2020. Unknown Speaker 23:45 Do you remember saying that? I think what was said last time is I say we were talking about what theoretically could be acceptable. Unknown Speaker 23:54 At that time we had made any determinations on what they would be. But after bouncing that off the FAA, I think that was used as example of something that would legally be acceptable. So do you are you are you okay with six item number one, lease terms update because it’s a statement, which we’ll see if I can get my document here. And then the way you look at that, too was Unknown Speaker 24:21 on six she said page two information items lease term update, and then on up on the screen now. Unknown Speaker 24:29 And then on page three, just my name is within a n and it’s it’s right everyplace else just in the two motions Unknown Speaker 24:43 so six it’d be one Unknown Speaker 24:47 so it’s Levi stated that Unknown Speaker 24:52 here we go. Here we go. Unknown Speaker 24:59 Six one Unknown Speaker 25:00 Um, oops Unknown Speaker 25:06 now that I think what was stated was that they could be in 30 years with their new options. So that would we were talking about what would be acceptable. That would not exceed Yeah, that makes logical that would not exceed the 50 years Unknown Speaker 25:24 so that was it. Unknown Speaker 25:26 Does anyone else have anything Unknown Speaker 25:31 that you rustled, sorry, it only gives me a number here. Unknown Speaker 25:35 Mr. Robeson, thank you just a minor thing. Unknown Speaker 25:39 See page to the top of the bullet points it’s talking about the FAA inspections and it just says will be conducted week of September Unknown Speaker 25:48 something so I don’t remember what was said but I figured we should fill that in somehow Unknown Speaker 25:58 can’t recall off the top of my head what week that was we can certainly look up that date and put it in there just for accuracy of the minutes. Unknown Speaker 26:06 December September, that would be logical. That’s a good point. Phil. It could be a week in September. It was a weekend September. In September. It works for me in September. Unknown Speaker 26:16 Anyone else? Unknown Speaker 26:18 Alright, then I’ve got two here. On the top of page three. This is a continuation of action items seven one we selected board member for the RFP for engineer. It shows motion carried six oh, the motion should have carried five oh and I abstained. Unknown Speaker 26:37 And then, on page four last sentence before adjournment. It currently says Levi brown airport manager stated that they are not allowed to build another FBO per grant assurance guidelines where the credit should have said he stated they are not allowed to prohibit building another FBO progress assurance guidelines Correct. Unknown Speaker 27:03 Kind of an important difference in what’s there. Unknown Speaker 27:07 Alright, so I’ve got then Unknown Speaker 27:10 are changes week in September, leases could be 30 years. Unknown Speaker 27:15 The motion Vice Chair Jordans, name spelling Unknown Speaker 27:20 prohibiting the FBO. What did I miss? We Unknown Speaker 27:24 would anyone like to make a motion to accept the minutes as amended for this discussion? Unknown Speaker 27:32 Mr. Roberson, I move that we approve the minutes as amended. Is there a second? Unknown Speaker 27:39 Go ahead. I Second. Moved and seconded any further discussion? We’re done with minutes. Unknown Speaker 27:47 All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 27:54 All right. updates from the airport manager. Right updates. Alright, just a few items. This month for a quick update on. One I’ll go ahead and start with was because it ties into one of my items here was the we did have the FAA come out and do their inspection the airport, it was much delayed inspection, the pandemic kind of push them back quite a ways. For the most part, they’re very happy, very happy with the state of the surfaces the general condition of the airport. Some very positive comments are mowing, which fortunately, we just gotten a new mowing contractor a week or two before they’d gotten they’re all excellent, they did have take issue. However, with the prairie dogs on the airfield, they are invading the runway safety area on the field. We received a letter from the FAA stating that they would like all prey dogs removed from the airport premises. Moving forward with that we’ve reached out to the city’s Wildlife Control Unit. We’re currently in the middle of setting some meetings up with some private contractors. We’re probably going to do a push of course we’re going to follow County and Boulder guidelines for mitigation. But we’ll probably be doing a significant push on prairie dog mitigation. Which is is great for me because I’m sure that’ll be a little bit more effective than me out there with my little smoke canisters. So that’ll be a good positive thing moving forward for safety at the airport. Unknown Speaker 29:27 A second big update that I have for the airport is the Southwest sewer project is about as of this morning, two weeks from them turning dirt over on that contracts have been signed pre meetings have all been conducted. The contractors confirmed this morning have put in all orders for the supplies they need manholes have already been produced. They’re starting to look at bringing stuff to the job site and stage so things are moving forward quickly on that front also Unknown Speaker 30:00 Oh, I guess another little quick thing I can put in here that I forgot to put on my list that we just did the other day was currently Unknown Speaker 30:09 starting around of new CIP stuff with C dot and FAA. Moving forward with what we’re going to want to do for projects in the future. Unknown Speaker 30:21 Honestly, right now, all the stuff that’s kind of on Unknown Speaker 30:25 the short term list and stuff like that is stuff that’s already come before this board. So no huge changes moving forward with that. Unknown Speaker 30:33 Wildlife fence, pavement rehabilitation, stuff like that, at the moment. Unknown Speaker 30:39 Right. And that is what I got for airport updates. Anyone have any questions for Levi, before we move into information items? Unknown Speaker 30:50 Vice Chair Jordan, do you anticipate any impact with the sewer project on airport activity, there will be minimal impact. I’m actually very pleased with Unknown Speaker 31:03 how little it sounds like it’s going to be as the sewer project comes across the south end of the airport there, they will temporarily have to shut down the two taxi lanes that go into that south part of the airport. But the contractors are very positive, they can move as quickly as possible, they’re only going to close one down at a time, right. And they’re going to essentially Unknown Speaker 31:24 dig lay pipe and then cover as they go. So it’s not like they’re going to big, big giant trench, and then come back and put all the pipe in. So before they’ve even started digging further down the line, they’ll have the taxi lanes up and running again, pretty much take whatever time it takes the concrete to cure, get those closed down. So no closures you don’t anticipate any closures now not anticipate not really, really a detour but not Yeah, kind of depending I guess on the size of your aircraft, you might be able to maneuver it around on that south to get out either taxi lane, but very minimal on closure time down there. Unknown Speaker 32:01 Um, the other question was, we used to get the budget in our packet. And then when David passed away a lot of you know, we were struggling to get things done as it was. We haven’t been getting a budget again, can we move back into getting a budget? I can we can certainly get in the I’ll look into that, you know, basically is usually been a part of our packet. I’ll ask about that and kind of see what the city’s kind of vision of what the board is. I know David took the report that he received and he reworked it into a format for us. I think the the city format was not very digestible. And so Unknown Speaker 32:39 he did rework it. And so that effort with you know, everything that was happening that fell to the to the wayside, so I’ll put that on my my check into list. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 32:51 Thank you, Melinda Tallis go. Unknown Speaker 32:55 Yeah, thanks, Levi. I appreciate the update from the FAA. I would like to get a little bit more information on the surfaces as several of the members including Mr. Morgan, pointed out that there’s some issues with the runway. So given that the FAA doesn’t have any issues with our surfaces, or surfaces, Unknown Speaker 33:15 was your expert analysis of the surfaces of our runways and taxiways, and so on. Surfaces are excellent. And that was also accurate echoed in the FAA report. There are some panels on the ramp that are cracked and slated for being repaired. Unknown Speaker 33:34 As an airport, we’re actually fairly fortunate we have a very nice, concrete, long life runway. It’s a nice one. I think most of the comments before were kind of directed towards the length of the runway as far as the the quality of the surface as opposed to the actual surface itself. The surface itself is in very nice shape. Unknown Speaker 33:53 Mr. Bliss. Unknown Speaker 33:56 I think I forgot what I was going to ask. Unknown Speaker 33:59 How long is the sewer project going to last? If I recall correctly, the contractors have up to 70 days to do it. But even in pre meetings, Unknown Speaker 34:12 this kind of shook their hand say that. We do not want to be here that long. Unknown Speaker 34:19 They didn’t tell me how long it would be. But Unknown Speaker 34:23 I think they’re trying to push through and just you know, less than a month, hopefully a few weeks. They are very motivated to finish it quickly. But again, I’m not sure. So Unknown Speaker 34:34 they’re going to take it to a spot at the midfield. They’re taking it about to where the wind tee and then what happens from there. That’s kind of the extent of the project. So it’s about getting the infrastructure in there so we can tap into in the future. Unknown Speaker 34:49 What infrastructure are you talking about the sewer. I know but you said what’s going to happen from there? Is it going to be up to the individual hangar owner Unknown Speaker 35:00 To run the sewer to the hangar, or what’s going to happen moving, that’s the extent of the scope of this project as it exists today. Unknown Speaker 35:13 One other thing. We’ll get together personally with this, but you don’t have my email because I’m getting everything that you write to the hangar owners. My friend who’s a hangar owner sends it to me. So I’m not getting it. I don’t know. Exactly why you you don’t have my email. So we’ll get together after. Absolutely. And lastly, I just want to say, I agree with just about everything the audience said tonight. Unknown Speaker 35:41 Okay. Unknown Speaker 35:45 Councilmember Martin, please. Unknown Speaker 35:50 You have to? Oh, you did? I think I did. I’m figuring out the touchscreen. But I thought, thank you. Unknown Speaker 35:57 Forgive me for I’m not sure if I’m in order at this point. But it’s kind of an urgent question. I was on the airport advisory board in 2018 and 19, as well. And at that time, everybody took the comprehensive plans plan for extending the runway as a goal and then, you know, for I was away, not on this board for a while. And when I came back, Unknown Speaker 36:31 there was I think some confusion has has either the FAA rules or boulder County’s land ownership changed, such as to make the runway extension infeasible because Unknown Speaker 36:46 I, I’m confessed that I’m confused about that. But that was my understanding was that we can’t extend the runway now. Unknown Speaker 36:55 So I can answer a little bit to that. Unknown Speaker 36:58 It is true a few years back, the FAA changed the rules on runway safety areas, which required the acquisition of more land. So if we did want to extend the runway, we would have to acquire land, that land had to be to the west of the airport. So not completely undoable. Unknown Speaker 37:14 There was a second part of the question, what was the first part of it? I’m sorry? I’m sorry. Oh, thank you. Yeah, that was that was essentially it? Was that the land? Because I thought there was more to it than that, which is that, that the ownership status of the land itself has also changed, which would make it difficult for us to acquire it. And that’s something that Phil may know more about, because Unknown Speaker 37:42 you wish you did? Yeah. Because, you know, we’ve we’ve approached Boulder County about several land uses on that, you know, west of the airport, parcel, and they have really not been very eager to negotiate with us on any of that land use. And of course, that’s, that’s always going to be a an obstacle and moving forward at the airport, we can always have the discussion about potentially extending the runway, it’s going to take a commitment on everyone’s part, if we want to do that the city is going to have to be on board, the landowners are gonna have to be on board. And most importantly, the FAA is going to have to be on board. To my understanding that was a major hang up. previous administrations or managers kind of ran into roadblocks with that. So new discussions would have to be had and new bridges built in selling that idea moving forward, if we do that. Well. So the reason for me asking the question is that I just wanted to eliminate the confusion, things have changed. It is less feasible than it was before. And there are there are new roadblocks, there are challenges for sure. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 38:53 But I would just say the current master plan still calls for it. And that has not changed either. That’s true. Mr. Robeson. Thank you. I just wanted to add on to what councilmember Martin was saying everything you guys said was correct. And I looked into it a little bit because this is one of my sub projects as an advisory board member. So not only is there county land, but because of the angle of the runway, there are two individual farm houses that would be impacted plus one commercial company than our company. So there’s four different parcels that we would have to acquire in order to even extend the runway, one foot and most of it, we have to acquire some of it if there was minimal intrusion onto the properties we could get easements on potentially. But that’s there’s going to be one that is not going to be an easement. But yes, there for sure. I think we’re on the we know what that one is that that one would definitely have to be acquired. So yeah, that’s where we are. Unknown Speaker 39:49 Anything else? I’m sorry, Mr. Bliss. Yeah, I just wanted to ask you, you said if we even extended one foot, we have to encroach land. Unknown Speaker 40:00 We don’t Unknown Speaker 40:05 I’m just gonna say that in the microphone because of the changes in the even runway safety area requirements, even if we were actually out of CES right now. Oh, we are now. Okay. I didn’t know that. We’re Yeah, we are. We’re operating good because we got in before the change rules. But if we did any changes, we would have to acquire more land for sure. Yeah. Unknown Speaker 40:29 If anything else on your update, no, that’s what I had on my notes. So let’s move on to information items, then presentations for a B discussions. So this is just kind of continuing on and trying to keep open the dialogue of, you know, moving forward with any discussion items. So presentations to include for the discussions, one thing that I would just like to bring out was maybe next meeting, we could just have a discussion about the sustainability of the airport, and how we would like to move forward with that. Just have a discussion on it. Unknown Speaker 41:01 So that’s my information item for that. Any anyone have any comments on things they’d like to see? Unknown Speaker 41:09 Agreement? disagreement? Unknown Speaker 41:11 Lever? Unknown Speaker 41:14 Alright. Unknown Speaker 41:16 Vice Chair Jordan. Unknown Speaker 41:19 So when we bring up a topic, then how do we? How does that get legs? So we say it, but then are you would you present? Or do we need to? So I think, a nice one for this one. Next time, maybe next next month on information items, we have another little no point says no additional items for discussion. And on behind that also sustainability. And then we also have information is, so I’ll kind of talk about the things that happened start open dialogue, and we get input back from the board too. And then maybe that gets moved on to action items and the next meeting or something? Would there be anybody from the city that an expert or subject matter expert that could come in and speak to us? I can’t think of any restrictions to that if we wish to do that. Originally, Unknown Speaker 42:03 originally, we had talked about bringing in guest speakers for you. So we were going to look into the guest speaker piece of that too. And we’ll have we have city people who are part of the sustainability Unknown Speaker 42:14 program and part of their they have an actual department. So that would be folks we want to bring in as well and have that discussion with you. Perfect, thank you. Leave I have it asked as part of that. This was going to be one of my comments later. But bring it up now. There is the draft sustainability resolution. I would like to have that be part of the discussion as well. And that was kind of my concept is that it’d be a good point in the meeting to kind of bring that out. Perfect. Yep. Unknown Speaker 42:40 You also mentioned CIP as something that’s starting up at the appropriate point, I’d like that to be one of the items that comes back as well, we will in fact, I’ll put them my notes to the next meeting, too. And that doesn’t necessarily need to be next meeting depending on where we are in the development. But at the appropriate point, it would be good to bring it back. Unknown Speaker 42:59 Anyone else? Unknown Speaker 43:03 Pals Go ahead. On the topic of the runway extension, has there been any sort of financial analysis on the increase in revenues from fuel vers the costs and when the break even point would be? Unknown Speaker 43:18 To my knowledge, there hasn’t been any detailed analysis beyond what was kind of touched base in the master plan, if you include that document. Unknown Speaker 43:29 It is true. And it’s been talked about in the master plan, increasing runway length would potentially allow Well, it would allow small jet aircraft was still in the category of operating in our airport to come in and be able to land and take off without necessarily restriction. As a former Unknown Speaker 43:48 charter pilot myself, I can say that is a draw for an airport. Certainly, if I know that I can go from point A to point B without having to make a stop point. See, Unknown Speaker 43:59 I’m more likely to choose one airport over another. So that’s the benefit of a length. To quantify it, we would have to have more research done then as far as dollars and cents. That’s what I’m asking. And I think that counts is sustainability, at least financial sustainability of the airport. So I think that should also be covered. Unknown Speaker 44:21 Thank you. Unknown Speaker 44:25 Councilmember Martin, thank you. I have a question for the board. Unknown Speaker 44:31 If we were going to arrange presentations by either the sustainability staff or by an outside expert, what kind of length of presentation are you thinking about? Because some Unknown Speaker 44:48 Exactly, there are people who would give you an hour and I don’t think you want that. Okay, so could Unknown Speaker 44:55 I heard a five minutes that may have been slightly ingest? I mean, I’m Unknown Speaker 45:02 I’m not even thinking 15 I was one. Yeah. I mean, I think it depends on the topic. It depends on, you know, if we have a ton of action items, but yeah. Oh, yeah. Sustainability in particular. Yeah. 15 minutes plus some q&a. Absolutely q&a. And I would probably put public comment in as part of that as well, so that we actually get direct feedback on that topic, which we’ve done with some of the some discussions as well. Love it. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 45:32 That’s simply my opinion, though. So if anyone has their own, please chime in. This seems logical to me. I agree. All right. Unknown Speaker 45:43 Anything else on presentations for discussions? Unknown Speaker 45:47 Move on then engineering consultant update, Phil. Unknown Speaker 45:53 Good evening, members of the airport advisory board. My name is Phil Greenwald, transportation planning manager with the city. Just a quick update, we are still working with our purchasing group to make sure that we get the RFQ out now we’re going to do a request for qualifications instead of a strict, strict proposal. So we’re hoping that goes a little quicker. But we still need your help. And we do have the more the board member who volunteered. So we’ll have that. We get that information out to you once we know where we are with the purchasing department for us. So it is taking a little longer than we had hoped. I’ll be honest with you, and we are working to make sure we get that out very soon. We need to have it done quickly for CDOT regs. So we are working diligently to get that done. But it is hung up right now in our Purchasing Group. Thanks. Unknown Speaker 46:45 Thank you, Mike for Mr. Robeson. Thank you, Unknown Speaker 46:48 Phil, I’m not that familiar with RFQs and RFPs. But I do know an engineering firm that’s interested in submitting a bid do they need to do anything before those come out, or they just wait for them to come out? Unknown Speaker 47:00 Board Member Robinson, we ask that they wait for the RFQ to be released. And then that we have a bit there’s a bid process, it’s very formalized. So we need to make sure they follow all those pieces, we can talk to them until the RFQ goes out and then we can’t we have to stop talking to them once that hits the streets. So that’ll be the formal piece of that. And that’ll be pretty evident. Once we know that we’ll make sure we get that information out to the board. So you know what time it is, what timing of that is as well. Unknown Speaker 47:34 And what else? Unknown Speaker 47:38 Well, let’s move on to the airport leases. I know, I know, this is one we actually all want to talk about. Good. Alright, so I think attached to all your packet should be a draft example of that lease, I would like point out as just a draft, that is not a final form of that lease necessarily. So I’d like to just discuss a couple items in here. The first one is that turn which is section 2.1, which you can see as it should be if it’s the same as mine highlighted in red on that. Unknown Speaker 48:10 Coming back to the discussion, and then back and forth what occurred between the city’s attorney’s office and advisors we talked to, we definitely we can’t do 30 years with 30, your option to renew. So that’s out. So the term of the lease really could can be left to be negotiable between each lease. Unknown Speaker 48:29 I’m kind of proposing moving forward with that we do make that initial a 30 year is just for the convenience of people aren’t getting loans and stuff like that. Unknown Speaker 48:39 As far as what we would want to do for an optional renewal, I would certainly pass that back potentially for comment to to the board and stuff like that, too, if they wanted to be some discussion about what we could do for renewal, but I am suggesting that moving forward with that we do change the base rate term to 30 years moving forward. Unknown Speaker 48:59 Can we start with that? Since I know there’s a lot on term and kind of move section by section. Okay. Unknown Speaker 49:06 Russell, I see you’re in there. Do you want to talk about her? Okay, Mr. Robeson, then thank you. Unknown Speaker 49:11 If you’re really committed to saying we can’t do 30 plus 30, I would move that we just recommend we do 30 plus 20. That would be hopefully acceptable to everybody in the audience as a 30 year lease. Now Unknown Speaker 49:24 I’m seeing some nods. And some I mean, it’s a 30 year lease so that I think that’s what everybody’s going for. Is there any reason to consider anything else? We’ve heard tons of comments that say we want 30. Unknown Speaker 49:36 Russell, did you have an I heard move in your was that an official verb that you were making a motion? Sure I moved that the board recommend that we do a 30 year with a Unknown Speaker 49:47 with a 20 year option to renew. Would anyone like to second that? I know there’s discussion I’ll let you discuss but I would like to second at first. Unknown Speaker 49:55 Are you second? Unknown Speaker 49:59 I Unknown Speaker 50:00 Uh, either need a second on the motion. And we can discuss it. You’ll second. Alright, so we can discuss. All right. I see a lot of people in queue I’m sorry. Yes. Unknown Speaker 50:10 Tell us Europe first. Steve, I will get to you, I promise. So we’re discussing the motion, which is the recommendation 30 plus 20. Unknown Speaker 50:18 I’m doing my best towel. Let’s go. Unknown Speaker 50:22 You know, I really respect Mr. Morgan’s experience having been on this board, and he seems to have done some research. Levi, have you spoken to the people that Mr. Morgan has? And he’s, he’s he’s very confident that the 30 plus 30 is doable. I’m not an expert, not a lawyer. But have you had discussions with him to see his point of view? Yes, I actually also queried the FAA directly, and said, If I were to offer a 30 year lease with their job interview, I asked them directly, would you consider that a violation of grant assurances? And they told me very to the point, yes, we would consider that a violation of your grant assurances. And that’s from Mr. Mike mots at the Federal Aviation Administration. He’s the individual who oversees our grant assurances. Unknown Speaker 51:13 Counsel, Councilmember Martin, Unknown Speaker 51:16 again, always just for information. But since you have a contact with Mr. mots First, I would like to know who the city attorney is that helped with this lease. That would be Christopher, Robbie, Christopher Robbie, okay. Because there might be a way out of that, especially if other airports are doing 30 plus 30. Unknown Speaker 51:44 And that is that you inspect the property that is at the time of renewal, you expect the property and that is that is on the leased parcel. And if it can be certified to have a useful life of 30 more years, then you might be able to give a 30 year renewal but otherwise, the hangar owner would have to settle for a 20 year renewal. Unknown Speaker 52:12 And I don’t know whether that’s been tried or not. But I would like to see it tried if it’s not because I was a big proponent of 30 year leases. And I’d really hate to see that go away. Unknown Speaker 52:25 Governmental Martin, I just want to state that our attorney’s office as well as our city manager’s office has recommended strongly that we not do a 3030 not do the 64 weeks. So that’s what’s come back to us as far as recommendations from both our city attorney’s office and our city manager’s office. So that’s why we’re moving forward with what we’re saying with the 30 plus 20. Okay, just for information, why did you go back to 20? On the initial because I mean, we do need investment in the airport? Oh, we were not going back to 20 on the initial Oh, but it’s in the it’s, if it’s just this is just a draft. So that’s why this first point, I wanted to mention that we haven’t said it yet. So it hadn’t been changed yet. Unknown Speaker 53:09 Okay, now. Unknown Speaker 53:11 So that’s why I’m recommending 30 years and then the term to be up for discussion. Unknown Speaker 53:17 So Unknown Speaker 53:20 this was the draft in the form that we got it straight back from the city attorney’s office, and that hadn’t been addressed yet. Unknown Speaker 53:30 After discussion, I’ll second that when the attorney Unknown Speaker 53:37 counselor Martin, anything else. Unknown Speaker 53:39 Mr. Bliss? Unknown Speaker 53:41 I just wanted to ask, what’s the 50 year restriction? What is that? Unknown Speaker 53:47 So I don’t understand that. So Unknown Speaker 53:51 I think most of us are familiar with the concept of grant assurances are so prior to receiving federal funding, we have to make assurances we have to make promises to the FAA that there are certain things we won’t do. So as one of the questions we made in our minutes, we won’t restrict competition on their field. And we can’t stop someone from building a new FBO. We can’t say no, you can’t build up you’ll hear one of the other ones we can’t do is dispose of land on the airfield. So the FAA has come out and official letters of recommendation from the people who decide whether we violate grants or not, and said that if you lease Unknown Speaker 54:29 a piece of land for more than 50 years, we consider you’re essentially losing so much control that it’s like you’re getting rid of it is essentially what they say. So for them, you know, financial standpoint, 30 years is plenty to amortize your investment that you put into a piece of land. So they see that kind of as a starting point, and we’re allowed to offer up to 50 years. Moving forward, I would strongly recommend that we just don’t default to a 50 year lease Unknown Speaker 55:00 That’s still incredibly generous. I’ve never been at an airport before that offers full fifth year leases starting right off the bat. I certainly agree that starting with a 30 year lease makes a lot of logical sense, and particularly now that the city allows it, because that allows you to get loans that allows you to put infrastructure that allows you to make paperwork way easier when you’re trying to invest at the airport. Unknown Speaker 55:25 Thank you, Unknown Speaker 55:27 Steve at the little danger here. I went googling this afternoon, and found the FAA airport compliance manual, section 12. That is on review of aeronautical lease agreements, I’m just going to read the section on term. Because it goes directly into this does the term exceeded a period of years that is reasonably necessary to amortize attendance investment does at least provide for multiple options for the term with no increased compensation to the sponsor? Most tenant ground leases of 30 to 35 years are sufficient to retire attendance initial financing and provide a reasonable return for the tenants development of major facilities leases that exceed 50 years may be considered a disposal the property and that term of the lease, I’m sorry, may be considered a disposal the property in that the term of the lease will likely exceed the useful life of the structures erected on the property. FAA offices should not consent to proposed lease terms that exceed 50 years. Unknown Speaker 56:17 I’m all for 30, as our starting point, I don’t even want to really have a debate on 20 Verse 30, on that point, but that’s where the 50 at least seems pretty clear to me, as a non attorney. Unknown Speaker 56:32 Anyone else on term at least, Steve, go ahead, sorry. And then we’ll end I’ll get you. So if you have a 30 year lease, now, that’s you’re not proposing to change that, you just mean that that 30 year lease, when it’s over, it’ll revert to a 20 year. So where we’re at right now, is in the delicate position with the FAA where there have been some 30 year leases with 33 options to renew done on their field. And they’re not happy. But we’re in a position where management has changed. And they’re not necessarily motivated to come here with all of their lawyers and start going after us right now. So that’s kind of where this discussion started. Unknown Speaker 57:17 finger wag and say, You can’t do that. So I am the moment more than happy to kinda not poke them and make them angry so that they do come out here and poke at leases that we have set up in that manner, and just move forward with their guidance. Unknown Speaker 57:37 Vice Chair Jordan, Unknown Speaker 57:39 I was going to ask if the city would provide justification for there being against the 3030. But it sounds like that’s mute. And then just to clarify that 20 year leases are still available. So if the hanger is older, I could take a 20 year lease. Oh, I’m recommending a 30 year lease. Okay, that initially so Is 20 still an option for you say an existing one of the older hangars that’s so if someone just wanted to do a 20 year lease, you mean yes, I absolutely want to do 20 I’m recommending a 30 year lease. That’s kind of a starting point. But as I kind of mentioned at the beginning is like it’s all negotiable. So if I mean, I’ve got leases on the airport, we’ve done them for five years, I just did one for a year, a little while ago. So it’s all negotiable. Just because the Yeah, the argument that it 50 years, the whatever structure was on it would have timed out, doesn’t hold true at our airport, we’ve got structures older than that. And then I managed an airport that got hit by a tornado. Yeah, everything on the airport was new. Now we’re getting into interesting discussions of evaluation of buildings and the life of a building and stuff like that. So so it’s making the assumption that you’re talking about the original building. And we do have quite a few of those that are still standing so and then catastrophe where things have been replaced in the 29th year of a lease, and suddenly you’ve got a whole new building thanks to a tornado. So few exceptions there. But as long as Unknown Speaker 59:09 we have the 30 year option, because we did fight hard to get that highest is the city. And I’m with Marsha on that one. And there’s very, there’s a very logical argument for that. And my main I can’t think of any reason for us not to do it. Okay. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 59:25 Any other comments on term here, before we move on to another section? Unknown Speaker 59:31 I think we’ve so I’ll just make one kind of point of order for all of us. This is an information item tonight. We’re not voting to recommend these changes. We’re not voting it forward. I would encourage anyone who’s listening to this, who disagrees with what we’re talking about tonight, to Unknown Speaker 59:50 make that known as last public invited to be heard and kind of bring those comments forward, presumably next meeting or the meeting after we will vote on advising council to adopt this as a new Unknown Speaker 1:00:00 format. So there is still more opportunity to continue commenting on this. Unknown Speaker 1:00:06 Mr. Robeson Unknown Speaker 1:00:08 Are you are you reminding me that you still have your motion on the floor that we haven’t voted on? Unknown Speaker 1:00:14 Please go ahead. Unknown Speaker 1:00:15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unknown Speaker 1:00:17 I just realize it’s in the same paragraph. It says the lessee shall have the option to negotiate with the city for renewal. Is that what you meant to say? I mean, to me, it should be the lessee shall have the option to renew the lease. So that’s the standard lease terminology that came back from legal. So I haven’t, I have to dive a little bit deeper into that. If for comment, I suppose they always have the option to negotiate with the city right. Now, the reason I put that in writing? Again, it was standard contract stuff that I assume the city put in there for a reason. Unknown Speaker 1:00:53 Okay, well, to me that’s worthless to have in there. So I would have a conversation about that. I mean, at the end of a 30 year lease, if there’s no option for renewal, you would have to negotiate a new lease, correct? Yeah. Okay. So how is that different from having the option to negotiate for renewal of the lease? Unknown Speaker 1:01:14 Again, I’d have to get into the details of the legal reason why this is put this way, but I assume it has been put here due to experience of past leasings. Unknown Speaker 1:01:26 All right. Unknown Speaker 1:01:28 Russell, I think that’s a good catch, though, because it makes us a 30 year lease hard stop, as opposed to a 30 plus 20. Unknown Speaker 1:01:37 doesn’t agree with why I would, I’d love to hear more about that. Unknown Speaker 1:01:42 Yeah. Unknown Speaker 1:01:45 Palace. Unknown Speaker 1:01:47 Yeah, just to add on. If they’re renegotiating, wouldn’t that be a new lease? And then that’s going around the whole issue with 50 years? Because then you could do 30? And then 30, then 30, then 30? Right. Unknown Speaker 1:02:01 Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything that stops you from doing, you know, 100 years as leases, as long as it’s separate leases. Yeah. I mean, the FAA guidance you can do that. It’d be one long lease. Exactly. Methuselah could rent this and, you know, over and over and over and over again, as long as they renegotiated for each term. And then again, you know, any comments, you have anything that you’d like to change in here, this is straight from the city’s attorney’s office. So you know, we’re taking comments and we can certainly ask them how they’d like to proceed order, if they’re doing things for a certain reason. Unknown Speaker 1:02:35 I’m going to bring us back to the motion that’s on the floor, which is to recommend Unknown Speaker 1:02:40 Levi that we do 30 plus 2030 year term, 20 year option. Any other further comments on that? Unknown Speaker 1:02:48 All those in favor of making that recommendation to the airport manager say aye? Aye. Any opposed? Unknown Speaker 1:02:56 You have a recommendation? Unknown Speaker 1:03:00 move on from term to whatever the next one was that I interrupted you on? Unknown Speaker 1:03:05 Right. So the next major item we have for discussion here is the addition or the changing of 2.2, which is essentially modifying a little bit of the city’s first right of refusal. So the way that the leases have existed in the past, at the end of a contract, the city essentially has the opportunity to purchase a piece of land. So at the end of the lease, the city has the opportunity to come in and say okay, you know, we want this chunk of land, we’ve got this plan, we got that plan. We would like to develop this area for this or that. The reality of the situation is very rarely do leases actually come to full term. Usually what happens is 1520 years into a lease lease gets sold and new leases generated in 1520 years into that lease, lease gets sold new leases generated. So in the past, there has never been really an opportunity to have any control of the land at the airport, once it’s put out for that initial development. Most airports solve this by putting in a reversionary clause. I don’t necessarily think that’s the best idea for us at this moment. I really kind of like the fact that Unknown Speaker 1:04:21 when you come to this airport, that’s not just expected about most airports, certainly on the Front Range, as expected. You’re going to have this chunk of land. You know, if you build an FBO, you got it for 50 years, 50 years, you know, the city takes it. I think it’s not something we necessarily want to do right now just as to have a little bit of something that we can hold out there to developers and stuff like that and people who want to, you know, invest into the airport, that if you bring all this money to the airport, at the end of your lease, essentially is evaluated and you get the value for what you’re building it Unknown Speaker 1:05:00 That’s. So I think that’s something that we can maintain. That’s my personal opinion, to just kind of draw in some some Unknown Speaker 1:05:08 more investment the airport, one thing that would be very nice is if the city did have the option to if they really wanted to do something to be able to control some land. So another way of potentially solving that is to kind of increase our first right of refusal options. So this doesn’t necessarily force Unknown Speaker 1:05:29 you know, someone to give up their land or something like that. But what it says is, if you’re selling your hangar, the city gets the option to buy that hanger. So if we’ve got, you know, hanger, you know, 99, whose was built on the field in 1941, which is right where we want a brand new FBO, and it’s being sold next month, the city has the option to come in and say, No, we would like to buy that instead, because we have this plan. Now, having said all of this, there is no grand plan for the city to necessarily develop anything on the airport, this is looking way down the road. So this is just a provision and I’m hoping and leases moving forward, that should a very strong need come up with the city or the airport community to change direction one way or the other. There’s at least something in writing that would potentially allow the city to do that. And not just kind of be stuck in this perpetual loop of little hangers being built and nothing kind of ever changing potentially are no power to change it on their field. Unknown Speaker 1:06:36 Mr. Robeson, thank you. Unknown Speaker 1:06:40 Were to begin Unknown Speaker 1:06:44 to even talk about reversion as something that is not appropriate at this time. Unknown Speaker 1:06:50 leaving it open for a future time, I think is completely at odds with what everyone wants, who uses the airport, everyone in this audience would be aghast if that ever came to fruition. And so you’re saying it’s not that bad. But here we are giving first right of refusal, not just at the end of the lease. But anytime you want to sell your hangar. This is not as bad. But it is Unknown Speaker 1:07:15 it is inhibiting investment. If you don’t, if the city does not want a bunch of little hangars, they’ve had an ample opportunity to put money up and develop their own buildings and everything. Unknown Speaker 1:07:27 This is something that is going to really turn people away from coming to this airport, from building hangars from being at the airport. And if you really insist on it, 30 days is absurd. Imagine you have something to sell. And you have a buyer that says I’m ready. I have the money. Here it is. And you say well, we have to wait a month for the city to decide. I mean, that’s glacial. Are you kidding me? And again, this isn’t something that there’s plans to do. This is kind of an option to give the city some kind of leeway if they have plans or desires to do something on the airport to actually do it. Because right now, we have essentially no way of doing anything on the airport. Once a hanger has been built on a piece of land, but there’s a lot of perpetuity in the future. There’s lots of land that’s not covered by little hangars. That’s true. How much longer is it going to be that way? Unknown Speaker 1:08:18 I’m thinking 100 years down the road here. Yeah, there’ll be a new lease written before that time, I would say everything in blue in here a nice color to make it appear not as imposing. I mean, we have records of an airport of essentially, there’s parcels that have never come to full term because they’ve been sold over and over and over. So there’s properties on the airport that had been out of the airport’s hands for since the airport existed. That’s what the city has wanted this whole time. When we whenever we said hey city, why wouldn’t you be interested in coming in and operating some hangars? That’ll cost money up front? That’s what they’ve been Unknown Speaker 1:08:55 for 1020 years. That’s the way we’ve been operating. Unknown Speaker 1:08:59 So are you saying that, you know, just maybe they might go in a totally different direction and start spending huge Transcribed by