Airport Advisory Board Meeting – December 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 0:01
All right, good evening, everybody.
Unknown Speaker 0:03
It’s six o’clock. So let’s call our December 8 2022 meeting of the airport advisory board to order
Unknown Speaker 0:13
please start with a roll
Unknown Speaker 0:17
Unknown Speaker 0:37
Unknown Speaker 0:50
thank you very much. We’ve got a busy agenda this evening, we have a lot to discuss. I do want to make one note on the agenda. Under each of the action items, sustainable sustainability resolution recommendation, and the lease language recommendation, we will have separate public invited to be heard on each of those topics. You are more than welcome to bring it up at the beginning. But you’re also welcome to save comments for each of those sections individually, so they can be directed to them.
Unknown Speaker 1:17
With that, Russell, good evening.
Unknown Speaker 1:22
I will open public invited to be heard for our first public invited to be heard. Would anyone like to speak now? I’ve got Dan Peters, and Ken Becker signed up either if you’d like to go now save it your call? Oh, wait for seven.
Unknown Speaker 1:37
Unknown Speaker 1:42
Anyone else wanted to speak now?
Unknown Speaker 1:47
Okay. And we’ll move on to our approval of November 2022 minutes.
Unknown Speaker 1:53
Does anyone have any comments, revisions?
Unknown Speaker 1:58
Vice Chair Jordan. Sorry, my Holden.
Unknown Speaker 2:02
Go ahead. Just one small one. Page four, line three. Public invited we heard done Dorsey. And he was talking about the beacon light. And it says he stated the green light is unobservable. And that the white light is preferred is how it’s in the minutes. It should be like clearly observed. You can see the green light. You can’t see the white one.
Unknown Speaker 2:24
And we want to clarify that I think it was probably observed.
Unknown Speaker 2:32
The green the white light can be observed the green is
Unknown Speaker 2:38
Unknown Speaker 2:42
Thank you. Does anyone have any other comments changes for November 2022 minutes?
Unknown Speaker 2:50
All right. Anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes?
Unknown Speaker 2:54
I’ll make a motion to approve. Mr. Dean made the motion a second. Vice Chair Jordan seconded.
Unknown Speaker 3:03
Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries minutes approved updates from the airport manager lever.
Unknown Speaker 3:17
Oop, there we go. Right item one southwest sewer project. That’ll be pretty quick things are going really well with that. So far, so good. There’s been just one little minor change order. They need a little additional grapple for compacting under the pipe because there’s a little bit more water than they thought there was. But apart from that pretty much on schedule, things going on track pretty much on budget things are are pretty good. They’re moving pretty quick out there. So things are going well. seconds. So that’s item one.
Unknown Speaker 3:48
To keep on any questions on Thomas questions right away,
Unknown Speaker 3:53
we’ll keep going. We’re saving it for the fun topics right now prey dog mitigation. Continue on with meetings on that currently, we’re having a little issue with some of the mitigation.
Unknown Speaker 4:08
avenues that we want to pursue. As far as supplies and getting materials in, goes with the USDA and stuff like that. We’re currently looking at additional new avenues we could kind of explore to perhaps mitigate that radar problem out there. We’re having another meeting about that tomorrow. So hopefully have some new plans come up and move forward with that. So that is still very much in the middle of plan making and decision making for a good solid plan on that.
Unknown Speaker 4:39
Engineering. This item to any questions on that? Anyone?
Unknown Speaker 4:45
Okay, all right. Third item. I’m sorry, hold on a second. Councilmember Martin. Sorry, you popped up.
Unknown Speaker 4:53
Sorry. Here I was trying not to talk too much. But people call me all the time about prayer.
Unknown Speaker 5:00
Are you dogs?
Unknown Speaker 5:02
And as Phil knows very well,
Unknown Speaker 5:06
why would the airport not use the same prairie dog mitigation techniques that the city uses on its other land? We currently are using the same techniques for using pert machines, which is kind of the city’s approved method of mitigating prairie dogs. The problem is that the volume of prairie dogs at the airport, in comparison to the staff the city has is kind of overwhelming. So many prairie dogs, they can’t get ahead of it. The problem is they come out they can only treat so many holes. And then they got to go do their their other rounds when they come back. It’s it’s worse than it was before. So we got to find a method of getting ahead of it, and then potentially they can stay on top of they promised that if we can get on top of it, then then they wouldn’t well, then reprioritize and make sure that doesn’t get out of hand again. Thank you. That’s a good reason. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 6:03
All right. Any other questions? Yeah, go ahead. All right, engineering consultant update schedule. So we’re currently go along with Tallis is helping us out on the selection for those new engineers. We’re currently in the middle of reviewing the proposals that we receive received by proposals, currently digging through those, and evaluating those we will have and I think it is now another meeting Monday to discuss those evaluations. And then shortly after that, we’ll start setting up interviews for potential engineers out the airport. So that’s where that project is currently.
Unknown Speaker 6:40
Unknown Speaker 6:43
Unknown Speaker 6:46
Thank you. We’ve got no information item. So we’ll move right into action items. So sustainability resolution recommendation.
Unknown Speaker 6:55
Philippe, I don’t know who I’m introducing for this if one of you guys can
Unknown Speaker 7:00
Unknown Speaker 7:04
So tonight, we have folks from our sustainability group, to talk a little bit about the sustainability resolution that you originally brought forward to staff, I think that was part of how that kind of came about, we were able to go through that and take it back to staff. So so it’s kind of has an interesting history where it started out kind of from the private sector, I believe, and from council member maybe as well, and came in as something to kind of look at and see if, if you were interested in it.
Unknown Speaker 7:40
Lots of changes happened in that time period. We took it back as a new staff took a look at it, and wanted to run it by our sustainability, folks. So tonight, we have Francie Jaffe. On the far in there from she is our sustainability coordinator, I believe, is the title I put in an animal Roy, our energy portfolio development manager. So they’re both here to kind of talk through some of the different things. You the the language was really well done. And so we went through it, but we had some additions to it. And then we have some other questions for you as well. So friends, if you don’t mind, kind of walking the board through this, and we’ll see where we end up. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Phil. As Phil mentioned, my name is Francie Jaffe. I’m a sustainability coordinator. And so most of the edits and I don’t know if it would make sense to scroll through it on the screen as I
Unknown Speaker 8:43
that’s okay. Well, why why Phil’s bringing that up. Most, a lot of the data edits were just to add a little bit more information, a little bit more context. And then we had a couple of comments such as questions for the board at the end about the scope of the resolution, and whether the board would like to expand it beyond the current areas of sustainability it focuses on. So at the top. Thanks, Phil. So the couple edits at the top are just tying the resolution to some of the other policies and plans that have been passed by the city, as well as highlighting the greenhouse gas emissions that were generated by the airport in 2019, which was the last time we did a greenhouse gas inventory. We’re currently doing an update so we should have more information soon on more recent data. And then scrolling down there’s a couple points that it was a little bit more than
Unknown Speaker 9:47
kind of adding additional information. We added. There was a we added we wanted to call out that there would be a need for a capital improvement project to add
Unknown Speaker 10:00
to electric grid infrastructure improvements to meet the different electrification focus areas of the resolution. So we wanted to specifically call that out as an additional line. And then as and then the rest of the edits in the main section, were mostly just for clarity, adjusting the language a little bit to better align, and I think just make it a little clearer from staffs point of view. And then the another addition that is more of a content addition was in section one, we added, including aligning codes with Boulder County code cohort recommendations to support solar ready, hangars and shade port structures as well as building in ground vehicle electrification. This is currently an effort by Boulder County to do joint county wide code recommendations, though, I do want to note that these codes have not been discussed by city council. So there could be a decision that those would need to be discussed first before including that into this resolution. But we wanted to make sure that there was if aligning with codes was a component that it that it could either align with Boulder County codes, or that could be adjusted to align with the most ambitious, long long codes to help meet the electrification goals. So that’s a summary I didn’t walk through all the different, all the edits of the resolution, the rest of them, again, were more just to help provide clarity, I did want to highlight that currently, the resolution has a very carbon free energy focus and electrification focus, as well as a focus on generating green jobs. The resolution is titled A sustainable aviation resolution. And we wanted to highlight to the board that if the board is interested, staff would be happy to look at other areas of sustainability. It could be waste reduction, it could be water reduction, we have a tool that we could use to focus in on the different areas of sustainability that could be most relevant outside of energy and job growth. So we want to also can add that option to the board. So essentially, to summarize,
Unknown Speaker 12:23
the direction we’d like from the board is that it could either stay with the the focus, and either accept the staff edits or add additional edits with that non Carbon Energy focus, or direct staff if you would all like to expand beyond sustainability into other areas, and we can come back, or of course, you could recommend that you’re not interested in progressing this resolution forward. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 12:52
Unknown Speaker 12:53
Comments, questions from board members here?
Unknown Speaker 13:03
I would if you if you have questions. Go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 13:06
Vice Chair Jordan. I have several questions. I note the 300 cars, the annual
Unknown Speaker 13:15
annual rate of 300 cars. What is that percentage wise to the number of cars on the road in Longmont? What, what does that represent?
Unknown Speaker 13:24
Yeah, so we try to metric tons I always find is a hard number to visualize. So we try to add an equivalency of what
Unknown Speaker 13:38
1300 metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent would look like. So it would be about the equivalent of adding additional 300 cars to our road system. Phil, do you have a off the top of your head? How many cars typically? I know VMT?
Unknown Speaker 13:57
Unknown Speaker 14:00
Unknown Speaker 14:02
Oh, all right.
Unknown Speaker 14:04
Yeah, I just wondered what the purpose so just just as an example,
Unknown Speaker 14:08
Main Street, right here, the 300 block of main street cars about 20,000 vehicles 25,000 vehicles a day.
Unknown Speaker 14:17
So if that gives you any kind of concept of order of magnitude, I hope that helps. Okay, that’s good.
Unknown Speaker 14:25
Unknown Speaker 14:28
I’ve definitely appreciated the whereas both private and public investment in the emerging sustainable aviation battery battery industry is large and increasing and creates business development opportunities for long run. I think that is at least we’re speaking only for myself. That’s my interest in this is to keep it open to
Unknown Speaker 14:51
could be sustainability like you’re talking about all the way to fuel and energy savings and particularly the electrification in partner
Unknown Speaker 15:00
trip with LPC is the thing that I can see, and I’m not an engineer or planner, but I can I can visualize that, my concern is that there is no way we will ever be able to be 100% compliant. And we need to
Unknown Speaker 15:15
acknowledge that and decide how we want to approach this. We have aircraft that are
Unknown Speaker 15:22
we got vintage aircraft, we’ve got aircraft that are going to be burning leaded fuel
Unknown Speaker 15:28
until they’re taken offline, and then our jet traffic as well. And so we do the 100%
Unknown Speaker 15:37
goal isn’t realistic for what happens for how long airplanes stay functioning, they last a very long time when you take care of them. So those engines are not, you know, we’re not going to be all buying new planes in the next three years, their
Unknown Speaker 15:53
minds 1981. So they’re old. And so we’re, we’re bound by that reality. So I’m trying to do was trying to see where reality comes into this for the airport, as a supporter, and as somebody really interested in seeing us leverage that electrification idea.
Unknown Speaker 16:13
And again, in a partnership with the city because of our unique situation. So I just see that it’s not going to be, I don’t believe it’s going to successfully be a case of one or the other, for the airport that we either do it or we don’t do it, we have to be inclusive, and include all the varieties of aircraft that exist, grandfathered, but again, planes lasts forever. So even grandfather, you know, the grandfather clauses are going to have to be 75 years. So otherwise, it looks good. I did note that all the sidebar comments. And I think the motivation, at least, again, speaking for myself is to be a pioneer in this and to support the electric
Unknown Speaker 16:57
pursuit and to be an airport that have to become a destination for electric aircraft. And that would make us unique. And that’s always been the goal. But just to understand that 100% compliance is not, that’s not going to be feasible. So what do we do to be pioneers, be ready for the future be positioning ourself for the future, as it rolls out, but still support all the planes that are on the field that can’t be retrofitted or changed to electric on some of them even to some of the other fuels? But otherwise, it read well, and I did see that we got the the cleanse the you know, the cleaned up version. and
Unknown Speaker 17:38
and I definitely appreciate that we’re having the conversation finally, and that we’re finally getting this and getting you in front of us. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 17:46
Thank you for your comments. And we can definitely explore looking at language if the board is interested that speaks that adjusts. And speaks to
Unknown Speaker 17:56
just reflecting back what you heard that
Unknown Speaker 18:00
the resolution wants to highlight been pioneering without while being still realistic that not all aircraft can be transitioned to 100%. Electricity.
Unknown Speaker 18:12
Thank you, Mr. Dean. As somebody that has limited background, the the amount of co2 and amount of emissions seems to be off, I was a state licensed mission inspector for about a year. And most newer vehicles produced in the last 10 years or so are or are extremely clean. And in fact, I can give you some numbers. When I tested vehicles, they were point O two grams per mile.
Unknown Speaker 18:37
They’re they’re really, really clean. So modern automotive fuel is much cleaner than aviation fuel. So when I see
Unknown Speaker 18:46
you know, 1300, car 1300 cars, I think it’s probably a lot more than that, to be honest, because my amount of pollution cars make now very, very low compared to aircraft. So
Unknown Speaker 18:59
and then secondly, the charging standards. I like that we’re trying to jump ahead, but charging standards, at least in the automotive world. There’s about three right now. But I would hate to see the city investing in the dollar for charging electrification and then the aviation industry take an additive return are we stuck with millions of dollars of charging that we can’t use, because there’s a completely different charging infrastructure?
Unknown Speaker 19:22
Right now there’s a fight. There’s three different ones. And then there’s even a couple of offshoots of the current charging standards in Europe that are 800 volt. So, you know, if we spent millions of dollars and then Cessna and
Unknown Speaker 19:36
beach, other companies decided not to use those charging standards, we kind of stuck so I don’t want to go too far out in front and say let’s be the first because that can actually cause issues. So
Unknown Speaker 19:47
great, thank you for those comments. And then I wanted to share that.
Unknown Speaker 19:54
Another way of we could present the greenhouse gas data is a percentage of our total emission
Unknown Speaker 20:00
runs in currently, the the it’s less than 1% from the Vance brand airport of our total city wide emissions. So that could be another way instead of doing that equivalency to cars, and then we don’t run into that conflict that car efficiency changes over time. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 20:18
Thank you, Councilmember Martin.
Unknown Speaker 20:23
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just to save,
Unknown Speaker 20:28
I think, some discussion.
Unknown Speaker 20:32
A resolution is not an ordinance. And it’s not prescriptive in terms of what the city does. So there is nothing in the resolution whatsoever. And in fact, nothing contemplated by the city law might have long been in terms of any policies that would mandate getting rid of conventional general aviation, this resolution doesn’t say that, we’re not going to say that, you know, at some point, when we’re all choking on the fumes, the federal government might ban
Unknown Speaker 21:11
AF gas, just the way it banned, you know, leaded gasoline in the 60s for all intensive purposes.
Unknown Speaker 21:20
So, but but a resolution can’t do that. Nor can it do something like specify a particular charging standard. You know, so really, in my understanding of where, where car charging is going, there are three still out there, but there’s really only two and Tesla is providing an adapter for the other one. So it’s narrowing down pretty fast anyway. But a resolution does not call for not call for specifics, in that sense. So relax, guys. You know, all you guys want the planes built in 1950, you’re fine. This is about making the lower carbon fuels and electricity.
Unknown Speaker 22:16
Available, it’s you know, it’s not about banning anything. The other thing is that the 2030 resolution is about generating electricity are policies for getting to zero emissions. Well, actually, we don’t have any policies for getting to zero admissions, but our greenhouse gas emissions goals for the city are farther out and lower than 100%. Because nobody knows how to do that. So just, yeah, that’s just relax on those those scores. We’re not going to take your planes away.
Unknown Speaker 22:55
Thank you, Mr. Seller machine.
Unknown Speaker 22:59
Hi. I appreciate all the work that you guys have put into this. And sorry, if I missed anything from last week, but I am all about sustainability. I know quite a bit about electrification worked briefly on a solid state graphene battery, so some industry knowledge.
Unknown Speaker 23:20
For my understanding, there’s some hesitancy to for electric grids to bring on too many electric vehicles, or else there will be some sort of issue with the amount of capacity that’s available. Now, I’m not sure if there has been any sustainability studies in terms of the fiscal amount of fiscal responsibility on how much money it would take to in order to get to where we’re going in this resolution. But I have a suspicion that we’re quite a far distance away from having 100% renewable or 100% battery powered aviation just because of the grid limit. limiting factor of the grid. Right. So let’s stay realistic. Let’s make sure that we’re not, you know, just being grandiose. One thing that I am
Unknown Speaker 24:11
interested in about is the propeller. Sound vers electric versus gas. I’m not an engineer, but I don’t know how that could be different. Because if they’re just spinning at the same speed that would cause air friction to be the same.
Unknown Speaker 24:30
So I don’t really understand how that’s even possible.
Unknown Speaker 24:35
Yeah, this was one of those items that was left in so it wasn’t changed by our staff. It was just left in as a statement that was from the original language. So
Unknown Speaker 24:44
certainly a question
Unknown Speaker 24:48
I’m happy to answer some of the distribution and generation grid questions because I actually make a point of clarification to Phil I’m not from the sustainability team. I work for llama power and communications, energy portfolio development.
Unknown Speaker 25:00
manager. So just a couple of points, I can’t speak to the noise. But when it comes to the distribution grid, and you’re completely correct, right, so even just us having four level three chargers at one of our facilities is a capacity concern from an infrastructure perspective. And we’re looking at transformer upgrades and who bears the burden of those costs and things like that. So we’re looking at that from a small scale at a residential what is when one person electrifies? What do we do about that, but certainly have a large field like this. It’s something we’re considering. The city is undergoing several studies to consider things like this. So we are part of the Platte River, power authorities distributed energy resources, I’m on that steering committee, and that’s looking at it from a generation transmission level as well as the distribution level. We’re doing a gap analysis with them right now, or just the beginning of that. But that’s kind of, hey, if we fully electrify in certain areas, what would we need to support that distribution and generation level, we also are doing things at a more local level with hosting capacity for electrification. And that’s coming in two forms. The city just passed the beneficial beneficial building electrification plan in October, which was adopted by the city council. And in that plan, we kind of know that hosting capacity as a baseline study we’re doing with our engineers. We’re also doing a smart grid Roadmap project that is identifying where on the system do things need to be replaced? How can we preemptively do it? And how can we plan our CIPS, you know, 30 year have out for 30 years, at least, to support electrification. And because staff knows that this is a priority of the airport a potentially priority should this resolution pass, we’ve already begun discussions on how this area of town essentially, this substation, and the infrastructure in place at the airport would need to be modified to support that. So essentially, once folks are kind of ready to go and have some idea of what they’re looking to install at the airport, you would then come to our staff, and we would work with you to figure out what kind of the system upgrade part of that would be and what that cost would be.
Unknown Speaker 26:53
That’s very reassuring. I’m glad that you’re doing all that work. I’d love to talk offline about some of the stuff that you’re working on. Absolutely. Reach out, we’ll talk anytime.
Unknown Speaker 27:02
Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 27:07
I’ll get you in just a second.
Unknown Speaker 27:10
A couple, I guess, overarching questions. How’s any other organization in the city?
Unknown Speaker 27:19
I don’t know all the different advisory boards. But are there other resolutions like this in the city? Or is this unique to the airport?
Unknown Speaker 27:31
I would say this is unique to the airport. I do not believe we, as Hannah mentioned, just past a beneficial electrification plan. So the city will be making steps towards and that does focus on building electrification. There are also efforts we have an equal carbon free transportation roadmap that looks at vehicle electrification. And we did pass a go Eevee resolution focus more on vehicles, but it was city wide. So I would say the specific focus on a building to my knowledge is more unique.
Unknown Speaker 28:07
Anyone else knows of any other because you also have a unique operational sure automation. But yeah, sometimes there’s building specific improvements and then city wide improvements. So the beneficial building electrification plan has a goal of looking at municipal facilities for electrification. So we’re certainly looking at facility by facility, but you’re kind of your own little enclave and your operation. So I would say yeah, this is the first kind of departmental if you want to call it that or divisional sustainability initiative I am aware of, it’s helpful to understand since I know at least councilmember waters in the past has compared like from a land use perspective to some of the golf courses, which is also an enterprise fund, if the other enterprise funds are doing something similar, or if we’re on the leading edge here. I don’t want to speak for other departments. I wouldn’t say that their golf golf specifically or recreation sustainability initiative, but I would say they’re undertaking initiatives on those individual horses or buildings, right. So where I work in for LPC, I work with a lot of different departments and energy efficiency and electrification and solar and things of this sort. But no, I wouldn’t say any kind of enterprise fund or departmental entity has adopted such a resolution. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 29:17
And, Phil, this might be more for you. And Levi might even be more for councilmember Martin. We’re being asked to basically recommend that this moves forward. But my understanding is this hasn’t been introduced to council, either. So is that is if we choose to take action on this tonight is the action then to introduce it to council and make a recommendation? Is that what we’re being asked for? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I think that’s, that’s exactly right. We want to get any kind of edits that you want to put into this as a board.
Unknown Speaker 29:50
I think we recommend kind of moving forward as is but if you have any recommendations for language changes or anything like that, we’d like to make sure we incorporate them
Unknown Speaker 30:00
And then we’ll take it up to council as a recommended recommended item from this board to council to consider as a resolution. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 30:12
Okay, I’ve got, did you want to chime in on that?
Unknown Speaker 30:16
Yes, those, the, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has at least kicked around the idea of water conservation resolutions. So, you know, some enterprises are have have different than things than than others.
Unknown Speaker 30:37
Obviously, the airport has more exceptional stuff than a golf course does. But it does use a lot of water.
Unknown Speaker 30:46
So, and then once again, just the I’m sensing from the comments that
Unknown Speaker 30:57
that people are reading this as a restriction on the airport. And that’s exactly upside down, it is a way to get more stuff for the airport.
Unknown Speaker 31:09
Or to enable you know, enabled the
Unknown Speaker 31:14
get more attention for the airport, by getting its grid upgrades sooner by
Unknown Speaker 31:24
Unknown Speaker 31:26
having more reasons to put in a better FBO or a, a clubhouse at the airport, all of those things, a distributed energy resource, which is going to be a focus, get one of those for the airport. So again, it’s it doesn’t restrain the airport at all, but it
Unknown Speaker 31:48
it enables the airport. And that’s the way most resolutions are.
Unknown Speaker 31:56
So that was and that actually is, by the way, why I question the Zero Waste thing. Because that’s the only poor portion of it that has the potential of restricting the airport because we might have to put
Unknown Speaker 32:10
places that don’t exist right now for
Unknown Speaker 32:14
waste containers or for
Unknown Speaker 32:18
roads for the garbage trucks that are big enough for the garbage trucks. So I was real. I was a little bit leery about that one.
Unknown Speaker 32:26
But again, it’s just it’s still just a recommendation even in that in that particular case.
Unknown Speaker 32:33
Unknown Speaker 32:35
I’ve got Mr. Robeson, Vice Chair Jordan, and then I’m going to open it up for public comment. And we can come back to anyone else who wants to comment after that. But Mr. Robeson
Unknown Speaker 32:48
I’m sorry, hold on. I didn’t Belinda by accident.
Unknown Speaker 32:53
Go ahead. You haven’t had a chance yet. So go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Unknown Speaker 32:57
Unknown Speaker 32:59
Personally, this isn’t the thing that I care most about at the airport. But I think if you skip right down to the actual resolution sections, one and two, they’re good goals. I mean, they’re good things, like Marcia said,
Unknown Speaker 33:11
to bring some attention and money toward the airport, maybe make it a destination that’s a little bit different from some of the others. So I think sections one and two are great. I think if we if you’re looking for recommendations from us, I would cut out some of these warehouses that
Unknown Speaker 33:27
are either inaccurate or, you know, maybe don’t have the effect that we’re looking for. Specifically, I would say, just take out the whole comparison to how many cars per year because that’s not doing us any favors, like Melinda said, you know, it’s less than 1%, like you said,
Unknown Speaker 33:43
that’s it’s not a lot. So that’s not a good reason, in my mind, I would take out
Unknown Speaker 33:51
whereas carbon free fuels for sustainable ation aviation are currently available. I don’t think that’s really true on a large scale. I mean, there are getting there, the ul 85, I think is almost there for some piston aircraft. So I would just take that out, take out the noise, the propeller noise from electric planes being lower.
Unknown Speaker 34:13
The key here is yeah, we want some more investments and new things focus on that focus on getting the fuel that they’re almost ready to certify that is ultra low lead. Everyone agrees we don’t want to be dumping lead on the ground that we don’t have to so I think that’s an easy, you know, easy low hanging fruit, I guess.
Unknown Speaker 34:32
Take out the whereas there’s a shortage of pilots. That’s a nuance thing doesn’t really have much to do with flight training. As far as in battery powered aircraft. I don’t think you’re gonna be able to make the case that dramatically lowers the cost of flight school. So if you just narrow that down, I think you could focus on some of those things that really support sections one and two. That would be my vote.
Unknown Speaker 34:54
Thank you, Mr. Ellison. Vice Chair Jordan. I’m following right on what he said. I say
Unknown Speaker 35:00
Strike the engine noise and propeller noise.
Unknown Speaker 35:04
And then I would echo what Russ just said that they, I’d like to keep it a broad scope, I think it would go farther and a broad scope, especially if it’s more of a mission statement than a call to order and a task lists. My question is, and then to Marsha about the trash
Unknown Speaker 35:23
the airport other than at the airshow, we don’t produce a ton of trash because we don’t, we don’t live there we, we produce things that we take to recycling. So oil containers, the oil, there’s a place to dispose of that.
Unknown Speaker 35:40
some paper towels, some you know, we use rags to clean that. I mean, we’d really do our best to not
Unknown Speaker 35:46
maybe some water bottles and things like that. So mostly recyclable. I know in my hangar, we just have a big trash can. And I think it gets emptied maybe twice a year. And so we are producing a ton of garbage to worry about zero waste, I don’t think and we do do that for the air shows.
Unknown Speaker 36:02
And we do work with the city to provide all those containers that the air shows. And then the but my question is actually are we safe to assume a partnership with LPC and I realize you can’t speak for the entire organization. But that’s really what this hinges on is a partnership with LPC and that we become a partner view we’ve the airport’s taken its hits and we feel like the stepchildren and so as a partner with NBC as a site location i a pioneer of you know, a beta test site.
Unknown Speaker 36:41
We have a lot to offer. And I think we have a lot to deliver that we can deliver to the aviation community. But of course, it’s dependent on a partnership and that we’re treated as partners. And that LPC leverages what we have, which is some space and some demand. And that just seems to be the critical component. So my question is just, we make this but we really depend on that partnership to make it happen. So it can you tell us if LPC is committed to a partnership
Unknown Speaker 37:16
with city entities with with entities within the city and then specifically the airport.
Unknown Speaker 37:23
So I hesitate to speak on partnerships because there’s usually financial
Unknown Speaker 37:28
implications in that. So setting that aside where I’m not in a position to speak to that, I will say we are fully available for support coordination, technical, technical support site planning endeavors. I like I said, identifying, Hey, you come to us and say, Hey, we’re gonna put three chargers and we can give you all the information, you know what that upgrade would look like give you some basic engineering things of the sort. And I would say like any government or city of Longmont entity we treat as a partner. So I’ve recently I don’t want to throw out a name but a specific campus came to me interested in solar and EB chargers and efficiency upgrades and we are working with them very closely on realizing their efforts. So I can’t again, speak to a full partnership and what that might look like but absolutely, so understanding that the airport has a limited budget and I have no idea how much this stuff would cost. So we’ll LPC CES is a testbed even the I guess I would ask would LPC please consider us as a testbed to put that equipment in and, you know, provide a partner with us at that level, which again is financial, of course, like you say, but the we don’t have the the funding to buy our own equipment and it wouldn’t be we wouldn’t be seeking the revenue from it, we’d be seeking to defer that or take a portion of it but defer it to LPC you know, so it’s really, truly a partnership, we’re kind of would be the host site and then your playground is how I could see it working and, you know, envision it actually happening. So that’s really I think that’s one of the things that it’s a cornerstone to this being able to even be visualized would be that that we can be a test site.
Unknown Speaker 39:14
I will say we are often looking for demonstration projects. So I’ll leave that in terms of the test site thing, but I will also say we have recently helped several city entities and partner agencies seek funding. So not necessarily being the grant writer but there’s just a lot of money out there right now with the inflation reduction. Now obviously we are now sitting entities eligible for direct pay where we we used to not be able to get the tax benefits now we can get a 30% direct pay for solar installations and battery installations and things of the sort so again, while I cannot can say animal financial contribute contributions, we have alerted other entities and city facilities of existing opportunities, grants, partnership opportunities, financing now
Unknown Speaker 40:00
opportunities, things of the sort. And we’ve already kind of started to do that when it comes to electrification, solar and battery. So we’re full of resources.
Unknown Speaker 40:11
And if it’s okay, I’d like to provide a little bit of clarity on the zero waste.
Unknown Speaker 40:17
I agree with you I don’t, it sounds like based on the comments you made on the waste generated that it’s not as great as opportunity. There’s currently a universal recycling ordinance that is looking to require all buildings, in Longmont to recycle, but there will be exemptions. So there’ll be exemptions based on the amount of ore. We’ll be discussing exemptions with council next week. So I can’t guarantee what they will and will not be. But currently there is discussion for exemptions based on the amount of trash generated, or if there are shared bins. So I just wanted to provide that bit of clarity on what’s coming on the the waste requirements in Longmont and but we’ll be discussing more with City Council next week. So I’d recommend you’d be realistic and realize if you put a trash truck at the airport, once a month, you probably won’t have anything to pick up. Because we take it home, we take it home and put it in our own bins. And so
Unknown Speaker 41:15
we don’t leave stuff out there. There’s animals and all kinds of things we don’t want to encourage in mice, especially we don’t want them in our hangars. And so we take it home. So we really I think if you put a truck out there it would be it’d be rare be just Levi’s office producing paper something.
Unknown Speaker 41:35
Yes, and that’s where the we could work with you all if the order if or when the ordinance goes into effect to up to fill out an exemption so that recognizing that you don’t generate a lot of waste. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 41:50
Councillor Martin, I see you in the queue. I’m going to turn it on. But and then I’d like to open up public comment. Absolutely. A couple of things. The first one is, is that
Unknown Speaker 42:01
the Zero Waste ordinance would be
Unknown Speaker 42:04
actually I don’t think there should be anything in this resolution about it personally, but
Unknown Speaker 42:10
Unknown Speaker 42:12
we’re not really talking about hangar occupants as for general aviation, really, we’re talking about potential future airport based businesses, you know, mile high, for example, might have a different recycling program, because there’s, I don’t know if there’s coke machines or something out there, right, you know, so
Unknown Speaker 42:33
that it would be a small number of affected
Unknown Speaker 42:39
businesses, really, but again, in terms of the partnership and budgeting,
Unknown Speaker 42:48
all of the things that this references would end up in capital plans. And so it’s not like there’s this resolution creates an obligation for the airport to find things in its existing budget, you know, and put batteries in the non existent
Unknown Speaker 43:11
airport terminal, right? No, we it’s, it’s more that, oh, when they start designing the airport terminal, because there’s money for it. One of the things that gets considered is utility scale batteries.
Unknown Speaker 43:26
You know, so again, it’s, it’s not obliging the airport to do stuff, it is obliging the city to do stuff for the airport. And that means that, you know, by LPCs contract with the city, or as a city as an enterprise within the city, it takes that on and it gets negotiated, just as with all other city improvements, so don’t be scared.
Unknown Speaker 43:58
Would anyone like to make comments from the public on this resolution? Or more accurately, who would like to come first?
Unknown Speaker 44:10
You know, the rules traditional of public invited to be heard. So maybe leave I’ll turn on the microphone for you. And then please start with your name and address. I’ll start a timer for five minutes. Ron krenzel 12191 North 61st Street.
Unknown Speaker 44:25
Really, I I was hysterical when I read this resolution.
Unknown Speaker 44:32
I couldn’t believe
Unknown Speaker 44:35
all the problems we have at the airport and we’re talking about this. Let me give you a little facts though, because I was so entertained. 13 161 tons for 300 cars. If you go just a little bit into pollution, it comes out really, really easy. One metric ton with a 22 mile a gallon car is about 2500 miles. So 4.5
Unknown Speaker 45:00
Three metric tons is about what a car burns in a year. That’s sort of the classic statement of what a car does.
Unknown Speaker 45:10
And if you and I went, Well, what does an aeroplane do? So I thought about that for a little minute. And I said, Well, there’s kind of small planes at the airport. Let’s say the average guy flies, flies, plane flies 50 hours a year, and it gets 10 gallons an hour, that’s probably sort of typical for an RV or a 172 or something that kind of flies it the Longmont airport.
Unknown Speaker 45:34
That means if they did that they burned 500 gallons a year.
Unknown Speaker 45:40
Unknown Speaker 45:42
so that comes out to about
Unknown Speaker 45:45
if you sort of translate that comes out to this 1361 tons for 300 cars. If you kind of do that it’s almost 300 planes 4.53 metric tons. That’s where they got that number. It’s just a simple number. They said well, there’s 300 airplanes and 300 cars burn that much gas so
Unknown Speaker 46:09
those many airplanes must burn that much gas that’s that’s silly. Of the 300 airplanes at the airport probably 60% of them don’t fly more than 10 hours here. And probably 10% of them do 80% of the flying and and so
Unknown Speaker 46:28
that’s that’s a silly measure
Unknown Speaker 46:36
you know, this is a good idea maybe in 20 years there are no electric flying airplanes in in the world right now other than prototypes. It’s not going to be a major impact on aviation for any time to see.
Unknown Speaker 46:55
Jet fuel does not I would change this jet fuel does not contain lead. That’s a misnomer.
Unknown Speaker 47:08
The the idea of carbon free fief three fuels is a misnomer and every airplane in the world require at this time, for the most part requires lead
Unknown Speaker 47:22
carbon based fuel and that’s not going to change.
Unknown Speaker 47:33
My brother is a engineer for Sierra Nevada, which is a company in Denver and around the country. And he’s in it’s an aviation country and he and I have debated this electric airplane business. Sierra Nevada is pretty progressive, and they don’t think it’s gonna go anywhere.
Unknown Speaker 47:54
So to write a resolution that sort of states some
Unknown Speaker 47:59
big deal about what the Longmont airport is doing about aviation is just
Unknown Speaker 48:06
electrical aviation seems sort of silly.
Unknown Speaker 48:09
Going back just a step. There. There are 85,599 cars in Longmont. There are 262,721 cars in Boulder County. That’s the 2021 statistic
Unknown Speaker 48:27
that turns out to be in the city of about
Unknown Speaker 48:31
there’s about 300 airplanes at the Longmont airport. I think that turns out to be about point 00 3% of the transportation vehicles in the city or airplanes in the county. It’s point 00 1%.
Unknown Speaker 48:50
Aviation in general,
Unknown Speaker 48:53
you get different numbers but it’s about 1.9 to 2.1% of all greenhouse gas emissions is from aviation. General Aviation airplanes is less than 1/10 piston powered airplanes are less than 1/10 of 1% of greenhouse gases
Unknown Speaker 49:17
of all transport stations. Excuse me. 12% of all transportation comes from aviation 74% of greenhouse gases come from road Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 49:36
Would anyone else like to speak?
Unknown Speaker 49:43
Howard Morgan 1932 amathus drive, Longmont, otherness aviation business are 60 plus years and I’ve seen good things and bad things and I have to say putting solar panels on the airport is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a long time.
Unknown Speaker 50:00
Number one, they reflect light, which is absolutely something you don’t want an airport. Number two, they’re taking up space that should be reserved for aviation, such as hangars. Number three, it’s a direct hazard for any skydivers is Landon his thanks. And there’s four or five and six reasons that no I have time for. In the meantime, we have a FBO that is an absolute dump compared to any airport
Unknown Speaker 50:35
connected with the city of 100,000 people. And the money that
Unknown Speaker 50:41
would be spent on this fiasco would be much better spent on FBO billing and some other improvements on airport, they would make it a place that people are looking forward to come to which business aviators right now are coming here because they need to not because they want to.
Unknown Speaker 51:02
So I think
Unknown Speaker 51:07
you got to change your priorities on this thing. And while I’m here electric commander, Levi for cleaning up a lot of the things that have been ignored for the last seven or eight years doing a good job. There’s more to be done. But he’s working on it. And I appreciate that. Thanks. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 51:40
Dave Kap, 4625, West 99th place, Westminster. And I agree, props that run on electricity don’t make any less noise than ones that run on IC engines. And I’ve actually one of the few people that’s flown in all electric airplane. And it took us five hours to charge it for a 20 minute ride. I was sailplane and the motorized sail plane, but we didn’t find any lifts. So we had to be at the airport in 20 minutes. So
Unknown Speaker 52:11
and that was like that you needed to wear headsets and even the noise from that problem was quite noisy. So
Unknown Speaker 52:20
and again, I think I think it’s a great idea. But
Unknown Speaker 52:25
focus on the golf courses, they’ve been running electric vehicles for 20 years, they’re experts at it. And the good news is if you have a problem, you can pull off the side and park it if you have a problem in an electric airplane, you’re still looking for one mile of concrete to set this thing down on an or dirt road anything. And so it’s a whole lot more risky there. And I am one that flies in experimental aircraft and helicopters. So I know about risk. I’m always looking for a place to land. And helicopter is just a little spot. Not much bigger than helicopter but an airplane. I’m looking for a mile of something straight and level.
Unknown Speaker 53:00
So golf courses would be my my focus on that one. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 53:07
Unknown Speaker 53:10
Does anyone else want to
Unknown Speaker 53:12
make another comment at this time?
Unknown Speaker 53:16
Okay, I’ll close the public comment then for this item. Board members. Other comments, questions?
Unknown Speaker 53:27
Would anyone like to introduce a motion? If there are no comments, questions, Vice Chair Jordan.
Unknown Speaker 53:33
I move that we do
Unknown Speaker 53:36
that we strike some of the whereas clauses as recommended.
Unknown Speaker 53:40
Number cars, prop noise,
Unknown Speaker 53:45
shortage of pilots, some things that really box in and put a timestamp on this.
Unknown Speaker 53:51
We had a shortage pilot and we had a pandemic and everybody I know got laid off. So a lot of pilots were delivering Amazon. So that’s they’re all volatile and subject to change. So if we do pare that down to just a forward looking statement, and as I said, section one, and two really encompasses what we’re interested in and to Martius point.
Unknown Speaker 54:12
And to answer, Howard is, I see that it’s a visionary statement, and that it would be providing some framework for us to get the new FBO and have this in place and have the new FBO be built with an eye toward the future. And
Unknown Speaker 54:30
it’s going to be there there are people making these airplanes and we are trying to work on different fuel. So our new FBO also has to include a fuel farm, a different you know, some different fuel setup. So I propose that we we strike some of the limiting language and accept this as a
Unknown Speaker 54:49
just sort of a mission statement as it’s intended.
Unknown Speaker 54:54
So you started saying that as a motion? Sorry, we did.
Unknown Speaker 55:00
Are was that? Would you either like to restate a motion? Or there was a kind of proposal for us to consider at the end there as well? I guess I’ll stick Yeah. Cuz then we can argue about it. Right. Okay. So we can argue about everything.
Unknown Speaker 55:13
I propose that the
Unknown Speaker 55:16
line about cars, the whereas about noise, the whereas about the shortage of pilots be stricken from the statement and the
Unknown Speaker 55:29
existing fuels statement because
Unknown Speaker 55:33
we don’t have evidence that that’s available, those be stricken, we reduce it and accept it
Unknown Speaker 55:40
as part of our vision plan, and that’s your motion. That’s my motion. Okay. Is there a second to the motion? On the floor?
Unknown Speaker 55:48
Moved and seconded.
Unknown Speaker 55:51
Mr. Robeson, would you like to make a comment about the motion on the floor? Thank you, Mr. Chair, blended. Haven’t seen a big rush to do this. I mean, I know they’re planning to present it to council in a week or two. But I would say maybe one or two of us should rewrite as we see fit, bring it to the next meeting and compare notes and maybe do it that way. That’d be my idea. Anyway.
Unknown Speaker 56:14
Mr. Dean, do you have a comment? Or is that for your second? Okay.
Unknown Speaker 56:18
Sorry, Mr. selama. Team.
Unknown Speaker 56:21
I, I want to thank Marcia for the comments about
Unknown Speaker 56:27
framing this properly, making sure that we’re looking at this is an opportunity to add more resources to the airport, I just want to make sure that that is encapsulated within this document as well. I don’t want this to somehow, in the future, be used as a way to add additional liabilities to the airport, forcing the owners and operators who used the airport to front the bill for future electrification or future development on the airport. So if there’s any way we could
Unknown Speaker 56:59
encapsulate the commitment that the funds will come from the city or outside of the airport, I think that would be important, but I
Unknown Speaker 57:09
yeah, that’s about it.
Unknown Speaker 57:12
Unknown Speaker 57:14
thanks, I just want to say that that is, that’s really essentially, already there. A resolution cannot force an enterprise to spend money
Unknown Speaker 57:26
in the sense and, you know, any future budget would have to be approved.
Unknown Speaker 57:33
The resolution, I suppose.
Unknown Speaker 57:39
Now, every everything, like the 100% renewable resolution, which is the most sweeping resolution that the council has ever passed, as far as I can tell,
Unknown Speaker 57:54
everything that came after that, like solar panels, and methane capture and so on, at various city facilities, still had to go into a city budget and be approved by the council. And so it would be with this. It is, you know, it’s it’s a reason to say we need a new FBO and we need a a terminal where batteries could be stored because that’s a policy, but but it’s a separate question with
Unknown Speaker 58:26
them, where, where, whether this airport has the goal of becoming more sustainable, which is really all this whole thing says,
Unknown Speaker 58:37
I might also suggest
Unknown Speaker 58:40
you don’t have to, but
Unknown Speaker 58:43
Unknown Speaker 58:46
if the Council were doing this, we would have to strike the whereas clauses one by one probably
Unknown Speaker 58:54
noted and appreciate the my Robert’s Rules is out of this is out of my realm here.
Unknown Speaker 59:02
Vice Chair Jordan, so I would like to remove my withdraw my motion and
Unknown Speaker 59:09
change it to that I move that the
Unknown Speaker 59:14
one or two board members work to rewrite the language. Clarify further to re present this to the board.
Unknown Speaker 59:25
Is there a second for that motion?
Unknown Speaker 59:28
Moved and seconded
Unknown Speaker 59:31
any discussion on that motion?
Unknown Speaker 59:35
Councilmember Martin is the timing. If this comes back to us in January and it gets sent to council later in January is that is the timing an issue at all?
Unknown Speaker 59:48
Sorry, hold on. There it is. You know, a resolution like this can be adopted at any time
Unknown Speaker 59:57
the any urgent
Unknown Speaker 1:00:00
See with it would be that if the resolution is in place, certain types of grants from the FAA will be looked at more favorably, I am told.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:12
And, you know, if you wait too long, then you know you’re gonna get
Unknown Speaker 1:00:20
large Yes. And and, and cargo is going to be missed by next years budgeting process. So, but whether it’s done in January or February, probably doesn’t make a big difference at all. So I would not worry about that.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:40
I would like to say that
Unknown Speaker 1:00:43
Cessna recently acquired pipistrel, which has an all electric plane specifically for training aviators, and it is FAA certified for us. So I just always
Unknown Speaker 1:00:58
like to call out members of the public when they say something that’s not correct. Thanks.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:05
Thank you. Any other comments?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:10
From my perspective, one really appreciate the tweaks, the feedback and for talking through this with us, it’s been illuminating.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:18
I am generally supportive of the language, as we’ve talked about striking, but I would really rather not make motions for every one of those and clean it up, not in this forum and come back next month. So I would certainly support that motion and would encourage one or two board members to take that on.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:37
Well, one or two for Open Meetings.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:42
Any other comment? Otherwise? I’ll call for a vote on the motion.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:46
All those in favor of the motion? say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:51
Motion carries. Are there any volunteers for there’s one or two board members? Who would like to take this on Mr. Robeson?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:59
Unknown Speaker 1:02:03
Mr. Robeson, you’re up. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:07
All right, we’ll move on then. To our least language recommendation.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:12
Thank you both very much. Thank you. Leave by your names on the top of the page. So I’m going to turn it to you. And then you can turn it to other folks from there.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:23
Unknown Speaker 1:02:25
Like feel free to adjust here.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:35
And whoever’s driving the screen, can you guys move at
Unknown Speaker 1:02:39
least partially? Sorry, Phil, I know you’re moving.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:45
I might just quickly introduce this and talk about this is completely different than what we just talked about. Right. So we just did a resolution, very aspirational in nature. And so no,
Unknown Speaker 1:02:58
law, no ordinance associated with that. This next piece, we wanted to chat with you about
Unknown Speaker 1:03:06
the lease language. That’s been a hot topic as of late, of course. And so I wanted to introduce our city attorney, Eugene May, who just sitting by Levi there, so when we put his name plate up, so you’d see who it was.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:20
And all that leave, I can take the rest of us. Okay. As we course we’ve been talking about for awhile. Now, we come into working on the lease language, as we kind of move towards creating a new base airport lease, there were some concerns about from the FAA about kind of how those were written. So we’ve been addressing those during. So the city has proceeded forward with language that they’re going to recommend
Unknown Speaker 1:03:47
during the conversations that we had with the airport Advisory Board, this last week previous meeting was suggested that the board get together and then they make additions that then they then advise the city staff during that meeting. Mr. Earl had an excellent point. He said that, why don’t we create a quick little graph that kind of shows what we’re proposing compared to what other cities are doing around the area. And Phil, if you could pull that up real quick. So this is an excellent points for start, just kind of review what the, in general what the city is kind of recommending. So the top there would be Longmont so proposing a 30 year base term lease without an option to renew. And then we’re going to recommend moving forward with
Unknown Speaker 1:04:34
putting first right of refusal
Unknown Speaker 1:04:37
in those leases, so in comparison to air the airports around the area, and I’ll just go over them real quickly here in Greeley does a 20 year lease.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:47
Then they offer to five year options after that 20 year lease. And all of their leases do have a right of first refusal.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:56
Broomfield offers a 30 year lease with a single 10
Unknown Speaker 1:05:00
Your option after that,
Unknown Speaker 1:05:02
and all of their leases are diversionary.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:05
Fort Collins has a 25 year lease with three five year options after it, and then all of their leases are also diversionary. Leadville, Colorado is actually currently in the middle of revising their leases. Also,
Unknown Speaker 1:05:22
they have decided upon doing 25 year leases they’ve decided upon during diversionary, they haven’t made any decisions yet on options to renew. So I kind of wanted to put this up here just as a point of reference for kind of what we’re looking to do and kind of what other people are doing.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:42
To my understanding the base term, and the option to renew are kind of the hot topic items of the language that we put into the new lease. There was it’s worth mentioning, there is additional language that the city is recommending to change regarding
Unknown Speaker 1:06:00
see if I can finally it specifically here
Unknown Speaker 1:06:04
regarding Section 4.5, which deals with when someone has to notify the airport that they have an aircraft in their hangar.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:14
But that’s the only other part of the lease that we’re making recommendations for changes on.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:22
So we have proceeded forward with those recommendations. Also in that packet, you will see the results of what the
Unknown Speaker 1:06:32
airport has recommended.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:35
Red lines for the airport advisory board panel members on lease language. So that is what the airport board is recommending.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:46
To be clear, the red line is what I’ve put in there. Yes.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:51
And would tweak a little bit based on what we realize now.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:57
I will open the floor board members, comments questions. Appreciate the city attorney being here. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:04
Mr. Dean, you’re at first I did email Levi back after looking at it and
Unknown Speaker 1:07:09
the language possibly change it to first off first right or first option to purchase because right to refusal
Unknown Speaker 1:07:17
sounded kind of odd when I looked over it basically with the city was the city was asking was when you change the language, what you’re asking essentially, as Dustin, he has a first right to purchase your hangar at fair market value. And so the right refusal, I thought it was kind of an odd an odd way to phrase that when it’s you’re letting the first right to purchase it. So that’s kind of what I was, I was kind of wondering about All right, I would default that language to the city’s attorney’s office, I suppose whatever proper contract language would be is, is what we would recommend moving forward with I suppose
Unknown Speaker 1:07:50
you have any
Unknown Speaker 1:07:53
chair and members of the airport advisory board Eugene may city attorney
Unknown Speaker 1:07:58
first right of refusal is just sort of term of art in contract languages, language,
Unknown Speaker 1:08:05
you know, first right of purchase would probably be more accurate. But it’s I think essentially the same in terms of the substantive right, which would be the city would have the first opportunity to acquire that interest.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:24
Unknown Speaker 1:08:27
Mr. Robeson. Sorry, I kicked you out there. So let me actually get you first. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Levi, the reversions at the airports that do them, have any of those ever actually occurred? Or they just always managed to negotiate a new lease in time? To my understanding, and I spoke mostly regarding that with BJC. Yeah, they exercise the reversionary. Right. They have often. Yeah, I mean, so the airport Mellon’s the hangar and they rent it out, or what do they do? Actually, quite a few of them. In fact, that was part of my position, when I was there was renting out hangars at the airport.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:07
That’s true, Jordan. I just wanted to note that the 30 year, as we’ve discussed, was voted on and and the population chose it. And the objective is to be a viable business. And so I think we all look at it from a private standpoint as being hanger owners, but keeping in mind that the 30 years was put in to attract business and attract long term commitment and make us
Unknown Speaker 1:09:37
a viable entity sustaining ourselves. So any language and I don’t have a lot of gray
Unknown Speaker 1:09:46
that supports that vision is I think what we’re ultimately after, that’s all we’re asking for is the ability to be attractive for all these businesses and enterprises that we talk about. And that was kind of to my understanding, this all kind of started before I got here.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:00
The big crux was getting that 30 number on there, to be better able to go to banks get 30 year loans is a little easier that way. I actually had that conversation with the manager at Greeley airport. And I kind of asked him well, how do you get around that? He says, Well, we have we provide special letters to the, you know, the banks to allow people to let them know well, yes, it is a 20 year lease with two five year options to renew and all the banks pretty much accept that. It’s not our position to necessarily do that. With it’s cleaner, just go with a 30 year? I think so.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:37
Mr. Roberson? Thank you, did you you took out the option for renewal. without putting anything Was there a reason that you didn’t put the 20?
Unknown Speaker 1:10:47
Yeah, kind of the our intent is to start our base lease. And again, keep in mind, this is the base boilerplate lease for the airport, there’s all kinds of room to negotiate.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:59
The FAA recommends, you know, starting base lease at 30 years, pretty much everyone else in the region starts at 30 years or less that or has reversionary clause. So it puts us if not competitive. I mean, in my mindset, probably a little more attractive than pretty much any airport in the region. So it’s a great starting point. But you could be the best by far. As see now we get down to what benefits the airport and the city as a whole is compared to what benefits an individual leaseholder. So there’s that delicate balance to make.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:35
I gotta have a question for Mr. May, it seems the city’s pretty intent on first, right of refusal. For me, if you’re going to do that 30 days is way too long. What is the minimum number of days that you think you could reduce that down to?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:51
Eugene may city attorney, so that’s really a business question. This is a large organization seven days to turn around, you know, we move at the speed of bureaucracy. So,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:05
you know, from a legal perspective, it could be one day, it could be 100 days, you guys pick the right number, we get to choose,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:13
I’ll be what looking at city council and maybe a couple of weeks, we get to make a recommendation, you get to make a recommendation. And you know, my client is the airport. And
Unknown Speaker 1:12:25
you know, I think just looking at my desk in my workflow, seven days is not enough.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:37
So I guess,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:39
on the term,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:42
we’re all really good on Bayes term, 30 years, there’s no discussion of that. I would encourage members of the public who are going to come up and speak to focus on kind of the pros and cons of an option. And kind of what that adds or detract from having it or not having it because I think that is certainly on the table for discussion.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:03
And section 2.2, which is our right of first refusal.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:09
And this might be a city attorney questions might be a Levi question.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:14
I don’t love this language. I’ll just say that. But my understanding is the city through eminent domain or other methods can kind of do this today. And so this is intended to be cleaner, more straightforward, and all the rest of it. And I see a little hesitation on my eminent domain statements. So I’d love to understand that. But
Unknown Speaker 1:13:35
I guess my question is coming from his Yes, we have a lot of concerns about specific clauses specific policy in here
Unknown Speaker 1:13:43
in general, is, is this something that can happen anyway, today? And whether it’s in the lease or not?
Unknown Speaker 1:13:52
Or should we kind of, I guess, I guess, do we need to think about this as completely brand new, or focus on individual aspects of that?
Unknown Speaker 1:14:02
I’ll try the question about could we do it today, the city does have eminent domain authority for a valid public purpose. And you got to jump through a lot of statutory procedural hoops with in terms of assessments and valuation and things like that.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:21
It is a new concept in our leases. And, you know, talking to leave, I understand that there’s a good business justification from the city’s perspective and being able to manage the airport for future development.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:37
When when I look at it, leasing property for 30 years is an incredibly long time of city land, and to have additional options on top of that, I mean, I don’t know at least for me, 50 years is a mind boggling time period to give up city ownership and rights of a piece of property that we own
Unknown Speaker 1:15:00
And I can comment on that a little bit too, from the practical aspect of going through eminent domain. So I’ve had that discussion that’s come up in my past before and of course, recently having discussion with other airport managers in the region.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:14
Stories have come up, it’s like, well, have you ever had you eminent domain? Yes, it’s come up. Usually the story is associated by hand, that is just how the process went through, and just how difficult it was for the airport in general, how much time money resources it took.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:29
And, you know, keep in mind, at the end of the day, we’re still dealing with, you know, this is city land that we’re leasing. So the city should have some control over it, when it’s particularly when it’s dealing with the future development and the well being of the airport.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:45
Vice Chair Jordan, I guess that’s my question is, do you feel both of you representing the city and this is your asset?
Unknown Speaker 1:15:54
Are you comfortable with this language do you feel you’re getting, we’re going to get what we want out of the airport, which is to be an economic generator,
Unknown Speaker 1:16:02
that it’s not going to, you know, turn into a hay field, and that the city’s protected, but that it’s an attractive offer to a brand new business that wants to come in and turn up dirt and put something down for 30 years a Sierra Nevada, a Oskar Blues, or whatever it is? Do you feel confident that you can sell this? Oh, absolutely. The first right of refusal is
Unknown Speaker 1:16:28
it’s something that I can actually hold out to people as a benefit. So to give you some perspective, I had a student who I’m just friends with, you know, he lives back on the East Coast. And he was telling me a story. A couple of weeks ago, he’s trying to build some hangars back on the East Coast. He’s a developer, and how upset he was and how he’s not going to get some money back on it. And I said, Hey, you should just come out the Longmont you know, we just have first right of refusal, we don’t have a reversionary clause, and it kind of blew his mind. He’s like, What are you talking about? No airports do that anymore. So that’s an attraction to developers, is to say that, hey, after the end of your lease, the city just has first right of refusal? Do they have the right to buy your your hangers? That’s huge, because as you can kind of see in that chart that I put up there, too. That’s kind of not the norm. I mean, really does it but that’s about the only one on the front range that does that.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:21
Unknown Speaker 1:17:23
Just a quick couple of clarifications of questions for Mr. May, I believe that when the city leases land to developers, who are going to build brick and mortar structures,
Unknown Speaker 1:17:37
those leases are reversionary. Is that not the case?
Unknown Speaker 1:17:46
You see me thinking? I’m not sure of a city property that’s leased to developers?
Unknown Speaker 1:17:57
Unknown Speaker 1:17:59
Well, I don’t think we’ve
Unknown Speaker 1:18:02
encountered that situation. So I’m not sure what the lease provision would be. It depends upon the circumstance, what the activity is on the property where it is.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:16
Yeah, I mean, and I think,
Unknown Speaker 1:18:22
to answer the vice chairs, question, you know, I think the language is legally sufficient to achieve the purpose that my client is telling me, I don’t know, you know, it’s not my role to say whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, it’s my role to implement the direction from the client.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:40
And so if, you know, my direction is right, or first review refusal is in the best interest of the city and is the industry norm. You know, we look at other language from these other leases. And, you know, we we will plagiarize, which is the highest form of compliment.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:59
And we’ve had other rights of first refusal and other city contracts. And so that’s how that language came together. And then councilmember Martin, did you have more question?
Unknown Speaker 1:19:10
Vice Chair Jordan.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:12
So let’s, let’s walk this out. We have a big aviation company that wants to come in and bid out our FBO and tear it down, build something beautiful, put in our work with LPC. We have our plan and we got somebody with a bunch of money coming in to do that. Are they going to want is this agreement going to work for them? Is this going to be what happens at 30 years after they’ve done? Well, I can spell it out for you. So you see, a big FBO is coming in. Remember, this is just the base lease. So if someone comes in and says hey, I’m going to build the biggest, beautiful, most wonderful FBO Have you ever seen with electric charging and you know, there’s gonna be chandeliers on it?
Unknown Speaker 1:19:54
We don’t have to stop with this. We can say alright, wow, look at the investment that you’re going to put into our community.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:00
We’re going to give you 30 year lease plus this, the FHA allows us to go up to 50 years. At that point, if we saw first right of refusal, then at the end of that 50 years, the say that we want it, then when we buy it, we still have to pay them the value of that building. That’s huge. So via their business plan, they’ve already more than made their money back on their investment. And on the end of that, they get to get more money when we purchase it from them. So that’s very, very desirable. So shelter just built a new multimillion dollar FBO it KB JC in 50 years that belongs to the airport. It doesn’t belong to them anymore. So they did that even with reversionary clause. So someone coming in here and doing it at the end of that being paid for their building that’s really big.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:57
Let’s, let’s open up public invited to be heard. I’ve got the two on the list that I’ll start with, but anyone is more than welcome to
Unknown Speaker 1:21:06
Five minute max per our bylaws. Yes. Yep. So Mr. Peters, you were first on the list if you’d like to come down.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:14
As before, please start with name and address. I’ll have a five minute timer go.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:20
And thank you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:24
Dan Peters, 1438 Morningside drive, I’m a hangar owner, and I’ve been flying out of the London Airport since 1990. I’m here to ask you to vote no on sections 2.2 and 2.3. And I just want to before I forget to respond to something that the airport manager said, he said that, if a new business came and built on a piece of dirt, at the end of the 30 years, I say it was a Gangbuster business. And the and the company, or the city says, hey, I want that now. They they get the he said the value of the building, the business gets a value the building? Well, the value of the company is not the value of the buildings, Apple is not worth the value of the buildings. If it’s a Gangbuster building, a company is worth far more than the building itself. So back to my back to my notes here. For decades, the city has always said that is not in the hangar rental business. And all of a sudden it’s changed. Why? What what has changed? What are their exact motivations. So far from what I’ve heard tonight is just a bunch of vague, vague statements. They’re no specifics on what they’re what the city’s motivations are for changing this language.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:32
And as a council or board member, Robinson said, the, the timeline is outrageous, they’ve got 30 days to decide if they want it. And then they’ve got 60 days to enter an agreement. So that’s at least 90 days, and that the sale does not have to be completed within 90 days, it could be longer than that, you know, houses take 30 days to close, it shouldn’t take this long to for the city to cut a check to a hanger owner. I bought my hanger when it was under duress it was in a divorce. They didn’t have 90 days that would delay the divorce by 90 days. So if a family member came down with cancer, and they needed to sell the hanger, that could be delayed months waiting for the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:14
I’m also concerned about section 2.3 in that did not have rev bar. So I don’t know if that’s in the current lease or not. But the combination of 2.2 and 2.3 I think it can be very dangerous. If you look the 2.3 says that the city only has to get two appraisals. Well, how are you going to appraise hangars, no professional appraiser can come up with an accurate appraisal of a hanger. Because the sale prices that are reported to the county are not accurate. And there are so few sales that you can’t get a valid statistical sample of it so so the city can effectually come up with to lowball appraisals and force you to sell your hanger for those for those lowball appraisals. So, I think that that’s all I have to say thank you for your time. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:05
Mr. Vickers was next on the list.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:09
Thank you. My name is Ken Vickers. I live at 1153 Princeton drive here in Longmont. I have a hanger on the south side of the airport which is significant to this I want to talk first about
Unknown Speaker 1:24:21
point 4.5 which is the
Unknown Speaker 1:24:25
me get to it. Yeah, feel sure that within 30 days the initial occupancy of the premises by the lessee, the lessee shall notify the airport manager the type and federal registration number. On the south side of the airport. There are 56 hangers. 51 of those are in two condo associations. Each condo association holds a lease with the city. There are 37 condo units and one there are 14 and the other. The lessee doesn’t have airplanes that so there’s a middle model in this that runs through the whole
Unknown Speaker 1:25:00
contract are the lease agreement that suggest a middle bottle of one, one, hangar owner, one lease one owner of an aeroplane. And that’s that it’s works for some parts of the airport, it’s not at all true for other parts. So I have no idea how 4.5 would work on the whole south side of the airport, because the lessee would have no idea, because that’s the condo association. And we pay an annual assessment to them to cover the portion of the lease that we’re responsible for, for our particular unit. I want to talk about the other parts of it before I finish. So the the, it’s a bit jarring
Unknown Speaker 1:25:46
to have the language about renewal completely removed as if there are not going to be any renewals as opposed to having the preexisting language there that allows for a negotiation negotiation doesn’t promise that there will be an additional lease, but at least it creates an on ramp for that policy. If you take that first sentence and the last sentence, if the lease is expiring and think about all these condo units, when that lease expires, all of these hangar owners are going to have to pony up money to tear down their hangars. I mean the the units because their lease is the condo association. lease, not the individual hangars, not hangar owners may sell, buy and sell hangars, there’s always churn of who’s in there. But that doesn’t trigger a new lease, the lease is held by the condo association, that hanger unit can be bought and sold. And again, that doesn’t touch that underlying kind of lease. So let me talk about the reversionary versus the right of first refusal. It’s interesting news that the airport now has a maybe a pot of money to start buying hangars, if that’s the case, we should be celebrating that. And this body should be thinking about how to use those funds to, to think about a new FBO to think about infrastructure improvements. This is the most exciting news. There could be. But if there’s that kind of money, waiting for a lease to expire, or waiting for a hanger to go on the market and sell isn’t the way anybody that’s rational about trying to prove the airport would do business, they would send a letter to the owners of the properties that they that the airport envisions perhaps owning and saying we would be very interested in buying your property. And we’d be very interested in accommodating you to move to a different location, or whatever it would take so that the airport could have that property. So if there’s that kind of money to do that, I don’t get the theory behind using the right of first refusal as the instrument for that. So what is the theory? What’s the theory behind going to a right of first refusal?
Unknown Speaker 1:28:02
Is it to start owning hangars so that the airport can be in the rental business? There’s a reason no one ever washes a rental car.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:13
Nobody ever does that people take care of their own property. They’re interested in improving that park property, they would be interested perhaps, in having electrification, if they’re moving to an electric airplane. But if they’re about to lose their hangar, or if they’re renting it from the city, they’re not going to be investing their own money in that that money would have to come from the city. And I don’t know where this pot of money is that maybe is there. I’ll end with one last point, which is kind of an obscure one,
Unknown Speaker 1:28:44
which is Section Three lease rates and other fees about the CPI adjustment. It’s it’s interesting to me.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:53
So I said last month, I’m a professional political scientist, and I’m actually working on a book right just went through Denver Metro area, the Denver area, Aurora, Lakewood metropolitan area does not include Boulder, or Boulder County. So I’m assuming that if you want the inflation rate that includes Boulder County, what you mean is the Denver Aurora, combined metropolitan area, the Fed puts out CPI adjustments and that’s called the Denver boulder Greeley combined Metropolitan Statistical Area. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:29
We’re not allowed to yield time. I’m very sorry we had this discussion in the bylaws.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:34
Now, Would anyone else like to come speak?
Unknown Speaker 1:29:39
Come on down. You’ve got five minutes.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:50
Recall twice restripe apparently I’m no longer at 229 Airport Road and hangar H 21. anymore.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:59
I’d like to start off by
Unknown Speaker 1:30:00
Thank you Mr. Our airport manager.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:03
He’s done a slam bang job on getting that sewer line in on under budget probably. And quite quickly. I don’t know how many probably about a mile
Unknown Speaker 1:30:17
in like less than 3030 days. That’s very impressive work.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:22
Unfortunately, along these lines, the weather got a little bit too cold for to finish the striping. And I anticipate in this in the springtime is going to go gangbusters.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:34
Yeah, no, I can’t talk to individuals.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:37
Unknown Speaker 1:30:38
Unknown Speaker 1:30:42
I also have concerns about the
Unknown Speaker 1:30:46
proposed language of the new lease.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:52
My son is taking an interest in my grandson, I’m sorry, he was taking an interest in aviation.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:58
And it’s my goal that when I die, He takes my hangar.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:02
It’s not going to turn into a storage building. However, the way everything is worded now,
Unknown Speaker 1:31:08
it ain’t going to happen. I’m sorry, I misspoke. I’ve not I’m not married, I’ve never been married. But my hangar lease and and well, not the lease, but the hangar itself is going into my will. And it’s going to a 501 C three. That’s very
Unknown Speaker 1:31:26
well known in my community.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:31
Any going to happen even
Unknown Speaker 1:31:34
when I die,
Unknown Speaker 1:31:36
the executor executor of my will, is going to have to tear my hair down. Because that’s the way the lease is going to read.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:44
Does this make financial sense? No.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:49
There’s some do good
Unknown Speaker 1:31:52
Unknown Speaker 1:31:56
within the city council, specifically regarding the airport
Unknown Speaker 1:32:03
that they don’t want us to be pilots anymore. They might put up a bicycle repair station, they might put up a horse Park. But I know for a fact it’s not going to be an airplane.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:15
I understand the reasoning behind the reversionary clause. They don’t want us here.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:21
It’s been stated several times.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:25
since just after COVID,
Unknown Speaker 1:32:28
the airport doesn’t want to get in the rental business period.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:34
On numerous occasions, they’re not going to get into the rental business. When and why do you need to own my hangar
Unknown Speaker 1:32:40
and the fact that you want to rip it down when the lease expires.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:45
As more fuel to that fire.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:50
I know you’re an attorney,
Unknown Speaker 1:32:52
please meet you. There’s probably a bunch more of them out at the Longmont airport. We are just a bunch of rich pilots. You got nothing to do in our spare time and pollute the air was carbon and lead and other pollutants. And I think a lot of your are way off on that.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:12
We’re all in this game together.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:15
All of us.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:17
Thank you. Keep up the good work.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:20
Unknown Speaker 1:33:25
Would anyone else like to
Unknown Speaker 1:33:31
Good evening now manly 940 Rangeview. Lane 80501. Everything else that I had questions about seems to have been covered. But there was one I just like to have clarity.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:43
If hanger comes up for sale, after this is adopted, approved, whatever.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:50
And the right of first refusal is not the taken by the city. They don’t choose to exercise that.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:01
Well, the new purchaser of the hangar b Can he will he be required to have a new lease a new 30 year lease, or can he use
Unknown Speaker 1:34:14
the remaining time on the initial 30? That was the only question I would like clarify. Thank you. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 1:34:30
Well, Steve shock, two, two, C 2022 Braeburn court Longmont a couple of things
Unknown Speaker 1:34:40
I’m concerned with and I urge you to vote now on this lease reversion
Unknown Speaker 1:34:46
the 30 year lease with no option. Well, that’s good for one year. Then what happens if you buy the hanger you have a 30 year lease? You want to refinance it a couple years later
Unknown Speaker 1:35:01
Most banks aren’t going to do it.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:03
Number two, a 1031 exchange is
Unknown Speaker 1:35:10
Unknown Speaker 1:35:12
lowest year amount of years is 30. I’ve been involved in many of them. So,
Unknown Speaker 1:35:20
again, 30 years, as soon as you buy it, you can’t 31 exchange it with the amount of money that we’re paying for hangars.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:31
You know, that’s a big thing to do a 1031 if you have that option.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:36
So, you know, I would just ask you to vote no. And
Unknown Speaker 1:35:44
Unknown Speaker 1:35:47
Unknown Speaker 1:35:57
Dave’s got 4625, West 99th. Place, Westminster. And I agree with what Steve just said there. You definitely, definitely need to vote no on 2.2. That is a real can of worms. More for what’s not written there, then what is what was there was a 30 and possibly 20, we had 20 and 20. What happens to the 75 hangers, you already got 30 and 30. On, you’re going to pull those back, you know, that’s going to be difficult to do. And in some of those 30s and 30s that you gave out? Are Already 40 year old buildings. I got a building I just built in 2014. And when that lease comes up, what am I going to get the 30 again, are do you know they stopped doing assignment of leases 2003 of first hanger I bought I lease was assigned great, I got to seven cents a square foot lease until I renewed it. So I went from $400 a year to $1,400 a year.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:57
The information you got up there is not correct. You need to make some more calls. Eric, because I’ll tell you the couple of things. I own a hangar at Jeffco. Now called Metro and they Yeah, they had 20 year leases. But bottom line is you get renew your lease every year they didn’t care took all the teeth out of a reversion clause right. Now, I’ve heard that they’ve eliminated a reversion clause because they couldn’t attract any developers me included. I thought we were going to build 100,000 square feet hangars down there. But the bottom line is they’ve now reversed with they’ve taken that away based on the county fathers that got together with Jeff Cohen says, Look, you need to change this. And what I heard from a developer is they don’t have it. So
Unknown Speaker 1:37:42
same thing happened at Sterling Sterling at a reversionary clause pulled it back couldn’t attract any developers. You keep this in here with a blank spot on that to.to. And you’re not going to attract any developers. Plus the bottom line is you have you got a lot of open ended questions. What happens on a sale? Do you start another 30 year lease? are you signing leases, you had one spell it out here. So it’s wide open, and one is wide open. A developer throws a lot of money at this airport is not going to happen? Not gonna happen. You open up the biggest litigation this city has ever seen if you let this lease go.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:17
Unknown Speaker 1:38:19
Unknown Speaker 1:38:24
Would anyone else like to speak?
Unknown Speaker 1:38:27
I heard something.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:33
There’s a pan real swollen.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:35
I’ll come up after all we can do.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:43
Howard Morgan address is still the same.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:47
As you can see, there’s many problems with this lease. And
Unknown Speaker 1:38:53
hope that we can have some meetings on this before it gets any further because there’s a lot of problems
Unknown Speaker 1:39:02
and some misinformation. The reversion clause is just a terrible idea. And you’re gonna get a lot of blowback from that because
Unknown Speaker 1:39:15
different people have different reasons for not having it. Mine and some of the people you just heard. I’ve built a series of hangers up
Unknown Speaker 1:39:26
over the years to pass on to my kids. If I have to sell to the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:32
Unknown Speaker 1:39:34
Unknown Speaker 1:39:36
With a reversion clause, it was also stated that
Unknown Speaker 1:39:41
people won’t maintain them
Unknown Speaker 1:39:44
Unknown Speaker 1:39:45
they’re going to lose everything at the end of the lease. So why put your money into it and you can see that a bowler were the city has taken over a bunch of hangers and they’re
Unknown Speaker 1:39:56
Unknown Speaker 1:40:00
worsened terrible, I don’t know anybody that keep an airplane in one if they didn’t have to.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:08
Furthermore, the hangar owners, and renters actually because of renters, support the investors.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:20
The pay a major part of the expensive running us airport. And we’re not treated very well, I think people are really
Unknown Speaker 1:40:29
not very happy with the way the city has been treating us. And us lease is a prime example. And we need to have some meetings, and work some things out that’s agreeable to everybody.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:48
If you have happy, happy investors, the airport is gonna go a lot smoother than if everybody on airport is mad. And if you come up with a reversion clause, there’s gonna be a lot of Mad people in at the top of the list. So let’s get together and see if we can
Unknown Speaker 1:41:10
do a reasonable lease that covers all the different angles. And there are several.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:18
Unknown Speaker 1:41:20
last thing I want to say, Oh, really, they were going to do a reversion clause and the biggest
Unknown Speaker 1:41:26
business over there, beagles aircraft, said, if you do that, we’re out of here. And that’s a multimillion dollar business. And they would have left, but the
Unknown Speaker 1:41:37
Unknown Speaker 1:41:39
management came to their senses, and they have no reversing loss. So hopefully we can avoid that. Okay,
Unknown Speaker 1:41:48
Unknown Speaker 1:42:04
Don dulci 335 Pratt Street.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:08
I agree with the comments that have been made, there’s certainly a lot of things that are very negative about the reversion clause and and focusing on rewriting that whole section would would really be an order.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:21
The other thing I just wanted to comment on was that having the city have a 30 day option to close, the documentation should a hanger hanger lease expire, or if somebody comes to buy a hanger is is really excessive.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:40
I think a person that might show up to want to purchase a hangar we’d like to have that whole thing close in a very short period of time, seven days or 10 days. Otherwise, if they find out that well, it’s going to be 30 days before the city even thinks about it. And maybe longer, they’re probably gone. So they’ve lost the sale. And that could be devastating for the for the seller.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:05
It would seem to me that if the city is knowledgeable of what they want to do on the airport, they could send that letter that was expressed that would say hey, we’d like to buy your hangar at some point in time we have plans. But
Unknown Speaker 1:43:21
for for them to come right at the very end and say what’s going to take 30 days for us to figure out what we’re going to do with that land before you can sell it. That just shows that there isn’t any planning going on at all. So that’s ridiculous. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:37
Unknown Speaker 1:43:41
Unknown Speaker 1:43:44
All right, I will close public invited to be heard then on the leases.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:50
Unknown Speaker 1:43:52
Further comments, discussion, Mr. Robeson. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:56
I just want to clarify one thing about 2.1. The last the second sentence, I guess we take out the red is in the current lease. So it is always said you know, as long as I’ve been there, that the lessee shall remove all hangars, and it’s just we’ve always managed to sign a new lease in time right before that happens. So leave I’d like to hear from you what your sense is, when David was airport manager, was there a city
Unknown Speaker 1:44:22
resolution saying like, hey, we don’t really want to own these hangars and rent them out or make them turn down. So just try to sign a new lease in time because this sense was in there. It just was never put into force obviously. And is that changing now so kind of the in this this goes back to you know, basic airport lease, you know, one to one and school so that’s pretty much you’ll see that particular provision and all airport leases regarding hangars and the reason that’s there is many structures. So let’s say we did have a hangar difficult come in he got you know, a 30 year lease built the big banks we had a 20 year option to renew so it was served
Unknown Speaker 1:45:00
For 50 years, a lot of structures are at the end of the useful life at that point. So the concept being here is, this land was, you know, leased, they built hangers on it, those hangers now, you know, maybe they’re covered with asbestos, maybe they’re resting apart that provisions in there. So the city doesn’t have to absorb the cost of tearing down a building, if it’s no longer structural worthy. So it’s kind of it’s a provision in the lease to to kind of protect the city and the citizens from having to absorb that cost. But was there a concurrent kind of memo from the city? There’s no documentation that I can think of? So in your mind, is there anything changing now, as far as the intent of the city to remove some of these hangars at the end of the 30 year lease? So there is no plan to remove any hangers on the airport at the moment? I think everyone would like to hear that, you know, to start with, yeah. And again,
Unknown Speaker 1:45:54
there seems to be this kind of idea that, Oh, this ad is out for people’s hangars, the point of putting a first refusal in a lease is for master planning purposes. So the city decides they want to build a new FBO here.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:10
The city recognizes that these hangars are incredibly old and falling apart. And we would like to start acquiring those pier, you know, to do something different with the land, maybe developers come in, and they really want this chunk of land. That’s, that’s far out on the cusp of something and haven’t but it’s about acquiring land that the city would use for agreed upon future development that benefits the airport as a whole.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:36
Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:38
Unknown Speaker 1:46:41
Thank you, sir. So if the purpose of this is for long term planning, then there shouldn’t be any problem with your marking or designating certain hangers that are of interest to the city. So the 30 day should come into play that right because if you already have it planned out, and then particular, you know, hangers go on the market, you should take much less than 30 days, from a practical standpoint, we should have a general idea of what we do or do not want to acquire, we wouldn’t want to limit ourselves there. And also consider we move at the speed of government to but like having my dad has passed with cancer. So I understand what it’s like to have to liquidate assets in a very rapid period of time. So I would, I would not feel good about the decision to pass this long, if there’s any sort of risk of someone who needed to liquidate assets being enabled to liquidate those assets, and there being some sort of big harm
Unknown Speaker 1:47:50
brought in to that individual. And again, I think there are for some reason, there’s this concept that you know, for every instance, the city will wait exactly 30 days, and then get back to you about this for 99.99% of all cases, it’s going to be you’re going to come have a discussion with me, we’re going to check, it’s going to be solved within a matter of, you know, days, if not hours. So, again, then let’s switch it back saying that unless there’s extenuating circumstances that the any right of first refusal to happen within seven or 10 days. And again, we don’t want to put ourselves in a position where we’re limiting ourselves. So let’s say that that notification is sent on the day I go out on vacation. And it’s signed for by someone in the office who forgets to put in my mailbox, and now it’s 20 days later. So there’s all kinds of scenarios we could toss back and forth here as far as what can or cannot occur. But again, it all comes down to as a city we need time to process paperwork.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:57
So I will just know that we have on the last page of the packet
Unknown Speaker 1:49:02
language that I sent to the city based on the discussion we had before that has a seven day which the city doesn’t love, but also has the ability for the city to end that period upon notice sooner. So that in the event Levi knows within hours or a day or whatever it is this is not of interest, that clock stops and so there’s no longer a delay because the way it’s written right now, at least the way I read it and I’m certainly not an attorney even though I like to pretend
Unknown Speaker 1:49:35
there’s 30 days and that doesn’t stop even if Levi doesn’t want it and that really you know That to me is a big concern. Mr. Robeson
Unknown Speaker 1:49:47
I wanted to address I forget which member of the public brought it up but I’m part of a condo association so to speak as well. So when to dot two says lessee that means the condo association correct
Unknown Speaker 1:50:00
Yeah, whoever is leasing it, yeah. So that association. So in your mind, is it within the contract that if one of the hangars within that condo association is trying to be sold that this provision would come into play? Or is it only if the condo association is selling their whole building? Again, this would relate to whatever the definition of the parcel was in the lease with the city itself. The parcel is the whole building. No, it’s the partial
Unknown Speaker 1:50:25
tears. So I’m getting from you that if any individual hanger within that parcel is being sold, it would not come under the 2.2 provisions. And again, is not as a lawyer and I wouldn’t want to comment on Mr.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:42
I’d have to look at the circumstances. I’m not familiar with the condo association or that lease, I’d have to look at that language and look specifically at a real situation in front of me.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:54
That’s pretty significant. Before we make any kind of recommendation or like this or don’t like it, that’s there are a lot of hangars under a condo.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:02
Unknown Speaker 1:51:05
Unknown Speaker 1:51:07
I am ignorant about something that I hate the fact that I am the I know how old our airport is. But I know it was at Roosevelt Park, and then it moved out to airport road. What is the oldest hangar on the field? Right now? How old is that? They seem ancient. Some of those. I can’t speak with that with authority. But I can give you a general idea. I know that the FBO building there the out front of it, there’s actually it says 1960 in the concrete. Okay, I know that the building I’m currently in was built prior to that. So we’re looking at at least 50s, mid 50s. Okay, the structures out there. Thank you. Because my point is that 30 years, I understand the teardown clause, I understand it more from the aspect of having to level it because of a catastrophe. So I managed West Houston airport, and Katie that was hit by a tornado and took out all the avionics, it took out all the businesses. So I understand leveling it, in order to figure out what you’re going to do with it and rebuild.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:18
I don’t understand that at the end of a 30 year lease, you’ve got to tear it down when we’ve got buildings there that are ancient. And again, yeah, it’s it’s just a provision there for if the building has come to its life. I mean, as you can see, getting I don’t, I can’t think of any essence. And I don’t think anyone else here can think of any instances where someone has been asked to tear down their hangar at the end of the lease. I guess it’s that unspoken language is there. So the paranoid concern is that I guess it is worth mentioning that I actually have come across cases where that has occurred before.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:53
When I was up in Montana, we had an instance where a hanger was the city that asked them to tear it down, it turns out that there was a significant contamination that that shop had been responsible for that essentially condemned that building. And at the end of their lease, the city did pursue and ask them to tear down at significant cost of them, because they had had done some things they weren’t supposed to do. And then were asked to, politely asked to pay for it and pointed out there at least that they should. That makes sense. Yeah. If somebody’s making math at our airport, they’re gonna have some problems. Hopefully, they’re not. But to the, you know, the public sentiment is basically we’re going to have things in writing, we’re going to be our feet are gonna be held to the fire with that language.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:37
We’re looking for loopholes and clauses and ways out and just how we function with a large investment.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:47
And we look at other things going on in the city. We wonder what treatment they’re getting. We always were always paranoid. And we always said we feel like stepchildren. I wonder about the hotel that we’ve been reading about what did they get? And everything is negotiable. But just that the concern is
Unknown Speaker 1:54:08
handing your, as was discussed handing this asset to your children are having it be a part of your estate or to some organization that you deem it to go to and then just that the concern that the city would trigger a clause and would go ahead and start taking over. When that hasn’t, you know, there is and again, there’s no there’s room for it. And there is no plan for the cities to systematically start acquiring hangars and renting them out or anything like that. It’s all about the potential to develop in the future and the utilization of our own land is all it’s for and it’s there’s no plans and as I’ve put this before, you know, all likelihood I’ll probably never even extra I’ll probably stay here my whole life retire and never have to execute this clause. It’s just about giving the airport options for making it better in the future if it needs to.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:00
So let me ask the city attorney this then is there a way to include language that would refer to masterplan?
Unknown Speaker 1:55:12
To the conversation of where’s this going, the city should have a plan that they’re executing, that then we would fall under as the hangars became available? Meaning is there a way to put that in there that
Unknown Speaker 1:55:27
per the master plan,
Unknown Speaker 1:55:30
you know, that the city would state their intent. And then people could offer you know, could say, Okay, I’m going to go build on the south side, a brand new hanger, and you can have my old one, to do what you want to do with it. And they give us some vision, because 30 years really isn’t that long for an individual, especially if they start lining it 18.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:52
Eugene may city attorneys, so I’m not quite exactly sure what the idea is. I mean, lawyers are creative, we can write whatever our client directs us to do.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:04
And, you know, I think the board can make the recommendations that would like
Unknown Speaker 1:56:11
on lease language, and staff will have its position and the ultimate decision maker on this is going to be City Council. And they can make the policy determinations if that’s in the best interest of the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:26
Council member Martin.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:29
Unknown Speaker 1:56:31
I apologize for talking so much. Because it’s, you know, really not what I want to do. But I have been sitting listening to this and looking for the old airport leaves. And it does not seem to be
Unknown Speaker 1:56:45
accessible to the public at all, or I sure can’t find it. So apparently, someone only sees their lease when they come to the city and says, I want to rent hangar parcel.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:59
So I would I
Unknown Speaker 1:57:03
very much want to see the old lease before having to vote on this. We had a discussion by phone and about this, and I sort of thought I would I would get it. But yeah, this is a red line.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:20
So and, and I don’t know if this is the old no one ever told me whether this was the old lease and all the edits come to the new. But then it seems to me that that based on
Unknown Speaker 1:57:36
based on the language if this was in fact, the old lease, then everybody’s got a lease that a requires them to tear down their hangar. And if they didn’t, for some reason, it would revert to the city because they abandoned it. So it I’m puzzled to understand
Unknown Speaker 1:57:58
Unknown Speaker 1:57:59
what everybody is so mad about because they’re getting a right of first refusal, which they never had before. It’s a benefit.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:10
There is so three points. So yes, this is the this is the previous incarnation of the least at least the way it was when I came here. So this was the most recent redlined version of it. And then yes, I just kind of you bring up the concept, it’s kind of a benefit. And that’s the kind of way that I think about it. And here’s why. Right now as a city, our options for acquiring land, if we if we want to is essentially just to force lease term to run out. So if we’re going to develop this big new giant FBO, if we need the parcel next to it, right now, our option is to let the term run out and not do a new land lease for anybody until it turns out and then take it over. So if we do that, it’s just, it’s a seems to me like a terrible thing to do. Because you essentially make that land worth nothing for the remainder of its lease. So if, if, you know, Jun decides to sell her lease, and there’s 10 years left on it. And the city says, Well, gosh, we that’s where our new FBO is going sorry, we’re not going to do new land lease, whereas before at that point we could encounter so it’s like, yeah, we got first refusal. So we’re gonna pay you all this money for your building, and then you’re gonna get your money right now, and you can move on seems to be more of a beneficial solution to me. Well, you know, I think I think that a lot of the scenarios that are being described are things that just wouldn’t happen. So there is there’s nothing in this lease that says that the city can’t make an offer to somebody whose lease hasn’t run out, of course, and that’s the most logical first that’s what would happen if the city really wanted to do something with the land is they’d make an offer, and they’d make a nice offer if they want to, you know, they they’d make probably an above market offer because they wanted the man. There’s all kinds of theoretical stuff that we’ve kind of been throwing around today. But I mean, you’ve gotten to
Unknown Speaker 2:00:00
kind of the heart of it right there is, you know, we’re always going to work with our tenants to make the best outcome possible. Really, these are just protections for the city to make sure that we’re not limited ourselves moving forward that we can do improvements in an affordable timely matter and develop the airport in a way that’s beneficial to every Yes. And if your hanger was really bad, the city could condemn it anytime. You don’t have to don’t have to wait till the end of the lease to condemn it if it’s if it’s contaminated, or falling apart, and when a public danger. So that’s not really a case. And then the last one is if if somebody gets to the end of their lease, and they can’t sell their hangar
Unknown Speaker 2:00:44
and they walk away,
Unknown Speaker 2:00:47
what really can happen? I mean, they’re supposed their leases, they’re responsible. So they can’t walk away and leave the city holding the bag for a hanger, it doesn’t want. And those are really the only cases that matter. And all these, these other situations just don’t happen. Because there’s an easier way out of it. Yeah. And just to reiterate, again, we’re not out to get people’s hangers, we don’t want to kick them off their porch, there’s not going to be any development of tennis courts. It’s all about airport development. It’s all about improving the airport moving forward.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:21
Unknown Speaker 2:01:24
Go ahead. I respect that. And I am sure you guys are right, that there would be a better solution than just to wait until someone was about to make a transaction and then swooping in. And however, just to steal a phrase that you guys use, which is the spirit of bureaucracy, I want to prevent the speed of bureaucracy, causing undue harm to our members of our community. So if there’s any way that we could, you know, as soon as we have a notion that a particular parcel or hanger is of value to the city, that there should be earmarked, and residents or owners notified so that they can make that part of their calculus when making decisions on business decisions. Right? I mean, to me, that just makes sense.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:14
Of course, it’s hard for me to come on, because we don’t have plans to take over any hangers. So it’s never come up before. Again, these are all just minor contractual things, which I would point out are standard across the region that we’re trying to put into place to, to improve the airport.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:34
Leave a couple of just questions here.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:38
I want to be very clear, this only applies to new leases. There’s no change to any existing lease, existing leases or existing leases, the 30 plus 30 years that are out there will continue to be out there. Yeah. So at this point in time, the FAA has not pushed it, we’re kind of in a realm of you’re the new guy, don’t do it again, mentality moving forward. So that there’s been no issues with that.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:05
When a lease is to use this language sold, assigned or otherwise transferred.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:12
Someone even has a current lease, so no right of first refusal.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:15
Does that restart the 30 year clock? Do they go to the new lease language? So in the past, we’ve kind of done that on an individual basis, depending on the situation. So I would say, you know, again, without having a specific situation in front of me, it’s dependent upon the situation, whether it’s a transfer, it’s or at least,
Unknown Speaker 2:03:38
if it’s a transfer, current term of life, is that is that accurate? So it was so you said could be a transfer could be a new lease? Yeah. In a transfer. Okay. same language, same term doesn’t reset. So same language, same term. So if at least was being transferred, then you’re basically crossing out the name on the lease and putting a new name. Yeah, again, I’d have to I’d have to get through this specific site to understand the legal ins and outs of it.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:11
Unknown Speaker 2:04:13
you guess just anecdotally, that is what has been happening from all the people that I’ve talked to is generally, the transfer is essentially scratching out the old name and writing in the new and they fulfill the rest of the lease. Recently, that’s kind of what we’ve been doing to stopgap measure to make sure that we’re staying within grant assurances. Since I’ve been here. We’ve done lease transfers to make sure that we are not creating new issues for ourselves. This is part of that process of making sure we can move forward and have good solid leases that are acceptable to the FAA.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:48
I guess the other comment I had was, a lot of this seems like it’s a communication thing. Like when I was asking about is there a memo from the city with intent that’s been kind of behind a lot of this we
Unknown Speaker 2:05:00
Want to know what the city is up to when they’re putting these clauses in? I understand the city wants protection for teardown and things like that. Can we recommend at the same time like on current resolution, since we’re talking resolutions, like, here’s what the city is trying to do, and let’s get some clear communication out to the hangar owners to make them feel more assured. Okay,
Unknown Speaker 2:05:21
that’s, we can do that, as a board read, recommend that if we’re going to recommend at least language and we can recommend a concurrent resolution. We can recommend anything to council that we vote on. That’s what
Unknown Speaker 2:05:33
Unknown Speaker 2:05:35
I would just say what Levi already has said, there is no Council policy about the disposition of land use on the airport at this time. And if there were, it would not be in the part of the inn would not be part of the template lease, it would be part of a,
Unknown Speaker 2:05:59
Unknown Speaker 2:06:01
an airport master plan, you know, the airport master plan is pretty old.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:07
And, and council is, is I mean, the closest thing to justification for making a new one other than the, you know, the land use sub piece of it, is that resolution you guys are taking home to work on.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:23
You know, there is the council has not seen this red line, except for me. Okay, it this is not something that the that the council has devised. This is something I don’t even know who did this red line. But but
Unknown Speaker 2:06:43
it trying to tie it to some larger city policy is is
Unknown Speaker 2:06:51
just not what’s out there. We have to have a lease
Unknown Speaker 2:06:56
to give people rights to their hangar parcel. And that’s leases is typically standard. And since we had to mess with the term of the lease, or actually we didn’t, we could have left it at 20 years and not changed anything. And then you would by the way, have been required to tear down your hangar if you kept that lease at 20 years. And and for some reason, like you had bad credit or something you couldn’t get a renewal.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:28
Unknown Speaker 2:07:30
there’s there’s just no,
Unknown Speaker 2:07:34
you know, there’s no overarching plan right now. And and there doesn’t need to be for the city’s leased land to consumers.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:47
Vice Chair Jordan.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:51
I’m compelled to put this into perspective. For the sake of the people in the field, the the runway was going to be extended.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:00
In my lifetime it was going to have there was a date for the runway extension to happen.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:07
Here we said that was 10 years ago, we have a master plan for the airport. We don’t see those things being locked out. We have
Unknown Speaker 2:08:20
We fumbled stumbled, we’ve leased out to an FBO that has absolutely failed to perform and we seem to have no remedy for an FBO that isn’t meeting we I went through rules and regs and minimum standards. When I first joined the board, and people were very concerned about those bars being set and how, as the individual hangar owners and flight instructors operating out of the hangar how they were going to be able to meet all that. And so we were very concerned about what we were being held to, as is the case with the leases, we look at our FBO you’ve heard enough about it.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:00
We say what are they being held to why aren’t they being held to anything? Why are we having to sweat out the details in our leases, then the FBO is crumbling in front of us and not delivering and we have no flight school and we haven’t got fuel and so many things wrong. So the public says why are we fiddling around with these lesser matters when that’s a bigger matter? And that all comes back around to leases, promises, expectation management, and all the things just in my tenure that I’ve seen that were supposed to have happened as I joined, that fell off. And so I think that’s really the spirit of the concern and the
Unknown Speaker 2:09:44
the heart of it is we’ve failed to see anything come to fruition that really matters. And we’ve seen things fail right in front of us and that’s again, we’re our goal is to make it a world class airport a
Unknown Speaker 2:10:00
As a pioneer a leader a place to come, we want to be proud of our airport. And we want to be proud of our hangars. And we want to be proud of our ownership out there, and that we call that home. And so that’s really, that’s the motivation, I think of everybody who’s speaking is saying, we’re being held to some standards that we’re not sure as individuals, you know, that we’re going to have the money to tear down a hangar at the end of the lease, and we’ve got an FBO that
Unknown Speaker 2:10:27
has 10 more years to fail us every single day. And nothing’s happening there. So it’s that balance of we’re feeling we’re always very defensive. And we are the stepchildren. And so this is just another
Unknown Speaker 2:10:43
another chance to expose that and expose how we feel about things. And I think that that’s the community in general is saying, you know, we’re with you, we’ve, we’ve put our trust yet, and we have taken these leases, we’re making our payments, we’re keeping them clean, we’re abiding by the rules.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:01
So please be kind and recognize that and respect that. And and then could we get this into reasonable language so that we can then talk about the FBO. And talk about the future and making the airport something that we’re proud to have a hangar at and proud to
Unknown Speaker 2:11:19
say that’s where we’re based, and give you the opportunity to have an asset that’s appealing, and will attract that business that we are craving and arrest a place to eat, and some restrooms on the south side, I mean, some things that we’ve been talking about forever, that we can’t get done. And so that’s really the big cloud around all this. And that’s the emotion and the, the deep seated concern is that we’ve been let down so many times. And so and that certainly makes sense. And I can say it’s not the you know, that’s my goal to it’s, you know, it’s my goal to make this a world class general aviation airport. And part of doing that is going to have be having tools at my access, that gives me the same powers that other airports have to actually make changes for the better. So as I move forward, that’s a lot of the decisions you’re going to be seeing is decisions. I mean, we’re talking, ultimately, you know, the next 100 years here, when we’re talking about leases, and stuff like that, and for some of the stuff plans way out in the future, it’s all about driving towards the ultimate goal of an improved airport as quickly as we can, but also in a responsible manner and have that we need tools, and we need tools like this.
Unknown Speaker 2:12:34
And yet you do know, we’ve watched airports being bulldozed, and that’s our concern. So let’s just put it out there, we’re worried that the airport is going to be turned into a dog park or something else.
Unknown Speaker 2:12:46
We’re gonna lose our asset it has happened in the past and not to my knowledge of Mini, really close to here. But in other states, certainly there’s been issues with that. And that’s, you know, very much against that, and from the cities, in my experience here has been very pro airport, and they’re, they’re proud of the airport, and they want to make it into something great, too. So I’ve seen nothing but support for making this a better airport.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:12
I wish we could say that we feel I don’t, I don’t think we we don’t I don’t. The confidence isn’t there because of the failure on so many other areas that neither you or I had anything to do with. But they exist. And so it’s the concern that as the airport is deteriorating,
Unknown Speaker 2:13:33
in front of us, we’re looking to see, you know, it’s got to flourish. To back up what you’re saying we see it just being allowed to deteriorate until it’s going to be bulldozed. And so that’s I think that’s the the concern is we had a lot of unfulfilled promises unfulfilled plans. And as that continues to deteriorate, it makes it look more attractive as a dog park.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:00
We don’t want that.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:03
Unknown Speaker 2:14:06
a context for your context. Well, Linda, a plan is a plan. It can never be a promise when it’s a municipal government, horrible city and a Colorado municipal enterprise.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:24
Unknown Speaker 2:14:28
has to run off of its own
Unknown Speaker 2:14:33
Unknown Speaker 2:14:35
All right. So for example, LPC who was here earlier today raises rates nobody likes that, but to keep the lights on. Sometimes it has to happen. The same with you know, wastewater, sewer, this the those entities of which the airport is one cannot tax
Unknown Speaker 2:15:00
The city of Longmont to get revenue to do things like build an FBO. And you know so there’s two sources of there’s two sources of revenue there is doing the business of the airport which includes leasing hangars.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:18
And doing business development and getting business through the fence businesses to come that will pay a higher rate
Unknown Speaker 2:15:26
there is getting grants from the FAA and other sources
Unknown Speaker 2:15:32
there’s no taxation and there’s no way to stop
Unknown Speaker 2:15:38
the Boulder County from purchasing and using the land that is out at the end of the runway making it runway extension impossible physically, you know, there was no way for us to do that.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:54
So are no way for us to stop it rather. So
Unknown Speaker 2:15:59
I understand the frustration but I
Unknown Speaker 2:16:03
you know, it’s it’s it’s like with imagined motives about the right of first refusal or reversion ism for that, for that matter. It’s not what you think it’s just the
Unknown Speaker 2:16:17
Unknown Speaker 2:16:21
illegal environment statutory environment that we have to operate on.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:27
Unknown Speaker 2:16:29
you know, I am sorry, the Longmont economic development partners,
Unknown Speaker 2:16:35
and the city council are pro airport. And the, because we’re pro economic development, and we’re doing the best we can, but we only have certain ways to make money. And that’s what it comes down to.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:56
Thanks, everybody, for comments. I’ve got no one else in the queue.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:00
I don’t love making motions. But if you’ll indulge me, I’m going to make a motion. And the motion would be after three months of discussing this at 8:18pm.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:11
We recommend to city council that we move forward with a language in this lease the red line with the following amendments. The city has seven days from written receipt.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:26
Certified Mail is not the requirement just written receipt, and that the city has the ability to end that seven day election period early upon notification to the lessee.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:38
Is there a second to that motion?
Unknown Speaker 2:17:41
Moved and seconded. Any discussion of the motion?
Unknown Speaker 2:17:46
Did you have discussion against the second?
Unknown Speaker 2:17:52
Unknown Speaker 2:17:56
I figured that was coming Russell. Mr. Robeson. Just wanted to have time to read it again. Yeah, go ahead. I’m not rushing it. Were you, you’re satisfied with the 60 days to complete the purchase. You’re only concerned with the 30 to say yay or nay. I’m not satisfied with the 60 days. But we’ve been doing this for three months. And I can’t imagine having no matter what this has to go to city council for their approval. There’s no way that can happen faster than let’s say 45 days everything possible aligns.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:29
I think it’s, and this is my personal opinion. I’m really pleased that the airport is coming more in line with the city’s organization and getting more support. And leave I support your right to go on vacation and not check your email. But the city should be able to respond within seven days. And that should be you know, regardless of you’re in the office or not.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:50
But I just don’t I can’t see City Council moving fast just because it has to go through that process legally. You probably know better than I do. I don’t necessarily that’s just my that’s my perspective.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:03
And I would love someone to argue disagree if you think differently.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:20
Any further discussion on the motion?
Unknown Speaker 2:19:23
Call vote any all those in favor of the motion? please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Unknown Speaker 2:19:29
Unknown Speaker 2:19:31
will make a recommendation.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:35
I’m sorry. Let me go back to my agenda.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:38
We’re on to a final public invited to be heard.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:41
Would anyone like to have the final opportunity to be heard?
Unknown Speaker 2:19:48
I’ve said it twice already. Same rules apply five minutes start with your name and address pace. They’ve got 4625 West 99th Place Westminster
Unknown Speaker 2:19:58
you’re still ignoring the
Unknown Speaker 2:20:00
The rat trap into that one, which is in fact a reversion clause as written because there’s nothing at the end of the 30 years. And what does a hanger worth? That doesn’t have a lease, it’s not even worth the cost of removal. So the city could say, well, here’s my appraisal and bottom lines steal it’s felony theft. So it’s, it’s a tragedy.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:23
Unknown Speaker 2:20:33
Daniel C 335 Bradstreet logo, but I wanted to pass something along to Marcia, since she’s looking for ways to humanely manage the prairie dogs.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:45
Yesterday, there was an article in Science News magazine online, where they are controlling mice by doing CRISPR edits of their genes. So they’re sterile. And they’ve looked at a way to control 200,000 mice in 25 years with just 25 CRISPR edits.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:09
So you can catch 250 prairie dogs pretty easy out there. There’ll be gone in three years.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:17
This science news online.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:26
I will it’s a research project in Australia.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:30
Research Project in Australia is going on right now.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:34
So you might look into that, or have somebody look into it.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:39
There was a comment about noise earlier.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:43
And in the master plan, we did a DNL 65, which is required by the FAA. And the only noise that was at 65 decibels was a very tiny area right in the middle of the runway. After that the noise was lower, so no mitigation was required. So it really didn’t matter if it’s an electric airplane or a powered aircraft.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:07
There was no noise off off the field. And I think that was part of the subject of the lawsuit with mile high
Unknown Speaker 2:22:16
in that. In the end, it was determined that Longmont and probably Boulder County did not have a noise problem. But there were some individuals that had problems with noise, kind of the net bottom line of that lawsuit.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:34
It was a request for comment about the reversion or tearing down of hangers on the airport. And the oldest hanger on the airport I believe is the flying farmer’s hangar.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:46
That hangar when I was chairman of the board, went through and had completed 220 year leases, and was told they had to do some work on that hangar because it was kind of dilapidated. They went through and refurbished it and have been working through possibly another 20 year lease right now. They’re probably 10 years into it. So that just rolled over.
Unknown Speaker 2:23:12
And last point, it may be too late. But there’s been a lot of verbal, going back and forth on the lease leasing and Harrison Earl’s comments about very small subtleties, it would seem like one way to manage some of that would be to build a flow diagram of all those little pieces and see how they all work. And see if there’s a way to bring them together, or leave them separate. And then from there, construct the verbiage for the for the contract, or the lease document.
Unknown Speaker 2:23:44
Unknown Speaker 2:23:46
Unknown Speaker 2:23:49
Would anyone else like to close this out this evening?
Unknown Speaker 2:23:55
All right, seeing no one board Council staff comment starting with board members
Unknown Speaker 2:24:01
who has more comments.
Unknown Speaker 2:24:07
Vice Chair Jordan. Thank you. I’m we’ve got an air show set for September 23 2023. So I’ve started reaching out to
Unknown Speaker 2:24:19
prior Executive Director type we had a leadership team. So I’ve been reaching out to them to start setting up some meetings and get going on this. And Chairman or
Unknown Speaker 2:24:34
not lacking name and lacking how I’m supposed to call you my fellow board member Malcolm has been working on
Unknown Speaker 2:24:43
putting in a request for a B to flyover. So we’ve gotten some traction for the air show. And we’re underway. So I just wanted to say it’s it’s happening but I haven’t set any meetings because of the holidays and just schedule so we’ll be working on that. And then we had talked to
Unknown Speaker 2:25:00
out the public viewing area off of airport road that has the Eagle Scout project,
Unknown Speaker 2:25:07
scale runway tower. And I talked to a tag about how they got that done. And he just went to the airport manager and asked permission was given permission, he did have to get a permit for the mock tower, because the visa was a structure. And he did get a little bit of
Unknown Speaker 2:25:26
he had some visits while they were working on it from the city, you referred them to the airport manager who then said by authorized it. So I’ve reached out to the president of friends of ants brand, the nonprofit that we’ve set up to benefit the airport. And that was to go toward runway extension that was to help the city put up their portion of the money.
Unknown Speaker 2:25:49
And I have talked to him as well about a Scott, it would be a scholarship that we would request and then maybe that organization would finish off that space with the permission of the airport manager. So we talked about there was an inquiry into parks and rec and it was five to six years off. So I’ve gotten a little bit more information. And I’ll follow up on that with you later. And I got a little update on that too. I’ve been touching base with the FAA about that. And they at the moment have no objections before they give any official blessings or thumbs up, they wanted to see kind of what the plan for the area was. So they said next step is much guide. It’s kind of a plan theory run by us. And then well, they said they review at that point. Okay. So as far as the public that had looked into it, and the citizenry or the I’d probably start with Lopa, that organization on the report. And we can propose, but I think the proposal is just some grass up to the fence, a paved area for people to park area for people to sit, of course, the Eagle Scout project stays, and just cleaning it out so that the airport’s attractive, of course, we’re seeing close touch with them. And as things move forward, we’ll keep moving forward.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:07
I think it’s really important to acknowledge, Mr. Jordan, that this is your last meeting with us as your term limited. And I continue to be impressed with everything that you are bringing to the table, including pushing us forward in your last meeting and setting up meetings and continuing to keep us going forward. And I can’t say how much. I appreciate that. Appreciate what you do for all of us. And we will very much miss you know.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:37
I’ll be sitting out there.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:41
Yes, yeah, my gosh, I hope so I think somebody’s got to do it. And I don’t watch television. That’s what I tell people. I don’t watch TV. So I have time. And this is the stuff I think about. So I just appreciate being able to do this. And I remember when I applied for the board, and all the cautions I was given about was metered water meters and a lot of things going on that are way past and rules and regs and all those things and the lot has happened and a lot hasn’t happened. And we had a pandemic thrown in the middle of that that really cost some time. And that’s my only regret is I feel like we’re really now we’re getting some energy and some momentum and and I’m looking forward to what’s going to happen in the future. And I’ll be I’ll come sit over there. And antagonize you guys.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:30
And I understand you can sit out a year and then reapply. So we’ll see what happens. But the yeah the airshow in that that park project. I’ll continue to help with those.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:41
Unknown Speaker 2:28:43
Mr. Robeson. Thank you. I head down that you and Steve spots are up to you’re going back.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:49
I have applied to come back. I have an interview.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:53
On Saturday, I believe council vote sometime later this month, and Steve is applied to come back. I do not know that.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:00
Steve, unfortunately, he missed. He did not.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:05
There were other applications.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:07
There, I believe even if the applicants are fully appointed, which is obviously to council in the mayor, there are still at least one opening on the board. At least one maybe two.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:20
So when those get advertised again, I would encourage everybody, please.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:26
Other comment I’ll make I recognize this is we’re in the weeds. We’re looking at leases, there’s not
Unknown Speaker 2:29:33
you know, there’s a lot of strong feelings about a lot of this. But this is maybe the second or third meeting that I had been on the board and I’ve been on now for years that someone has said something positive about the airport manager. And I just want to acknowledge the fact that you know, that itself is a big momentum change. And I recognize we’re way far off from where any of us want to be right now Levi, you included. But I do just want to acknowledge the fact that there is positive feedback out there.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:00
about what you’re doing, because that has not happened in years about this airport. And I think it’s worth noting
Unknown Speaker 2:30:12
councilmember Martin, any further comments for me this evening, where I made an awful lot.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:19
Unknown Speaker 2:30:21
I would also like to say I’m very pleased with the energy that Levi is bringing to this, I’m especially pleased with his weekly if necessary, status updates on what’s going on. Because there’s nothing worse as a council member to get a call and not have a clue what the answer is. And if it’s about the airport, now, I always know what the answer is. So that is fabulous. And I want to remind Levi, that the city and shared services strategic integration is providing you with more
Unknown Speaker 2:31:02
grant writing support than any airport manager has ever had in the past. And that’s the way to get all of these things done. Yeah. I actually met with Stacy the day before yesterday, and I took her on a tour of the airport. And we talked and she seems very excited to be a part of it. So that’s very, very encouraging. Yeah. Good.
Unknown Speaker 2:31:28
Vice Chair Jordan. When is the annual report going to be delivered? Do you know? Yeah, that’s something that we haven’t spoken about yet. We’ll have to get into here. Fairly. So. I didn’t get the copy from you. You want to talk? Yeah, I think we, we need to have that out to you. Next month. So January, for our annual reports. I did request some community information to get to you about charitable, philanthropic that’s happening on the report, primarily airway and Joe medical flights, Animal Rescue, those are the ones that come to mind first, but I have put out a couple of requests for people to submit information that can go into that report about
Unknown Speaker 2:32:14
community operations on the airport, that there’s more that goes on out there than just people flying around. And just as a follow up, Levi and I have only been doing this since April. And so
Unknown Speaker 2:32:27
it’s my understanding from other boards and commissions that we that an annual report just talks about what this board has done over the last year. So if if there’s something else there, let’s chat about that. Maybe offline, but that’s my understanding of the annual report is for council to review kind of your work over the last 12 months. So
Unknown Speaker 2:32:50
if it’s different, we’ll certainly add things as as you need. But that’s that was my focus anyway, just going into this. And again, I’ve not been part of the history. So I apologize for
Unknown Speaker 2:33:01
my lack of understanding there. But that’s what I’m doing for transportation advisory board, is just taking the meetings for the last 12 months and putting those together and saying here’s what, here’s what you went through, here’s the work that you got done. Here’s all the things you heard, basically, from staff, and your and the work you did. So it has been a very sterile document historically, I do now that you say that, I remember that. And what happened is it ends up in the newspaper, because of all the in the past, because of the lawsuits and all the visibility we had at the airport. After the lawsuits, we had some fatals with skydiving and we just had a lot of attention. So the motivation was, since it was going to be presented to the public was to give them as opposed to just this dry picture of us discussing leases for three months,
Unknown Speaker 2:33:56
more of what happens at the airport, to get the public to understand and with respect to noise complaints and activity, general activity. And again, out of that defensive position that we’re in, please don’t tear down our airport. And these are the other things that are happening there that you may not be aware of. So that was the spirit of it. And it was because when it was being presented, it was in the front page of the paper and people were coming and we were trying to present a bigger picture than just our dry report. So what I’ll do is still give that information to you and then it’s it’s not obviously not my call what happens with it, but you’ll have it if there’s to be
Unknown Speaker 2:34:36
a softer, more public facing view of other things that happen at the airport justifications.
Unknown Speaker 2:34:51
City staff, any comments?
Unknown Speaker 2:34:55
Good. Okay. Well, one communist says we will miss Mullen
Unknown Speaker 2:35:00
And and we appreciate your service over the time that we’ve known you again, not very long, but thank you for your service. Thanks, Steve for his service. We hope you’ll be back. But thank you again and all the things that you’re doing beyond this board. And for the airport. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:35:20
Unknown Speaker 2:35:22
Thank you all for a productive meeting. Lots of discussion. Appreciate city attorneys for being here so we can really dive into it. And thank everyone for the engagement. I’ll call the meeting adjourned. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:35:36
Thanks for your time, man.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai