[0:00] ever relinquished its duties with the
[0:02] FAA. I've been involved in all of the
[0:05] high-end stuff, capital
[0:07] um investment, CIP stuff, um all of our
[0:12] um work with our consultant and all that
[0:15] stuff. We pretty much had the FBO doing
[0:17] daily maintenance and daily management
[0:18] of the on-site stuff of the airport.
[0:21] Um, under this new proposal, the city
[0:23] would hire a part-time airport employee
[0:27] to be on-site at the airport and um and do airport management, maintenance,
[0:35] the day-to-day stuff, do notems to the
[0:37] FAA and so forth.
[0:41] Um,
[0:43] it says that the employee reports to the
[0:45] city first and foremost.
[0:48] Um while that employee may also provide
[0:50] services to the FBO as a separate job
[0:52] subject to the city's secondary employee
[0:54] policy, the city's interests always take
[0:57] priority. City will continue to seek
[0:59] grants and funding opportunities to
[1:01] provide airport infrastructure does not
[1:03] but does not guarantee specific
[1:04] improvements or expenditures.
[1:06] So long story short,
[1:10] what the concept is is that pretty much
[1:13] before with the FBO, we said here's the
[1:15] hanger. You can have the main hanger for
[1:17] free. The city will pay all the
[1:19] utilities. Here's this house. We'll
[1:22] provide that for free and the city will
[1:23] pay all utilities in exchange for being
[1:26] the FBO and doing the daily maintenance
[1:28] and management and all that stuff. Under
[1:30] the new agreement, the city will hire an
[1:32] employee.
[1:34] We will pay that employee an hourly
[1:36] basis. They will be accountable to the
[1:40] city like any other department head and
[1:43] work for the city.
[1:45] We will then turn around and um make
[1:49] that house available at a
[1:52] slightly below market price in exchange
[1:54] for them living there and providing the
[1:56] on-site security that the airport needs.
[1:59] So, we'll give them a deal on rent. Say
[2:02] the going rate, we haven't looked at the
[2:03] going rate and square footage and all
[2:04] that, but let's say the going rate is
[2:06] 1,800 bucks. Maybe we'll make it
[2:08] available for 1,400 bucks, which they
[2:11] will pay the city. So, they'll pay city
[2:14] rent for the house at a good rate and
[2:16] we'll turn around and pay them an hourly
[2:18] rate when they do work for the city, but
[2:20] they'll have to keep a time card and
[2:21] report to me and so forth. Um, if the
[2:25] FBO wants to hire them
[2:28] to do FBO duties,
[2:31] they're welcome to do so, but their
[2:34] priority their prior their employment
[2:36] will be to the city first. And if
[2:39] there's a conflict of interest or if
[2:40] anything like that, we would treat it
[2:42] the same way we do any secondary
[2:43] employment, right? Um
[2:47] the FBO
[2:49] then will operate as an independent
[2:52] for-profit business. We will give them
[2:54] an exclusive FBO agreement, meaning
[2:56] they're the only one that operates as an
[2:58] FBO there during the contract term.
[3:02] They'll provide aeronautical and related
[3:04] services of a typical typical of rural
[3:06] general aviation airports. They will pay
[3:09] all utilities for the hangar and pilots
[3:13] lounge. They will carry insurance
[3:16] aviation industry standard levels for
[3:18] their own business and they will operate
[3:20] full compliance with FA rules and city
[3:22] airport standards. The FBO does not
[3:24] operate the airport, does not control
[3:26] the fuel system and does not have
[3:27] authority to bind the city.
[3:30] We will lease them the main hanger for
[3:34] $0 rent,
[3:37] but they will pay utilities.
[3:40] The rent the rent concession is
[3:42] intentional and is meant to reduce the
[3:44] operating costs at a rural airport for
[3:46] them, increase the likelihood of
[3:48] long-term FBO success, impro improve
[3:51] airport services, activity, and
[3:53] sustainability.
[3:55] The hanger may only be used for approved
[3:57] FBO related purposes. um and they can't
[4:00] subleasase the the the hanger. So, the
[4:03] idea is we don't have enough um we don't
[4:07] have enough business for them to be
[4:09] successful as an FBO of a larger
[4:12] airport. So, we want them to be
[4:14] successful. That's why we're willing to
[4:16] give them free rent. Um but um and we
[4:20] want to encourage them to do whatever
[4:22] they can to be successful whether it be
[4:25] repair aircraft repair um any services
[4:28] that they can make money at. Um the guys
[4:30] that we awarded this to ultimately have
[4:32] a lot of ideas that they they want to take on
[4:37] to to be more successful. And this is
[4:41] what this next section is about. The
[4:43] agreement encourages the FBO to propose
[4:46] new ideas to increase airport activities
[4:48] such as flight instruction, aviation
[4:50] events or flyins, food service or
[4:52] touring related activities, antellay
[4:55] rentals, or aviation supported
[4:57] businesses. All activities require city
[5:00] approval. City may deny proposals that
[5:03] would create unreasonable traffic,
[5:05] safety concerns, infrastructure strain,
[5:07] or negative other negative impacts
[5:09] inconsistent with a community's
[5:10] character or airport vision. The FBO may
[5:14] also express interest in developing
[5:15] additional hangers on city-owned land,
[5:17] investing in airport improvements, or
[5:20] purchasing adjacent proper private
[5:22] property. All of these all of those
[5:24] opportunities are not pre-approved and
[5:27] would require separate written
[5:28] agreement. So, if they want to do a
[5:29] hanger project with the city, they're
[5:31] going to have to have a se a separate
[5:33] agreement. We didn't want to define that
[5:34] in their FBO agreement. These guys have
[5:37] talked about maybe wanting to build a
[5:40] restaurant or put some money in to make
[5:43] a really nice pilot's lounge or
[5:45] something like that. Basically, if they
[5:47] want to come to the city and invest some
[5:49] capital to do something like that, we're
[5:51] going to have a separate agreement for
[5:52] that. We just didn't want to have it
[5:54] open-ended or just automatically
[5:56] approved. So, um we just basically tell
[6:00] them we we we're here. We're partners.
[6:03] We want to encourage them to do things
[6:04] to be successful, but we're going to do
[6:06] separate agreements on anything that's
[6:07] going to require commitment or long-term
[6:11] commitments or anything like that.
[6:14] Um, the city and the FBO agree to work
[6:16] together in good faith if such
[6:18] opportunities arise. FAA compliance. Any
[6:21] action that the FBO by the FBO that
[6:23] jeopardizes FA FAA grant assurance or
[6:25] airport compliance is a material breach.
[6:28] FAA related violations require immediate
[6:30] correction. Failure to cure may result
[6:32] in immediate termination. This was
[6:34] pretty strong in the agreement. Um term
[6:37] and termination. This one is kind of
[6:39] interesting. I I originally wrote it up
[6:40] as a five-year term and that we could
[6:43] renew upon mutual agreement. Um their
[6:46] only reservation is if they invest some
[6:49] serious capital into something, they may
[6:51] want to have a longer term agreement for
[6:53] something like that. But again, that's
[6:55] going to be separately negotiated if
[6:56] that if and when that comes.
[6:59] In the meantime, any either party may
[7:01] terminate for material breach after a
[7:04] notice and cure period have passed and
[7:06] by mutual written agreement.
[7:09] So, um this agreement is designed to
[7:11] support a strong and stable FBO,
[7:13] encourage smart growth and innovation,
[7:15] protect the city's regulatory role in
[7:17] public investment, and create a
[7:18] long-term cooperative relationship that
[7:20] helps the city airport thrive. That is
[7:23] the summary of the agreement um and
[7:26] captures the whole the whole thing
[7:28] without going into all 20 pages.
[7:33] Wondering what the airport board
[7:35] thoughts are
[7:38] on kind of the concept of having an
[7:40] employee
[7:42] part-time employee
[7:44] versus having the FBO take management
[7:48] role. I agree.
[7:56] Yeah, the city needs to be in control.
[8:00] >> Yeah, our existing agreement, we pretty
[8:02] much kind of said, "Take this thing and
[8:07] manage it for us and we don't want to
[8:08] hear about it,"
[8:11] which is probably not wise.
[8:18] » Yeah.
[8:21] So, that'll be between the city and the
[8:23] employee,
[8:25] but I I need to talk with um I need to
[8:29] talk with our city attorney and with HR.
[8:31] I thought about saying here, we'll just
[8:33] give you the house and that's that's
[8:36] your your salary and this is what's
[8:38] expected. I don't know if that's
[8:41] something we can do for federal, you
[8:44] know,
[8:47] payment law and all that stuff. Besides,
[8:49] One thing I hate about it is people tend
[8:51] to um forget that thing they get for
[8:55] free and start to resent the thing that
[8:57] they have to pay for. Um and they, you
[9:00] know, it's it's the whole potatoes and
[9:03] gravy thing. Um
[9:06] if we give somebody a house and say
[9:09] that's your payment, that's not
[9:10] something they see every month. They
[9:12] then say, "Man, I do all this work for
[9:14] the city for nothing." They don't see
[9:16] the payment coming in. So, I like the
[9:18] idea of paying them a wage and actually
[9:21] getting a time card and having that
[9:23] direct accountability as to what they're
[9:25] doing with their time. Hey, you know,
[9:27] it's it's that time of year again. It's
[9:29] time for us to do weeds. It's that time
[9:31] of year again. It's time to do hanger
[9:32] inspections. It's that time of year
[9:33] again. It's time to you know, yeah, when
[9:35] you're doing snow at three in the
[9:36] morning, you're getting paid for it. You you don't you don't hate it as bad.
[9:41] And if we give them a house to live in
[9:42] at a red reduced rate because we we want
[9:47] to we want them to live there and
[9:48] provide that security
[9:51] for the airport. That's why they get a
[9:53] reduced rate, but then they're paying
[9:55] the city for the house. We're getting
[9:57] some revenue that comes in from that
[9:58] which helps fund the salary of them
[10:02] doing what they're doing. So in other
[10:03] words, we could give it to them for free
[10:04] and expect that or we can trade each
[10:06] other checks and everybody's aware of
[10:09] all the the accountability of money that
[10:11] goes back and forth. It's just a better
[10:12] way of doing it. It's a little bit more
[10:13] transparent in my mind. So, that's way and I think it'll I think
[10:17] it's a hard time to say I mean, it's a
[10:19] harder thing to say we have an employee
[10:21] that we don't pay anything but we give
[10:23] them a house. How does that work on
[10:26] taxes? How does that work on I don't
[10:28] know. It just gets weird. Seems a little
[10:30] easier to exchange checks.
[10:34] But that ultimately won't be a anything
[10:38] about that in the FBO contract because
[10:40] the FBO is blind to our agreement with
[10:43] our employee. The only thing they care
[10:45] about is if they want to hire that same
[10:48] employee to say do mechanic stuff or
[10:52] something like that, then they got to
[10:53] pay they got to pay them and they're in
[10:55] a second position to the city when it
[10:57] comes to their their duties. Yeah. Their
[11:01] priorities are that their first priority
[11:03] just like any If Cali wanted to have a
[11:05] side job running um as a realtor, I
[11:10] would say, "Okay, Cali, it just can't
[11:12] interfere with your main job." And we
[11:14] would have that conversation. So
[11:15] similar. And if she and if I granted
[11:17] that to Cali to go do that and then it
[11:19] started to become a problem, I'd say,
[11:21] "Okay, Cali, you can't do that anymore.
[11:23] You got to choose." Right? That's the
[11:25] secondary employment thing that the city
[11:26] goes through. It would be the same thing
[11:28] with this. And the FBO is comfortable
[11:30] with that. And they're like, "But we
[11:31] could pay him a different wage if we if
[11:33] the person that that you hired want
[11:36] could do a mechanical or something like
[11:37] that, I'm like, absolutely pay them
[11:38] whatever you want. Um, which again, why
[11:41] it's important for us to pay them for
[11:43] what they're doing. Um, so that they
[11:44] don't just look at the FB at the FBO as
[11:48] their only source of income and they
[11:49] kind of forget the fact they're getting
[11:50] a free house, right?
[12:03] Yeah.
[12:07] » So, one of the things that I've had a
[12:09] little stress about as we've talked
[12:11] about this for the past few months is
[12:13] can we find somebody that would that
[12:15] would agree to do this job? And I think
[12:17] we can. Right now, when we put out a
[12:19] position, we just put out a part-time
[12:21] wreck assist assistant making not a lot
[12:24] of hourly rate and we got we got a lot
[12:28] of of candidates, good quality
[12:30] candidates. Um the city manager position
[12:32] of Enoch, they just got 34 candidates
[12:34] for that. Um I think it's a sign the
[12:37] economy is starting to turn a little bit
[12:38] when we put a government job out there
[12:40] and we get a lot of applicants. Um, the
[12:43] FBO specifically has somebody in mind
[12:46] that they would like us to consider that
[12:49] also does um that is a an airport that
[12:52] is a a mechanic.
[12:55] I've said, "Yeah, we'll interview them
[12:56] and if if they would work for us, then
[12:58] we'll hire them, but they have to work
[13:00] for us first." And I made that very
[13:01] clear. So, from the FBO's perspective,
[13:05] they don't have all the headache of the
[13:06] airport management that they have to
[13:08] they can just work. They can just do
[13:10] what they do as the FBO. Um, we left
[13:12] fuel completely out of it as we have to
[13:14] because we have a third party that does
[13:16] fuel. The one thing we have discussed is
[13:18] potentially um bringing that back under
[13:21] the city umbrella and I need to have a
[13:23] conversation with our fuel third party
[13:26] and see if um if they're making a go of
[13:28] it. Um I don't believe they're doing all
[13:31] of the daily stuff that they're required
[13:32] to do. So, I have some concerns there.
[13:35] And I really think that if we bring that
[13:38] back under the city umbrella and manage
[13:40] that, we may have to put a little bit of
[13:41] money into the system. But if these guys
[13:44] do what they're talking about doing, um,
[13:47] I really hope we can get some more fuel
[13:49] sales going out there and help to fund
[13:50] the airport. Right now, I think we're
[13:53] probably scraping the bottom of the
[13:54] barrel and we're probably offering
[13:55] bottom of the barrel
[13:57] product.
[14:00] Self fueling. I've heard concerns about
[14:03] whether it's accurate. I don't know how
[14:05] well they're doing the daily testing.
[14:10] I don't know. But um if these guys can
[14:14] be successful and can have some more um
[14:18] generate some more um traffic with
[14:20] things they're doing and I keep trying
[14:23] to woo SU to um maybe base a couple of
[14:27] planes out of here or helicopters and
[14:29] maybe buy some fuel. Um, you know, I
[14:33] think it'd be a it would be a worthwhile
[14:36] conversation to have with our fuel guy,
[14:39] but the FBO has no interest in taking
[14:41] over fuel.
[14:43] Their their biggest concern is there's
[14:46] not enough gallons to be sold to offset
[14:48] their liability
[14:51] of taking over the fuel. They're really
[14:53] worried about the liability of the fuel
[14:58] and the city's going to face the same
[15:00] problems. take over the city.
[15:02] >> Yes, I think we're already exposed to
[15:04] the liability as we sit right now. My
[15:08] thought is I think so. I need to check
[15:10] with our insurance company, but I'm
[15:12] pretty Well, I tell you this, if if
[15:15] somebody gets water in their engine and
[15:17] it stalls and they crash, you know, the
[15:19] city is going to be named on that
[15:21] lawsuit whether or not we have a third
[15:23] party fuel person or not. They're going
[15:24] to name all the people they can to
[15:26] chase. Um, so I don't know exactly how
[15:30] much liability we're exposed to
[15:33] as by design or not. I need to talk with
[15:35] our insurance company, but um, my
[15:38] thought is is we're probably at the
[15:41] bottom of what any fuel sales we could
[15:43] get. We're probably worst case scenario
[15:45] right now. If we can improve the
[15:48] situation and at least offset our
[15:53] investment and actually provide just I'm
[15:57] worried that the product that we're
[15:58] offering out there is subpar
[16:01] which is going to continue to hurt the
[16:02] airport. That's my my ultimate.
[16:04] >> Now we had we had to name the city as an
[16:08] additional shirt on our insurance.
[16:11] >> Yeah.
[16:11] >> Is that the way it is with Dave?
[16:14] >> I'm sure it is but I don't know. I mean,
[16:17] I'm I'm assuming so because usually in
[16:20] anything like that, we'll name each
[16:21] other as additional insured, but we
[16:24] would make him have his own policy and
[16:26] name us as an additional insured and he
[16:28] would probably do the same. So, I don't
[16:31] know. Fuel is a is a totally separate
[16:33] conversation, but one that we're going
[16:35] to have. Um, as it sits right now, if
[16:37] Dave Hston
[16:39] just continues to operate it for the
[16:42] next five years, then he owns everything
[16:44] out there.
[16:46] We've basically given him everything.
[16:50] That's the way the agreement reads.
[16:52] >> Didn't he have to buy some of that stuff
[16:54] originally?
[16:56] >> He just had to operate it for 10 years.
[16:58] >> Oh, I thought he had to buy a bunch of
[17:00] the equipment.
[17:03] >> I can't find any evidence of that.
[17:06] But he hasn't put any investment into
[17:08] it. And I don't think he's doing daily
[17:10] tests. And when we had our last audit
[17:13] from the FAA, there was
[17:15] several things that needed work and some
[17:18] of it fairly expensive. The containment
[17:21] um fence is wouldn't contain a gallon of
[17:24] fuel that that block wall that's all
[17:26] cracked up and everything. Um he needed
[17:29] to upgrade the signage. Um again, I've
[17:32] heard report reports that the the
[17:34] gallons that you get isn't exactly
[17:36] right. I don't think there's anything um
[17:40] shady going on. I just think it's not
[17:41] that accurate. Um
[17:50] Yeah.
[17:52] >> Yeah. And I don't know if that's a
[17:54] communications issue. I don't know what
[17:55] sort of I don't know. Does he have
[17:58] Wi-Fi? I don't know what system it is
[18:00] and how it's reporting. And there's way too much um too many
[18:04] unknowns there. It's kind of been my
[18:07] whole issue with the airport for a long
[18:08] time. It's very opaque to us as the city
[18:11] to to step in and manage. So, I don't
[18:14] know. We'll continue to look at the
[18:15] fuel, but but these guys at the FBO
[18:17] actually don't want anything to do with
[18:18] it. And so whether we do something with
[18:21] fuel or not ourselves is yet to be
[18:23] determined, but
[18:28] yeah.
[18:30] So anyways, that's that's the FBO um
[18:32] agreement. Um they are going to be here
[18:35] on site. Uh Mick has been working well
[18:38] with with us in the transition. Um the
[18:41] new guys are going to be here on site.
[18:44] um in a week,
[18:47] little more than a week to do a walk
[18:49] through um check everything out and
[18:52] they've just been gearing up and moving
[18:54] forward planning on everything. Um we're
[18:57] not really offering a lot of traditional
[18:59] FBO services as of day as as of right
[19:01] now. So I don't think we really um have
[19:04] anywhere to go but up
[19:07] and so
[19:07] >> what's the name of the operation that's
[19:09] coming in? Um, I don't know that they
[19:11] were they were going to form an LLC.
[19:13] They haven't given me the name of their
[19:14] LC yet. We just know the three
[19:17] principles that will be owners of it.
[19:19] And we those are the guys that we've
[19:21] been negotiating and talking with from
[19:22] the start. So, they will have to get
[19:24] their LC
[19:26] complete and so they can um sign the
[19:28] agreement. Um, I'm going to present the
[19:31] same thing to the city council this
[19:32] Thursday and um I'd like to get it kind
[19:36] of wrapped up. I I have sent the copy of
[19:37] the contract to them that has all this
[19:40] stuff in here like like it was presented
[19:42] and um and it's consistent with all the
[19:44] discussions that we've had. We had a few
[19:47] ideas that we had to work through some
[19:50] concerns and friction and I think we've
[19:52] got to a good point. I don't expect them
[19:53] to push back on really any of this
[19:56] stuff. I think we've kind of figured out
[19:58] something that will work for them and
[19:59] us. But it's possible that they may say
[20:01] they want a 10 year or not a fiveyear
[20:04] and
[20:05] I I doubt we'll see that, but if they
[20:07] did, then we'll let the council, you
[20:09] know,
[20:12] debate and and do what we want to do.
[20:14] But the goal is is that January 23rd,
[20:17] they take over and I think we're on
[20:19] track for that. So, worst case scenario,
[20:23] the city steps in temporarily.
[20:29] So, um you you may see a job
[20:32] listing go out um in the next day or so
[20:36] for airport manager, part-time airport
[20:39] manager. That will be the city
[20:42] officially listing this position so we
[20:44] can um look at candidates. Um
[20:50] and uh but that doesn't don't let that
[20:54] confuse you. That's the not anything to
[20:55] do with really the FBO.
[21:01] Any insight on the transition? any any
[21:04] pitfalls to avoid you guys know of?
[21:08] >> Well, I can't can't think of anything
[21:10] specific, but I'm gonna throw myself
[21:13] out. If they have any questions, I sure
[21:16] appreciate them coming to me and asking.
[21:18] >> Do you want to be on the hiring
[21:19] committee?
[21:21] >> No, not really.
[21:23] >> Dave Cowan, do you want to be on the
[21:24] hiring committee?
[21:26] >> I I don't. We'd love to have somebody
[21:28] that's been there and done that.
[21:30] >> But, you know, 30 some odd years of
[21:32] running that out there, we figured out a
[21:33] few things to do.
[21:34] >> Absolutely. And I will definitely tell
[21:36] them,
[21:39] in fact, I I I I talked with Gangas and
[21:43] I said, "You you need to get to know our
[21:44] airport board members. We're going to be
[21:47] working together." And these guys used
[21:49] to run that airport out there and they
[21:51] know a lot. So,
[22:04] Gangus is. Yeah, he's he's building his
[22:07] own home and he has some extra acreage
[22:10] besides his house that he's thinking
[22:13] about doing stuff, wondering about doing
[22:14] stuff.
[22:22] » Yeah.
[22:24] They've really gotten excited about
[22:26] hanger development and I think what we want to do in fact it's not as a
[22:30] specific item on here but I will I just
[22:33] pointed out Genghask really wants to
[22:36] create a a hanger list a priority list
[22:39] so people can say I want a hanger I want
[22:41] a hanger and that list will be official
[22:43] it'll be we can we have a thing on the
[22:45] website so people can if they can throw
[22:47] their name out there for a hanger we can
[22:49] actually judge how much demand is out
[22:51] there. Um they wanted an exclusive on
[22:55] hanger development on the airport and I
[22:57] told him no. I thought the whole thing
[23:00] was going to unravel over that. Like why
[23:02] would we give you an exclusive to
[23:03] develop hangers on the airport? We have
[23:06] tons of acreage out there. Just being
[23:08] the FBO doesn't why would we give you an
[23:10] exclusive, right? And they said, "Well,
[23:12] that's probably a deal breaker because
[23:13] we want to be able to if if we do stuff
[23:16] to make this airport great, we we want
[23:19] to be able to have some opportunity
[23:22] develop hangers and and lease them. And
[23:24] I'm like, that's fine. You're not going
[23:26] to have an exclusive for the entire
[23:27] airport. So, we need to come up with a
[23:30] good way to what we may do is is let
[23:33] them say, okay, we want to have
[23:36] maybe a a section of hangers that that
[23:39] they have the ability they can put their
[23:41] name on to develop those hangers in that
[23:43] spot because we have that we have the plan that shows several rows,
[23:47] several taxi ways that go up in there.
[23:50] So, we may say fine, if you guys want to
[23:52] do um if you want to write your name
[23:55] down and reserve those and figure out
[23:57] how to fund it and do those fine, but
[23:59] we're not going to give you the whole
[24:00] airport. The that other group that we
[24:02] talked about, they're the ones that have
[24:04] they have now executed the purchase of
[24:06] that property that we were doing, the
[24:07] through the fence agreement, the what we
[24:10] call the Idaho group, which are actually
[24:11] from Spanish Fork. They are they're
[24:14] really excited and want to still move
[24:15] forward and do something with a hanger
[24:17] development as well. And so I wanted to
[24:20] do something that didn't pit them
[24:21] against each other, didn't put the city
[24:24] in some sort of a, you know, between a
[24:26] rock and a tight spot. But, um, the more
[24:28] the marrier if we can. By the way, we
[24:30] have officially applied for the grant to
[24:33] put the utilities and fix the road. That
[24:36] was officially filed Christmas Eve, 400
[24:38] p.m. Christmas Eve. We finally got it
[24:40] in. We did get we found out that we got
[24:42] the award from the state. We got
[24:44] $600,000 from the state and we have
[24:47] about six million that we're waiting on
[24:48] from the federal government to do that
[24:50] grant. It was a pain. Even after we
[24:54] thought it was done, took four months to
[24:56] get it fully applied for, but the grant
[24:59] looks really, really, really good. So
[25:01] hopefully if that goes off we'll have a
[25:03] new road power underground power
[25:06] underground water all the way out not
[25:08] only to the airport but around the
[25:10] hangers and on out to Goodfellow which
[25:12] will be which will allow us to be able
[25:14] to expand hangers out there because then
[25:16] all they have to do is just come off
[25:18] that road with water power and and a
[25:21] gate. Right. So, um, I'm really excited
[25:25] about that because we could say we could
[25:26] put them in blocks, A block, B block, C
[25:29] block, and we could say, okay, if you
[25:32] want to do a whole project, then fine,
[25:34] you can reserve a block and and if you
[25:38] want to do a whole project, and we have
[25:39] some sort of criteria for them to
[25:40] reserve that many, some sort of an
[25:42] agreement or they pay a certain amount
[25:44] to the city to for it to be reserved.
[25:48] And then we're also want a list of of
[25:52] people, individual
[25:54] potential hanger owners that want to
[25:56] sign up and it'll be first in priority
[25:58] and we'll get that list and and so we
[26:01] just kind of need to figure out the
[26:02] mechanism of all that. But these guys
[26:04] really want to uh insist on us having
[26:07] that and and so do I. And I want that to
[26:09] be um really transparent. I know that
[26:12] I've heard a lot of people got burned
[26:13] because they thought they were on a
[26:15] priority list and when it came right
[26:16] down to brass tax, they weren't and they
[26:19] were pretty frustrated with the city
[26:21] that did that to them. So, anyways,
[26:24] I'm excited. I think we're I think we're good. We're going to transition to
[26:29] a new chapter. Um Mick and group have um
[26:33] maintained the the runway and the
[26:37] prairie dogs and the um snow removal.
[26:41] They've done the best they could with
[26:42] city equipment. Um it is one of our
[26:45] items that we get new equipment there.
[26:48] Um but they've done a pretty good job.
[26:50] They their their business didn't take
[26:52] off and run like I think they had hoped.
[26:54] I think if everything had gone the way
[26:56] that the city's plan was with with
[26:58] Mick's group, um I think that they would
[27:02] have been more successful and and of
[27:04] course it didn't end up that way. So,
[27:06] we'll see if these guys can make a
[27:08] better go of it.
[27:19] » Yeah. Unless somebody's got anything
[27:20] else on that, I'm ready to talk about
[27:23] the next one.
[27:36] What are we waiting on a motion or what?
[27:38] >> No, nothing to do.
[27:39] >> We don't need a motion, do we?
[27:41] >> Number
[27:44] four. Number four.
[27:47] >> Okay. You ready for me to go to four?
[27:48] >> Yes.
[27:50] >> Oh, sorry. Five.
[27:51] >> Five. Yeah. Five.
[27:53] >> Okay. So these five and six go hand in
[27:56] hand. Um are capital projects for the
[28:00] fiscal year 26.
[28:02] Um
[28:04] this is this is right off of that the
[28:07] state uh with state UD do um we they
[28:10] have their system called blackat. Now
[28:12] this is what we have approved with the
[28:15] FAA for capital projects.
[28:18] The pavement preservation apron and
[28:20] taxiways is ongoing. It's open right
[28:23] now. Um
[28:26] I haven't has anybody seen if have they
[28:28] gone out and been doing crack seal?
[28:30] >> No.
[28:31] >> Because they're going to do that during
[28:33] the cold part of the winter.
[28:35] >> But I haven't heard that they've come
[28:37] yet.
[28:37] >> I haven't seen anybody out there. So,
[28:40] they're doing the crack seal in the cold
[28:42] part of the winter and then in the
[28:43] spring between now and June they'll come
[28:46] in and I think they awarded it to
[28:50] um we awarded it to
[28:54] oh the asphalt
[28:56] company
[28:58] not um
[29:01] straight straight stripe. What's that
[29:03] called?
[29:03] >> Straight stripe.
[29:05] >> I think they awarded it to straight
[29:07] stripe. they'll come in and do the the
[29:10] fog coat and restripe everything.
[29:13] Um, and that's ongoing and will be done
[29:17] by the end of June. That was a UD do
[29:21] specific grant. FAA didn't have any
[29:23] involvement in that. Um, 211,000 was the
[29:26] estimate and the and the bidding came in
[29:28] at total of 214,000.
[29:32] And then the next two items on the
[29:35] system, you'll notice that we have the
[29:37] AWAS in 2026
[29:40] and snow removal equipment in 2027. So,
[29:43] as I was working with um Lochner, our
[29:47] consultant.
[29:49] So, I'm just going to mesh five and six
[29:51] together because the six is discussion
[29:53] on RFP for our airport consultant. Um,
[29:58] when we last had our CIP meeting with
[30:00] the FAA and UD do aeronautics,
[30:04] um, they had the snow removal equipment
[30:06] ahead of AWAS.
[30:09] And, um, I told them, "No, let's let's
[30:12] reverse those. Let's get the AWAS first
[30:14] and the snow removal equip equipment
[30:16] second." And um I said, "Yeah, we need
[30:20] new snow removal equipment, but
[30:21] depending on who does what, especially
[30:23] with the new FBO, the city may take over
[30:26] maintenance and we may we may not
[30:29] prioritize snow removal equipment this
[30:31] year. We'll maybe do it next year." And
[30:33] everybody agrees that we need an AWAS
[30:35] sooner rather than later. Um, it is one
[30:39] of the things specifically that our new
[30:40] FBO really is interested in and I think
[30:43] that having accurate and up-to-date w
[30:45] weather is is a is a huge priority. As
[30:47] long as we can remove snow, I think we
[30:49] can buy another year with that. So, I
[30:52] kind of insisted on that and they they
[30:55] sure enough they re they rearranged it
[30:57] and approved it. Well, when it came time
[30:59] to start doing the all of the back-end
[31:02] work on it, our existing um consultant
[31:07] said, "Okay, we got a problem."
[31:10] When we did our five-year CIP, when we
[31:14] awarded them as the consultant to do our
[31:16] CIP projects,
[31:19] the AWAS was outside of that five-year
[31:22] window, but the snow removal equipment
[31:25] was within it. because we gave them a
[31:29] five-year agreement
[31:31] and at that time one was in and the
[31:34] other was out. So, they can't legally
[31:39] help us do the AWAS now.
[31:42] So, we have one of a couple of options.
[31:45] We can wait and do it next year and do
[31:47] the snow removal equipment this year or
[31:51] we have to put out to bid our consultant
[31:54] CIP stuff um I think in June anyways
[32:00] for the following fiscal years. Well, we
[32:04] can we can do that now and then have and
[32:08] include all the things within the next
[32:10] five years on our list and um and then
[32:13] we can start on the AWAS now. We just
[32:16] have to put it out to bid for the for
[32:19] the airport consultant now. So I guess
[32:21] my question to you guys is do you agree
[32:24] with me that the priority is AWAS over
[32:27] snow removal equipment?
[32:31] And if so, let's do the RFP
[32:34] six months early.
[32:38] » Is the snow removal equipment available
[32:40] from the city when it's needed?
[32:42] >> Yeah, that's what they're using right
[32:43] now is a is a city snowplow. We just
[32:46] dedicate one for them.
[32:49] I don't even know if we're going to get
[32:50] snow.
[32:53] >> What's the downside to doing the bid six
[32:55] months early?
[32:57] >> No downside.
[32:59] I think when I ask them, they're a
[33:00] little nervous that we may not award
[33:02] that to them. Um, and I obviously I
[33:05] can't promise that we are going to award
[33:06] it to them. Um, Jud with Armstrong and
[33:10] now Lochner have been they've been
[33:12] really good. They've been one of the few
[33:13] things that has
[33:15] preserved my insanity my um in the three
[33:19] and a half years that I've been here. Um
[33:21] they have been absolutely stellar, but
[33:24] that doesn't mean they're you're
[33:25] guaranteed to get the award. We're going
[33:27] to put it out to bid six months one way
[33:29] or the other. So, they don't have
[33:31] anything to be afraid of. If they've if
[33:33] they earn the the award for the next
[33:35] one, fine. If they don't, then they're
[33:38] going to what? Miss out on
[33:42] starting the process for snow removal
[33:44] equipment. So, I it is what it is. Um
[33:46] there's no reason to not award it or not
[33:48] start the process earlier and and and at
[33:51] least that would allow us to move
[33:52] forward with the AWS.
[33:55] >> And Armstrong has been good to the city
[33:57] for a long time.
[33:59] >> Yeah.
[34:01] I've been a little nervous. They
[34:02] promoted Jud to basically be the boss.
[34:07] And I was really concerned that our
[34:09] level of service potentially could fall
[34:11] off because because you know how it is
[34:14] in business, it really is about the
[34:16] people. You have a good company and you
[34:18] have a bad service rep. Um, and Jud
[34:22] promised me from the start of him being
[34:24] promoted, he's now over like I can't
[34:26] like three states. Um he promised me
[34:29] that service would not fall off and that
[34:31] he would still be very very very very
[34:33] involved in Perowan airport and his
[34:35] promise has been true. I sent an email
[34:37] this morning to him and Connor and
[34:40] Thorston and Jud replied five minutes
[34:43] later. Boom boom boom boom here's the
[34:44] answers to all your questions. That's Jud. his his level of service is
[34:48] great and there's never been a question
[34:50] of whose side they're on and and they
[34:52] give us
[34:54] especially when we're battling the FAA.
[34:56] They are they are just I wish all
[35:00] consultants and engineers that we deal
[35:01] with were that good. I'm not I'm just up
[35:03] here like raving about them, but that's
[35:05] just the the honest facts of things. So,
[35:09] but I'm sure there's capable people out
[35:10] there.
[35:13] So, in other words, here's the capital
[35:15] projects. Um, really the only ones that
[35:18] really matter is um the AWA snow removal
[35:21] equipment because of what I discussed.
[35:23] The other um big thing that is out there
[35:26] is um
[35:28] the the perimeter fencing. Um, just to
[35:32] be very careful in a public meeting, but
[35:34] to give you a little bit of a heads up,
[35:36] you remember when we had last year when
[35:39] we updated the the CIP list, the FAA
[35:45] started insisting that we do a new
[35:46] prairie dog fence. And I was like, "What
[35:48] about a deer fence?" Remember that
[35:49] conversation? They said, "Pause this
[35:52] conversation. We'll meet again in a in a
[35:54] couple of months." They never came back
[35:56] to us ever. An entire year went by and
[36:00] this last I think it was November when
[36:02] we do our meetings with all of them and
[36:06] um I thought what are they going to do
[36:07] now? Are they because they never
[36:09] responded they I don't know if they
[36:11] didn't have the funding if the politics
[36:13] got weird for them or what but they
[36:15] never brought it up at our last meeting.
[36:19] They adopted this just as it sits and
[36:23] they never brought up the perimeter
[36:24] fencing which is slated for 2028.
[36:30] So,
[36:32] I think that they don't have the funding
[36:34] to force us to build a prairie dog fence
[36:36] for millions and pay for it right now. I
[36:38] think if they did, they would because
[36:40] they wanted to bump that to the top of
[36:42] the list and bump everything down.
[36:44] That's what they wanted to do. And my
[36:46] only thing was fine, if you're going to
[36:48] make us build a new prairie dog fence,
[36:51] make the fence go both ways and let's
[36:52] keep the deer herd that actually is a
[36:54] threat to human life off the runway. And
[36:57] they couldn't argue with that logic, but
[36:59] I think the the funding and not only the
[37:01] funding, but the design is just not
[37:02] there. So luckily they they didn't they
[37:05] didn't mention a peep about it and
[37:06] therefore we can move on with the
[37:08] priorities that we have. So that's the
[37:10] whole deal on the capital projects.
[37:19] and frankly
[37:21] RFP. Well,
[37:24] since we're talking about both of them
[37:25] at once, do you guys have any
[37:27] preference? Are you okay if we put it
[37:28] out for RFP on the airport consultants?
[37:32] >> No, we're good with it. Okay, we'll uh
[37:35] we'll keep the airport board in the loop
[37:37] on that and um
[37:41] probably what we'll do is we'll put it
[37:42] out and then when we get the we get the
[37:46] um different proposals that come in,
[37:49] we'll summarize them all and um
[37:53] if it works within the timing of the
[37:55] next airport board, we'll uh we'll bring
[37:57] them to you guys and get your input. If
[38:00] we need to move quicker, maybe we'll
[38:01] have a special airport board meeting. I
[38:03] don't know if there's a if we do that,
[38:05] we would just do it in lie of the next
[38:07] month. And um but I because we're going
[38:10] to want to probably move on that as
[38:11] quick as possible, especially so they
[38:12] can get designing and and get the AWAS.
[38:17] You never know with the federal
[38:19] government when they'll shut down or
[38:20] what. So that could potentially and in
[38:23] January that's a high likelihood again.
[38:25] So that could interrupt our our stuff.
[38:31] So that's it, chair. That's what I have.
[38:41] » Nope.
[38:47] » Did anyone answer if they thought the
[38:49] snow removal or the AWAS was higher
[38:50] priority? I didn't hear if anyone had
[38:52] input on that.
[38:53] >> Did we answer that question?
[38:55] >> Yeah.
[39:00] Okay. I just didn't hear the answer.
[39:09] » Okay. Thank you.
[39:10] >> Do Do we have a lot of demand and call
[39:12] for AWAS? People pilots really want it
[39:16] that use our airport.
[39:18] >> I'm not a pilot. So,
[39:20] >> I see shaking heads out here.
[39:22] >> There's one right there that says
[39:25] [laughter]
[39:26] Isn't that higher priority than using an
[39:28] old snowplow versus new snowplow? That
[39:30] was what I thought.
[39:32] >> Long as the snow's off the runway. Yeah,
[39:34] the sauce is really beneficial.
[39:36] >> Yeah.
[39:38] Yep.
[39:41] Um other thing in staff comments. Um are
[39:44] you guys did did they did somebody come
[39:46] out and fix the gate that was broke?
[39:48] >> No, not yet. Um Mick's dad asked me
[39:51] about it and I said Mick is the one that
[39:53] hired the company last time. Um they
[39:56] need to warranty it and so got them the
[39:58] vendor name and he was going to call
[40:00] them and have them warranty it.
[40:03] But I hadn't heard if it got fixed or
[40:04] not because I'm kind of out of that that
[40:06] loop.
[40:07] >> It's still open. That's all as far as I
[40:09] know.
[40:10] >> I don't slow down there.
[40:15] » Second gate. Well, we'll get that fixed
[40:19] one way or the other. So,
[40:21] >> it was working for a while
[40:23] >> for quite a while,
[40:25] but then then for some reason it it
[40:27] would go closed, then it would open up
[40:30] and it go closed and it opened up and I
[40:32] tried to reset it several times and
[40:35] couldn't get it to work right. So,
[40:38] >> did
[40:38] >> sometimes you got to get out of the car
[40:40] and wipe the
[40:41] >> Oh, the sensors
[40:42] >> reflector off if it won't work. So,
[40:46] >> so I like it open.
[40:48] >> So, is the um is the system that we have
[40:52] because I I have not gone out and looked
[40:54] at it since they fixed it. Did they
[40:56] install new equipment?
[40:58] >> They did. They changed they changed uh
[41:02] Oh, it used to have a a loop in the
[41:04] ground.
[41:04] >> Uhhuh.
[41:05] >> And now they change it to an infrared.
[41:07] >> Okay.
[41:08] >> Like the main gate is
[41:09] >> Yeah.
[41:13] Well, we got to fix it. I know everybody
[41:14] loves when it's open, but
[41:18] we'll get her fixed. It's all I have
[41:28] for public. We are
[41:35] » Hello, Matt Jacus, owner. Hangarate
[41:36] Hanger Charlie. I'm very excited about
[41:38] AWS. Uh right now I've got a system at
[41:41] my home that I can access through my
[41:42] phone in the air to get weather. So it's
[41:45] Do you know which version it is?
[41:48] There's AWS one, two, and three. Well,
[41:50] all I know is that they have an
[41:53] estimated cost because we haven't got to
[41:55] the design portion yet, but they they
[41:58] came up with that number somehow. So
[42:00] whoever came up with that number,
[42:01] probably Armstrong, Lochner, they would
[42:04] know what they were planning on. But my
[42:05] guess is the latest version.
[42:08] >> Yes, because some have different, you
[42:10] know, wind and temperature wind
[42:11] temperature clouds, wind temperature
[42:13] clouds, visibility that it depends on
[42:15] how sophisticated you want to get, you
[42:17] know, could drive up that number. Um,
[42:20] secondly, it's been a long time since
[42:22] I've had employees, and I'm just trying
[42:24] to wrap my head around the the part-time
[42:26] employee. Do you envision this employee
[42:29] kind of like being on call for when you
[42:32] need something done? Is
[42:35] I I guess I'm I don't remember employee
[42:38] law too well and I'm I'm just going to
[42:40] say I really don't know the ability to
[42:43] call a part-timer but be on call all the
[42:47] time is kind of confusing me. I just was
[42:50] >> so from from the from our perspective,
[42:53] we have a few part-time employees that have a variable schedule and our
[42:59] big constraint is is they can't work
[43:01] more than 25 hours a week and actually
[43:04] the federal law says 29. At that point,
[43:07] we have to consider them full-time and
[43:08] offer them benefits and the whole deal.
[43:11] >> But they're still on call 247.
[43:13] >> Yeah. Okay. So we will we will hire them
[43:16] on the basis of
[43:18] >> if it's very if it's a very unique job
[43:22] you're going to be on call at all times
[43:24] and we'll we'll arrange for them to have
[43:26] backup through another city employee
[43:29] probably through public works in case
[43:31] they're going to leave and go on
[43:32] vacation or something like that right
[43:35] and um we'll have somebody cross trainin
[43:37] to do that and then we'll say yeah
[43:39] you're going to be variable schedule
[43:40] they may make one work one hour one week
[43:44] and 30 hours the next week as long as
[43:46] they on average keep their keep their
[43:49] hours under 25. They get 26 27 hours.
[43:52] Cali gets nervous and tells me, Dan,
[43:55] they just went over 25 hours and I'm
[43:57] like, I know we got to come to to watch
[43:58] their hours next time. But that's the
[44:00] arrangement.
[44:01] >> Okay. Um suppose the city hires someone
[44:04] who lives local um not a requirement to
[44:07] live in that house. What would be the
[44:10] plan for that property if that becomes
[44:13] the case?
[44:14] >> So that that the property is actually
[44:18] there's no dedicated property for the
[44:19] house. The house just sits on the
[44:21] airport property.
[44:23] >> We want to get somebody living in there
[44:25] that will agree to do provide airport
[44:27] security.
[44:28] >> I see.
[44:28] >> One way or the other. So, um, down in
[44:31] Canab, it's which is a county airport,
[44:34] they actually have a
[44:37] sheriff's deputy that lives in the house
[44:40] and it's part of his pay package, but he
[44:43] also has to provide security for the
[44:45] airport and it's one of it's part of his
[44:47] incentive package. So if if we hire an
[44:50] employee and they do not want the house,
[44:53] we're then going to look to find
[44:54] somebody else who in an agreement for
[44:56] reduced rent will keep an eye on the
[44:58] airport. Basically, all they'd have to
[45:00] do is literally keep an eye on it and if
[45:02] there's a problem, call somebody
[45:04] >> if it's not the employee that lives
[45:06] there.
[45:07] >> Very excited about the crack seal in the
[45:09] taxi way as well.
[45:10] >> Yeah, Dave and I have been out in front
[45:12] of our house with blowtorrch. So, thank
[45:15] you.
[45:24] No, just if you know somebody when we
[45:26] post that job
[45:30] >> ultimately I'd like somebody that has a
[45:31] CDL that is very handy
[45:36] knows like has a brain. [laughter]
[45:40] Um,
[45:44] there's probably a few aeronautical
[45:46] pilot type people. There's probably a
[45:48] few, um, I don't know.
[45:52] And they, again, the FBO does have
[45:54] somebody in mind. I want to interview
[45:56] them, but I don't want to hire them just
[45:57] because they're good at wrenching on a
[45:59] helicopter. They need to be able to run
[46:02] a snow plow without running the blade
[46:04] down in three passes up and down the
[46:08] airport. So, they got to be able to do
[46:11] some technical stuff. They got to put up
[46:14] with me and Cali.
[46:20] » Yes.
[46:34] » I would make that motion
[46:36] >> and I second it.
[46:43] All
[46:44] >> right.
[47:04] » That's that spreadsheet. No.