ever relinquished its duties with the
FAA. I've been involved in all of the
high-end stuff, capital
um investment, CIP stuff, um all of our
um work with our consultant and all that
stuff. We pretty much had the FBO doing
daily maintenance and daily management
of the on-site stuff of the airport.
Um, under this new proposal, the city
would hire a part-time airport employee
to be on-site at the airport and um and do airport management, maintenance,
the day-to-day stuff, do notems to the
FAA and so forth.
Um,
it says that the employee reports to the
city first and foremost.
Um while that employee may also provide
services to the FBO as a separate job
subject to the city's secondary employee
policy, the city's interests always take
priority. City will continue to seek
grants and funding opportunities to
provide airport infrastructure does not
but does not guarantee specific
improvements or expenditures.
So long story short,
what the concept is is that pretty much
before with the FBO, we said here's the
hanger. You can have the main hanger for
free. The city will pay all the
utilities. Here's this house. We'll
provide that for free and the city will
pay all utilities in exchange for being
the FBO and doing the daily maintenance
and management and all that stuff. Under
the new agreement, the city will hire an
employee.
We will pay that employee an hourly
basis. They will be accountable to the
city like any other department head and
work for the city.
We will then turn around and um make
that house available at a
slightly below market price in exchange
for them living there and providing the
on-site security that the airport needs.
So, we'll give them a deal on rent. Say
the going rate, we haven't looked at the
going rate and square footage and all
that, but let's say the going rate is
1,800 bucks. Maybe we'll make it
available for 1,400 bucks, which they
will pay the city. So, they'll pay city
rent for the house at a good rate and
we'll turn around and pay them an hourly
rate when they do work for the city, but
they'll have to keep a time card and
report to me and so forth. Um, if the
FBO wants to hire them
to do FBO duties,
they're welcome to do so, but their
priority their prior their employment
will be to the city first. And if
there's a conflict of interest or if
anything like that, we would treat it
the same way we do any secondary
employment, right? Um
the FBO
then will operate as an independent
for-profit business. We will give them
an exclusive FBO agreement, meaning
they're the only one that operates as an
FBO there during the contract term.
They'll provide aeronautical and related
services of a typical typical of rural
general aviation airports. They will pay
all utilities for the hangar and pilots
lounge. They will carry insurance
aviation industry standard levels for
their own business and they will operate
full compliance with FA rules and city
airport standards. The FBO does not
operate the airport, does not control
the fuel system and does not have
authority to bind the city.
We will lease them the main hanger for
$0 rent,
but they will pay utilities.
The rent the rent concession is
intentional and is meant to reduce the
operating costs at a rural airport for
them, increase the likelihood of
long-term FBO success, impro improve
airport services, activity, and
sustainability.
The hanger may only be used for approved
FBO related purposes. um and they can't
subleasase the the the hanger. So, the
idea is we don't have enough um we don't
have enough business for them to be
successful as an FBO of a larger
airport. So, we want them to be
successful. That's why we're willing to
give them free rent. Um but um and we
want to encourage them to do whatever
they can to be successful whether it be
repair aircraft repair um any services
that they can make money at. Um the guys
that we awarded this to ultimately have
a lot of ideas that they they want to take on
to to be more successful. And this is
what this next section is about. The
agreement encourages the FBO to propose
new ideas to increase airport activities
such as flight instruction, aviation
events or flyins, food service or
touring related activities, antellay
rentals, or aviation supported
businesses. All activities require city
approval. City may deny proposals that
would create unreasonable traffic,
safety concerns, infrastructure strain,
or negative other negative impacts
inconsistent with a community's
character or airport vision. The FBO may
also express interest in developing
additional hangers on city-owned land,
investing in airport improvements, or
purchasing adjacent proper private
property. All of these all of those
opportunities are not pre-approved and
would require separate written
agreement. So, if they want to do a
hanger project with the city, they're
going to have to have a se a separate
agreement. We didn't want to define that
in their FBO agreement. These guys have
talked about maybe wanting to build a
restaurant or put some money in to make
a really nice pilot's lounge or
something like that. Basically, if they
want to come to the city and invest some
capital to do something like that, we're
going to have a separate agreement for
that. We just didn't want to have it
open-ended or just automatically
approved. So, um we just basically tell
them we we we're here. We're partners.
We want to encourage them to do things
to be successful, but we're going to do
separate agreements on anything that's
going to require commitment or long-term
commitments or anything like that.
Um, the city and the FBO agree to work
together in good faith if such
opportunities arise. FAA compliance. Any
action that the FBO by the FBO that
jeopardizes FA FAA grant assurance or
airport compliance is a material breach.
FAA related violations require immediate
correction. Failure to cure may result
in immediate termination. This was
pretty strong in the agreement. Um term
and termination. This one is kind of
interesting. I I originally wrote it up
as a five-year term and that we could
renew upon mutual agreement. Um their
only reservation is if they invest some
serious capital into something, they may
want to have a longer term agreement for
something like that. But again, that's
going to be separately negotiated if
that if and when that comes.
In the meantime, any either party may
terminate for material breach after a
notice and cure period have passed and
by mutual written agreement.
So, um this agreement is designed to
support a strong and stable FBO,
encourage smart growth and innovation,
protect the city's regulatory role in
public investment, and create a
long-term cooperative relationship that
helps the city airport thrive. That is
the summary of the agreement um and
captures the whole the whole thing
without going into all 20 pages.
Wondering what the airport board
thoughts are
on kind of the concept of having an
employee
part-time employee
versus having the FBO take management
role. I agree.
Yeah, the city needs to be in control.
>> Yeah, our existing agreement, we pretty
much kind of said, "Take this thing and
manage it for us and we don't want to
hear about it,"
which is probably not wise.
» Yeah.
So, that'll be between the city and the
employee,
but I I need to talk with um I need to
talk with our city attorney and with HR.
I thought about saying here, we'll just
give you the house and that's that's
your your salary and this is what's
expected. I don't know if that's
something we can do for federal, you
know,
payment law and all that stuff. Besides,
One thing I hate about it is people tend
to um forget that thing they get for
free and start to resent the thing that
they have to pay for. Um and they, you
know, it's it's the whole potatoes and
gravy thing. Um
if we give somebody a house and say
that's your payment, that's not
something they see every month. They
then say, "Man, I do all this work for
the city for nothing." They don't see
the payment coming in. So, I like the
idea of paying them a wage and actually
getting a time card and having that
direct accountability as to what they're
doing with their time. Hey, you know,
it's it's that time of year again. It's
time for us to do weeds. It's that time
of year again. It's time to do hanger
inspections. It's that time of year
again. It's time to you know, yeah, when
you're doing snow at three in the
morning, you're getting paid for it. You you don't you don't hate it as bad.
And if we give them a house to live in
at a red reduced rate because we we want
to we want them to live there and
provide that security
for the airport. That's why they get a
reduced rate, but then they're paying
the city for the house. We're getting
some revenue that comes in from that
which helps fund the salary of them
doing what they're doing. So in other
words, we could give it to them for free
and expect that or we can trade each
other checks and everybody's aware of
all the the accountability of money that
goes back and forth. It's just a better
way of doing it. It's a little bit more
transparent in my mind. So, that's way and I think it'll I think
it's a hard time to say I mean, it's a
harder thing to say we have an employee
that we don't pay anything but we give
them a house. How does that work on
taxes? How does that work on I don't
know. It just gets weird. Seems a little
easier to exchange checks.
But that ultimately won't be a anything
about that in the FBO contract because
the FBO is blind to our agreement with
our employee. The only thing they care
about is if they want to hire that same
employee to say do mechanic stuff or
something like that, then they got to
pay they got to pay them and they're in
a second position to the city when it
comes to their their duties. Yeah. Their
priorities are that their first priority
just like any If Cali wanted to have a
side job running um as a realtor, I
would say, "Okay, Cali, it just can't
interfere with your main job." And we
would have that conversation. So
similar. And if she and if I granted
that to Cali to go do that and then it
started to become a problem, I'd say,
"Okay, Cali, you can't do that anymore.
You got to choose." Right? That's the
secondary employment thing that the city
goes through. It would be the same thing
with this. And the FBO is comfortable
with that. And they're like, "But we
could pay him a different wage if we if
the person that that you hired want
could do a mechanical or something like
that, I'm like, absolutely pay them
whatever you want. Um, which again, why
it's important for us to pay them for
what they're doing. Um, so that they
don't just look at the FB at the FBO as
their only source of income and they
kind of forget the fact they're getting
a free house, right?
Yeah.
» So, one of the things that I've had a
little stress about as we've talked
about this for the past few months is
can we find somebody that would that
would agree to do this job? And I think
we can. Right now, when we put out a
position, we just put out a part-time
wreck assist assistant making not a lot
of hourly rate and we got we got a lot
of of candidates, good quality
candidates. Um the city manager position
of Enoch, they just got 34 candidates
for that. Um I think it's a sign the
economy is starting to turn a little bit
when we put a government job out there
and we get a lot of applicants. Um, the
FBO specifically has somebody in mind
that they would like us to consider that
also does um that is a an airport that
is a a mechanic.
I've said, "Yeah, we'll interview them
and if if they would work for us, then
we'll hire them, but they have to work
for us first." And I made that very
clear. So, from the FBO's perspective,
they don't have all the headache of the
airport management that they have to
they can just work. They can just do
what they do as the FBO. Um, we left
fuel completely out of it as we have to
because we have a third party that does
fuel. The one thing we have discussed is
potentially um bringing that back under
the city umbrella and I need to have a
conversation with our fuel third party
and see if um if they're making a go of
it. Um I don't believe they're doing all
of the daily stuff that they're required
to do. So, I have some concerns there.
And I really think that if we bring that
back under the city umbrella and manage
that, we may have to put a little bit of
money into the system. But if these guys
do what they're talking about doing, um,
I really hope we can get some more fuel
sales going out there and help to fund
the airport. Right now, I think we're
probably scraping the bottom of the
barrel and we're probably offering
bottom of the barrel
product.
Self fueling. I've heard concerns about
whether it's accurate. I don't know how
well they're doing the daily testing.
I don't know. But um if these guys can
be successful and can have some more um
generate some more um traffic with
things they're doing and I keep trying
to woo SU to um maybe base a couple of
planes out of here or helicopters and
maybe buy some fuel. Um, you know, I
think it'd be a it would be a worthwhile
conversation to have with our fuel guy,
but the FBO has no interest in taking
over fuel.
Their their biggest concern is there's
not enough gallons to be sold to offset
their liability
of taking over the fuel. They're really
worried about the liability of the fuel
and the city's going to face the same
problems. take over the city.
>> Yes, I think we're already exposed to
the liability as we sit right now. My
thought is I think so. I need to check
with our insurance company, but I'm
pretty Well, I tell you this, if if
somebody gets water in their engine and
it stalls and they crash, you know, the
city is going to be named on that
lawsuit whether or not we have a third
party fuel person or not. They're going
to name all the people they can to
chase. Um, so I don't know exactly how
much liability we're exposed to
as by design or not. I need to talk with
our insurance company, but um, my
thought is is we're probably at the
bottom of what any fuel sales we could
get. We're probably worst case scenario
right now. If we can improve the
situation and at least offset our
investment and actually provide just I'm
worried that the product that we're
offering out there is subpar
which is going to continue to hurt the
airport. That's my my ultimate.
>> Now we had we had to name the city as an
additional shirt on our insurance.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that the way it is with Dave?
>> I'm sure it is but I don't know. I mean,
I'm I'm assuming so because usually in
anything like that, we'll name each
other as additional insured, but we
would make him have his own policy and
name us as an additional insured and he
would probably do the same. So, I don't
know. Fuel is a is a totally separate
conversation, but one that we're going
to have. Um, as it sits right now, if
Dave Hston
just continues to operate it for the
next five years, then he owns everything
out there.
We've basically given him everything.
That's the way the agreement reads.
>> Didn't he have to buy some of that stuff
originally?
>> He just had to operate it for 10 years.
>> Oh, I thought he had to buy a bunch of
the equipment.
>> I can't find any evidence of that.
But he hasn't put any investment into
it. And I don't think he's doing daily
tests. And when we had our last audit
from the FAA, there was
several things that needed work and some
of it fairly expensive. The containment
um fence is wouldn't contain a gallon of
fuel that that block wall that's all
cracked up and everything. Um he needed
to upgrade the signage. Um again, I've
heard report reports that the the
gallons that you get isn't exactly
right. I don't think there's anything um
shady going on. I just think it's not
that accurate. Um
Yeah.
>> Yeah. And I don't know if that's a
communications issue. I don't know what
sort of I don't know. Does he have
Wi-Fi? I don't know what system it is
and how it's reporting. And there's way too much um too many
unknowns there. It's kind of been my
whole issue with the airport for a long
time. It's very opaque to us as the city
to to step in and manage. So, I don't
know. We'll continue to look at the
fuel, but but these guys at the FBO
actually don't want anything to do with
it. And so whether we do something with
fuel or not ourselves is yet to be
determined, but
yeah.
So anyways, that's that's the FBO um
agreement. Um they are going to be here
on site. Uh Mick has been working well
with with us in the transition. Um the
new guys are going to be here on site.
um in a week,
little more than a week to do a walk
through um check everything out and
they've just been gearing up and moving
forward planning on everything. Um we're
not really offering a lot of traditional
FBO services as of day as as of right
now. So I don't think we really um have
anywhere to go but up
and so
>> what's the name of the operation that's
coming in? Um, I don't know that they
were they were going to form an LLC.
They haven't given me the name of their
LC yet. We just know the three
principles that will be owners of it.
And we those are the guys that we've
been negotiating and talking with from
the start. So, they will have to get
their LC
complete and so they can um sign the
agreement. Um, I'm going to present the
same thing to the city council this
Thursday and um I'd like to get it kind
of wrapped up. I I have sent the copy of
the contract to them that has all this
stuff in here like like it was presented
and um and it's consistent with all the
discussions that we've had. We had a few
ideas that we had to work through some
concerns and friction and I think we've
got to a good point. I don't expect them
to push back on really any of this
stuff. I think we've kind of figured out
something that will work for them and
us. But it's possible that they may say
they want a 10 year or not a fiveyear
and
I I doubt we'll see that, but if they
did, then we'll let the council, you
know,
debate and and do what we want to do.
But the goal is is that January 23rd,
they take over and I think we're on
track for that. So, worst case scenario,
the city steps in temporarily.
So, um you you may see a job
listing go out um in the next day or so
for airport manager, part-time airport
manager. That will be the city
officially listing this position so we
can um look at candidates. Um
and uh but that doesn't don't let that
confuse you. That's the not anything to
do with really the FBO.
Any insight on the transition? any any
pitfalls to avoid you guys know of?
>> Well, I can't can't think of anything
specific, but I'm gonna throw myself
out. If they have any questions, I sure
appreciate them coming to me and asking.
>> Do you want to be on the hiring
committee?
>> No, not really.
>> Dave Cowan, do you want to be on the
hiring committee?
>> I I don't. We'd love to have somebody
that's been there and done that.
>> But, you know, 30 some odd years of
running that out there, we figured out a
few things to do.
>> Absolutely. And I will definitely tell
them,
in fact, I I I I talked with Gangas and
I said, "You you need to get to know our
airport board members. We're going to be
working together." And these guys used
to run that airport out there and they
know a lot. So,
Gangus is. Yeah, he's he's building his
own home and he has some extra acreage
besides his house that he's thinking
about doing stuff, wondering about doing
stuff.
» Yeah.
They've really gotten excited about
hanger development and I think what we want to do in fact it's not as a
specific item on here but I will I just
pointed out Genghask really wants to
create a a hanger list a priority list
so people can say I want a hanger I want
a hanger and that list will be official
it'll be we can we have a thing on the
website so people can if they can throw
their name out there for a hanger we can
actually judge how much demand is out
there. Um they wanted an exclusive on
hanger development on the airport and I
told him no. I thought the whole thing
was going to unravel over that. Like why
would we give you an exclusive to
develop hangers on the airport? We have
tons of acreage out there. Just being
the FBO doesn't why would we give you an
exclusive, right? And they said, "Well,
that's probably a deal breaker because
we want to be able to if if we do stuff
to make this airport great, we we want
to be able to have some opportunity
develop hangers and and lease them. And
I'm like, that's fine. You're not going
to have an exclusive for the entire
airport. So, we need to come up with a
good way to what we may do is is let
them say, okay, we want to have
maybe a a section of hangers that that
they have the ability they can put their
name on to develop those hangers in that
spot because we have that we have the plan that shows several rows,
several taxi ways that go up in there.
So, we may say fine, if you guys want to
do um if you want to write your name
down and reserve those and figure out
how to fund it and do those fine, but
we're not going to give you the whole
airport. The that other group that we
talked about, they're the ones that have
they have now executed the purchase of
that property that we were doing, the
through the fence agreement, the what we
call the Idaho group, which are actually
from Spanish Fork. They are they're
really excited and want to still move
forward and do something with a hanger
development as well. And so I wanted to
do something that didn't pit them
against each other, didn't put the city
in some sort of a, you know, between a
rock and a tight spot. But, um, the more
the marrier if we can. By the way, we
have officially applied for the grant to
put the utilities and fix the road. That
was officially filed Christmas Eve, 400
p.m. Christmas Eve. We finally got it
in. We did get we found out that we got
the award from the state. We got
$600,000 from the state and we have
about six million that we're waiting on
from the federal government to do that
grant. It was a pain. Even after we
thought it was done, took four months to
get it fully applied for, but the grant
looks really, really, really good. So
hopefully if that goes off we'll have a
new road power underground power
underground water all the way out not
only to the airport but around the
hangers and on out to Goodfellow which
will be which will allow us to be able
to expand hangers out there because then
all they have to do is just come off
that road with water power and and a
gate. Right. So, um, I'm really excited
about that because we could say we could
put them in blocks, A block, B block, C
block, and we could say, okay, if you
want to do a whole project, then fine,
you can reserve a block and and if you
want to do a whole project, and we have
some sort of criteria for them to
reserve that many, some sort of an
agreement or they pay a certain amount
to the city to for it to be reserved.
And then we're also want a list of of
people, individual
potential hanger owners that want to
sign up and it'll be first in priority
and we'll get that list and and so we
just kind of need to figure out the
mechanism of all that. But these guys
really want to uh insist on us having
that and and so do I. And I want that to
be um really transparent. I know that
I've heard a lot of people got burned
because they thought they were on a
priority list and when it came right
down to brass tax, they weren't and they
were pretty frustrated with the city
that did that to them. So, anyways,
I'm excited. I think we're I think we're good. We're going to transition to
a new chapter. Um Mick and group have um
maintained the the runway and the
prairie dogs and the um snow removal.
They've done the best they could with
city equipment. Um it is one of our
items that we get new equipment there.
Um but they've done a pretty good job.
They their their business didn't take
off and run like I think they had hoped.
I think if everything had gone the way
that the city's plan was with with
Mick's group, um I think that they would
have been more successful and and of
course it didn't end up that way. So,
we'll see if these guys can make a
better go of it.
» Yeah. Unless somebody's got anything
else on that, I'm ready to talk about
the next one.
What are we waiting on a motion or what?
>> No, nothing to do.
>> We don't need a motion, do we?
>> Number
four. Number four.
>> Okay. You ready for me to go to four?
>> Yes.
>> Oh, sorry. Five.
>> Five. Yeah. Five.
>> Okay. So these five and six go hand in
hand. Um are capital projects for the
fiscal year 26.
Um
this is this is right off of that the
state uh with state UD do um we they
have their system called blackat. Now
this is what we have approved with the
FAA for capital projects.
The pavement preservation apron and
taxiways is ongoing. It's open right
now. Um
I haven't has anybody seen if have they
gone out and been doing crack seal?
>> No.
>> Because they're going to do that during
the cold part of the winter.
>> But I haven't heard that they've come
yet.
>> I haven't seen anybody out there. So,
they're doing the crack seal in the cold
part of the winter and then in the
spring between now and June they'll come
in and I think they awarded it to
um we awarded it to
oh the asphalt
company
not um
straight straight stripe. What's that
called?
>> Straight stripe.
>> I think they awarded it to straight
stripe. they'll come in and do the the
fog coat and restripe everything.
Um, and that's ongoing and will be done
by the end of June. That was a UD do
specific grant. FAA didn't have any
involvement in that. Um, 211,000 was the
estimate and the and the bidding came in
at total of 214,000.
And then the next two items on the
system, you'll notice that we have the
AWAS in 2026
and snow removal equipment in 2027. So,
as I was working with um Lochner, our
consultant.
So, I'm just going to mesh five and six
together because the six is discussion
on RFP for our airport consultant. Um,
when we last had our CIP meeting with
the FAA and UD do aeronautics,
um, they had the snow removal equipment
ahead of AWAS.
And, um, I told them, "No, let's let's
reverse those. Let's get the AWAS first
and the snow removal equip equipment
second." And um I said, "Yeah, we need
new snow removal equipment, but
depending on who does what, especially
with the new FBO, the city may take over
maintenance and we may we may not
prioritize snow removal equipment this
year. We'll maybe do it next year." And
everybody agrees that we need an AWAS
sooner rather than later. Um, it is one
of the things specifically that our new
FBO really is interested in and I think
that having accurate and up-to-date w
weather is is a is a huge priority. As
long as we can remove snow, I think we
can buy another year with that. So, I
kind of insisted on that and they they
sure enough they re they rearranged it
and approved it. Well, when it came time
to start doing the all of the back-end
work on it, our existing um consultant
said, "Okay, we got a problem."
When we did our five-year CIP, when we
awarded them as the consultant to do our
CIP projects,
the AWAS was outside of that five-year
window, but the snow removal equipment
was within it. because we gave them a
five-year agreement
and at that time one was in and the
other was out. So, they can't legally
help us do the AWAS now.
So, we have one of a couple of options.
We can wait and do it next year and do
the snow removal equipment this year or
we have to put out to bid our consultant
CIP stuff um I think in June anyways
for the following fiscal years. Well, we
can we can do that now and then have and
include all the things within the next
five years on our list and um and then
we can start on the AWAS now. We just
have to put it out to bid for the for
the airport consultant now. So I guess
my question to you guys is do you agree
with me that the priority is AWAS over
snow removal equipment?
And if so, let's do the RFP
six months early.
» Is the snow removal equipment available
from the city when it's needed?
>> Yeah, that's what they're using right
now is a is a city snowplow. We just
dedicate one for them.
I don't even know if we're going to get
snow.
>> What's the downside to doing the bid six
months early?
>> No downside.
I think when I ask them, they're a
little nervous that we may not award
that to them. Um, and I obviously I
can't promise that we are going to award
it to them. Um, Jud with Armstrong and
now Lochner have been they've been
really good. They've been one of the few
things that has
preserved my insanity my um in the three
and a half years that I've been here. Um
they have been absolutely stellar, but
that doesn't mean they're you're
guaranteed to get the award. We're going
to put it out to bid six months one way
or the other. So, they don't have
anything to be afraid of. If they've if
they earn the the award for the next
one, fine. If they don't, then they're
going to what? Miss out on
starting the process for snow removal
equipment. So, I it is what it is. Um
there's no reason to not award it or not
start the process earlier and and and at
least that would allow us to move
forward with the AWS.
>> And Armstrong has been good to the city
for a long time.
>> Yeah.
I've been a little nervous. They
promoted Jud to basically be the boss.
And I was really concerned that our
level of service potentially could fall
off because because you know how it is
in business, it really is about the
people. You have a good company and you
have a bad service rep. Um, and Jud
promised me from the start of him being
promoted, he's now over like I can't
like three states. Um he promised me
that service would not fall off and that
he would still be very very very very
involved in Perowan airport and his
promise has been true. I sent an email
this morning to him and Connor and
Thorston and Jud replied five minutes
later. Boom boom boom boom here's the
answers to all your questions. That's Jud. his his level of service is
great and there's never been a question
of whose side they're on and and they
give us
especially when we're battling the FAA.
They are they are just I wish all
consultants and engineers that we deal
with were that good. I'm not I'm just up
here like raving about them, but that's
just the the honest facts of things. So,
but I'm sure there's capable people out
there.
So, in other words, here's the capital
projects. Um, really the only ones that
really matter is um the AWA snow removal
equipment because of what I discussed.
The other um big thing that is out there
is um
the the perimeter fencing. Um, just to
be very careful in a public meeting, but
to give you a little bit of a heads up,
you remember when we had last year when
we updated the the CIP list, the FAA
started insisting that we do a new
prairie dog fence. And I was like, "What
about a deer fence?" Remember that
conversation? They said, "Pause this
conversation. We'll meet again in a in a
couple of months." They never came back
to us ever. An entire year went by and
this last I think it was November when
we do our meetings with all of them and
um I thought what are they going to do
now? Are they because they never
responded they I don't know if they
didn't have the funding if the politics
got weird for them or what but they
never brought it up at our last meeting.
They adopted this just as it sits and
they never brought up the perimeter
fencing which is slated for 2028.
So,
I think that they don't have the funding
to force us to build a prairie dog fence
for millions and pay for it right now. I
think if they did, they would because
they wanted to bump that to the top of
the list and bump everything down.
That's what they wanted to do. And my
only thing was fine, if you're going to
make us build a new prairie dog fence,
make the fence go both ways and let's
keep the deer herd that actually is a
threat to human life off the runway. And
they couldn't argue with that logic, but
I think the the funding and not only the
funding, but the design is just not
there. So luckily they they didn't they
didn't mention a peep about it and
therefore we can move on with the
priorities that we have. So that's the
whole deal on the capital projects.
and frankly
RFP. Well,
since we're talking about both of them
at once, do you guys have any
preference? Are you okay if we put it
out for RFP on the airport consultants?
>> No, we're good with it. Okay, we'll uh
we'll keep the airport board in the loop
on that and um
probably what we'll do is we'll put it
out and then when we get the we get the
um different proposals that come in,
we'll summarize them all and um
if it works within the timing of the
next airport board, we'll uh we'll bring
them to you guys and get your input. If
we need to move quicker, maybe we'll
have a special airport board meeting. I
don't know if there's a if we do that,
we would just do it in lie of the next
month. And um but I because we're going
to want to probably move on that as
quick as possible, especially so they
can get designing and and get the AWAS.
You never know with the federal
government when they'll shut down or
what. So that could potentially and in
January that's a high likelihood again.
So that could interrupt our our stuff.
So that's it, chair. That's what I have.
» Nope.
» Did anyone answer if they thought the
snow removal or the AWAS was higher
priority? I didn't hear if anyone had
input on that.
>> Did we answer that question?
>> Yeah.
Okay. I just didn't hear the answer.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Do Do we have a lot of demand and call
for AWAS? People pilots really want it
that use our airport.
>> I'm not a pilot. So,
>> I see shaking heads out here.
>> There's one right there that says
[laughter]
Isn't that higher priority than using an
old snowplow versus new snowplow? That
was what I thought.
>> Long as the snow's off the runway. Yeah,
the sauce is really beneficial.
>> Yeah.
Yep.
Um other thing in staff comments. Um are
you guys did did they did somebody come
out and fix the gate that was broke?
>> No, not yet. Um Mick's dad asked me
about it and I said Mick is the one that
hired the company last time. Um they
need to warranty it and so got them the
vendor name and he was going to call
them and have them warranty it.
But I hadn't heard if it got fixed or
not because I'm kind of out of that that
loop.
>> It's still open. That's all as far as I
know.
>> I don't slow down there.
» Second gate. Well, we'll get that fixed
one way or the other. So,
>> it was working for a while
>> for quite a while,
but then then for some reason it it
would go closed, then it would open up
and it go closed and it opened up and I
tried to reset it several times and
couldn't get it to work right. So,
>> did
>> sometimes you got to get out of the car
and wipe the
>> Oh, the sensors
>> reflector off if it won't work. So,
>> so I like it open.
>> So, is the um is the system that we have
because I I have not gone out and looked
at it since they fixed it. Did they
install new equipment?
>> They did. They changed they changed uh
Oh, it used to have a a loop in the
ground.
>> Uhhuh.
>> And now they change it to an infrared.
>> Okay.
>> Like the main gate is
>> Yeah.
Well, we got to fix it. I know everybody
loves when it's open, but
we'll get her fixed. It's all I have
for public. We are
» Hello, Matt Jacus, owner. Hangarate
Hanger Charlie. I'm very excited about
AWS. Uh right now I've got a system at
my home that I can access through my
phone in the air to get weather. So it's
Do you know which version it is?
There's AWS one, two, and three. Well,
all I know is that they have an
estimated cost because we haven't got to
the design portion yet, but they they
came up with that number somehow. So
whoever came up with that number,
probably Armstrong, Lochner, they would
know what they were planning on. But my
guess is the latest version.
>> Yes, because some have different, you
know, wind and temperature wind
temperature clouds, wind temperature
clouds, visibility that it depends on
how sophisticated you want to get, you
know, could drive up that number. Um,
secondly, it's been a long time since
I've had employees, and I'm just trying
to wrap my head around the the part-time
employee. Do you envision this employee
kind of like being on call for when you
need something done? Is
I I guess I'm I don't remember employee
law too well and I'm I'm just going to
say I really don't know the ability to
call a part-timer but be on call all the
time is kind of confusing me. I just was
>> so from from the from our perspective,
we have a few part-time employees that have a variable schedule and our
big constraint is is they can't work
more than 25 hours a week and actually
the federal law says 29. At that point,
we have to consider them full-time and
offer them benefits and the whole deal.
>> But they're still on call 247.
>> Yeah. Okay. So we will we will hire them
on the basis of
>> if it's very if it's a very unique job
you're going to be on call at all times
and we'll we'll arrange for them to have
backup through another city employee
probably through public works in case
they're going to leave and go on
vacation or something like that right
and um we'll have somebody cross trainin
to do that and then we'll say yeah
you're going to be variable schedule
they may make one work one hour one week
and 30 hours the next week as long as
they on average keep their keep their
hours under 25. They get 26 27 hours.
Cali gets nervous and tells me, Dan,
they just went over 25 hours and I'm
like, I know we got to come to to watch
their hours next time. But that's the
arrangement.
>> Okay. Um suppose the city hires someone
who lives local um not a requirement to
live in that house. What would be the
plan for that property if that becomes
the case?
>> So that that the property is actually
there's no dedicated property for the
house. The house just sits on the
airport property.
>> We want to get somebody living in there
that will agree to do provide airport
security.
>> I see.
>> One way or the other. So, um, down in
Canab, it's which is a county airport,
they actually have a
sheriff's deputy that lives in the house
and it's part of his pay package, but he
also has to provide security for the
airport and it's one of it's part of his
incentive package. So if if we hire an
employee and they do not want the house,
we're then going to look to find
somebody else who in an agreement for
reduced rent will keep an eye on the
airport. Basically, all they'd have to
do is literally keep an eye on it and if
there's a problem, call somebody
>> if it's not the employee that lives
there.
>> Very excited about the crack seal in the
taxi way as well.
>> Yeah, Dave and I have been out in front
of our house with blowtorrch. So, thank
you.
No, just if you know somebody when we
post that job
>> ultimately I'd like somebody that has a
CDL that is very handy
knows like has a brain. [laughter]
Um,
there's probably a few aeronautical
pilot type people. There's probably a
few, um, I don't know.
And they, again, the FBO does have
somebody in mind. I want to interview
them, but I don't want to hire them just
because they're good at wrenching on a
helicopter. They need to be able to run
a snow plow without running the blade
down in three passes up and down the
airport. So, they got to be able to do
some technical stuff. They got to put up
with me and Cali.
» Yes.
» I would make that motion
>> and I second it.
All
>> right.
» That's that spreadsheet. No.