[Music] Uh, I think it's 6 PM. We will call to order the meeting of the July 10th Forest Lake Airport Commission. Um, Mark, would you take the role? >> Yes. Commissioner Lynch >> here. Commissioner Steeler >> here. >> Commissioner Mson here. >> Commissioner Bane >> here. and we will uh open the meeting with open forum as always. If anyone wants to step to the mic and say whatever they want to say, it's uh open. We'll >> Mr. Chair, I believe we have two members signed up. So, >> Oh, we do have people signed up. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Doug Ship, 9753 Howard Lake Drive, Forest Lake. I operate multiple aircraft from hangar number nine at Forest Lake Airport. And my concern tonight that I bring is uh involving grounds groundskeeping, grounds maintenance at our airport. There's tall grass between the taxi way and the runway sufficient that it can hide wildlife and it's actually becoming an attractant. Um, I know it's difficult to maintain that area due to rainfall and how wet it gets down there. I walked the whole distance this afternoon. In fact, I saw the city had a crew out on Alpha 2 today, and I'm not sure what their purpose was, if they were assessing that area to see if it was too wet to get into and maintain or not. I I wasn't able to catch them and and talk to him about it, but uh I walked it after they had left and the whole way I I used these shoes and I never got wet. I never got muddy. The whole place in my opinion is able to be mowed. And I think just a simple recurring maintenance on it, it doesn't have to be weekly. It could be three times a summer perhaps, just to keep it short enough so deer don't are not encouraged to bed in there. I counted 12 deer beds as I zigzagged through the whole area. And the only area that I found was too wet to get a mower on, in my opinion, was the last 12 feet to the southeast near Alpha 2. There's a culvert there. And there's a little bit of water pulled. The deer aren't going to bed down there anyway, and it's only about 12 feet. I feel a whole lot safer having a 12-oot patch of six foot tall weeds than not knowing when they're going to dart out. And it's not so much for me, it's for the deer. When they get startled, it's anybody's guess which way they're going to run. And if they can see me, they're less likely to run out in front of a operating airplane. And some of the stuff we fly has 100 mph approach speeds and that would be a bad day running into a large animal like that in a pit special. And I just think it's kind of a liability that could be very easily managed without too much effort involved. And we can work around rainfall. And right now I would have no issues taking my zero turn out into that area. And those get stuck really easy, but I know I would not get stuck out there because I walked the whole thing today. And the drainage tiles that I did discover, I I stepped on two of them as I was going through there. Neither one of them had standing water in the pipe. I could see a foot down into them and there wasn't anything in them for water. And so that is working. That system is working well as it's was designed to do. But uh if we can get the grass maintained, I think it would be a whole lot safer for everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My mic's really loud. Is that just me being close to it or >> I think so. Yeah, I think you're >> So, Mark, I assume you took some notes there. Maybe let Dave Adams know. And >> I I did, Mr. Chair. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um, we have number two on our list. >> Hi, name's Richard Islandfeld, 9021 167th Lane over in Columbus. I fly out of Forest Lake. Plane stored over there. Just reiterating him. Um, I don't know how many of you are flying lately. I know some of you are working on planes and all that, but um I I just suggest to go out and do a good ground walk. Um I know that new holding pond or there's brush. It's not grass. I would assume it's supposed to be grass around that. >> Well, it's it's not grass. It's it's brush. And I think the brush won't let the grass grow because it's so tall. No, I was out there cutting grass with my lawnmower, which is a old Ford tractor. I had grass yay far over the hood and the creatures you seen jumping out of there. Um, just a safety thing. I know a couple years ago I came in, the grass was tall between the runway and the main taxi way. Everything looked good. I came in, a flock of ge geese came out of there. They were above me and below me. How I didn't hit one, I have no idea. And at 40 feet off the ground, I don't have a whole lot of options. So, if something could be done, like you said, maybe three times a year or something. So, I guess that's my safety concern is the wildlife. And if you ever go out there in the evening, it's a nice place to go for walks. A lot of coyotes, a lot of deer. You'll see everything out there. And it's constantly right around the runway in that area. So, Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I got one housekeeping meeting. I was asked by uh the EAA chapter president that they got movie night at the airport uh Saturday. So, they're going to show Top Gun July 12th starting at dusk. and he made the comment that he did come to a city uh rather a airport commission meeting I think last summer and made mention there's two events the airport flyin and then this movie night and he told me something else that I thought was pretty uh fascinating is he said he had 11,000 followers that said that thumbs up on it I don't think we get 11,000 people out there but uh he said he had confirmation for 200 plus that we're going to show up so they're going to have popcorn they're going to have some vending type Uh uh. So I guess if you're interested for a free movie or a $10 donation, he just wanted me to let you guys know that >> Saturday night covered everything. >> Good point. And that's on Saturday. Is that Saturday? Yep. At dusk. Anyone else with the open forum? No, we will close the open forum and we will move on to agenda number four, approval of some meeting minutes. Um, we'll kind of go through one at a time. Um, the first being the airport commission meeting minutes from October 2nd of 2024. We t must have tabled that because there weren't enough people here. I don't remember, but that's probably why. Uh, so do we have a are there any changes or addition to the meeting minutes of October 2nd that any >> uh Mr. Chair, I did read the minutes. I believe they're correct as written. Therefore, I'll make a move to accept them as written. >> We have a motion. Second. >> We have a second from Curtis. Uh, I think it's a non-debatable motion. Anybody Everybody in favor of uh passing the meeting minutes from October 2nd say I. I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? tomorrow. I didn't hear. Was you right? >> You did. Okay. I didn't hear you. All right. So, meeting minutes from October second have been approved. Um the airport commission special meeting of March 5th, 2025. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second. Um all in favor of approving the minutes from March 5th, say I. I >> and I'll abstain because I wasn't at that meeting. >> Have one abstension. So those are approved. The next are the rules and regulations steering committee meeting minutes of July 11th. And I had one um noted change. So when I went to this meeting, I was under the understanding it was a steering committee meeting only. Correct. >> But it was actually open to the public. >> Yeah. All all meetings are open to the public. Any meeting Oh, they are any public body. Yep. Is always open to >> I didn't know how that worked because I I thought it was Okay. So that was my only question on that. Um >> if airport commission people came to that meeting, would it be considered a quorum? >> Uh yes. And we and we uh typically have a a generic note. um that any commission or uh committee meetings there may be a quorum of any other committee or commission or city council. So we kind of pre-post that as a potential for a quorum. >> So it would be acceptable if I wish to attend as >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. We we always appreciate a heads up just so we in in case we you know we can proactively uh post that as if we don't have it already. But generally I think we have that covered. >> Was it posted? >> It was I don't it was certainly posted as a public meeting. Um whether or not it was posted as a quorum of the >> airport commission, I don't know, but we didn't end up having a quorum of >> No, I know we didn't. People had asked afterwards where it was posted and I I didn't know. >> Yeah, it it's it's generally posted like any other um meeting. So, >> okay. Is it recorded like every meeting? >> Not necessarily. No, there's there's no legal requirement to record it. Um but uh legal requirement to post it and have it be open to the public. >> Okay. Anyway, um and is there a motion to approve and and this would be by the steering committee, uh members, a motion to approve the minutes from the June 11th steering committee meeting. >> Um Mr. Chair, you know, I I think you I suppose raised a good point. Uh generally meeting minutes are approved by the body that um was meeting. uh and put them in front of you to you know I suppose we could just not take action on them and have them as an FYI for the this committ commission >> perhaps that's the right >> course of action because yeah okay so let's let's just we'll do that so um we'll pass on the approval of those minutes uh let's move on to regular agenda item number five um election of officers Mark I'll let you >> yeah Mr. Chair, last time we we tabled this uh item, which we normally do at the first meeting of the of the year. Um we tabled it because we didn't have a full committee. Unfortunately, Mr. uh Chairman or Commissioner Gellimer was not available today either. Um I did speak with him on the phone today and asked him if he was interested in being any of those officers. He didn't express a a particular interest. Um so it's up to you if you'd like to proceed with the election of the three officers or if you want to table it again and continue on with um the existing position >> and existing right now chair I think Curtis's vice chair and do we have a secretary? >> That's a good question >> and I don't know that we >> well who who did the notes that we're reading today? We have we have a third party minute taker that does those options. >> Is is that an option for the secretary? >> Um yeah. Yes. And I I think we're only electing a secretary quite frankly because the the um city code says we should um we don't the duties of the secretary I would have a tough time explaining what what those are. >> Um I I my feeling would be this is a very quick item but I think Joe should be here. And uh so I'd rather just table this till Joe's present if that's okay. If nobody has any problem with that, we'll just table um election of officers until we have a meeting where everyone is here. Uh regular agenda item B, review of fuel pricing policy. >> Yeah, Mr. chair. Um, I know we received some feedback from a number of people on the the price of our fuel recently and you know, if you Google airport fuel prices, you can quickly see that we're um, you know, a dollar a solid dollar or better above most folks. Um, so I did some investigating, called around six, seven different airports around us, talked to our public works director who handles that. um just talked to I actually ended up talking with our existing fuel supplier. Um learned a lot about uh the the recent goings on in the the world of airport fuel. Um in summary, our existing uh fuel provider sort of got squeezed out of the market um about 12- 18 months ago. Um and I could go into detail about that, but it's it's here nor there. um he's having to ship it from Chicago. The cost of that is adding the dollar plus a gallon that we're paying more than a lot of folks around us who have since found an alternative source. And so, um you know, even our current supplier acknowledged that he just it he would love to supply us with cheaper fuel, but he just can't the the market the the way the market works, he can't do that. And so, um, it's staff's recommendation that we would, uh, move forward with going with a different supplier, the one that I think Princeton and Rush City are both using. I think it's in the memo there. It talks about, uh, >> talked about world fuel. Yeah. And, >> um, so they're apparently getting it on rail car up to somewhere St. Paul or somewhere and reducing that, you know, shipping cost. And so, um, we are confident we can at least lower our price by a dollar or so. There was some question around whether or not we're the price difference is because we're marking it up uh more than other folks. I think as you can see from my memo um we're not the lowest markup, but we're not the highest and we're you know I think our >> Oh, I think we're the highest price by far. >> Sure. But the markup uh that we provide um depending on what what what your base price is because we operate on a percentage our markup is probably a bit higher than others right now. But if we lower it by a dollar, dollar50, our markup will be in line with the top people. We can certainly consider lowering the markup as well, but again that I think we're going to be right in the ballpark of most other places if we just simply get a different supply. I >> I think we need to be in the ballpark of other a lot of our fuel sales is not from people at Forest Lake. It's people at Anoka. Anoka Chargers has always charged a ton and you've got a few hundred planes over there and when they're coming home they stop at Princeton, they stop at Forest Lake, they stop at Oyola or New Richmond, but nobody's going to stop at Forest Lake when we're $2.50 higher than everybody else. Um, so I mean when we look at that those past numbers that I mean that's just something to keep in mind. Yes. And I don't know if you've talked to Dan on them because I know Dan had to work with times where he paid more for fuel and maybe they've got to take a lower margin because they got to price competitively the tanks go down then they fill them up at the lower price and then you make a higher profit at the you know I I don't know that the airport commission needs to get into the minutia of that kind of price. We never did with Dan and he made five to 10 grand a year profit in fuel sales. So I I don't my feeling is >> Yeah. And even even last year when I believe we were still probably higher, we did end up making I don't know 8 to10,000. So >> yeah, >> you know, >> I'm not going to go into economics, you know, about >> I understand Walmart and do low volume or high volume, low price or if you want to be high price, low volume. >> I think we always got to be competitive. >> I think it would it's nice to be competitive. Let's put it that way. And I think that it's a good service to our our people here and it's a good attraction for uh other folks to come and see our airport. And so I think it's it's wise. Uh so again, staff's recommendation is to find a different supplier, stick with our current markup um scenario and see how things go and see if we can't get a competitive price. Um unless the this is a bit of an FYI or that's why I said review of fuel price policy. I'm not necessarily asking for any action today. Um unless the board felt strongly about our markup policy and wanted to change that, >> I would leave that completely up to you. I mean that that's I kind of as the as airport manager I mean I know I realize you got a lot on your plate now until we assign somebody as a specific airport manager but that's kind of part of their their job and and we've kind of got a I won't say the bar is set at 8 to 10 grand a year profits and it's certainly your first year you don't you're not familiar with this stuff at all but after a year down the road I I kind of expect we get back to that level that we are making that kind of money at our fuel pumps. Um so um whatever you feel is in the best interest of the city in terms of both uh profits and bringing people to our airport, I I think you you always have to go back to the a comprehensive plan of of wanting to bring people to our city. And uh that's always the kind of the base of of everything. And right now at at $6.73, we're not bringing anybody here. >> So okay. So, we don't need to vote on anything or make any motions or do anything. >> Members of the commission, >> nobody feels strongly that we need to do anything. It's in it's in the city administrator's hands. >> The thing they've done in the past with a fixed markup like that is if we bought fuel cheap and we just did the 23% or whatever that percentage was, then we would sell out really quick. Then you'd buy the next 10,000 gallons or whatever at the higher price, use the same markup, and we'd sit on that fuel forever. Every pilot out there, in my opinion, is going to jump on a an iPad app and where the cheapest fuel is, fly there. >> It's no different than when you drive your car home and you know what Lo's is, you know what holiday is, you're going to the cheapest one. So, we all all the pilots know. So, okay. Anybody anything else on this subject? We'll we'll move right on. Um uh item C, review of land lease rate adjustment procedures. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, uh this item is on your agenda, not because I intend to recommend that we change the land leases today. As many of you know, a number of our leases uh require that us that we only adjust the leases on the even years and we do that in March. Um, what I wanted to do is just sort of bring forward what I researched and um, found to be the past practices here. And I want to make sure that I understand as a new airport manager here. Um, want to make sure I'm on the same page as the as the board here in terms of how we want to approach land leases so that we have a solid recommendation going to the council for that when it comes March of 2026. And so we're not scrambling at that point. Um, so as I read through the memo that Christina put together in 2024, it was a bit unclear to me as to whether or not the leases are clear that we examine the price in the March of the even year, but it wasn't clear if we then adjust that price for the July bill or do we adjust it for the July next year bill? And that might be question one is and and I'll tell you what we did. uh last year we uh sent a bill out in July with the adjusted price from March of that year. So that's what I would intend to do going forward. >> I'll give you my thoughts because I did read Christina's note. I was not at that meeting. U so I I wasn't involved with Christina and that but I have been involved with Dan Unum in the previous even years. Uh the CPI is is the right index to uh index the price change to. Um, I understand there's some discrepancy of whether it's an annual change and a 12 per the 12-month change in CPI or CPI or do it as a bianial change with a 24month percentage change in the CPI. And I'm I'm personally I'm fine with either one of those. It really doesn't make a difference. It's a matter of what's easier for the city. I think what because Dan Undom would typically just come to the meeting on that even number year with the two numbers and the calculated percentage and sometimes there was some disagreement over his calculations. So we'd sit here with our calculators and find out if we agree with this percentage and if we did that would pass in March and that would apply to the July is that right? Yeah, it would apply to the July bill that got sent out to us. So, personally, I don't care if this city wants to do it every year. If it's easier for the city to do it bianually, every two years, and it's a 24month, you know, CPI um rate change, I don't I don't have it doesn't make a difference. I can't imagine it's going to make >> if you did it every year, you'd violate my contract because it says it has to be done on an even year >> and and that's my suggestion would be the even year, decide what it's going to be, that even year, the odd year, then the next year you look at it again. I would agree with you, sir. I I think um >> that's how I read the contracts. Some of the not all the leases say that, but many of them do. And then and I I want to respect that. Uh what I want to make sure we do is do that calculation right. And I feel like we didn't do it right last time. >> It wasn't done right. >> Right. And so, uh again, because we're setting it for 24 months, we really need to look at a 24 month >> and we only looked at 12. Exactly. >> Right. Right. So, we're really only getting half of what we should have gotten. Um, the other thing you can do is just simply look back historically. That's the beauty of an index. It's not a percentage year by year. It's a an index number like the Dow Jones Industrials. Um, and so you can go back to any point in time. And we started our leases in 2008, 9 somewhere in there. You can go back to that point, come right up to the present time and simply do the math on that and get to a spot. the the rough numbers that I came up with was that we should be closer to 13 cents a square foot instead of I think we're at 117 11.7 um you know it didn't it doesn't amount to I mean it's less than $100 difference in your rent um but so that's generally I just wanted to get that out there in front of the commission >> if that's what you calculate for the what we would have done in March so that's for the July bill then then send that out with the July bill >> and then well that would because now we're on an odd number year. >> Yeah. So, I'm this is what I'm telling is I'm going to do this in March of 2026. So, about eight 10 months from now, whatever it is. >> Yeah. >> That this is my intent is I will use the CPI to catch us up to the current time based on what we started at in 2008 2009. And that would put us to around 13 cents a you know, obviously it'll be another year of data at that point, but should put us around 13 cents a square foot. And I think what was it around $900? >> I I I >> $936 for a the typical 7200 foot lease. Um would be what what the the rate quote unquote should be, I would say. >> Okay. I I I guess so. So So that'll come up in March of 26. So if you can put all those numbers together really well when we have that meeting so we can and everybody will understand it. Yeah, that that'll be good. >> And so I want to make an announcement to the public, the hangar owning public is that your July bill will now I wanted to have this meeting just in case there was any major discrepancies. Uh I thought, you know, the timing works out, let's just hold off on your bills. So we have not sent the normally we would have sent your bills out a couple weeks ago. I thought let's just hold off. So >> tomorrow uh we'll get the bills rolling out for this July and it will still be what we decided last year because that's the second year of a two-year >> right >> deal. So, >> and something to think about with that because I know we are required to have the city of Forest Lake as a like listed on our insurance. And typically I I never know who to send that to. I usually email somebody and say, "Can I scan it and email?" I I don't know if if you guys send out an envelope with that bill and we can just put that in with it or or if you give us an email as to who to send our proof of insurance to >> would be worth put some some kind of note on there so that sounds like a great idea. Everybody knows where. >> Yeah. The the language in my lease says it's got to be paid on July 1st or before. >> So, am I in violation of my lease right now? >> I I mean I I'm aware >> technically yes, >> I'm aware of that issue and we we have had some hanger owners call and ask and and I appreciate that that phone call, but yeah, of course, we're not going to hold anyone that hasn't been invoiced to account for that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um so, we don't need to make any motions to that effect on anything there. So, we'll just move on to the engineers reports. Silus. >> Thank you, Commissioner Steeler. Appreciate the opportunity to present to the commission here. Uh, first on the list is the the bids for the runway and taxiway 300 foot extension. So, as everyone here is aware, the current runway length 1331 is 2700 ft long. As we went through the master plan study, we identified, you know, a future extension of 300 feet to get out to 3,000 ft. And that's pretty much going to be the extent of the any runway extension at Forest Lake just due to some constraints, you know, with the Highway 61 and Fenway Boulevard to the north. Um, so we've been having conversations with Mindad about that project since January of last year. they agreed it was a good project to move forward because they saw the need uh for Forest Lake to to achieve an extension of the runway just considering the number of aircraft based here and the number of operations. So we opened bids on the project on June 18th and there were two bid schedules for the project. There's a base bid which is for the runway 300T extension and then a bid alternate for the associated taxiway a 300 foot extension to continue serving as a full parallel. And that was done at the request of Mandot just to keep since they have to fund each project separately, we need to keep kind of cost for them separate as well just in the event that you know they run out of funding for uh the entire amount of the project. So the low bidder for the project was Forest Lake Contracting um with a total bid amount of uh $987,000. So pretty favorable bids here received. The engineers estimate that you can see there was 1.1 you know75 million. So total project cost including construction engineering and then coordination with XL Energy. Um if they do decide to lower kind of their power poles off of 30 off the runway 31N. Uh we're looking at a total project cost of 1,297,010. So, I'll pause there if anyone has questions about the bids before I talk about funding with Mindot. Um, is it possible to do you have the plans available to pull up on the screen when we get there? I I will have a question on the plans when we get there that you and I had traded emails on. I just wanted to if if Mark has it available at to pull up when you get there, but >> yeah. And I can verbally describe because you know some of the members of the public brought up I think a similar issue that Commissioner Steeler is trying to avoid is that for the for the extension in between the runway and the taxiway kind of in the infield area there to meet the Rice Creek wershed district storm water retention requirements there there is going to be another infiltration kind of pond there. So, Commissioner Steeler raised a good point is, hey, we need to make sure this is, you know, designed correctly so that you don't get standing water there. So, as members of the public mentioned, the city is is able to maintain. So, I'm confident in the design that's put forth there where there's drain tile in the bottom and then there's also a covert outlet where in the event that you do get a heavy rainfall event where the drain tile is running at capacity where it's not able to effectively and efficiently discharge the storm water. There's a culvert that's about a foot above grade that will um divert any drainage in the area there out to the west and into kind of the existing drainage network there. So, I'm hopeful. You can kind of get a picture from uh my explanation there, but Commissioner Steeler, if we were able to pull the plans up, I think that would But my concern was a safety concern of an elevation change uh from from the edge of the runway of 930 ft. 61 to the bottom of the pit of 923.1, a difference of seven and a half feet elevation. >> Correct. And the >> that's what I was concerned about the the safety of an aircraft being on a runway and coming into land and we we've had uh pilots bring this issue before us before right Mara of of much lesser differences of three or four feet and now we've got seven and a half feet that that was a bigger I mean the the water issue and and the that's a concern too but it's really that that seven and a half foot. >> Yeah certainly. So the design does meet kind of FAA, you know, design criteria for grading off the edge of the runway. So the the runway safety area width is 150 ft wide. So essentially 75 ft left or right, you can't have more than a 5% grade change. So the project is designed so from the edge of pavement for an additional 37 1/2 ft. It's relatively flat, a 5% grade change. Thereafter what the design says is you could go up to a 25% slope but for this particular project you know we wanted to maximize it at 20%. So it's a balancing game because so much volume of storm water needs to be retained and then we also want to keep minimize the slope as much as possible. So it is about a six to1 slope you know uh from the runway safety area down to the bottom of the infiltration basin as commissioner Steeler has identified. Um, >> it's up. >> Oh. Oh, we have it up now. >> Yep. >> Uh, that's I think that's a different >> I don't, but everybody else >> I do. >> Um, so that's that's a different page in the report though. Well, is that in the same plans what he's got up there? >> Yeah, that's that's that's just the the project layout for the clear zone acquisition plan. It's the construction plans with >> Yeah, that So, this was in today's packet, but the the packet today did not include the PDF of the full drawings, but um anyway, um I just I just my my concern is is the city having to address concerns down the road. And that's I was hoping to head that off. Um, I know there's ways that could be filled in with some kind of a culvert system in there to make so there's no slope there, very little slope there at it cost money, I'm sure, but there's there's alternative ways of designing that that interior area. Um, but if if you're satisfied and if the city's satisfied because and and Mara has experience in this, you can tell me, Mara, do you think the city's going to hear about it? >> I think you're um I mean, I think you're expressing concerns that you've probably heard. Yes. Um I wasn't prepared. I guess I wasn't I we're in the final. We're beyond Are we beyond the design phase? I'm a little um I guess I was expecting this to be more of like a final like we're ready to accept bids because the specs have gone to contractors with these current specs. So is there even any >> room to change like make design consideration changes? Right now >> there still is. I mean we still don't have a construction contract with the contractor and even in the event construction hasn't started yet. or if there are any requested revisions, you know, we can certainly review those and see if there are any options to uh to address any of the airport commission's concerns. >> As you hear those concerns, what like what are what are options for? So during the design phase kind of knowing you know with the history that you know myself and Bolton and M have here and knowing some of the concerns that came about with when the runway and taxiway were paved you know we did explore multiple options of where else could we put in a infiltration basin. Now, unfortunately, you don't want to put it off of the approach of a runway, which because that has to be graded to certain sta standards as well for safety in the event of uh aircraft landing short or sliding off the runway. So, we couldn't put it there. Further to the east, there's there is another infiltration basin that's being constructed kind of uh essentially over the the one that was constructed for the uh the taxiway connector project and that's getting expanded to accommodate the storm water drainage. Further to the west of the runway is a wetland. So there's not capacity there to uh install another infiltration basin. So unfortunately just with the the land constraints and the wetlands around the site, there isn't anywhere else to put in an infiltration basin that can meet the watershed district storm water retention requirements. >> But does it have to be a a pit of a basin? Can it can it be, you know, a concrete structure and underneath it? It drains into that. So essentially the the ground is level but the water still filtrates down into the the culvert system whatever you have down below. In other words you don't have a pit. It does the same thing but it's just flat on top. >> Yeah certainly I understand. It's just the cost constraint then to to construct something like that would be significantly more than what the amount of funding that was available for the project. So the design that's put forth has some backup measures like I mentioned the culvert that's about a foot and a half I think it's like 18 in above the basin grade so that if the basin does fill up with storm water there is a secondary outlet. So but I don't think that's the concern that the commission has. It's just the the grades but the grades do meet you know FAA airport design uh standards. There is I know it's only 37 and a2 ft but the safety area width here for the category of runway is 150 ft wide and I can assure you that those grades will >> I think that's the important thing to put in the minutes is that uh per silus it meets the FAA guidelines the slopes meet the guidelines in the event it's raised in the future >> how different is the slope for this part this um proposed phase from what is current is it are we is it drastically different and more severe or is it more of this this will look function operate with similar slopes of what's there currently. >> So the so on the northern half of the existing runway kind of from tagaway connector alpha 2 that that is a flat bottom infiltration basin for about 2,000 ft. So after you get past the 150 foot wide runway safety area that basin goes down at a 4 to one and then it's a flat bottom but it's a you know probably about a two twoft drop I think in that in that regard. This one's a little a little steeper than that for the for the elevation. Correct. No, no. Like elevation wise it goes down. >> I can't remember the exact number of footage from when you get to the edge of the shoulder down, >> but the It's not steeper. It's just deeper. >> Yes, deeper. Correct. >> Thank you. Administrator stats, >> can we just get a visual of >> Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm looking for You sent me this plan at some point, Silus. >> Yeah, I did. Um He would have sent it probably to me in an email and copied you on. >> Yeah, I apologize. I don't have my back on June 4th, maybe around about that time. If >> And so the impact how so the impact of being deeper but not steeper is what? >> Well, I I to me looking at it, it it was steeper. I mean, the the airplanes are tricycles. A lot of I mean, not the most stable if you're on an uneven surface and the center of gravity is auto to the nose. So, you get off on a surface and it's not hard for it to to flip. Um, that's the concern. Um, but like say if if the slopes meet FAA guidelines, then the city's got nothing to be concerned about. >> So, within the runway safety area beyond the edge of pavement, you can't have steeper than a 5% slope. Once you get beyond the runway safety area, the maximum allowed is 25% a 4 to one. So this one is shallower than that. >> Correct? >> Yes. >> I just steep. >> No, understand and a 4:1 is a steep slope. No doubt about it. But again, you know, this probably six, seven years ago, Bolton and Bank was asked to review the previous uh consulting firm's design. And again, it that design did meet FAA design uh criteria. >> It did meet >> it did. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. I don't need to cover any more on the subject. I think it's it's in the minutes properly. The the city administrator has heard it. If it is brought to his attention by someone at a later time, you you you know what we're talking about. Correct. >> So, yeah, I'll let you go on. >> Yeah. >> And on this topic, the just back to the whole the whole point is to meet the water retention requirements, right? Or the water treatment requirements and the the challenge is the location options available to do so. >> Correct. >> Great. Okay. >> Any other questions? kind of about just the project before I kind of get into funding. All right. So, after we open bids, so we have not uh brought anything back to council yet because we wanted to discuss it with with airport commission and MINDOT. So, we've submitted uh grant requests for state fiscal 26. So, the state fiscal year starts July 1 and runs through June 30th. So, they're currently operating in a state fiscal year 26. Um, last week, uh, city administrator received an email from Mindot that they're a little bit delayed in announcing the the their funding, uh, sorry, the projects that would receive funding in their state fiscal 26. So, right now, we're still waiting to determine, you know, if MDOT has funding for both the runway and the taxiway extension project. The other thing that's changed is that I apologize for the error in the memo, but Mindot also lowered their funding participation rate for state fiscal 26 when they released their funding uh memo in May. So last year and previous years, MDOT was funding projects at a 95% share. They've unfortunately lowered that to 90% for this year. But where that complicates thing is that city council last year, you know, budgeted $70,000 for this project, assuming a 5% local share for a $ 1.4 million project. Well, right now with the the local share doubling, even though bids did come in a little less than expected, the the local share required for this project is $129,71. So I think the discussion that I've had with city administrator is well let's see you know which projects Mindot has funding for and then have that discussion with uh with council whether they can find you know the the additional funding to cover the project. But what uh you know what if everything goes forward we're anticipating construction probably starting right after Labor Day with uh construction being completed in November. Uh but the project also allows a contractor to the option to complete the project in 2026 because the the specifications say they need to complete construction in the same year which they start. So if there's any concern about the contractor not completing work in 25, they'll do it in 26. >> And Mr. Chair, if I could just add a little bit of context to the budgetary issues here. So again, as as um Silus mentioned, um we had planned for a $70,000 cost here. So we got good news and bad news. We good news, the bids came in lower. So um you know, 1.4 is now 1.29 or so or so. Um but bad news is 5% went to 10%. So net of those two, good news, bad news is that instead of 70,000, we need 129,000. Um the airport fund does not have $129,000 in it. It has 85,000 or so. Um so we would be in the red in the airport fund if we were to do this project and pay our share this year. Um that being said that the council has the authority and and if they have the will to take that fund into the red they you know there's it's part of a larger pool of money, right? Um so what I would ask this board tonight to do would be to consider whether or not um you would recommend to the city council that we move forward with the project or not based on the availability of funds and weighing all the things in terms of um the the good bids we've received and the timing of this project and the importance of this project and all that kind of stuff. and give the council your honest and and best um opinion on whether or not this is prudent at this time. I think you know the silus can talk to a little bit more but the mindot funding I don't want to say it's always there but as you can see it it sometimes fluctuates there's nothing stopping them from tomorrow saying funding will go back to 95% there's nothing stopping them from saying it'll go down to 80%. We've been at both of those spots historically, right before. >> Correct. Historically, funding was 80% state, 20% local. >> Yep. And then for the last few years, it's been at 95. So you there is no like hard fast rule to say it's a bit of a dice roll here. So um that's the decision we have to make as a as a board and give a recommendation to the council for them to make the ultimate decision. What I would ask is whatever motion you make tonight uh understand that it's contingent on MDOT funding the project through there. >> Mara, you had something. >> Is it un um unusual that when MIDOT makes these adjustments that it's done so so immediately and without consideration for projects already in flight or projects that are already contemp contemplated in progress? This just seems like a very abrupt change. Was there some explanation on why that why the adjustment? And I just want to make sure there's not some consideration for projects that are in process. Yeah, I had a lengthy discussion with the MINDOT aeronautics director Ryan Gog about how essentially city government works and that a change like this is going to be significant not just for Forest Lake but a number of the other stateonly airports because city councils have to follow a process with which to determine the levy with which to say hey parks, streets, maintenance everything get so much funds and now you know in May of uh the same year, you're just making this significant of a change. And the response I got was, yes, we understand the ripple effects that this might lead to, but there's 136 airports in the entire system that we need to be cognizant of. Their funding unfortunately hasn't gone up very much from, you know, the the state entire Congress. So, they're trying to fund as many projects as they can. And one of the ways of doing that was to lower the funding percentage for state only airports. So yes, they're aware of it. Yes, I've had conversations with them, but unfortunately it did not, you know, move the needle for them to make adjustments to the funding rates. But the the other good thing I guess there is that it is state fiscal 26 funding which does cycle over two calendar years. So you know there there is also some options there. Uh but I think as my discussions with city administrator Ben is you know really the council can't make decisions until they know how much funding Mindot has for the project and then you can start reacting and figure out okay do you need to get creative in in finding the local share. So unfortunately we we believe we'd have that information for this meeting but uh for sure for the next meeting in in a or August uh we anticipate to know you know if MDOT has funding for the entire project or possibly just the runway extension. Um, I'd be interested from the commissioners of their thoughts on, you know, the the urgency, the need, the demand for the full project. And, um, I know there's a it's a safety thing. I mean, by adding 300 feet, you you create an element of safety. You you reduce the noise when aircraft are taking off to the north because they have that extra 300 feet to to start from. Um, but is it something that's absolutely and definitely needed right now. Um I that's a questionable and if if the additional cost is we're looking at $50,000 more than what was originally planned. Um, yeah, I'd like to see the project done, but but not at the expense of of something in the city that is perhaps more valuable to the city in terms of uh, you know, bringing business and and what have you in if it if it means putting this off for setting it back in the calendar for for the next time. So, that that's my own thought. Um, I I I'm interested what the other commissioners think. I'll start with maybe a question. Um so I I know there's a lot of projects planned and anticipated as part of the airport layout plan. Um and this was I presumably selected for a number of reasons. Um are there other projects kind of in the hopper that would maybe be smaller in size that maybe it makes sense to do a couple of other things instead and to switch out. Um it's been a while since I've looked at that airport layout plan. So, you know, right now to know off the top of my head, would we do this instead? I don't know what those options are, but it seems like if this project was sequenced because it was, you know, a significant safety concern or significant like the broad support, yes, we absolutely need to get this done. Then I think that's a difference than if there's other projects that maybe would be smaller in size and maybe, you know, as as welcome to users of >> and we submitted like four projects right to to Mandot and they they did I don't remember seeing it did they reject the others and the only ones that were approved at the 90% rate were was the runway extension and was was this >> so this uh the reason this project was actually on the CIP for a later year I think it was like 2028 and then at a January kind of uh capital improvement plan plan meeting in 2024 with Mindot where there there was, you know, discussion about the CIP and which projects that Mindot also felt was a priority and so they they understood the need for extending the taxi lane bravo and taxiway connector alpha 3 because all the hangar lots were uh occupied. So they agreed to prioritize that project in state state fiscal year 24. So that project was completed and then Mandot you know and discussion with you know the airport commission said okay you know MDOT felt the extension of the runway should be a priority project and they felt confident that they could provide funding for it for the safety the enhancements and safety to the airport the amount of aircraft that travel in and out of here the amount of aircraft that are based here you know they wanted the runway extended to 3,000 ft and said prioritize that project so there was a state fiscal 2025 grant for design for both projects and then following up in 26 for construction. So, I know this is a long way to answer your question, Commissioner Bane, but my I don't want to sound like I'm advocating just to move forward with the project, but my concern here is if if uh if MDOT appropriates funding for the runway extension and ultimately Forest Lake turns down the funds, I think then Forest Lake is going to be limited to funding in the future until they complete the project. Well, the way I look at it, if we don't ask for the council's approval, we're not going to get it. Period. So, I think uh we just make a motion to ask for the council's approval for the 129,71 for the project uh the 300 foot extension. >> Okay, we have a motion to uh make a recommendation to the city council. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. Um we'll make that motion. We'll leave it to the city council. >> Mara, you have a >> I have a clarifying question or maybe a item of discussion. Um so that that motion um is is the anticipated effect of that motion and that funding that city council funds and brings back you know makes a one-time infusion into the airport fund and that is you know is is it a loan or is it a one-time infusion that you know airport you know fund does not Maybe maybe I can ask this. If if you have 30 hangers out, if you're going to pay their lease in July, this this month, isn't that going to increase the airport funds? >> Uh, so when I said the airport fund doesn't have this money, what I meant by that is that um if we come in on budget, our projected uh balance at the end of the year would be in the in the red. So including all revenues and expenses. Um, so and I I I want to next month, next meeting, I certainly intend to bring a little bit better picture of your financial um state. Um, but no, the answer to your the short answer to your question, Commissioner Lynch, is that no. Um, the cash flow is not the problem. It's the annual budget and the long range projection of that budget that is the issue. >> So, so the the budget actually isn't dynamic. It doesn't change every day. It's pretty much fixed. >> It's annually fixed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> My my concern on my concern on recommending to proceed um and to vote for the motion is really just the long-term impact on the airport fund. Um and so having some understanding from you know what council's intent is and I I can fully appreciate everyone's wrapping their head around this impact. Um, but if you know if this is long-term going to put the airport fund in the red without you know and conceivably having to you know take several years to build out of that um I'm not sure that this is the project and that we should do that for and there's a lot of other opportunities also on the plate. I just want to make sure we've got some you know available capital to react to you know future >> project and this and the city council can reach that conclusion. I the the one thing about this that that Silas can take to if Mand's going to say, "Oh, you guys didn't take the money. We're gonna cut you short next time." He can come to say, "Well, the airport commission was in favor of it and the city wanted to do it, but the funding got cut from 95 down to 90." And that changed the whole dynamic of the situation. At least it takes away MDOT's argument of of cutting us out next time in my mind. Anyway, >> do we when do we need to make a decision? Is there is there room to kind of understand >> longer term? >> September is coming up pretty quick if that's the start date >> so the bids are were held for 90 days from June uh 18. So realistically until you know midepptember you know you do have some flexibility of time here and that's not to say you know if there's still more time as needed we can certainly talk to the contractor about a bid extension but um you know understanding you know all the information is not there about funding from mind funding from the local side you know my understanding in conversations with administrator stats was at least airport commission you know makes a recommendation so that part is uh is ready to go to council, you know, either at the second meeting here in in July or the first meeting in August to to make forth the recommendation of whether to award the entire amount of the project or or a certain portion of it to the to the low bidder. >> Mr. Chair, you know, just looking at the calendar, uh your next meeting is August 6th. We could certainly table to that meeting if you wished and um that would maybe a quick turnaround but you know I think if we plan it correctly we could have that in front of the council at their August 11 uh meeting right second and fourth Monday. >> And what additional information would we have by that time? >> I mean a little bit better picture of your I don't I don't have your full budget picture in front of you. Maybe perhaps that would be helpful. I I assume we would know by then if Mandot has approved the plan the project also. Correct? >> Yes. >> That that's probably the right course of action then if if you think it can be turned around that quickly on on after the 6th then um when you are well we can talk about budget stuff but airport budgets fluctuate year to year. So, I I hope you're looking at like a five-year like window because we have certain years where we have uh like a seal code and whatever that that's a that's a big expense and then we have other years where we don't have that and so I know when Dan Unum and I goes back years we were projecting out and you could see the balance going up and then we get hit the big costs and it goes down and then it goes back up. So, as long as you're looking that in the big picture and including all the numbers, um let's um Okay, let's take the the the motion to recommend off the table if if that's all right. >> I I can remove my motion to do it. >> Are you Are you willing to remove the motion? >> I Is that the correct way to do it? I mean, theoretically, we got a motion. We got a second. Do we have to vote on it or can we just make it go away? I >> I think the chair could take the motion off the table if if the motioner agreed to that. >> If you agree to that, we'll take the motion off the table. >> Sounds good. She's taken off >> and um make a motion to table it. Correct. Till the uh August 6th meeting. Is that the date? Okay. >> I'll second the table. >> We have a second. Uh all in favor of tableabling the motion till or tableabling the uh subject till August 6th. Say I. >> I. >> I. No. No one's opposed or abstaining. Okay. So, we've tabled that till the 6th and we'll have >> hopefully all we need to make a better decision at that time. >> Just one one other point I'd like to bring up. I mean, I know the states portion has gone from 95 down to 90 for this year. But if we decide to push this project out further, there's nothing stopping them from going lower than 90 in the future. Correct. >> You're absolutely correct. >> So, I mean, we could be looking at even a higher number if we wanted to do this project in the future. >> And and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you could have the same chance that it goes back to 95 and you lost out too, right? So, yeah, it is a bit of a from from past practices, hasn't it been at 80 more than it's been at like above 90% or >> Yeah, I mean there's there was a calculus and going up to 95% because you know if you're a federally funded airport, you know, in the state of Minnesota, you get 90% funding historically from the FAA and then MDOT is contributing half the local share. So just so Anoka County is getting projects funded at 95%. So mindat wanted to be equitable to the state only airports like Forest Lake and they raised it to 95% and Forest Lake has capitalized on that. You know there's been some significant you know capital projects that have been done here that I don't believe could have been funded without that additional 5%. And that's what makes this unfortunate that they made the change in May because you know council last year didn't get the opportunity to budget for the appropriate amount. So, >> but to Commissioner Mson's, yeah, I mean, come May next year, it it could go could remain 90%, it could go down. The only way I could see it going up is if the state legislature increases the appropriation to Mandot, you know, Office of Aeronautics, but that historically, you know, their amount of funding has typically been around 4.5 million, and that's for the entire aeronautics department. And so that's capital projects, that's staff, uh, equipment maintenance and operations agreement, the whole works. And >> I have to believe other cities are going to be kind of in the same bind we are that they budgeted for the 95% and now they're at 90 and now they're they're weighing the same things. And and so so with those whatever those dollars they have if other cities let you know decide okay we can't do our project mind have that that bucket of money and then they get more in the following year and is it is it a likelihood you probably don't know this maybe I'm just hypothetically likelihood that it would go to 95% because now they've got all these funds that weren't spent in the previous year. So the amount of funding they get has to be spent within the same fiscal year. So they there's typically about 3.5 million and it fluctuates like a couple hundred thousand each way. All that money needs to get spent or under grant in a state fiscal 20 26. So what that would mean to Commissioner Steeler's point is that if there's certain projects that didn't score high enough to get funded, if all ultimately a couple communities now, if Forest Lake elects to turn back the funds, that's going to be a significant amount of funding back into the program. Mindot will just go down the list and go to the next airport and say, "Okay, you know, Granite Falls or, you know, uh, Northome or, you know, Big Fork. Okay, you had a project that didn't score high enough. Now it did because you know, our amount of funding gets that low." So they'll just go to the next airport and say, "Okay, your project now has funding. Do you want to take the funds or not?" And if they say no, they'll go to the next one. I mean, there's a significant amount of projects and once the list is public on the mind website, I'll make sure it gets shared with the commission and city administrator stats. But you you can see that they'll just go down the list until they exhaust the funds that are available. So the chance for them or the opportunity to change the participation rate back up to 95 is not going to happen. >> Okay. Okay, that's good to know. >> Will there be some city council discussion? Um, it'd be help in advance of our next meeting. It'd be helpful to just have some indication from council on what their kind of appetite is and preference. Um, if there's, you know, movement or ability for projects to be juggled within this, you know, the CIP and just be helpful to understand kind of council's appetite um, making a decision because I think we're all going to have to turn around on a decision fairly quickly. >> Yeah, we can certainly uh put that on their July work session >> be helpful. >> I'll let you continue with your >> Yeah. Any other questions kind of about the the runway and tax extension or funding? All right. U so the the clear zone acquisition plan u you can kind of see the layout in your in your packet. Essentially what that is is just requesting an exemption from mind for their policy for airport sponsors to own the entirety of the clear zone and fee. So the clear zone is a trapezoidal shape off the end of each runway with which it's a safety um requirement where MDOT desires airports to own that entire you know area in fee but ultimately they understand it's not feasible for every airport due to you know land constraints. Forest Lake does own quite a bit of the clear zone, you know. Um, well, sorry, Forest Lake owns the entirety of the clear zone off the 31N. It's off the 13N where uh Fenway Avenue cuts right through it. Um, so what this project did was just formally request an exemption from MDOT for the policy. And the reason why Forest Lake wanted to request an an exemption is because your future projects now essentially score 15 points higher. without an approved exemption, you're losing, you know, uh 10 points. With an exemption, you get plus five points. So, it's a 15 point swing. So, we've submitted the uh the CEAP, you know, request to Mindot on May 9th, and we're just waiting for them to either review and comment or review and approve. So, that's what that project was uh was about. On to kind of airport rules and regulations. So, Bolton Bank was hired by the city to kind of help uh develop an updated kind of rules and regulations for the airport there to update the existing uh version that uh that exists. You know, essentially what the the intent for council was was just to make sure everybody's operating on uh a level playing field out there, whether you're a commercial business, private operator out there, just making sure everyone has the same rules and uh and regulations to follow. So, a steering committee, you know, was developed consisting of uh two airport commission members, Commissioner Steeler, Commissioner Galmire, uh two uh city council members, Mayor Roberts, and uh Councelor Miller, and then city staff as well, city administrator Scott, city administrator Johnson. Um so, we did have uh our first steering committee meeting on June 11th just to review the uh the first draft. Um, so kind of included in your packet is the is the updated, you know, draft rules and regulations based on kind of feedback received, you know, during the meeting and then before and after from airport steering committee members. Um, at the meeting kind of some of the the the primary discussions about just clarifying what aeronautical use is at the airport. uh just making sure that it's it's clear what constitutes aeronautical use for you know folks that own their own private hangers in terms of what that what that means and what the FAA definition is is as long as you have an aircraft that's operable or you're working towards making that aircraft operable you know you can do whatever else you want other than you know operate a business but you can use that space in your hanger for anything else so just kind of having some of those discussions with the steering committee about well this is what the FAA says, but since Forest Lake is not a federally funded airport, you do have some uh some ability to to either deviate from that or or make some modifications and the steering committee did like the context of aircraft first and then you can use the space for storage or whatever else be. Um just some clarification in terms of what would constitute a commercial operator at the airport versus just a private hanger operator. you know, historically some of the the aircraft that have direct access to parallel taxiway alpha have been considered commercial. So, just making sure that the rules and regulations are consistent throughout to to identify, you know, the difference between a commercial and a private uh operator. And then there were some areas where there's conflicting language and different sections throughout the rules and regulations that, you know, the steering committee members did catch. So, we went through and and started clearing those up uh to make sure there's nothing in in conflict there. Um, something else that's still ongoing is just reviewing existing lease agreements to make sure there's nothing that's going to be in the rules and regulation that conflicts any of the lease agreements that currently exist with uh with hanger hangar owners out there. So there's, you know, I won't go through every page of the rules and regulations, but if anyone has reviewed them or does decide to review them here later this month, I'd be happy to take any feedback or comments, either email me directly or email your comments to city administrators and uh we can facilitate. Uh >> can I mention a couple things since I went through? Um number one, when you issue a new revision, can can you put a revision date or something on the cover? Because when I got this in the minutes, I there's no way I would have known that this was updated until I happened to be going through it and oh, this is different than I looked at before. >> So, there is a track change comments that I planning to send to the steering committee. Okay. >> And that was a comment from administrators is he made the same comment. Well, what changed actually? Right. So, >> well, that's Yeah, it'd be nice if we had the red lines and all that, too. >> Correct. we have that, but for since the airport commission, I'm not sure if they've seen even the first draft. Um, it would be a little confusing to kind of see all the commented changes. So, uh, but I can certainly send the send that over to administrators for distribution, the track change version. >> A couple of the just little items that I'd like to think about the word operator. Sometimes it's referred to as commercial operator and sometimes just operator. If if the word operators, I think it I think you should either have commercial operator and private operator. Okay. And that that would clarify there would be no conflict or or misunderstanding there. Then um so that that was one note I have. I I don't have a lot of notes. If you don't mind, I'll I'll go through them, but let me know if you need to catch up. um under the definitions of aircraft owner. I know with aircraft fractional ownership is not uncommon. I don't know if that needs to be mentioned in here or how that's it should be I guess it should be addressed somewhere in there under aircraft owner. Um >> that's a pretty simple change. I think so. I think owner of >> um under under number four lease agreement. Um this kind of gets into construction requirements and under CS is building shall be built setback property line according to city building codes. I know the current hangers are not necessarily. Some of them are closer because then they went to a two-hour fire rating or something. I I don't know. I don't I don't know if we want to state it differently, but or something to think about. Are you aware of that, Mark? I think when I gave you a tour of the airport, I said, you know, mine are I have a 10- foot set back to my property line, but the guy next door has five, and because it's less than 20 feet now, we had to use I had I had to pay for double a two-hour fire rating on that sidewall. Uh, so it's just it's just one of those things that um I don't know that we want to force it to go to a full 20 foot setback here. You know, something to think about. Um, kind of a minor issue on on number 3C under that hanger doors may be either sliding or biffold. You realize that a third of the hanger doors at that airport are neither sliding or biffold. >> You aware of that? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. So something I and then that frankly that entire sentence could be eliminated and just say that um a note to the fact that doors cannot interfere with other buildings. And frankly that should be such a given that and since all plans and specs go through the city anyway. I don't even know if if if it's even worth mentioning any of that. Um you might want to strike the whole thing. >> I think sliding should definitely be struck out. I don't think anyone there has Yeah. So anyway, that could be looked at and >> tweaked. Hangar does. >> Does it? Okay. Yes, hangry has sliding doors. Yeah, >> correction. Thank you. >> Um on on Roman numeral six, the heading application that just that just seems like a terrible heading. It it doesn't tell me. Is this is it is it application for business operation? Um that's what I think it is. I think it's um but it just seemed like um because it seemed like it was directed toward the business stuff, business operators um or commercial operations. So maybe it should be application for commercial operation. I just thought the heading again minor point and then under Roman numeral 7 general aviation standards this is where I saw the word this is under B financial responsibility and it says the operator and and I I think because of where it falls in this it means the commercial operator. Um, and then further under here, we get into that that question of renting out hanger space again, which has has not been answered, but it's it's really probably the last item hanging out there that it really needs to. Um, I don't think I have a whole lot more. Um, there's a couple things that I I kind of question whether it's actually needed in here, but that's that's minor. Um, like a variance. Do we need Do we need variances out there? I I don't know. The language is in the through the fence. Does that need to be part of rules and regulations? The the through the fence portion. I I I'm not sure that's necessary. But that's really all the comments, all the red lines I had in going through this this version. So >> certainly that's helpful. Commissioner Steer, >> anybody else have any others? I don't know if you guys haven't even seen the first version. So >> yeah, the uh the version I read this afternoon, I mean, it parallels a lot what's currently in my lease. So I mean there's a lot of duplicate language there. So >> yeah, I noticed some things were corrected like the construction references just reference the building code and and that's that's the right way to do it. So yeah, and there's no conflicts that way with other >> M Mr. Chair, if I if I may, um, one of the kind of the open questions here tonight is whether um I think it probably makes sense to have the steering committee meet at least one more time. Uh, does the commission feel the same or or are we ready to bring this back for final approval or >> I I don't I don't know that it needs to meet again. Um, I mean, Joe's not here tonight to comment to that effect. Um I mean this was I was going through these I going back to the big picture of all this the difficulty uh I mean we have a a commission of however many members being that I have a contract with the city my concern in approving any of you know setting a formal approval on this does that um imply that that I'm in agreement with the city changing terms and conditions of my lease so I don't know that I can give my approval to it when it comes to that time. Um that doesn't mean, you know, Mara can't or whoever can't, but um that's that's just going to be something I' I've have to >> struggle with on that. >> Yeah. And I think ultimately um the airport commission would be making a recommendation and the city council would be adopting these rules and regulations uh at any rate. Right. So even if the if for some reason others felt the same way you did, Commissioner Steeler, and the motion failed, the council could still It's up to the council >> forward. Right. Right. So, right. Obviously, we would hope that the airport commission could endorse these and move forward with them, but >> yeah. >> Um, so in going back to your if we need another meeting, um, my opinion, I don't think we need another meeting, but maybe you want to reach out to Joe and ask him if he needs another meeting. Yes. Um, do you have a sense on on how distributed these have been to members of, you know, the airport community? And so, have people >> I don't Well, because I just noticed today the differences here. Okay. I I actually think this would be good to distribute out or maybe make the tweaks that I just mentioned to you and distribute out to hanger owners um >> to review and get their comments because they're the ones who have individual contracts with the city. And >> I think it'd be helpful to have some level of public comment period or get it get get the draft distributed um and circulated and certainly have an opportunity for the subgroup to meet again in reaction to those. And if it's, you know, feedback is, you know, minimal and not necessary to meet, um, it'd be helpful for that working group to, >> yes, >> address some of those topics, um, right before it comes to this group. Um, >> I like that idea, Commissioner B. I think we could um I'll just say distribute it more widely hanger owners and other folks and then um if we get almost no feedback then and I and I reach out to Commissioner Galmire and don't get a lot then maybe we won't meet if we end up with a fair amount of comments then we'll recom uh convene the committee and move from there. >> Yeah, that sounds good. >> Did anyone else have any other comments? I had a couple of minutes if I wanted to jump in, but I don't want to jump in front of anyone else. Um, so I agree with um the chair's feedback specific around um being specific if it's a commercial provision or a private provision provision, especially in that section that's around the application. I think that's intended to be more of a commercial provision and so let's just call it that. Um it felt like if we're putting together guidelines, the um and maybe these are covered elsewhere and airport users just know this, but the emergency provisions just felt a little light. Essentially notify the airport manager um and that you whoever caused an accident will be, you know, responsible for property damage. I think there's potentially other language that should be included there in the event of an accident. Um, but maybe those that's already known by airport users and maybe it would be redundant to be included. Um, just felt a little light as I was reviewing through the enforcement section which is section 11. Um, get there. We talk about authority. We talk about changes to the rules and regulations. We talk about inspections. Um, but I believe when we're talking about enforcement, do we speak to we do we call it a misdemeanor is that is that the path for enforcement? Um I know when we have um imple when the city has implemented recent code provisions we have implemented more of an administrative penalty process. Um I just feel like there should be a little bit more definition around what does enforcement look like? What's the process for enforcement? What is the appeal body? you know, we we do call out that, you know, the ultimate arbitrator is the city of the city council. Um, but then what if what then? And so is it a, you know, some sort of administrative fine or something? I just felt like it needed just a little bit more definition of what if, you know, what act what what does the city council have at their disposal to as a means of enforcement? Um, >> if we can just pause for a second because in working with the uh, city attorney Johnson, there was certain language that was removed. Um, and I'll let attorney Johnson speak more eloquently about it, but there are certain liability reasons why certain language was removed >> from from that point of enforcement. >> Yeah. Uh so one of the things that still needs to sort of be thought through from the council's perspective is how they want to enact these. So these can be enacted as rules and regulations. Everybody's lease says that we have the right to enact rules and regulations. Uh everybody's lease also says that they will follow any future rules and regulations promagated by the city um or ordinances. So this could also become an ordinance. and so it would be codified. It doesn't mean that it would be published a published ordinance. Some of our policies we reference as having the effect of an ordinance, but that doesn't mean that they're codified. Uh so those are some choices that the council is going to have to work through in terms of how they want to uh pass these. And then in going to the question about enforcement, enforcement to your point, yes, if it's codified, it is eligible for all of the violations of city code, which would be an administrative citation, a criminal citation, abatement, you know, any of those tools that we would use for any any code violation. Uh, so obviously that's the largest um packet of authority that the council could could create. um or they could do something less than that. So that this I envision this enforcement section needing to evolve based on the direction that we get from council. >> And then I know one of the questions is you know this this concept of um uh private hangers leasing to leasing space to other um other airplanes and airport lease and whether that means you're automatically commercial or not. I would just advocate us um for us to take a kind of a mod recognize we're in a world of Airbnbs and some in in many markets everything's for rent. Um that we would lean closer to allowing some level of rental activity without automatically jumping it into the commercial category. I don't know if we govern that based on square footage usage or number of aircraft, but it just seems reasonable. We have somebody right now docking their at our house and are they paying us? No. But would somebody maybe make us stink? Maybe. You know, it just feels like we're in a very much a shared economy. And so, let's recognize that and not just automatically jump that into the same classification of some of the other more um heavier commercial uses that are contemplated by the guidelines. So, that would just be my encouragement. >> No, hope you didn't just get yourself in trouble there. >> Complain. They're not Okay. Anything else? >> No, that's it. >> Commissioner, any other commissioner's thoughts or comments? No, I think it's great if we can get this out to all the all the hanger owners. Um maybe goes out with the July bill, maybe there's just an email or a site that they can go to and download it themselves, whatever. But uh I think that's great. And um whether we have a special meeting with comments or or they just email in comments um and we figure out from there how we want to handle it. So >> I I will add though if this does go out for public comment and eventually does become an ordinance it kind of changes the process with which this does move forward then it has to be you know advertised publicly you know and couple sources um put out on the streets for you know 30 period minimum time frame. So depending upon which direction, you know, council wants this to go, it it would change the process with which we need to follow for a public comment period because, you know, if we there's I'm not sure the specifics of it. Maybe attorney Johnson knows, but you can't just if you're sending it off for public comment, it can't just be airport patrons. It has to be everybody that's that's interested in it has to have the opportunity to comment. So, >> okay, I leave that. >> The only thing I I kind of read in there, I understand there's legal terms in here. I'm not a lawyer, but when it says like an operator has to have a a written contract with the city to operate at the Forest Lake airport, I mean, if you were a pilot, he or she coming out of NOA and coming up here to buy fuel, is is he or she an operator? >> Yeah, there was there was some some of that language was corrected and I'll comb through it again because Commissioner Steeler had that same comment. He's like, "So, anybody that lands or takes off here that isn't a private hanger owner, so >> who comes out of the sky and chooses to land?" Yeah, that's not the intent because it's a public airport available for anybody to take off or land. So, if it is in there, Commissioner Lynch, we'll make sure we get it cleared up. >> That's not the intent. >> All right, we can move on to the north hanger lots layout. >> Yeah. So, included in your packet is kind of the the lot layout for, you know, perspective u you know, four hangers there kind of with the taxi lane bravo extension. Um, so I apologize if I got this wrong, but I didn't believe this was this layout was approved by the airport commission at the last meeting. Uh, maybe administrator Scott can clarify that. >> I think one of the reasons we wanted to bring it back to you is that I think there there may have been some approval of it. Um, what I don't think we made clear is whether or not we wanted it to be specifically designated commercial lots. So that we are not going to allow someone to operate as a non-commercial use in these. >> We we we currently have three hangers that are commercial that are held by a person and just used as a private hanger. So, in my opinion, these four lots should be commercial. And if somebody chooses to lease under the commercial uh lease and just chooses to put their air aircraft in there and not operate a business out of it, >> then in the future, you you'll have the ability to turn it into a commercial property. I mean, I don't think it's public right now, but we just learned that the one big commercial hanger out there's got a new tenant, and I think that's going to do well because a that tenants going to keep that space occupied. Now, we got four more that we can add to it, but there are three to my knowledge, and I I could be wrong, that have commercial rates, two, three, and four or something like that that pretty much just private hanger. So, it be my recommendation to make those four commercial. >> And I would agree with that that they they should be commercial and ideally we could find commercial tenants. The difficulty is when our airport only has 27 hangers. Um, you know, you're not going to get a repair shop that's going to move into an airport that only has 27 hangers. If we had all 100 hangers out there with, you know, 150 aircraft, that's a whole different story. Um, so it it becomes of a matter of yeah how how quickly we want to try and get those developed and who we can get in there to to develop those lots. >> Would you be opposed to designating them as commercial but allowing a private individual to be be in as long as they >> would that's what Mark was saying that they're paying the higher rate. Are >> you okay with that too? >> They build to commercial. They build the commercial. >> He's not asking for me. I'm not. We got four lots there. So, I'm not opposed to it. It's just that, okay, let's let's say hypothetically all four of those lease out because the demand for hanger lots is is pretty good. And all of a sudden, you got four private hanger owners and now we can't put a business, a repair shop, a flight school uh there. So, I >> I think with the commercial lots, the way I read the guidelines is that the city's going to review a commercial operation pretty closely anyways. So they could, you know, perhaps if the first two, you know, they lease out, you know, at a commercial rate and it's a private hanger owner in there, then they get a little more restrictive on three and four. You know, it's kind of left at the city's discretion then. Um, so I'm not opposed to that, but >> I think, Mr. chair as as I'm wonderful points that you're all making. I think perhaps we should come back to you with maybe um some proposed lease language that would restrict whether or not you know the the types of operations. >> Do you not want to have a fourth lease? >> Well, I fair point fair point. >> I'm not I'm not trying to be but cruel here, but I just that we're we're in trouble right now because we got three. >> Sure. Maybe maybe what I'm saying is I I probably need to review the existing leases we have to see how they address that issue of um >> I've never read a commercial lease. >> Yeah, I've never I've never read it either. So I I think I think my my in my head I'm what I'm thinking about is I wanted to bring this back to you to say that have the commission endorse the idea that these would be commercial so that we don't get people who lease their thinking thinking that there's going to be non-commercial uses around them. Um and the idea that you could allow a non-commercial use there but as long as they sort of understand the idea that could be a a noisy operation next to them. Um perhaps >> and they're paying higher ground rate, you know, maybe that's allowable. Um >> yeah, I'm not opposed to it because they all have to go through the city anyway to apply. So if if you know if three of them fill up right away and it's just private people and they're paying the higher rent, then the city can hold back on the fourth or Yeah. Um, >> I would just hate for the I I it's a hard decision to make without knowing exactly what the commercial demand is. Um, I I know there's just such a demand for growth out there and we need to continue to build out that infrastructure and there's all sorts of considerations and why growth is good. So, I would hate to just hold off too long on commercial if there isn't, you know, a reasonable horizon where those four are would fill up as commercial. Try to thread that needle of to labor this um issue here. But the other piece of this puzzle is that these are ones that face the taxi way, the main taxi way I'll call it, right? >> And those I think what what we're trying to do is reserve spots that make sense for commercial users >> and they have access to the road behind without having to have customers if they're coming in that way drive on taxiways, which you absolutely want to avoid. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. employees and customer type stuff. >> At least employees are going to be familiar with an airport environment and be but it's general public >> parking and the access to those will be in the rear right. >> Yeah. >> The other maybe the other point too to make up on make on this is if there is some consideration on reserving for commercial this body and council can always change our mind and move to a more private use that that doesn't get filled up. I think the reverse is harder to do because you to have that designation. They are going to fill up with private and so maybe it does make sense to have that initial preference and know that we could reverse course if if you know current operators and you know future projected operators just don't come through. >> I mean the other comment I would make too is 60 by 60 is not a very big building for a commercial operation. You know would you ever consider taking two lots and making it 120 by 120? Yeah, and we did discuss that we've actually had some interest, uh, recently from operators who, you know, talked about taking up two lots. And so, um, just as a comment that we have had some interest in the commercial lots. Uh, we I'm not going to promise that we're going to get all four sold here in the next year, but we have had some interest in in those. And to your point, yeah, some are interested in fairly large operations. >> And and then to that person uh, he or she that wants a private hanger, there are four empty spots out at the airport currently. They would love to have a building on it. >> Yeah. And I think I think that's an issue I intend to bring back to this board is um so some of those empty lots, their leases talk about a time horizon for to build a building. >> My my my lease said I had two years. I had to get a permit to the city within one year and building in two, >> right? And so >> I mean I don't know that we've been actively enforcing that part of it. And so we may bring back to this board um a question about >> Yeah. And that that goes all the way back to was the financial crisis >> 2008. Correct. >> Yeah. So, but yeah, it it needs to be addressed because there's four >> lots that should have hangers on them. But I have Okay. So, what are you looking for us to recommend? >> I've got the feedback I need um to uh move forward with something um in terms of making sure that that designation is carried forward. So, >> yeah. Okay. Okay. >> Silus, we're on to capital improvement plan. >> Yes. So, um, you know, this is just the updated draft kind of with the real numbers here based on the bids for the runway and the taxiway expens extension project. We also did put in a request to MDOT for completion of the apron expansion project. You know, half of it was done. There's still the other half 200 200 foot by 80. I think the likelihood of that getting funded might be a little lower considering the other capital requests that uh Forest Lake is asking. So, just wanted to kind of put this out there so you guys can kind of see what some of the future projects that have been discussed with the airport commission, you know, are. I know there's been some discussion about expansion of the parking lot and access drive to accommodate these four additional lots that were developed. Um, but we do have some time until we get to have this revised and back to mind, which is typically, you know, about February 1st of of next year. But just wanted to show it here and that there will be some updates made for the next meeting pending uh what MDOT decides with funding for state fiscal year 26 here. >> I see on here maintenance equipment building construction. I I don't remember seeing that before. Did I just miss it before or what what equipment are we going to be keeping out there? It was uh it was discussion with the public works staff about you know since the airport has been successful in getting state funding to acquire equipment out there just having a place on the airport to store equipment that's used to maintain the airport. So it's a project that's just shown on there in 2029 and obviously if there's not a need for it we can you know move it back but it was it's just a project that's shown on there. Any other thoughts or comments on that? Looking at it? No. >> No. >> So, no action needed right now. Just wanted to share the the latest draft version. But if there are any projects that come to mind or any change in priority here, we can certainly move anything. But it's it's going to be imperative to know which projects for state fiscal 26 got funded first. >> Yep. Any other kind of questions or comments that I could address for the commission? >> I'm good. >> I'm good. >> All right. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Um on our agenda, it goes to discussion and it says none. So I mean we are not discussing it. >> I have no specific comments for discussion. How about that? Okay. The the the one thing I I would like to discuss though is is >> this is my take on the four empty lots out there. one's right next to me. Uh he's had that lot for since 2008 and he pays or I'm guessing he pays a lease on it every year. So he's got 10 years worth of lease. So you mean if it's 700 bucks, you know, he's got $7,000 tied up into that property. So he's not willing to get rid of it or move it or But I still think that a I know he can afford to build. I I know that the other empty lot that it was there, they can afford to build, too. So, I mean, is there any language in the lease that you guys can say if if you don't get a building permit to me soon, I'm going to have to do something. And I'm not trying to be mean. These are my friends. So, it's just there's such a demand for uh uh airport hangers in the language in my lease that I had two years to build, one year to get a a permit pulled that I think it's a shame to let those lots sit empty. And it's also going to help revenue, too. >> Yeah. It's not even a not even just the shame. It's the loss loss of property tax revenue from those from the hangers. I mean, I know I pay like $1,300 a year by property tax and what half of that must come to the city at least. Uh the the the three chunks go the biggest chunk is the city of Forest Lake. I looked at my taxes that just paid them. The second is the school district 831. >> Yeah. >> And then then then Washington County. I think the the the water runoff district gets like 12 bucks. But who's benefiting from the lease or the property taxes out there? City number one, school district number two. So if if you got people in this area that's got kids in school, they would want to have those buildings built too. Yeah, I I I think um I only had an opportunity to quickly review one of the leases on the empty lots uh recently and I intend to get to the other couple to make sure that the language is similar, but I I do think we have some um ability there to to move that needle forward. So, >> I mean, maybe that person could work a deal with the prospective builder to kind of compensate himself for him him or her for the money he's got into it already. And the only reason I say that is is the way I got my lot was the guy built in the noa and then we were meeting someplace and he said, "Hey, I got a lot Forest Lake." So we went to transfer the lease. He said, "I'm not losing the three years of lease I already paid." So I paid him the 21,00 bucks or whatever it was just to get the lot. >> Any other discussion? If not, we'll go to staff updates. We'll start with Amanda on the end. >> I have nothing. >> Nothing. Mayor and council leaison. >> I just I just want to thank everyone for their, you know, willing to serve the great comments tonight and just know that I I you know, this this has been a little bit contentious over the years and I'm more than happy and and appreciate the willingness to work through all these guidelines and move forward. We got a great opportunity in that airport and it can only get better. So, I appreciate your time and all your input. >> Thank you, >> city administrator. Anything? >> Nothing more. >> Mara, anything? >> Nothing from me, >> Kurt? >> No, sir. >> Nothing else. >> I am good as well. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor of adjournment say I. >> I. >> We are adjourned at 7:36. [Music]