All right, good evening everybody. It's six o'clock, so let's call our December 8th, 2022 meeting of the Airport Advisory Board to order. Please start with the roll. Here, 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 a 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 are also welcome to save comments for each of those sections individually so they can be directed to them. With that, Russell, good evening. 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 Bicker signed up. Either of you'd like to go now, save it, your call. Got it. Anyone else want to speak now? Okay. And we'll move on to our approval of November 2022 minutes. Does anyone have any comments, revisions? Vice Chair Jordan, sorry, may I hold on? Just one small one. Page four, line three, public invited to be heard. Don Dulcy, 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. So everyone to clarify that, I think it was probably observed. The green, the white light can be observed. The green is dim. Thank you. Does anyone have any other comments, changes for November 2022 minutes? All right. Let's make a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Dean made the motion a second. Vice Chair Jordan seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Minutes approved. Updates from the airport manager, Levi. 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 gravel 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 are going on track, pretty much on budget. Things are pretty good. They're moving pretty quick out there. So things are going well. Second, oh so that's item one. Any questions, Ryan? On Southwest sewer? Comments, questions for anyone? We'll keep going. We're saving it for the fun topics. All right. Prey dog mitigation. We continue on with meetings on that. Currently we're having a little bit of issue with some of the mitigation 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 new avenues we could kind of explore to perhaps mitigate that Prey dog problem out there. We're having another meeting about that tomorrow. So hopefully 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. Engineering, that's item two. Any questions on that? Anyone? All right. Third item, engineering. I'm sorry. Hold on a second. Go for it. Council Member Martin. Sorry, you popped up. Sorry. Here I was trying not to talk too much. But people call me all the time about Prairie dogs. And as Phil knows very well, 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 perk 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. Too many Prairie dogs. They can't get ahead of it. The problem is they can only treat so many holes, and then they've got to go to their other rounds. When they come back, it's worse than it was before. So we've got to find a method of getting ahead of it, and then potentially they can stay on top of it. They promise that if we can get on top of it, then they would then reprioritize and make sure that doesn't get out of hand again. Thank you. That's a good reason. Yeah. Any other questions? Go ahead. All right. Engineering consultant update schedule. So we're currently, go along with TALIS is helping us out on the selection for those new engineers. We're currently in the middle of reviewing the proposals that we received, 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 will start setting up interviews for potential engineers out there for that's where that project is currently. Any questions? OK. Thank you. We've got no information items, so we'll move right into action items. So sustainability resolution recommendation. Phil Levi, I don't know who I'm introducing for this, if one of you guys can. Oh, go ahead. 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 it 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 you were interested in it. 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 in there. She is our sustainability coordinator, I believe is the title I put in there. And Hannah Mulroy, our energy portfolio development manager. So they're both here to kind of talk through some of the different things. 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 Francie, 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's 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. Well, why Phil's bringing that up? A lot of the edits were just to add a little bit more information, a little bit more context. And then we had a couple of comments such 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 adding additional information. We wanted to call out that there would be a need for a capital improvement project to add 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 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 clear from staff's point of view. And then another addition that is more of a content addition was in section one. We added including aligning codes with Boulder County Code recommendations to support solar-ready hangers and shade port structures, as well as building and ground vehicle electrification. This is currently an effort by Boulder County to do joint county-wide code recommendations, though I do want to note 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 could either align with Boulder County codes or that could be adjusted to align with the most ambitious long-run 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 in job growth. So we want to also can add that option to the board. So essentially, to summarize, the direction we'd like from the board is that it could either stay with 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. Thank you. Comments, questions from board members here? If you have questions, go ahead. Vice Chair Jordan. I have several questions. I note the 300 cars, the annual rate of 300 cars, what is that percentage-wise to the number of cars on the road in Longmont? What does that represent? Yeah, so we try to metric tons. I always find it's a hard number to visualize. So we try to add an equivalency of what 1,300 metric tons 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 off the top of your head how many cars, typically? I know VMT. Not in the second to speak. He's got all the. Oh, all right. Yeah, I just wondered what the proportion is. So just as an example, Main Street right here, the 300 block of Main Street, carries about 20,000 vehicles, 25,000 vehicles a day. So if that gives you any kind of concept of order of magnitude, I hope that helps. OK, that's good. I've definitely appreciated the, whereas both private and public investment in the emerging sustainable aviation battery industry is large and increasing and creates business development opportunities for a long time. I think that is, at least we're speaking only for myself, that's my interest in this, is to keep it open. To, it could be sustainability like you're talking about, all the way to fuel and energy savings and particularly the electrification in partnership with LPC is the thing that I can see. And I'm not an engineer or planner, but 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 acknowledge that and decide how we want to approach this. We have aircraft that are, we've got vintage aircraft. We've got aircraft that are going to be burning leaded fuel until they're taken offline. And then our jet traffic as well. And so we do the 100% 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, we're not going to be all buying new planes in the next three years. They're, mine's 1981, so they're old. And so we're bound by that reality. So I'm trying to, 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. And again, in a partnership with the city because of our unique situation. So I just see that it's not going to be a, 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 last forever. So even 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 pursuit and to be an airport, 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, it'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 or in some of them even to some of the other fuels. But otherwise it read well. And I did see that we got the cleaned up version. 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. 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 just reflecting back what you heard that the resolution wants to highlight being pioneering without being still realistic that not all aircraft can be transitioned to 100% electricity. Thank you. Mr. Dean. As somebody that has a little bit of background, 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 extremely clean. And in fact, I can give you some numbers. When I tested vehicles, they were 0.02 grams per mile. They're really, really clean. So modern automotive fuel is much cleaner than aviation fuel. And so when I see, you know, 1,300 cars, I think it's probably a lot more than that, to be honest, because the amount of pollution cars make now is very, very low compared to aircraft. So, and then secondly, the charging standards. I liked that we're trying to jump ahead, but charging standards, at least in the automotive world, there's about three right now. I would hate to see the city invest millions of dollars for charging and electrification and then the aviation industry take a 90 degree turn and we'd be stuck with millions of dollars of, you know, charging that we can't use because there's a completely different charging infrastructure. 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 Beach and 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. Great, thank you for those comments. And then I wanted to share that another way of we could present the greenhouse gas data is a percentage of our total emissions and currently 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, thank you. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to save I think some discussion 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 of Longmont 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 at some point when we're all choking on the fumes, the federal government might ban Avgas just the way it banned, let it gasoline in the 60s for all intents and purposes. So, but a resolution can't do that nor can it do something like specify a particular charging standard. So really in my understanding of 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 things not call for specifics in that sense. So relax guys, all you guys with the planes built in 1950, you're fine. This is about making the lower carbon fuels and electricity available. It's not about banning anything. The other thing is that the 2030 resolution is about generating electricity. Our policies for getting to zero emissions, well actually we don't have any policies for getting to zero emissions 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, just relax on those scores. We're not gonna take your planes away. Thank you. Mr. Salamateen. Hi, I appreciate all the work that you guys have put into this and sorry if I missed anything from last week but I'm all about sustainability. I know quite a bit about electrification. Work briefly on a solid state graphing battery. So some industry knowledge. For my understanding, there's some hesitancy 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's been any sustainability studies in terms of fiscal responsibility on how much money you would take 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 limiting factor of the grid, right? So let's stay realistic. Let's make sure that we're not just being grandiose. One thing that I am interested in about is the propeller sound versus 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. So I don't really understand how that's even possible. 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 certainly a question. I'm happy to answer some of the distribution and generation grid questions because I actually, to make a point of clarification to Phil, I'm not from the sustainability team. I work for Long-Mount Power and Communications, Energy Portfolio Development 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, when one person electrifies, what do we do about that? But certainly at a large scale 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. We're 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 at a distribution and generation level? We also are doing things at a more local level with hosting capacity for electrification that's coming in two forms. The city just passed a beneficial building and electrification plan in October, which was adopted by city council. And in that plan, we kind of know that hosting capacity is a baseline study we're doing with the 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 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 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. That's very reassuring and 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. Okay, thank you. I'll get you in just a second. A couple, I guess overarching questions. How's any other organization in the city, 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? I would say this is unique to the airport. I do not believe we, as Hannah mentioned, just passed 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 EV 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. Anyone else knows of any other? I think that's about it. You also are in a unique operational situation. 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 in your operations. So I would say, yeah, this is the first kind of departmental, if you wanna call it that, or divisional sustainability initiative I am aware of. It's helpful to understand since I know at least council member 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 wanna speak for other departments. I wouldn't say that they're golf specifically or recreation sustainability initiative, but I would say they're undertaking initiatives on those individual courses or buildings, right? So I working for LPC, I work with a lot of different departments on energy efficiency and electrification and solar and things of the sort, but no, I wouldn't say any kind of enterprise fund or departmental entity has adopted such a resolution. Thank you. And Bill, this might be more for you and leave. It might even be more for council member 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 this, 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 exactly right. We want to get any kind of edits that you want to put into this as a board. I think we recommend kind of moving it 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 and then we'll take it up to council as a recommended item from this board to council to consider as a resolution. Thank you. I've got, did you want to chime in on that? Yes, sort of. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has at least kicked around the idea of water conservation resolutions. So some enterprises have different things than others. Obviously, the airport has more exceptional stuff than a golf course does, but it does use a lot of water. So, and then once again, just the, I'm sensing from the comments 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 or to enable, you know, enable the, get more attention for the airport by getting its grid upgrades sooner, by, you know, having more reasons to put in a better FBO or 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 doesn't restrain the airport at all, but it enables the airport and that's the way most resolutions are. So that was, and that actually is, by the way, why I questioned the zero waste thing because that's the only portion of it that has the potential of restricting the airport because we might have to put places that don't exist right now for waste containers or for 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, but again, it's just, it's still just a recommendation even in that particular case. Thank you. 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, I'm sorry, hold on. I did Melinda by accident. Go ahead. You haven't had a chance yet, so go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, this 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 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, whereas is that are either inaccurate or 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.  That's, it's not a lot. So that's not a good reason in my mind. I would take out, whereas carbon free fuels for sustainable aviation are currently available. I don't think that's really true on a large scale. I mean, they're, they're 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. The key here is, yeah, we want some more investments in 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. Take out the, whereas there's a shortage of pilots, that's a nuanced thing. Doesn't really have much to do with flight training as far as in-battery powered aircrafts. I don't think you're going to be able to make the case that 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. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Vice-Chair Jordan. Following right on what he said, I'd say strike the engine noise and propeller noise. 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 in a broad scope, especially if it's more of a mission statement than a call to order and a task list. My question is, and then to Marsha about the trash, the airport, other than at the air show, we don't produce a ton of trash because we don't live there. We produce things that we take to recycling. So oil containers, the oil, there's a place to dispose of that. Some paper towels, some, you know, we use rags to clean them. I mean, we really do our best to not, 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 aren't producing a ton of garbage to worry about zero waste, I don't think. And we do do that for the air shows. And we do work with the city to provide all those containers at 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, the airport's taken its hits and we feel like the stepchildren. And so as a partner with LPC, as a site, a location, a pioneer of, you know, a beta test site, 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 can you tell us if LPC is committed to a partnership with city entities, with entities within the city and then specifically the airport? So I hesitate to speak on partnerships because there's usually financial implications in that. So setting that aside, I'm not in a position to speak to that. I will say we are fully available for support, coordination, technical support, site planning endeavors. Like I said, identifying, hey, you come to us and say, hey, we're going to put three chargers and we can give you all the information and what that upgrade would look like, give you some basic engineering things of the sort. And I would say like any government, city of Longmont entity, we treat as a partner. So recently I don't want to throw out a name, 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 will LPC see us as a test bed even? I guess I would ask, would LPC please consider us as a test bed to put that equipment in and provide, partner with us at that level, which again is financial of course like you say. But we don't have the funding to buy our own equipment and it would 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. 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 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 could be a test site. 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 with city entities eligible for direct pay where 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 say anything about financial contributions, we have alerted other entities and city facilities of existing opportunities, grants, partnership opportunities, financing 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. And if it's okay, I would like to provide a little bit of clarity on the zero waste. I agree with you. So it sounds like based on the comments you made on the waste generated that it's not as great as an 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, or we'll be discussing exemptions with council next week so I can't guarantee what there 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 waste requirements in Longmont but we'll be discussing more with city council next week. So I'd recommend you 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 we don't leave stuff out there. There's animals and all kinds of things. We don't want to encourage mice, especially we don't want them in our hangers and so we take it home. So we really, I think if you put a truck out there it would be rare, be just Levi's office producing paper or something. Yes, and that's where we could work with you all if or when the ordinance goes into effect to fill out an exemption recognizing that you don't generate a lot of waste. Thank you. Council Member Martin, I see you in the queue. I'm going to turn you on and then I'd like to open up public comment. Absolutely. A couple of things. The first one is that the zero waste ordinance would be actually I don't think there should be anything in this resolution about it personally but we're not really talking about hanger occupancies 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 that it would be a small number of affected businesses really. But again, in terms of the partnership and budgeting, 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 airport terminal, right? No. 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. You know, so again, 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 LPC's 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. Would anyone like to make comments from the public on this resolution? Or more accurately, who would like to come first? 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 Crenzel, 12191 North 61st Street. Really, I was hysterical when I read this resolution. I couldn't believe all the problems we have at the airport and we're talking about this. Let me give you a little fact though because I was so entertained. 1,361 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 2,500 miles. So 4.53 metric tons is about what a car burns in a year. That's sort of the classic statement of what a car does. And I went, well, what does an airplane 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 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 at the Longmont Airport. That means if they did that they'd burn 500 gallons a year. And so that comes out to about if you sort of translate that comes out to this 1,361 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.  That's silly. Of the 300 airplanes at the airport probably 60% of them don't fly more than 10 hours a year and probably 10% of them do 80% of the flying and so that's a silly measure. You know, this is a good idea maybe in 20 years. There are no electric flying airplanes in the world right now other than prototypes. It's not going to be a major impact on aviation for any time to see. Jet fuel does not... I would change this. Jet fuel does not contain lead. That's a misnomer. The idea of carbon free fuels is a misnomer. Every airplane in the world at this time, for the most part, requires lead or carbon-based fuel and that's not going to change. My brother is an engineer for Sierra Nevada which is a company in Denver and around the country and 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 going to go anywhere. So to write a resolution that sort of states some big deal about what the Longmont airport is doing about aviation is just electrical aviation seems sort of silly. Going back just a step there are 85,599 cars in Longmont. There are 262,721 cars in Boulder County of that 2021 statistic. That turns out to be in the city about... There's about 300 airplanes at the Longmont airport, I think. That turns out to be about 0.003% of the transportation vehicles in the city or airplanes and in the county it's 0.001%. Aviation in general, 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 one tenth, piston powered airplanes are less than one tenth of 1% of greenhouse gases. Of all transportation, excuse me, 12% of all transportation comes from aviation. 74% of greenhouse gases come from roads. Would anyone else like to speak? Gordon Morgan, 1932 Amethyst Drive, Longmont. I've been in this aviation business for 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. Number one, they reflect light which is absolutely something you don't want on an airport. Number two, they're taking up space that should be reserved for aviation such as hangers. Number three, it's a direct hazard for any skydiver that's landing these things and there's four, five, and six reasons that you'll have time for. In the meantime, we have a FBO that is an absolute dump compared to any airport connected with the city of 100,000 people. And the money that would be spent on this fiasco would be much better spent on an FBO building and some other improvements on the 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 and not because they want to. So I think you ought to change your priorities on this thing. And while I'm here, I'd like to command Levi for cleaning up a lot of the things that have been ignored for the last seven or eight years. He's doing a good job. There's more to be done but he's working on it and I appreciate that. Thanks. Thank you. Dave Copp, 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 on an electric airplane and it took us five hours to charge it for a 20 minute ride. It was a sailplane and the motorized sailplane but we didn't find any lifts so we had to be at the airport in 20 minutes. And that was, you needed to wear headsets and even the noise from that prop was quite noisy. And again, I think it's a great idea but focus on the golf courses. They've been running electric vehicles for 20 years. There are 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 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 a helicopter is just a little spot not much bigger than a helicopter but in an airplane I'm looking for a mile of something straight and level. So golf courses would be my focus on that one. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else want to make another comment at this time? Okay. I'll close the public comment then for this item. Board members, other comments, questions? Would anyone like to introduce a motion if there are no comments, questions? Vice Chair Jordan. I move that we do, that we strike some of the we're asked clauses as recommended. Number of cars, prop noise, shortage of pilots. Some things that really box in and put a time stamp on this. We had a shortage of pilots 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 pair that down to just a forward looking statement and as Russ said, section one and two really encompasses what we're interested in. And to Marsha's point 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 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 set up. So I propose that we strike some of the limiting language and accept this as a just sort of a mission statement as it's intended. So you started saying that as emotion. Sorry, I did. Or was that in, would you either like to restate emotion or there was a kind of proposal that you could consider at the end there as well? I guess I'll stick. Yeah, because then we can argue about it, right? Okay, so we can argue about everything. I propose that the line about cars, the whereas about noise, the whereas about the shortage of pilots be stricken from the statement and the existing fuels statement because we don't have evidence that's available. Those be stricken. We reduce it and accept it as a 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? Moved and seconded. Mr. Robeson, would you like to make a comment about the motion on the floor? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Blinda, I don't seem 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 would be my idea anyway. Mr. Dean, did you have a comment? Or is that for your second? Nope. Okay. Sorry, Mr. Salamateen. I want to thank Marcia for the comments about framing this properly, making sure that we're looking at this as 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 use the airport to front the bill for future electrification or future development on the airport. So if there's any way we could encapsulate the commitment that the funds will come from the city or outside of the airport, I think that would be important. But I, yeah. Council Member Martin. Thanks. I just want to say that that is, that's really essentially already there. A resolution cannot force an enterprise to spend money in the sense that, you know, any future budget would have to be approved. The resolution, I suppose, everything, like the 100% renewable resolution, which is the most sweeping resolution that the council has ever passed, as far as I can tell. 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 a reason to say we need a new FBO and we need a terminal where batteries could be stored because that's a policy. But it's a separate question with, where whether this airport has the goal of becoming more sustainable, which is really all this whole thing says. I might also suggest, you know, you don't have to, but the, if the council were doing this, we would have to strike the whereas clauses one by one probably. No, and appreciate the, Robert's rules is out of my realm here. Vice Chair Jordan. So I would like to remove my, withdraw my motion and change it to, that I move that the one or two board members work to rewrite the language, clarify further to represent this to the board. Is there a second for that motion? Moved and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Council Member 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? Sorry, hold on. That it is, you know, a resolution like this could be adopted at any time. Any urgency 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.  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. I would like to say that Cessna recently acquired Pippa's Trail, which has an all-electric plane specifically for training aviators and it is FAA certified for use. So, I just always like to call out members of the public when they say something that's not correct. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments? From my perspective, one really appreciate the tweaks, the feedback and for talking through this with us. It's been illuminating. 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 to 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. Well, one or two for open meetings. Any other comment? Otherwise, I'll call for a vote on the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Are there any volunteers for those one or two board members who would like to take this on? Mr. Robeson. Anyone else? Mr.  Thank you. All right. We'll move on then to our lease language recommendation. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Levi, your name's 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. All right. Let Bill readjust here. And whoever's driving the screen, can you guys move it to the lease? Sorry, Phil. I know you're moving. 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 law, no ordinance associated with that. This next piece, we wanted to chat with you about 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's just sitting by Levi there, so we put his name plate up so you'd see who it was. And all that Levi kind of take the rest of this. Okay. As we, of course, we've been talking about for a while now, we've kind of been working on the lease language as we kind of move towards creating a new base airport lease. We've had 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. 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 point to first start. Just kind of review what the, in general, what the city is kind of recommending. So at 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 putting a first-ride refusal in those leases. So in kind of comparison to other airports around the area, and I'll just go over them real quickly here. Greeley does a 20-year lease. Then they offer two five-year options after that 20-year lease. And all of their leases do have a right of first refusal. Broomfield offers a 30-year lease with a single 10-year option after that. Then all of their leases are reversionary. Fort Collins has a 25-year lease with three five-year options after it. And then all of their leases are also reversionary. Leadville, Colorado is actually currently in the middle of revising their leases also. They have decided upon doing 25-year leases. They've decided upon doing reversionary. 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. To my understanding, the base term and the options to renew are kind of the hot topic items of the language that we've put into the new lease. There was, it's worth mentioning, there is additional language that the city is recommending to change regarding, see if I can finally get it specifically here, regarding section 4.5, which deals with when someone has to notify the airport that they have an aircraft in their hangar. But that's the only other part of the lease that we're making recommendations for changes on. So we have proceeded forward with those recommendations. Also in that packet, you'll see the results of what the airport has recommended. Red lines for the airport advisory board panel members on lease language. So that is what the airport board is recommending. To be clear, the red line is what I've put in there. Yes. So, and would tweak a little bit based on what we realize now. I will open the floor board members, comments, questions. Appreciate the city attorney being here. Thank you. Mr. Dean, you're at first. I did the email, I'll leave my back after looking at it and the language, possibly change it to first, first right or first option to purchase because right to refusal 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 is, does the city has the first right to purchase your hangar for market value? And so the right to refusal, it was kind of an odd way to phrase that when you're wanting the first right to purchase it. So that's kind of what I was kind of wondering about. All right, and I would default that language to the city attorney's office. I suppose whatever proper contract language would be is what we would recommend moving forward. I suppose. Do you have any input on that? Chair and members of the airport advisory board, Eugene May, city attorney. First right or refusal is just a sort of term of art in contract languages, language. 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.  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 their reversionary right. They have often? Yeah. I mean, so the airport now is the hanger and they rent it out or what do they do? They do actually quite a few of them. In fact, that was part of my position when I was there was renting out hangers at the airport. Thanks, Chair Jordan. I just wanted to note that the 30 year as we've discussed was voted on 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 a viable entity sustaining ourselves. So any language, and I don't have a law degree 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. The big crux was getting that 30 number on there to be better able to go to banks, get 30 year loans, it's 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 provide special letters to 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. It's cleaner to just go with a 30-year, I think, so. Mr. Robinson. 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? Yeah, kind of 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 rooms to negotiate. The FAA recommends 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. See, now we get down to what benefits the airport and the city as a whole, as compared to what benefits an individual leaseholder. So there's that delicate balance to make. I got to 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? Eugene May, city attorney. 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, you know, from a legal perspective, it could be one day, it could be 100 days. You guys picked the right number. We get to choose? I'll be looking at city council in maybe a couple of weeks. We get to make a recommendation. You get to make a recommendation.  And, you know, I think just looking at my desk and my workflow, seven days is not enough. So I guess on the term, we're all really good on base 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 detracts from having it or not having it. Because I think that is certainly on the table for discussion. And section 2.2, which is our right to first refusal. And this might be a city attorney question. It might be a Levi question. 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 statement. So I'd love to understand that. But I guess where my question is coming from is, yes, we have a lot of concerns about specific clauses, specific policy in here. In general, is this something that can happen any way today and whether it's in the lease or not? Or should we kind of, I guess, do we need to think about this as completely brand new or focus on individual aspects of that? 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 in terms of assessments and valuation and things like that. It is a new concept in our leases. And, you know, talking to Levi, I understand that there is a good business justification from the city's perspective and being able to manage the airport for future development. 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. 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 a discussion with other airport managers in the region. The stories I've come up is like, well, have you ever had eminent domain? Yes, it's come up. Usually the stories associated behind 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. And 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, particularly when it's dealing with the future development and the well-being of the airport. Vice-Chair Jordan. I guess that's my question is, do you feel, both of you, representing the city, and this is your asset, 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, that it's not going to, you know, turn into a hayfield 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 Oscar blues, or whatever it is. Do you feel confident that you can sell this? Oh, absolutely. The first right of refusal is, 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 weeks ago. He's trying to develop some hangers back on the East Coast. He's a developer and how upset he was and how he's not going to get his money back on it. And I said, hey, you should just come out to 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 reports 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 or they have the right to buy 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, Greeley does it, that's about the only one on the front range that does that. Council Member Martin. Just a quick couple of clarifications, questions for Mr. May. I believe that when the city leases land to developers who are going to build brick and mortar structures, those leases are reversionary. Is that not the case? You see me thinking, I'm not sure of a city property that's leased to developers. Okay. I don't think we've 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. Yeah. I mean, and I think to answer the vice chair's question, I think the language is legally sufficient to achieve the purpose that my client is telling me. I don't 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. And so if my direction is right at first review, Fusel is in the best interest of the city and is the industry norm. We look at other language from these other leases and we will plagiarize, which is the highest form of compliment. And we've had other rights at first refusal and other city contracts. And so that's how that language came together. And then Council Member Martin, did you have more questions? Vice Chair Jordan. So 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've 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? And is this going to be what happens at 30 years after they've done all that? Well, I can spell it out for you. So they say 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 we've ever seen with electric charging and there's going to be chandeliers in it, we don't have to stop this. We can say, all right, wow, look at the investment that you're going to put into our community. We're going to give you 30 year lease plus this. The FAA 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, let's 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 the other 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 multi-million dollar FBO at KBJC. 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. 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. Five minute max per hour bylaws. Yes. Yep. So Mr. Peters, you were first on the list if you'd like to come down. As before, please start with name and address. I'll have a five minute timer going. And thank you. Thank you. Dan Peters, 1438 Morningside Drive. I'm a hangar owner and I've been flying out of the, along my airport since 1990. I'm here to ask you to vote no on sections 2.2 and 2.3. And I just wanted 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, let's say it was a gang buster business. And the company said, 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 of 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 gang buster building, or a company, it's worth far more than the building itself. So back to my, back to my notes here. For decades, the city has always said that it's not in the hanger 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. There are no specifics on what they're, what the city's motivations are for changing this language. And as a, I count or a board member of 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 it would delay the divorce by 90 days. So if a family member came down with cancer and they needed to sell the hanger, it would be delayed months waiting for the city. I'm also concerned about section 2.3. And that did not have a rev bar. So I don't know if that's an occurrence lease or not. But the combination of 2.2 and 2.3, I think it could 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 hangers? 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 the city can effectively come up with two low ball appraisals and force you to sell your hanger for those low ball appraisals. So I think that that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Bickers was next on the list. Thank you. My name is Ken Bickers. 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 point 4.5, which is the, let me get to it. Yeah, if you'll show that. Within 30 days, the initial occupancy of the premises by the lessee. The lessee shall notify the airport manager of the type and federal registration number. On the south side of the airport, there are 36 hangers. 51 of those are in two condo associations. Each condo association holds a lease with the city. There are 37 condo units in one. There are 14 in the other. The lessee doesn't have airplanes. So there's a middle model in this that runs through the whole contract or the lease agreement that suggests a middle bottle of one hanger owner, one lease, one owner of an airplane. And that's a, 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, it's a bit jarring to have the language about renewal completely removed as if there are not going to be any renewals as opposed to having the pre-existing 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 hanger owners are going to have to pony up money to tear down their hangers. I mean the units because their lease is the condo association lease, not the individual hangers. Now hanger owners may sell, buy and sell hangers. There's always churn who's in there, but that doesn't trigger a new lease. The lease is held by the condo association. The 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 maybe a pot of money to start buying hangers. If that's the case we should be celebrating that and this body should be thinking about how to use those funds 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 improve the airport would do business. They would send a letter to the owners of the properties 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? Is it to start owning hangers so that the airport can be in the rental business? There's a reason no one ever washes a rental car. Nobody ever does that. People take care of their own property. They're interested in improving that 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 hanger 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 which is section three, lease rates and other fees about the CPI adjustment. It's interesting to me, so I said last month I'm a professional political scientist and I'm actually working on a book where I 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 Greely combined metropolitan statistics. Thank you. We're not allowed to yield time. I'm very sorry. We had this discussion in the bylaws. Nope. Would anyone else like to come speak? Come on down. You've got five minutes. 12th Spruce Drive. Apparently I'm no longer at 229 Airport Road, Hangar H21 anymore. I'd like to start off by thanking Mr. our airport manager. 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 in like less than 30 to 30 days. That's very impressive work. Unfortunately along these lines the weather got a little bit too cold to finish the striping and I anticipate in the springtime it's gonna go gangbusters. Yeah, I know I can't talk to individuals. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. I also have concerns about the proposed language of the new lease. My son is taking an interest in my grandson. I'm sorry. I was taking an interest in aviation and it's my goal that when I die he takes my hangar. It's not going to turn into a storage building. However, the way everything is worded now it ain't gonna happen. I'm sorry, I misspoke. I'm not married. I've never been married. But my hangar lease and the and the, well not the lease but the hangar itself is going into my will. And it's going to a 501 C3 that's very well known in my community. It ain't gonna happen either. When I die the executor of my will is going to have to tear my hangar down because that's the way the lease is going to read. Does this make financial sense? No. There's some do-good policy within the city council specifically regarding the airport that they don't want us to be pilots anymore. They might have put up a bicycle or a repair station. They might put up a horse park but I know for a fact it's not going to be an airplane. I understand the reasoning behind the reversionary clause they don't want us here. It's been stated several times since just after COVID the airport doesn't want to get in the rental business. Period. On numerous occasions they're not going to get into the rental business wondering why do you need to own my hangar. And the fact that you want to rip it down when the lease expires adds more fuel to that fire. I know you're an attorney. Please meet you. There's probably a bunch more of them out at the Longmont Airport.  We've got nothing to do in our spare time and pollute the air with carbon and lead and other pollutants. And I think a lot of you are way off on that. We're all in this game together. All of us. Thank you. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Would anyone else like to? Good evening. I'm Ann Lee. 940 Ranger Lane 80501. Everything else that I had questions about seems to have been covered but there was one I'd just like to have cleared up. If a hanger comes up for sale after this is adopted approved whatever and the right of first refusal is not taken by the city. They don't choose to exercise that. Well, the new purchaser of the hanger can he be required to have a new lease, a new 30 year lease, or can he use the remaining time on the initial 30? That was the only question I would like to clarify. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Steve Shuck 222022 Braver and Court in Longmont. A couple things I'm concerned with and I urge you to vote now on this lease reversion. The 30 year lease with no option. Well, that's good for one year. Then what happens? You buy the hanger. You have a 30 year lease. You want to refinance it a couple years later? Most banks aren't going to do it. Number two, a 1031 exchange is the lowest amount of years is 30. I've been involved in many of them. So again, 30 years as soon as you buy it, you can't 30 one exchange it with the amount of money that we're paying for hangers.  So, you know, I would just ask you to vote no. And anyway, thanks. Thank you. Dave Copp 4625 West 99th Place Westminster. Then I agree with what Steve just said. You definitely need to vote no on 2.2. That is a real can of worms. More for what's not written there than 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 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? You know, they stopped doing assignment leases 2003. The first hanger I bought, lease was a sign. Great. I got a seven cents a square foot lease until I renewed it. So I went from $400 a year to $1400 a year. The information you got up there is not correct. You need to make some more calls, Eric, because I'll tell you a couple of things. I owned a hanger at Jeffco, now called Metro. And 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 their reversion clause because they couldn't attract any developers, me included. We're going to build 100,000 square feet of hangers down there. But the bottom line is they've now reversed. They've taken that away based on the county fathers that got together with Jeffco and says, look, you need to change this. And what I heard from a developer is they don't have it. So same thing happened in Sterling. Sterling had a reversionary clause, pulled it back, couldn't attract any developers. You keep this in here with a blank spot on that 2.2. And you're not going to attract any developers. Plus the bottom line is you've got a lot of open-ended questions. What happens on a sale? Do you start another 30-year lease or are you assigning leases? You don't spell it out here. So it's wide open. And when it's wide open, a developer that throws a lot of money at this airport is not going to happen. Not going to happen. You open up the biggest litigation this city has ever seen if you let this lease go. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Howard Morgan address is still the same. As you can see, there's many problems with this lease. And I hope that we can have some meetings on this before it gets any further because there's a lot of problems. And some misinformation. The reversing clause is just a terrible idea. And you're going to get a lot of blowback from that because different people have different reasons for not having that mine and some of the people you just heard. I built a series of hangers up over the years to pass on to my kids. If I have to sell them to the city, that's not good. With the reversing clause, it was also stated that people won't maintain them because they're going to lose everything at the end of the lease. So why pay money into it? And you can see that at Boulder where the city has taken over a bunch of hangers and they're terrible, worse than terrible. I don't know anybody to keep an airplane in one if they didn't have to. Furthermore, the hangar owners and renters actually because the renters support the investors pay a major part of the expensive run in this airport. And we're not treated very well. And I think people are really not very happy with the way the city has been treating us. And this lease is a prime example. And we need to have some meetings and work some things out that are agreeable to everybody. If you have happy investors, the airport is going to go a lot smoother than everybody on the airport is mad. And if you come up with a reversing clause, there's going to be a lot of mad people. And I'm at the top of the list. So let's get together and see if we can do a reasonable lease that covers all the different angles. And there are several. The last thing I want to say, really, they were going to do a reversing clause and the biggest business over there, Beagle's aircraft, said if you do that, we're out of here. And it's a multi-million dollar business and they would have left, but the really management came to their senses and they have no reversing clause. So hopefully we can avoid that. Thank you. Thank you. Don Dulcy, 335 Pratt Street, Lagomot. I agree with the comments that have been made. There's certainly a lot of things that are very negative about the reversing clause and focusing on rewriting that whole section would really be in order. 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 lease expire or if somebody comes to buy a hanger is really excessive. I think a person that might show up to want to purchase a hanger would 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 seller. 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 and it would say, hey, we'd like to buy your hanger at some point in time. We have plans. But for them to come right at the very end and say, well, it'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 there isn't any planning going on at all. So that's ridiculous. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I will close public invited to be heard then on the leases. Board members, further comments, discussion? Mr. Robeson. Thank you. I just want to clarify one thing about 2.1, the last, the second sentence, I guess, if we take out the red is in the current lease. So it has always said, you know, as long as I've been there, that the lessee shall remove all hangers. And it's just, we've always managed to sign a new lease in time, right, before that happens. So Liva, I'd like to hear from you what your sense is when David was airport manager, was there a city resolution saying like, you know, hey, we don't really want to own these hangers and rent them out or make them term down. So just try to sign a new lease in time because this sentence was in there. It just was never put into force, obviously. And is that changing now?  So that's pretty much, you'll see that in particular provision in all airport leases regarding hangers. And the reason that's there is many structures. So let's say we did have a hangar diffler come in. He got, you know, a 30 year lease, built a big bank. So we had a 20 year option to renew. So it was there 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 hangars on it. There was hangars now, you know, maybe they're covered with asbestos, maybe they're resting apart. That provision's 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 in 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 hangars on the airport at the moment. I think everyone would like to hear that, you know, to start with. Yeah. And again, there seems to be this kind of idea that, oh, the city's out for people's hangars. The point of putting a first raw refusal in a lease is for master planning purposes. So the city decides they want to build a new FBO here. The city recognizes that these hangars are incredibly old and falling apart. And we would like to start acquiring those, you know, to do something different with the land, maybe developer want to come in and they really want to chuck a land. That's, that's far out on the cusp of something that happened. But it's about acquiring a land that the city would use for agreed upon future development that benefits the airport as a whole. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Salamateen. Thank you, sir. So if the purpose of this is for long-term planning, then there shouldn't be any problem with earmarking or designating certain hangars that are of interest to the city. So that 30 days shouldn't come into play then, right? Because if you already have it planned out and then particular, you know, hangars go on the market, it 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. True. But like, haven't, 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 not feel good about the decision to pass this long if there's any sort of risk of someone who needs to liquidate assets, being unable to liquidate those assets, and there being some sort of big harm brought into that individual. And again, I think 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 it's extenuating circumstances that any right or first refusal will happen within 7 or 10 days. And again, we don't want to put ourselves into 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 it 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. So I would just note that we have on the last page of the packet 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 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. Thank you. 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. When 2.2 says less see, that means the condo association, correct? Yeah, to whoever is leasing it, yeah, so the association. So in your mind, is it within the contract that if one of the hangers 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 and the lease with the city itself. The parcel is the whole building. It's the parcel, yeah. 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 that. Mr. May? You got one right there. 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. So that's pretty significant before we make any kind of recommendation or like this or don't like it. There are a lot of hangers under a condo. Vice Chair Jordan.  I know how old our airport is, and I know it was at Roosevelt Park and then it moved out to Airport Road. What is the oldest hanger on the field right now? How old is it? 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. I know that the building I'm currently in was built prior to that. So we're looking at at least fifties, mid fifties, 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 in 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. 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, I don't I can't think of any instance. I don't think anyone else here can think of any instance where someone has been asked to tear down their hanger at the end of the lease. I guess it's that unspoken, the 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. 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 the lease, the city did pursue and asked them to tear it 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 at their lease that they should. That makes sense, yeah. If somebody's making math at our airport, they're going to 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. Our feet are going to be held to the fire with that language. We're looking for loopholes and clauses and ways out and just how we function with a large investment. And we look at other things going on in the city. We wonder what treatment they're getting. We always, we're always paranoid and we always, like I 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 handing your, as was discussed, handing this asset to your children or 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 just, it's in there, there's room for it. There is no plan for the cities to systematically start acquiring hangers 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.  It's just about giving the airport options for making it better in the future if it needs to. So let me ask the city attorney this then. Is there a way to include language that would refer to master plan to the conversation of where is this going? The city should have a plan that they're executing that then we would fall under as the hangers became available. Meaning is there a way to put that in there that per the master plan, 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 flying at 18. Eugene May, city attorney. 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. And, you know, I think the board can make the recommendations it would like. 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. Council Member Martin. Thanks. 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 lease. And it does not seem to be 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 say, I want to rent a hangar parcel. So I would, I very much want to see the old lease before having to vote on this. We had a discussion by phone about this and I sort of thought I would get it. But yeah, this is a red line. 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 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 I'm puzzled to understand what everybody is so mad about because they're getting a right of first refusal, which they never had before, it's a benefit. There is, so to your point, so yes, this is the previous incarnation of the lease, at least the way it was when I paid here. So this was the most recent red line version of it. And then yes, that is 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 requiring land, if we want to is essentially just to force a lease term to run out. So if we're going to develop this big new giant FEO, 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 seems to me like a terrible thing to do because you essentially make that land worth nothing for the remainder of its lease. If, you know, June decides to sell her lease and there's 10 years left on it and the city says, well, gosh, 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 have come to it. So it's like, yeah, we got first right for FUSAL. So we're going to pay you all this money for your building and then you're going to get your money right now and you can move on. It seems to be more of a beneficial solution to me. Well, you know, I think that a lot of the scenarios that are being described are things that just wouldn't happen. So there is 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 wanted, you know, they'd make probably an above market offer because they wanted the land. There's all kinds of theoretical stuff that we've kind of been throwing around today, I mean, you've gotten to the 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 limiting ourselves moving forward, that we can do improvements in an affordable, timely manner and develop the airport in a way that's beneficial to everyone. Yes. And if your hanger was really bad, the city could condemn it anytime. Yeah. Don't have to wait till the end of the lease to condemn it if it's contaminated or falling apart in a public's danger. So that's not really a case. And then the last one is if somebody gets to the end of their lease and they can't sell their hanger and they walk away, what really can happen? I mean, their lease says 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. Yeah. And all these other situations just don't happen. Yeah. 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 the airport. 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. Mr. Talamateen, go ahead. I respect that. And I'm sure you guys are right that there would be a better solution than just to wait until someone is about to make a transaction and then swooping in. However, just to steal a phrase that you guys use which is the speed 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 hangar is of value to the city, that there should be earmarked and the 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. And of course it's hard for me to comment 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 improve the airport. We have a couple of just questions here. I want to be very clear. This only applies to new leases. There is no change to any existing lease. Existing leases are existing leases. The 30 plus 30s 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 there's been no issues with that. When a lease is to use this language sold, assigned, otherwise transferred, someone even has a current lease. So no right of first refusal. Does that restart the 30 your 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, again, without having a specific situation in front of me, it's dependent upon the situation, whether it's a transfer, it's a lease. If it's a transfer, current term applies, is that accurate? So you said, could be a transfer, could be a new lease. In a transfer, same language, same term. Doesn't reset. So same language, same term. So if a lease 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 get through the specific side to understand the legal ins and outs of it. I 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, writing in the new, and they've fulfilled the rest of the lease. Recently, that's kind of what we've been doing to stop that 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, making sure we can move forward and have good solid leases that are acceptable to the FAA. The other comment I had was, a lot of this seems like it's a communication thing. 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 want to know what the city is up to when they're putting these clauses in. I understand the city wants protection for tear down and things like that. Can we recommend at the same time, a resolution since we're talking resolutions, like here's what the city's trying to do and let's get some clear communication out to the hangar owners to make them feel more assured. Okay. That's, we can do that as a board, right? If we're going to recommend a lease language, then we can recommend a concurrent resolution. We can recommend anything to council that we vote on. That's what, council member Martin. 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, it would not be part of the template lease. It would be part of a, an airport master plan. The airport master plan is pretty old.  Is that resolution you guys are taking home to work on? You know, there is, the council has not seen this red line except for me. Okay. 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 it trying to, to tie it to some larger city policy is, is just not what's out there. We have to have a lease 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 hanger.  So there's, there's just no, you know, there's no overarching plan right now. And, and there doesn't need to be for the city's lease land to consumers. Vice Chair Jordan. I'm compelled to put this into perspective for the sake of the people on the field. The, the runway was going to be extended in my lifetime. It was going to have, there was a date for the runway extension to happen. Here we sit. That was 10 years ago. We have a master plan for the airport. We don't see those things being walked out. We have, we've fumbled, stumbled, we 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. 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 individual hangar owners and flight instructors operating out of 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 and you've heard enough about it. 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?  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 we're supposed to have happened as I joined that fell off. And so I think that's really the spirit of the concern. And the heart of it is we've failed to see anything come to fruition that really matters.   We want to be proud of our airport and we want to be proud of our hangers 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 hanger at the end of the lease and we've got an FBO that 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 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 put our trust in, we have taken these leases, we're making our payments, we're keeping them clean, we're abiding by the rules. So please be kind and recognize that and respect that 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 hanger at and proud to 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 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 deep-seated concern is that we've been let down so many times and so. And that certainly makes sense and I can say that's my goal too. It's my goal to make this a world-class, generally aviation airport and part of doing that is going to be having tools in 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 that, I mean, and we're talking ultimately, you know, the next hundred 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. 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's going to be turned into a dog park or something else and that we're going to lose our asset. It has happened in the past and not to my knowledge of many, 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, my experience here has been very pro-airport and they're proud of their airport and they want to make it into something great too. Do you have any support for making this a better airport? I wish we could say that we feel that. I don't think we, 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 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 concern is we had a lot of unfulfilled promises and fulfilled plans and as that continues to deteriorate, it makes it look more attractive as a dog park and we don't want that. Council Member Martin. A context for your context, Melinda. A plan is a plan. It can never be a promise when it's a municipal government, a whole rural city and a Colorado municipal enterprise. The enterprise has to run off of its own income. Alright, 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. Same with, you know, wastewater, sewer, those entities of which the airport is one cannot tax 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 hangers and doing business development and getting business, through the fence businesses to come that will pay a higher rate. There is getting grants from the FAA and other sources. There's no taxation and there's no way to stop the Boulder County from purchasing and using the land that is out at the end of the runway making a runway extension impossible physically. You know, there was no way for us to do that. So, or no way for us to stop it rather. So, I understand the frustration but I, you know, it's like with imagined motives about the right of first refusal or reversionism for that matter. It's not what you think. It's just the legal and legal environment, statutory environment that we have to operate on. So, you know, I am sorry the Longmont Economic Development Partners 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. Thanks everybody for comments. I've got no one else in the queue. I don't love making motions but if you all indulge me I'm going to make a motion and the motion would be after three months of discussing this at 8.18 p.m. We recommend to City Council that we move forward with the language in this lease, the red line with the following amendments. The city has seven days from written receipt 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. Is there a second to that motion? Moved and seconded. Any discussion of the motion? Did you have a discussion or just a second? Nobody? Mr. Robeson. I just wanted to have time to read it again. I'm not rushing it. Were you 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 is no way that can happen faster than let's say 45 days if everything possible aligns. 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 Levi 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 if you're in the office or not but I just don't I can't see City Council moving fast just because it has to go to that process legally. I don't necessarily that's just my that's my perspective and I would love someone to argue disagree if you think differently any further discussion on the motion call of vote any all those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you all. We'll make the recommendation. I'm sorry let me go back to my agenda. We're on to a final public invited to be heard. Would anyone like to have the final opportunity to be heard? All right. All right. We're ready. Same rules apply five minutes start with your name and address please. Dave cop 4625 West 99th place Westminster you're still ignoring the the rat trap and 2.1 which is in fact a reversing clause as written because there's nothing at the end of the 30 years and what is a hanger worth that doesn't have a lease on the theft so it's a tragedy. 335 Pratt street I wanted to pass something along to Marsha since she's looking for ways to humanely manage the prairie dogs yesterday there was an article in science news magazine online where they are controlling mice by doing crisper 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 crisper edits so you can catch 250 prairie dogs pretty easy out there they'll be gone in 3 years this science news online it's a research project in Australia it's a research project in Australia it's going on right now so you might look into that or have somebody look into it there was a comment about noise earlier 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 there was no noise off the field and I think that was part of the subject of the lawsuit with Mile High in that in the end it was determined that the Longmont and probably Boulder County did not have a noise problem but there were some individuals that had problems with noise it's kind of the net bottom line of that lawsuit it was a comment about the reversion or tearing down of hangers on the airport and the oldest hanger on the airport I believe is the flying farmers hanger that hanger when I was chairman of the board went through and had completed two 20 year leases and was told they had to do some work on that hanger 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 and last point it may be too late but there's been a lot of verbal going back and forth on the 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 contract or the lease document thank you thank you would anyone else like to close us out this evening seeing no one board council staff comments starting with board members who has more comments Vice Chair Jordan we've got an air show set for September 23rd 2023 so I've started reaching out to a prior executive director type we had a leadership team so I've been reaching out to them to start setting up some meetings on this and chairman I'm not lacking name I'm lacking how I'm supposed to call you my fellow board member Malcolm has been working on putting in a request for a B2 flyover so we've got some traction for the air show and we're underway so I just wanted to say it's happening but I haven't set any meetings because of the holidays and just schedules so we'll be working on that and then we had talked about the public viewing area airport road that has the Eagle Scout project scale runway tower and I talked away tag about how they got that done and he just went to the airport manager as permission was given permission he did have to get a permit for the mock tower because it was a structure and he did get a little bit of he had some visits while they were working on it from the city he referred them to the airport manager who then said I authorized it so I've reached out to the president of friends events 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 and I have talked to him as well about 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 they wanted to see kind of what the plan for the area was so they said next step is what you got kind of a plan for the area run and bias and then well they said they'd review at that point so as far as the the public that had looked into it and the citizen I'd probably start with LOPA the organization on the airport and we could 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 you go scout project stays and just cleaning it out so that the airport's attractive of course and we're saying close touch with them and as things move forward we'll keep it moving forward I think it's really important to acknowledge Vice Chair Jordan that this is your last meeting with us as your term limited out 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 I appreciate what you do for all of us and we will very much miss you up here I'll come back oh thank you my gosh I hope so 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 I just appreciate being able to do this and I remember when I applied for the board and all the cautions I was given was meters, water meters and a lot of things going on that are way past rules and rags 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 I'm looking forward to what's going to happen in the future and I'll come sit over there and antagonize you guys and I understand you can sit out a year and then reapply so we'll see what happens but the air show and that park project I'll continue to help with those thank you Mr. Robison thank you I head down that you and Steve spots are up too you're coming back I have applied to come back I have an interview with council on Saturday and I believe council will vote sometime later this month and Steve has applied to come back I do not know that Steve unfortunately he missed he did not there were other applications though I believe even if the applicants are fully appointed which is obviously up to council and mayor there's still at least one opening on the board at least one maybe two so when those get advertised again would encourage everybody please other comment I'll make I recognize this is we're in the weeds we're looking at leases there's not there's a lot of strong feelings about a lot of this but this is maybe the second or third meeting that I've been on the board and I've been on now four 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 was positive feedback out there about what you're doing because that has not happened in years about this airport and I think it's worth noting okay third yeah council member Martin any further comments from you this evening sure I made an awful lot but 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 is nothing worse as a council member to get a call and not have a clue what the answer is 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 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 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 also very encouraging yeah good when is the annual report going to be delivered do you know that's something that we haven't spoken about yet we'll have to get into here I did get the copy from you yeah I think we need to have that out to you next month for our annual report I did request some community information to get to you about charitable philanthropic that's happening on the airport primarily aeroangel, 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 community operations on the airport that there's more that goes on out there than just people flying around just as a follow up Levi and I have only been doing this since April and so it's my understanding from other boards and commissions that an annual report just talks about what this board has done over the last year so 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 if it's different we'll certainly add things as you need but that was my focus anyway just going into this and again I've not been part of the history so I apologize for my lack of understanding there but that's what I'm doing so the annual report is just taking the meetings from the last 12 months and putting those together and saying 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 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 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 discussing laces for three months 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 get that information and then it's obviously not my call what happens with it but you'll have it if there's to be a softer more public facing view of other things that happen at the airport justifications City staff any comments good okay well one comment is just we will miss Melinda 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 your 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 okay thank you all for a productive meeting lots of discussion appreciate city attorneys for being here so we could really dive into it and thank you everyone for the engagement I'll call the meeting adjourned thank you