It is 6 pm. We will call to order the December 3rd meeting of the Forest Lake Airport Commission. Uh, Administrator Stouts, would you please take the role? >> Uh, Commissioner Gomeire >> here. >> Commissioner Lynch here. Commissioner Steeler >> here. >> Uh, that is it. That is it this evening. We have a quorum. Um, approval of the agenda or agenda as it says on here. There's no D, but the agenda. >> You going to make a motion to approve it? >> Motion. Yeah, >> I will make a motion to approve the agenda. >> We have a motion to approve the agenda. Is there a second? >> A second. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Agenda's approved. Uh, we come to the open forum portion of our meeting. citizens uh petitions, requests and concerns, please sign in at the table and uh you're free to come to the lect turn and speak on any subject. We prefer it be airport related, but that's not absolutely necessary. >> I'm the only one. Hi guys. >> Hi. >> Thank you. Doug ship 9753 Howard Lake Drive, Forest Lake. I own and operate multiple aircraft hanger 9 at Forest Lake Airport. I see a runway taxi extension project on the agenda tonight. Uh there's not adequate funding in the airport account for the city's obligation in this. I think we all know that. And so the city can choose to move forward with the project, but I hope the airport commissioners are prepared to defend hangar owners against the city coming for more funding from hangar owners if they advise the city to move forward with this project. And if the city decides to get creative with their funding of their obligation in the project, I just hope that you guys are prepared for that. I saw today uh well actually yesterday there's salt applied to an apron in front of a hanger. Hangar 28. I don't know the owner, but maybe somebody here does. Um maybe you could reach out to him and explain the effects of corrosive chemicals on an aluminum airframe. We shouldn't be applying salt anywhere on that airfield. There's a reason that most airports have a corrosion mitigation plan and salt is a real big deal with aluminum airframes as you know. So if if somebody knows him, I don't know who it is. I don't know which which hanger is 28. >> It's the one next to mine by the empty lot, right? >> Yes. Yeah, that's the one next to Rod Skoos. >> Yep. >> And it's concerning because that runs off of his apron and onto the taxi way. Well, now he's impacting anybody with an asset out there that happens to taxi by >> and Rod commented to me yesterday, "Don't be surprised when I start taxiing by your hanger because I can't go right anymore because I know he's got salt out there and I'm not going to put my air frame through that." I get it. Um, does anybody know if Mindot Aeronautics helped the city of Forest Lake buy a snow brush? There was it came up in a meeting a while ago and I never heard the end of the story but that was supposed to be dedicated to the airport and uh I haven't seen a snow brush out there but that would be a really neat tool for clearing light snow like happened overnight. I just I I was curious about it. I haven't I haven't heard or seen anything more since that meeting when it come came up. Um, I also once again asked the commission to help correct the discriminatory practices currently occurring at the airport. Namely, illegal charges for the runway paving project in 2016 that still is out of balance, not yet resolved. Have a clear definition of what constitutes commercial use that is fair and equitable for all users at the airport. and an eviction plan for tax evaders living in their hangers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Not seeing anyone else in our off on our audience this evening. We will close the open forum portion of the meeting. We need an approval on the airport meeting minutes from August 6th. >> I read the minutes this afternoon. I believe they're correct as written. Therefore, I'll move to accept them as written. >> I have a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> I have a second. All in favor? I >> I >> That passes. All right. We will move on to the regular agenda items. Mr. Sts, City Administrator Sts, if you want to take it from there. >> Yeah. Uh Mr. Chair, um on the regular agenda, we have what I've termed financials and claims uh list. Um this is a relatively new thing. Maybe you've had it before prior to my time here, but um we've got a new finance director and um it was a opportune time to kind of reset the expectations around um what you guys should be seeing in terms of um financial reporting from us and then um sort of endorsement of claims or or invoices that we get that uh are that go against the the airport budget. So, what you see in your um packet is uh the financials through quarter three, so the end of September. And it just show sort of gives you um a picture of where we're at both revenue and expense wise. And we've stripped out the expenditures on capital items um just to give you a better flavor of the operating budget and where we're where we're at um with that. There's also a number of footnotes because um things that aren't maybe obvious to the n, you know, to the casual observer when you look at some of these things are um hopefully explained by some of those footnotes, including some of the things that are grant reimbursed. Um so it's long story short, it's a bit complicated, but um I would take any questions on it. The idea is just just for just to beformational for you. Um, and I've seen other committees and commissions simply make a motion to, you know, accept the financial report. It doesn't mean you're um, you know, that you've reviewed and approved it necessarily, just that you're acknowledging the receipt of it. Um, so, uh, in conjunction with the financials, then we've provided a list of claims. And again, uh, these are claims that are paid by the city. um you know so there these have all been on a city council meeting agenda at one point or another but I think it is um prudent to bring those to you so that in case you think one of these should not be assigned to the airport um budget or something of that nature now would be the time for you to kind of express that and um you know have a discussion about whether or not those expenses seem appropriate. Um so you know there's a number of different pages because each time we have a council meeting we have a list of claims and so I just pulled all those off of old agendas. Um so again I would take questions on any of those items, the financials or the claims and then we could um I'd look for a motion to just accept those financial reports. I'm a little bit uh well I'm I'm I'm not an accountant and uh when I look at these numbers um I wouldn't be comfortable making a motion to approve them and that's okay. I think you know if the chair if you don't feel you know compelled to take a motion that's I'm not we're not going to live and die and abide with by that just something I've seen other commission >> I mean I' I'd hate to approve something that I don't know much about. I think it's good to see the numbers. Like, I'm looking at a telephone bill for $175 a month. What are we paying for? >> You can get internet for less than 50 bucks a month. Why are we paying $175 a month? >> These are the great questions we hope to solicit when when we put this kind of stuff in front of me. Where uh where exactly >> that's on that's on page uh 17 of 47. It's um check number 2486. I I understand we need internet because we have the connection to the gas pump is through the internet. >> But again, the internet connection is there's no reason to pay more than 50 bucks a month for an internet connection. So maybe that's something that's just been held over for years and years that we've been paying because we used to have a landline out there or something. I I don't know. >> That's a great observation. But anyway, I just happened to see that the other day when I was going through um so in that light and noticing something like that, it's not a bad day bad idea to to send this past us. Um but beyond that, it's I don't think it's an airport commission thing to approve or >> I I would certainly take that note back and and try to report back to you on what >> Yeah. And again, it it's you don't have to report back to me how somebody should just understand what it was what it is for and what we're paying for out there at 175. >> If I could explain to you right now, I would. It does seem high. If it's a monthly bill, that seems high if it's a >> Yeah, maybe it's something. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, >> see, one other thing I noted uh in the packet too, uh, Mindot said that uh the things we got to do to maintain a functioning airport. It said something in there about grass had to be cut uh 7 ft away from the runway and it had to be no longer than 6 in. And I spent a lot of time out there this summer. Um and it seems like the mower was always out there and the mower coming past my hanger. I mean, it it was short. I mean, is there a way to kind of talk to Dave and just see if we can mitigate some of the expenses about having a person out there cutting all the time or >> Yeah, we could certainly cut back on >> Yeah, maybe we don't need it two inches tall, you know, and let it let it get to six. I mean, this was an unusual year wetness. I know I was cutting my yard every five days cutting my yard this year. So, but yeah, it's something for Dave to be aware of anyway that um six inches is not a big deal. >> Um I mean, don't get me wrong, it looks great out there. They do a fine job. So, >> any other comments on the financials or claims? >> I'm good. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll certainly look into the telephone. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Airport lighting and maintenance. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Uh item 5B, we have um airport lighting here. Um and that is uh a contract that uh we solicited a quote uh to have this ongoing maintenance done. Aerotch's done is Aerotch is a sort of a spin-off I believe here of Neo Electric and who has been providing this service to us over the last year or so. Um and they're very expert at at um doing this sort of work and has have done a great job for us. Um, we do still do some maintenance of light bulb changing type of stuff, but um, there's a little bit more to it technically um, that's probably above our expertise that we ask these folks to step in and help us out with and uh, they do a great job. So, we're asking for the uh, airport commission to um, endorse that contract and and recommend that we enter into a contract with the city. >> Yeah. My only question when I read that was um, what is their level of expertise? And you're telling me they have a level? I googled them. They don't exist. >> Yeah, I they're fairly new. U like I say, a spin-off. It's the guys that were with Neo Electric that are spinning off their own company as I understand it. >> Okay. And I don't know, Silus, do you have any thoughts on that? Are you familiar with these guys or who they what they do? I know we've had issues with our lighting and I I'm not going to say it's because of the maintenance guys, but I know we've had some issues with papies and and that sort of thing. Yeah, I know both these gentlemen, Commissioner Steer and they both previously worked for Neo Electric. I believe Cory has actually lives here in Forest Lake may or may not have his hanger. I think his airplane out there at the hanger, but no, they they both previously were doing the maintenance electric and then they both gentlemen are very >> I somebody want to make a motion to Go. What are you looking for us exactly? Is there Is there one stated on here? I >> Yeah, hopefully I got >> I'll find a page here. >> I saw the contract in the packet. >> Yeah. So, the the staff recommendation would be to uh to have a motion to have the airport commission recommend city council approve the proposal from Aerotech companies for the airport lighting maintenance in 2026. I'll make a motion to recommend to the city council to approve this proposal for aerotch companies for airport lighting and maintenance for 2026. >> I will second the motion. Any discussion on that? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Unanimous. >> We'll move on to the next. So item uh five uh C is um getting into our our grant recommendation for uh this is the maintenance and operations grant. So this is separate from uh the capital grants we'll talk about a little later in the evening. Um this grant is a pretty standard um grant as far as grants go. It's almost a just an annual appropriation but um technically it is a grant we apply for bianually and that rolls with the state's uh bianium um fiscal policy. So um a number of items as you saw in those financials had a footnote that said these are grant eligible and so most of our operations and maintenance costs are eligible for um reimbursement through this grant up to a maximum and that's um provided here. Uh so I should say first of all that they're 75% reimburseable but then there's a max cap on how much we can uh collect. We we typically blow through that. Um you know and I think almost every airport does. I don't think anyone's scratching at you know scratching to get there. Um so want to remind folks of that fact that there is a maximum because sometimes I hear people say well yeah but mind reimbures us for 75. Yeah but only up to a certain amount and then we're on our own after that. So, um, that cap is $18,69 every every year. Um, you know, it's it's well appreciated, but it certainly doesn't cover all of our costs. Um, so again, there we're looking for a motion to support um the execution of the attached grant agreement for ongoing maintenance and operations cost the airport in fiscal years 26 and 27 through MDOT's aviation division. and and and one of the reasons I wanted to point out here that um it's important for the airport commission I think to endorse this grant agreement um is that it does have some strings attached to it right there is there are some um requirements that I pointed out here that uh in order to get this grant you have to maintain uh an aeronautical purpose an airport with aeronautical purposes uh you know going forward makes sense right take this grant money and then turn it into an industrial park. Not what's it's for, right? >> Absolutely. That's understood. >> Yep. >> So, you're just looking for a recommendation to move forward with this um grant proposal, >> correct? Approval of the grant proposal. you would be recommending to the city council that we um um agreed execute the grant agreement with the state >> and that's just a paper process that you just do by annually. >> Yep. Okay. I'll make a motion to support the execution of detached grant agreement for ongoing maintenance and operation costs at the airport in state fiscal years 2026 and 2027 through Mindot Aviation. And I will second that. >> Second. Uh, all in favor or any another discussion? There's only three of us. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Move ahead with that. Then, Mr. Chair, we're on to um item 5D, the airport capital project grants. Um we were uh successful uh in getting approval for three all three of our grant uh projects that we had into the hopper here and um there was a first round of funding if you recall that we didn't quite make the cut but boy we were what maybe two three projects below the cut line sus I think and um and uh we were quickly told that don't worry there's a second round of funding coming and of course they thought that would be by the end of September and it was mid to late October before we got Um and um but good news is that we we did receive um award of these grants and now we need to make a decision about whether or not we're going to accept that those grants. There are three different grants um as we apply for them. There's the apron expansion. So that's the area where we have the tie downs and and whatnot. Um then we have as separate projects the main taxiway extension and the runway extension. Um, sometimes you might see in here we're sort of talking about those two projects in conjunction with each other. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to do one without the other. I suppose you could. Um, but it seems to me that it's best practice to do both of them if we're going to do one of them, right? Um, and then, um, we just to kind of reset our our minds here about this whole process. When we put our application in for these, we we were um Mindot was awarding grants at a 95% participation level. In midstream, they kind of changed that on us and went down to 90%. And so some of the monies that we had um looked at um being able to fund through our airport uh you know, we had to come up with some additional funds for that. Um, as the commenter from the public said earlier, uh, we do not have that money in the airport fund at this point in time. Um, as you saw the financials, by the end of the year, we're we're not going to have the kind of capital we would need. Um, in work sessions with the city council, um, the council has been supportive of of, um, helping these projects along and and making sure that we can get them off the ground. Um, and I think that are supportive of sort of being the playing the bank here and and uh fronting the money. Um, however, what I wanted to go through in in this in this agenda item is the idea that capital expend expenses at the airport, including new additions to the airport um that enhance the the um livability, workability, whatever you want to call it, uh usability, safety of the airport are part and parcel with the operations and maintenance of the uh costs of the airport. And it's our general um philosophy that the airport should be uh self- sustaining and that we would expect that the revenues that come into the airport fund help pay that um those these our participation in this these projects back over time. Um that revenue might come from gas sales, it might come from uh taxes, uh it might come from any other source, uh including the grants that we get and that kind of thing. Um but it also includes hangar rents and I I want to be upfront about the idea that hanger rents on an annual basis will be evaluated based on the costs of operating at airport and that they would be commensurate with keeping pace. And so, um, while we don't propose here a direct charge to hangar owners for these improvements, we would expect that the hangar rents are a part of the way we fund this airport and that we also understand that the capital expenses to improve this airport are part of the budget for the airport. Therefore, hanger rents could be affected by taking on these projects. Does that make sense to people? >> I' I've got a quick question. When I was reading through this, um, it looked at uh, we we we pay taxes on our our current buildings. And it's not a property tax because >> it is a property tax. It says right on your property tax statement, property tax. >> Okay. >> And you pay additional ground lease rent. That's a separate bill. >> Yep. So, so the ground lease is in the budget. And then I looked and there's three people that benefit from my property tax. Uh, city's the largest, school district second in the county. So, did I read someplace in here that the money I send to the city for that property is not coming back to the airport or >> No, I think we've adopted that. So, there's no law that says it has to come back. The city takes that in and can use it for whatever they want, right? Um, but I think we've adopted the philosophy that that money should come back to the airport in a at least in the accounting world. Um so that we show that that is an input that we wouldn't have but for having the airport and having your hangers on the airport. Um and so we we account for that in the revenue side and um >> currently in these numbers. >> Yes, it it would show that that is a a revenue um coming in. Um >> it shows the property taxes as a revenue coming in. >> I didn't see that on this sheet. >> I don't think you're right. in the in the in the financials that are shown there. It does not um I think in the in the budget, however, when we set the budget up, we did include the property taxes as a quote unquote revenue. So, >> if they Yeah, I didn't mean to interrupt. >> No, no, please. >> If they add that to the airport budget, would it cover the $8,882 annual payment? >> Uh, yes and no. So, yes, it's more than that. I think it it's on the the neighborhood of 25,000 or so. I think I showed that to you guys a meeting or two ago. It was in that range, let's say. Um, so yes, but the the budget that's uh was adopted for this year notably was uh unbalanced budget. We're spending way more than we are taking in. And that budget did not include the property taxes. But when I uh sort of presented that information to you earlier this year, I sort of showed how the revenues we show on that financials, the fuel charges, interest, um hangar lease or lot leases and um fuel sales. I added in this line item for the taxes and sort of showed that that the balance over the course of the year is only is still uh a bit deficient. We think it's within range where we can make it sufficient here in the near future without much issue. Um, but it was still just a bit deficient and um, so that $8,000 was not in that original what I presented a couple months ago, right? Um, so that $8,000 is going to need to be absorbed by one of those revenue sources where we're going to need to find cost cutting measures or we're going to need to raise land leases or we're going to need to raise fuel prices or something to accommodate for that those expenses. And our proposal is that the city general fund fronts the money and gives the airport sort of an interfund loan that would be zero interest and paid over I'm just proposing 20 years. Um we could land on a different number if we wanted to. Um and that the airport would pay that back over time. Um you know in 120th increments. How many years did you go back and include the property taxes for all the hangers on your spreadsheet? I mean, we've been paying property taxes for 10 years or so. >> Sure. >> I mean, you start adding up those pluses every year and we've got a um quite a margin. Not that not that we should should have to. And and I'm free I'm more than happy that the city council allocates tax dollars wherever they allocate tax dollars. That's up to them. I'm not saying it has to be on that spreadsheet, but to to ignore that is absolutely wrong. And then you can get into the whole history of the airport and how the city acquired the airport and the idea that that you would somehow tax hanger owners for improvements to to the runway is is um doesn't fly with me. But um so anyway, in in this in this um the three projects, I mean, I would make a motion to recommend the city council accept the three grants for MDOT, but I I would just leave it right there. Is there What do you guys think? >> Well, the the question I got, I haven't been in a civics class in a long long time. Um, when you get a loan like that from the city or when you do that type of math, is that considered a levy or what? I mean, when we do street improvements out here or whatnot, don't we like go to the bank and say we're going to pay them back or >> Yeah. Um >> I mean, does the city have 100 grand? >> Yes. Yes, we >> 177,000. >> Yes, we have that capital um in one of many various funds. We have capital funds for streets. We have a capital fund for equipment. We have a capital fund for parks. And um it's I don't want to say it's not real money, but we you know it's a accounting something we would carry on the books, right? Um it it wouldn't be any more official than just a simply a resolution of the city council to um make an inter fund loan to the the airport has a fund. So the airport money is still in the city's coffers like the other um department parks or whatever. Um is simply a our auditors would let want to see something like that, right? That would have a resolution saying the city general fund is going to loan the airport fund this amount of money and over time the airport fund is going to pay that back and then our auditors would kind of check that we are actually doing that over time. The city council, a future city council could simply pass a resolution saying we forgive that loan. You you know it's it's nothing any more official or unofficial than that. Um, so what I what I wanted to convey to everyone tonight was that that is the philosophy that we're us staff are moving forward with and proposing. And I I um I don't I'm not sure if you made a motion. You said you would make a motion. I are you making a motion, Don, or >> uh I got just one more statement, please. Um because we kind of did budget for this uh runway expansion and tax expansion, wouldn't it be half of the 17764 that we were looking for that wasn't budgeted because it would have been 10% versus 5%. >> Yeah. Yes, you you did budget for that um in a certain sense, but as I mentioned before, the budget wasn't balanced in the first place. So, we we budgeted for I don't know 145,000 expenses and we only took in 90 or something. I can't remember what the numbers are off the top of my head, but it was a seriously unbalanced budget. So, yes, but that's a um we're not necessarily asking for any particular budget decision tonight other than I I would hope, Don, that your motion could I understand where you're you're going with it and that's Okay, if you want to go that direction, but I was hoping we could have a motion that acknowledges that this expense will be shown as an expense in the airport fund and that expenses in the airport fund in general are supported by the various revenue sources we have, one of those being hanger lot leases. >> Well, they would also be supported by general property taxes, just like our general property taxes could go to the parks and recck department, right? I mean, I'm not Who am I to say, >> right? I mean, the elected city council decides where property taxes go. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I it's an accounting thing. I I don't think the airport commission should be telling city council how how to um spend property tax money. I mean, we we're an advisory body to the city council with respect to the airport and and we uh see the benefit in terms of the the from a safety aspect from um you know, the additional tie down areas in the in the apron expansion and then think that's a good positive thing for the city. So, we you know um I I won't make a motion yet in case the others want to speak on it, but I think our motion should end there. And >> it's actually a good point. I mean, the parks don't generate any revenue. Well, maybe a little bit if they have a a picnic or a birthday party or something. >> Got it. >> Um, and then and then I kept reading into this, too. We've got three lots that don't have buildings on them right now that could contribute to it. And then they put additional lots to the north that I again think they should be commercial lots. And let's let some revenue come in from all that. And I appreciate the fact that we're actually got our fuel prices down and fuel sales have got to be up because we're like you've said in the past 25 cents cheaper than a noa. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. >> And then Yeah. I mean is there other ways to fund this thing with >> Well, we have 70 what? 70 more lots that are undeveloped basically on the north end of the airport. Every one of those could be bringing in ground lease rent and property tax if the city develops those lots, right? Is that how many roughly silence? I I think we have about a hundred hangers if on according to the ALP if if all that if the north end was was developed, right? >> Yeah. All the way off the north end there. Yeah, that is available for lots. >> Yeah. So, so if we have roughly 30 33 lots now, that would triple all of you take all the income numbers from ground lease and property tax and essentially triple it. That's what we would have if if the city developed those lots >> for and the runway is not going to grow anymore. >> Let me ask you sort of an existential question then. Let's just say we snapped our fingers and tomorrow we had 80 hanger hangers on on site. Would hanger owners expect that? And let's say our maintenance costs stayed the same because there's not much different to maintain. Would hanger owners expect their land leases to go down? >> No, I don't think you expect your your ground lease to go down. That's your ground lease. >> But your ground lease is tied to it every other year. I think it's a odd calendar year and it's got to be tied to cola. >> Yeah, that's a that's a >> so so so we really can't you can't violate my contract, come back and say, "Okay, our cost went up $8,000. I'm going to bump yours up way past cola. >> I would respectfully disagree that uh the contracts, the leases cite that as an example of what would be primmaacia evidence that the that the um >> the CPI >> the CPI is you know if if you were to raise ground leases by the CPI that would be a fair thing but it also makes the um I think it leaves the open the open question of if there's more expenses the the hanger leases need to go up to cover those expenses. >> And I think Doug's concern is that we did this when we first paved it and there was a revenue in there and we all got assessed. >> Yeah. >> Um uh I forget what the number was, but it was an annual on top of our lease rate. >> Right. So, >> yep. And I I and that's exactly what I'm saying will likely happen here. It just won't be the same semantics. We're we're not going to charge every hanger owner a particular am for this these expenditures. >> I think you're you're looking to get challenges legal challenges regarding the ground lease then. I mean just so you're aware of that. I'm sure you're aware of that. So >> that because of that the council will have a difficult decision to make as to whether or not to move forward with >> understood. They they'll have to they'll have to wrestle with the idea of whether or not they fund these >> improvements again. >> Or >> again, I I can't wait to see the parks and recreation spreadsheet. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, again, I will make a motion to recommend that the city council accept all three grants from Mindot. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> Um, all in favor say I. I. Motion passes. I mean, I still think that's a pretty generous offer from Mindot Aviation. Uh 10 cents on the dollar. Uh we're getting a lot of capital uh improvement out there. Um yeah, I wish it was 955, but it is what it is. >> Uh item 5E. Um there's a provision in um Mandot's grant uh world that says the maximum amount you can receive in a year is a million dollars. Um but quickly there's a exception to that and I don't know Silus, do you want to try to maybe step to the podium and address that particular issue? >> Well, that letter has already been sent by you to get that cap extended, right? >> Yeah, correct. We we had to make a deadline there. So, we did ask for that. Well, thank you, commissioners, administrator Scott. So, in the state statute for aeronautics, there's a $1 million of state funding cap that so no airport in the state can receive more than that amount. So, it's fair and equitable for all the airports there. But there are as an exception allowable for major capital projects like what Forest Lake is proposing to do here with a runway and a taxiway extension project. So, uh, what administrator starts has done is submitted an exemption request to the mind aeronautics director, Ryan Gog, and we've been explaining that this is just a formality because they've already issued the grant offers. Now, it's just going through the process of airport commission and council acceptance, but an exemption request did need to come from administrator stats requesting, you know, in excess of a million dollars of grant funding from Mindot. So that part has been uh been submitted, but that no way obligates the city to, you know, accept the grant offers uh just by submitting an exemption request. >> So it's a bit of a formality, but you know, they offered us more than a million dollars against their own statute. So um it's a bit of a no-brainer, but I I thought again that the airport commission should uh endorse this. Uh >> that letter was in this packet. I read it. >> Yep. and just compliment whoever puts these packets together has got a ton of information there. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, we're looking for a motion to authorize submission of the request to exceed $1 million in grant funding for this state fiscal year 2026. You know, recognizing that's exposed facto here, but >> want to make that recommendation. >> It's on page 42 if you're looking for it. >> 42. Thank you. I will make a motion to authorize the submission of a request to exceed the $1 million in grant funding for state fiscal year 2026. >> And I will second it. >> We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> I. >> All right. And we're on to the engineers report. And you'd like Mr. Chair to invite Silus up to the podium there. >> Yes. Guess I didn't need to sit down. All right. So, you know, the first two items here have been kind of discussed by the commission here. I'll jump to item number three, the airport uh rules and regulations. So, we we have an updated draft that unfortunately we weren't able to submit to administrator stats until last Wednesday and it addressed some comments from uh the public and then also from uh city of Forest Lake uh personnel. So, we've and then there's still a couple of outstanding comments that we're waiting for comment from the city attorney to provide a recommendation on u putting those comments in. But to date, you know, all the comments re we've received from the airport commission hanger tenants out there and city staff I would say are probably about 98% addressed. Just a couple of ones that we need uh some advice from the city attorney because they kind of are outside of our expertise when it comes to legal ease type of items. But um there was a discussion here earlier about commercial elites and those commercial lots versus just a general public lot and those items have been addressed in the revised rules and regulations where u Mr. uh administrator starts plan is to share those with the commission at the next meeting. I'm I'm curious as to why the rules had the through the fence operation attached to the rules when we don't have a through the fence and we don't have a proposed through the fence. It's been kind of talked about. >> Yeah, I believe there was a proposal at one time. >> There was a proposal for that. I see some stuff in the old files that said we were seriously considering >> there was a request but my understanding and I thought it was in the packet too that they're going to put like a like a big car garage type you know where you get a >> that could be completely >> that could be eliminated from shouldn't it >> I mean it seems to take up another five pages >> yeah I I think there are probably still some opportunities though for three there's still undeveloped land around this airport >> yeah MDOT has a pretty lengthy uh information about, you know, through the fence operations because it, you know, is pretty common at, you know, various airports throughout the state. So, they they would certainly recommend Forest Lake at least just have something in your rules and regulations where in the event somebody does raise it to either council, city staff, or one of the commission members, you can direct them to the rules and regulations for for information. >> Just just adds pages to make an rather unwieldly document, but understood if that's Any other comments on the rules and regulations? >> And we will see them before they go out or >> Yes. >> Yeah, we we'll we'll send them back out as well for for final kind of look at it. Um I apologize. It's just um got a lot of cooks in the kitchen on this one. We want to make sure our zoning folks had a chance, our city attorney had a chance and um got some additional comments from members of the public. So that was great. And um we're trying to address all those and make sure that we don't do sloppy here. We want to get this done, right? So, >> and then kind of just the last item that's kind of still outstanding there is kind of the north hanger lots layout. Um, I apologize. It's the layout is not included in here. Um, but as you know, Commissioner Lynch kind of mentioned, you know, the North Taxi Lane extension kind of north of hangar one, you know, there that site is, you know, ready for four hangers to be built upon. and just uh you know wanted to kind of keep that on everyone's radar that uh you know if if those wanted to be the certain lot sizes that were there or if they wanted to be larger to that variety and then I know there's been discussion about whether those should be designated for commercial use only or general aviation use and I'm not sure if there's been any >> I know there was a couple of interested parties in leasing >> we have had some interest yeah in the mass commercial lots and I I think um unless the airport commission feels differently and I think I just heard Commissioner Lynch say no we want to make sure those are commercial. I you know I we did have an opportunity I've had an opportunity to speak to a couple folks at MIDOT um over the last couple months and just asking them about if there was anything from their end that they cared whether or not we designated and had and is there a need to make some sort of official designation. They didn't seem to think so. Um that is part of what our zoning folks are looking at right now. Is there a city zoning thing we should do to make sure that those are handled in a certain way? And >> I I'd be most concerned about being commercial. You're going to have access from the public road to the hanger. And really the only hangers that have that access road without having to drive on a taxi way, an active taxi way are those those hangers when you come in that road and stay to the right. Um otherwise you have to drive on an active taxi way. And you know we had when when yeah you don't want people driving on an act taxi way that don't aren't familiar with being around aircraft. >> And to my point I think I said at the last meeting is there are three buildings to my knowledge that are commercial buildings but they're uh being leased by a private person. So he or she will have their aircraft in there and it's technically not a commercial business. But if if we ever went down that road and said we could either make these private or commercial and had to reverse it and be a be a be a pain. So we we can uh lease those lots out as commercial to a private individual for his or her aircraft. Sure. >> So I think maybe what we'll do is um Silus and I'll get together and see if there's a way we can kind of maybe at least on the airport layout plan make that designation or you know I think it'd be nice to have it formally somewhere um so that we can set expectations for people coming in. Because the other point I made too is is you had four buildings there in the layout. Uh if we I mean do you advertise that we have lots for the lease or how do you get that out to the public? Because my dream would be some guy come in say or some organizations say I want three lots. I'm going to put up this huge building and have this business, this business and this business. And then that would generate a lot more revenue I think. >> Yeah. I we you know we haven't done uh anything aggressively to market them but I I certainly think that's in our future here and I think that'd be part of what would be nice is to have some sort of formal designation a little drawing that we can put out to the public saying these are commercial lots and commercial lots only and I think it it sets an expectation too for you know someone that comes and puts a commercial lot there that they know that they're not going to be next to a recreational lot right a non-commercial lot that they won't have any issues with it's just like if you buy a house in town, you want to know that you're not going to have a McDonald's next to you. You want to know that you're going to have another house next to you, right? So, same kind of thing. I think so. >> I believe the plan was to advertise it on the website, right? And I I want to say you do have a preliminary >> layout of these lots up there, but >> and I know you've gotten some calls about them already. So, I don't I don't think you'll have an issue with those lots being leased. It's just making sure they're built upon and the required timeline per the per the lease the land lease agreements. >> Mr. Chair, can I can I just comment? I think part of the hesitation to really go out there is to the point that uh Commissioner Lynch made about not having, for lack of a better term, a backage road there or some kind of access there. And so, how do we fund that? We're we're struggling with the airport fund dollars wise it is. Is that a infrastructure fee when we do lease these lots out to these individuals or how we fund it? And once we can figure that out, then I'll be more comfortable really going after because we need to have access to both to everyone's point here. We can't be going through that taxi way. It has to have access to those commercial what what I what I would hope would be commercial lots. >> But the road's already there. It just ends at the dumpster. Right. Right. Just just needs to continue behind those >> just like the water and sewer and electrical and all the utilities would need to continue out. Well, maybe water is water and sewer already out there. I think fire hydrants out there. Water and sewer out there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. >> And to the mayor's point, we can certainly add that to the CIP and request state funds for that if that's a decision that, you know, commission wants to make and then we can get council recommendation on the CIP. >> You know, it might be worth putting on there and putting it separate because it is associated with those commercial hangers. They might, the state might be more inclined to score that higher. um you know and that we're trying to get commercial operations out at our our our airport. Um so yeah, I would I would put that on the CIP as a maybe it's a separate item or >> it's on there, but it's it was pushed back a number of years to kind of get the uh the other priority high-profile projects completed with the runway extension, taxway extension, >> apron expansion. But if those three projects move forward, Sure. Then you're really looking at some of these other, you know, uh, projects further away from the runway that, you know, Forest Lake can request state funding for, which would be at a, you know, smaller dollar cost and these major improvements proposed for next year. Any other kind of questions or comments? >> No, I think we're making progress. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. We have item um 7B which is just my staff report. Um just ran running through a few issues. Uh we have an adjacent development. I just thought the airport commission should know about it. Um it's already quite a ways through the process. It's um sort of a mixture of um what you might call man caves or uh you know these sort of uh condo garage condos that are becoming more popular. And uh there will be a a separate sort of carve off for a a commercial site um sort of a light industrial type of site or or small commercial business and then um some just sort of uh mini storage type functions. There will be notably there is a an area that is slated right now um still kind of a little bit of a debate about it but um for some outside storage that would be adjacent to the airport. Um it's sort of But that violates the zoning of that uh the type of property. >> It does not necessarily um >> Oh. >> And so I think we we're working through that. Okay. In the zoning code, it's it's a planning and development, so there's some flexibility there. Um it's it'll be a fairly small area and it will be screened and all that kind of stuff. >> Um we I think the city council and the planning commission found it to be um somewhat appropriate just in the fact that it'll be back out of the way for most folks. Um, you know, it might be a hanger or two that might have to look at it, but for the most part, it won't be visible. >> Oh, this is over behind as you follow over the dumpster. It's kind of behind to the right there of that that farm field. >> Correct. >> And don't most garage condos have a fence around them with a lockable gate. >> Yeah, it'll certainly be fenced to just whether or not it'll be opaque screen fence. So, we'll we'll work with that. We'll make sure there's some plantings and stuff, too, to help screen it as well. >> You think they'll be great neighbors? >> I think so, too. Yeah. Um, fuel dispensing issues. We, you know, please let me know if you have any um issues with the the credit card system on our fueling. We've had a handful of complaints over the last few months and every time we get a complaint, we go out there and we we do it ourselves. We take a credit card and run a gallon of gas and nothing goes wrong for us. And so, it's very we've been having trouble troubleshooting. >> I've never had a problem with >> Yeah. Uh, and I, you know, sometimes >> I think sometime, you know, you put in the amount of gallons that you intend to dispense and then it hits my credit card with that initially, but then I think it adjusts down. And so maybe they're they're seeing that they're they're thinking they're getting build for 50 gallons when they only put in 35. >> I think you're correct. I think that is part of the issue. Maybe we just need to have a little maybe a set of instructions out there as to >> what's going on. But, um, if you can help me troubleshoot, that's good information. >> I'll I'll keep uh I'll keep an eye on it. Next time I fill up >> um fuel pricing, we we're back to I think a competitive price. We got a new vendor there and um it's working out great. >> We're we're just to be clear, we're we're still doing the same markup we have always done or not always but for the last several years. It's just we got a new vendor that's more competitively priced. >> Um we did uh have a grant fund audit. Um the MIDOT folks came out to make sure that we're all the things we're getting grant money for that we're actually doing. They looked at the um Silus and myself and Dave Adams met with them and you know they looked at the um uh extension of utilities out for those commercial lots and um some of the other stuff there and then also just looked at our maintenance logs and that kind of stuff. So um just so everyone knows that they do come out and look and they want to make sure that we're doing what we're said we're going to do. Um the uh operation and maintenance grant reimbursement is uh going along swingingly. We've got um someh hasn't hit the books yet because they haven't given us our money back yet, but we're well on our way there thanks to our new finance director. And um got a a waiting list. We got a number of inquiries over the last few months for vacant lots or vacant hanger space and we're going to be revisiting that I think at the next meeting in terms of what we do about that waiting list in terms of >> and if you want I mean there are organizations that meet regularly of aircraft owners of different types and things and if you want to get word out there I would think you get a lot of interest u there's folks at an NOA that um an NOA and Crystal that are are far more expensive to be at. So, I mean, let me know when you get to that stage and I can make some suggestions. >> We can certainly talk ahead of the next meeting. >> Um, as I mentioned, we do still have some ongoing conversations with people interested in the commercial lots. Um, and we think we can um hopefully in the next few months get to something um real for you to look at there. And then finally, I think we've already talked about the airport rules and regulations. So, um, with that, I take any other questions about any of the operations at the airport. >> The only other comment I'd make is this. We had a list of people wanting to build hangers, and we had some people that have a hanger lot, at least right now, that don't build or would would not like to build. Can we put the two of them together and see they can't come to an agreement? >> I think that'd be an excellent way to approach it. Yep. >> And of those three lots, you you've spoken with those? >> I have. We did communicate with them. They all sort of similar sentiment that they still intend to build and they're getting to it. >> But I think we do need to probably >> put a little bit of parameters on that and say, you know, the lease says two years that was five years ago. >> Yes, absolutely. More than five years ago, probably over >> some of them some of them not quite as much as the others, but >> anyway, but yes. Okay, good. It's good that >> So, we we do intend to bring that issue to a head and move on with our lives because there is interest in those lots and it's a shame to see them sit empty. Yes, >> Mr. Mayor. Anything? >> Um, no, just a a couple comments on some of the conversation here tonight. First off, thanks for your service here and um your willingness to uh serve on the board, this board. Um, I I understand the concern about, you know, that if the if this extension goes forward, these grants go forward, that the idea of increasing lease lots to compensate for some of that, make up for some of that those dollars. Um, but you know, I think if we can get these other three online with property taxes, we get more fuel sales, which sounds like it's happening right there, and these other three commercial lots, if there was an increase to those to those um uh lots, it's not going to be significant and it's not going to be a special assessment or anything like the past where we at city actually went in and charged people special assessments for the overrun on the on the airport on the uh paving of the airport. So, um, the concern I I think what the concern was going to be for the council is if we're going into decision and all of a sudden, um, we've been challenged with you might have some legal issues, it's going to be hard for this council to make that decision. We really want to take this grant money and and expand the airport and make it safer, but if if it all of a sudden that the dialogue is you might end up with some legal issues, it's going to be hard for that council to support it. I'm just speaking for myself, but I have a feeling that that I won't be the only one that will have those concerns. So, if there's some things that we can talk about amongst staff and and and legal to get that so that everyone's comfortable with it, a majority, I think that would be helpful for the for for this to move forward. >> Yeah, we may we may want to facilitate some of those conversations before put in front of the council. I know Mindot is waiting for us to get back to them, but they've been pretty um accommodating for us. Again, I think if you were to put together a full accounting, including all the property taxes for the past 10 years, your spreadsheet comes out very differently. >> And that might be part of what the dialogue should be is just a better accounting. So, thank you for that. >> Other than that, that's all I have unless you have any questions for me, city, any city questions or anything related. No, >> I just think that $8,000 if we worked to sell more fuel, get those lots leased, um bring in the revenue that we get from property taxes, I I think that's doable. I think if the city's willing to give a 20-year loan with no interest for $8,000, I I think that's I think that you know, we have to be in market market value the same comparable to what our airports is. So, whatever if we go by that index, that's one thing. That's that's what we've done historically and that's why I' personally I'd like to see us do. Um, but if we have to increase it, it's going to be what market rate is in name airports. I'm not I can't see us just jacking it up just to make up for this. That's not the intent here at all. >> Thank you. Joe, you have anything? >> I don't. >> Mark, anything else? >> I'm good. Thanks. >> Um, I don't have anything else. A motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> We are adjourned at 6:55.