And we have everybody here that I think we're going to have here. Is that right, Mark? >> Correct. >> So, I will call the meeting to order of the Forest Lake Airport Commission, uh, February 4th at 6 PM. Mark, uh, would you like to take the role? >> Yes. Commissioner Steeler, >> yes. Here. >> Commissioner Mson, >> here. >> Commissioner Bane, >> here. And that is it this evening. We have two absent. Um for the I need a motion to approve the agenda of this evening. >> Move to approve. >> Have a motion. We have a second. >> Second. >> Second with non-debatable motion. All in favor say I. >> I. And it passes. >> Uh open forum. This is the um time of the meeting where uh anyone can come to the podium, sign your name with your address and tell us your your name and address. Um it's for anyone to talk about anything. We'd kind of like it to focus on the airport, but uh you have you're welcome to speak on anything. We'd like to keep it to three minutes, but I'm not going to hold a stopwatch on you. So feel free if anyone wants to speak at the open forum. No. >> Oh, well, >> I'll take you introduce myself. Um, my name is Corey Capra. I own and operate a tech companies. We actually serve you guys at the airport on your maintenance of your field there. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, I saw your name on our last video. >> Yes. Yes. We appreciate that and happy to help out in the service of the airport. Um, I'm here today just to check out uh get an update on what's going on at the future and future plans. So, I appreciate you guys having me and uh if we can be any help any other future ways with uh anything, we'd be happy to. So, >> great. Thanks for stopping in today, Cory. >> Thank you, >> Rich. You're just dying to get >> Okay, >> nothing new. >> Okay, if we'll give it another few seconds. I don't think anybody's Well, there might be somebody on their way in. I see a shadow out there. That's the mayor. So, he won't be coming to that podium anyway. So, anybody else? Uh if there's nothing else for the open forum, we'll uh close that portion of the meeting and move on to the approval of the minutes of the last meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting? I guess since I was the only one here of anybody, I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. I don't know that we need other a second or >> Yeah, you should have a second. And there's nothing wrong with voting for minutes that you weren't at. I I wasn't at the meeting, but um have read through them and am comfortable with making a motion or um seconding the motion. >> We have a motion and a second for approval of the meeting of the December 3rd meeting. Um all in favor? I >> I >> I There we go. Three. Okay, we will move into the uh regular agenda portion of the meeting. And I I printed out some, but let me just scroll forward past the minutes. >> And Mr. uh chair, as we did last uh meeting, we're presenting some financials and um invoice uh list just that you're not maybe accustomed to, but I think um had a nice little revelation last week and or last meeting and so that was working out well. Um I apologize for if someone's got a paper copy. didn't print out very great, but um I did want to kind of just go through the financials since it is year end here and we do have information um on where where the uh airport fund kind of ended the year. Um, as we discussed last time, our our finance staff did a nice job of pulling out the um costs that we are associating with capital improvements and just to look at the operating costs of the of the um airport. And the good news is here is that um the unodudited and I'll make that note that these are unodudited. So, this is just sort of first glance at year end, but we have obviously an audit that comes in the next few months here. Um, and the results of that say that we we um made a couple bucks at the airport this year. So, um that's good news for everybody. There were some notes uh just about why that was um both good and bad in terms of things that happened to us over the year that were kind of out of our control. Um, one is that we didn't have an airport manager for a couple of months, so there's a little bit less on the wages part of it until I got on boarded in March or so. Um, and then we had some issues with our fuel pricing and our fuel supplier more moreover and that took a while to sort out and um, you know, didn't do well for our fuel sales throughout the year. Um, I think I noted in the memo that couple years ago we made we cleared about $18,000 in fuel sales as a net profit. Um, and this past year we were only going to be around 4,000 or so. Um, so that's good news in the sense that uh we're still kind of broke even or made a couple of um I think around $3,000 and um think we can do better on fuel sales next year. However, again, there'll be a little bit more on wages because there'll be a full year of of my um portion of my salary on that. So, all in all, I think uh it's it's good news for the operational components of the airport that we are um operating pretty sustainably um when we don't factor in capital costs. And so um with that I would kind of take any questions on the financials or andor the um invoices that we are uh the claims against the airport. So >> did you have something? >> Uh so Mark know in the time since you've been here you were kind of settling into a little bit more of what the the operation operational situation is with the airport. um what do you expect the long-term allocation should be for that um salary and benefits for in particular your role is 10% the right mark is some of that kind of still in transition what do you what do you think long term if what you know now >> you know I know we have a long um standing uh record and good good um data on the public works side of things and we do feel like that 30% of one person is you know whether it's really 30% of one person or 15% % of two or whatever it is, right? Um that is a good number. We feel like the the 10% of my salary um as long as I am and you know for the foreseeable future I will continue to be the airport manager. We don't have a staffing plan that includes anything different right now. Um I do feel like that is a good number. Um you know 10 11 months into my um career here I I do feel like that is working out. Um I think a lot of it depends on what's going on with the airport, right? I mean um got a lot of capital investments we're making, but those are also largely handled by our um engineer. Um I think a lot of the past, you know, just hearing history as I've been here now 11 months and folks talking to me about the airport, a lot of it had to do with, you know, sort of problem hanger owners that were doing things out of bounds, right? and and just trying to deal with that um those issues. And so absent some of those issues, I think it can be an a fairly I won't call an easy job, but >> yeah, >> my job's very hard, Mr. Mayor. Um but, you know, I think it can be a smooth, you know, and a fairly routine, you know, set of tasks that I do um preparing for these meetings and that those type of things. So long answer to a short question, but um I I do think it's appropriate and I I would intend that we have the same allocation uh in the 2026 budget, which is what it is in the current budget. So >> something certainly to monitor though. >> Anything Kurt, anything else, Mara or Curtis for? Um, I I'm looking at the revenues side of this and I and I know I sent you an email, but on a separate a separate note, um, uh, I won't get into the the past stuff, but at least not yet. But there's um, the city has a hanger out there, a sixstall tea hanger. >> A tea hanger these days rents at forest or at Lake Elmo for between 200 and 250 a month. That would be about 18 grand a year. Now, I know I don't think we're renting out any of those stalls, are we? >> We have one still. That's >> Oh, do we have someone in there? Okay. Because I know last time I was in there and it's been a while, public works is utilizing some of the space, which I don't have a problem with, but >> minimal amount, I think, at this point. >> Okay. Yeah. >> But that would be I mean, we're just putting these up here for the sake of discussion anyway. They're not dollars that are actually changing hands. I I would think there should be dollars in here for the use of that space >> if it's being used by another department. >> Yeah, if it's airport space, >> if if I and I can verify this, but I think any current lease uh money we're getting from that one uh tenant in there yet is uh shows up in the lease line item here, right? But to your point, >> could we rent out more space there? It's my understanding and and I haven't um brought this to this commission yet, but it was my understanding that there was sort of a decision to divest of that building at some point >> at some point. I think that's probably going to be needed when we expand that into the the airport that that there will be a new lot le takes over that perhaps or however it happens. My understanding was that the purpose of divesting of it was more on the just it's a failing building and we don't want to continue pouring money into it. >> So the idea was to let whoever's got a a lease there and is kind of using it to okay >> play their string out and not force them out but >> um not invite any new leases in there. something we could revisit, you know, if we were looking for revenue streams and building. But my >> understand in the big picture, it would be great if our airport had tea hangers to lease out. But in the reality of things, our city is not in the business of managing any other property. So that would be a difficult thing to throw into our mix. I I think because it would hold so and and I think the that avenue has been um looked down before in terms of the cost and the cost of constructing that type of a of a hanger that and the dollars and cents haven't worked out in the past. But um whenever we get to you know developing that end of the airport, it might be worth revisiting to look at. But um anyway um so you know other than that I um I'm not going to make any issues about this sheet. It's only for the sake of internally looking at at at things. So um and then and then going on from this I think you went on to the um I you know I I do think there should be a I have I've out of shock I have found that people in the city office including yourself didn't weren't aware that hanger owners pay property taxes. >> Yep. >> And I know we've had the discussion that property taxes shouldn't be in these lines because the city the people we we vote for and city council they get to decide how those monies are allocated. I think there should be at least a footnote that note uh property taxes on hangers are not included here or something, you know, a fourth footnote. Um so anyway, I that way at least when somebody who doesn't know is looking at this, oh property t property or hanger owners pay property taxes, they can see that it's it's acknowledged in the sheet rather than people not knowing and then making assumptions based on that lack of knowledge. an excellent point. I I believe it was in my memo. I I mentioned it, but I I don't You're right. On this one sheeter, it's not it's not noted in >> Yeah, I I didn't see it on there. Anyway, um so I don't know if you if you want to run through all the expenses. I don't know that we need to go line by line on $25 items. I think they all look fine to me. Um we need to make a motion to approve the um payment of the the bills. I'll make a motion that the >> city commission make a motion to approve the financials. Yeah, I'll I'll make a motion uh to the city council that they um that approve the financials of the airport and the the um you call it the bills >> claims >> claims. I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't have the cover sheet and the claims as stated in the um in the agenda. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a second from Curtis. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Passes. Okay. Um, I take it that you're handling the engineering report today. >> Yeah. Uh, Silus, I I told him that there wasn't probably a need for him tonight. We didn't have anything that particularly um going on for him. Um, just an update uh for folks in the audience as well. Just um you know, we we did receive the grant funding for what was really three projects. The taxiway extension, the runway extension, and the apron expansion. All three of those grants um were approved by Mandot. They also approved a request that we had to put in to receive more than $1 million in any fiscal year. Um so they approved that as well. And then uh the city council did um approve these grants uh at their last meeting and uh awarded a contract for the taxiway and uh runway project which will be done as one construction project. Those two two different projects in terms of they're two different grants. But um and then we gave our engineer the go-ahhead to design the apron expansion and get that out to bid and so he is working on that. Um the rules and regulations. Uh I I I really wanted to have that at this meeting and I know it's been a long time coming here. Um but we're we're getting close. I promise. Um our our attorney and our our community development director just need a little bit more time to make sure that these rules integrate with our our zoning code. and um are are working seamlessly. Um so we anticipate that coming back to you at the next meeting. Uh the north hanger lot layouts is something we've had on on the agenda for a while. I think it's really just a a holdover from the last time. And then um we are talking in in number five about you know is um even though we've done a number of grants recently and we're got a lot going on um we have a lot of interest in the airport and there may be some things that we need to look at next and um those things may knock on our door sooner rather than later and so we're going to start to bring some of those things to you um as we move forward here. So that's really all on the engineers report. I would take any questions. >> What was I I was scrolling through here too quick. What was the total that Mindot is funding for us this year? It was over a million, right? >> Yeah. Let's see. Um it's 1.77 million. I'm sorry. That's the total project cost. They'll they'll be >> 1 was it 1 uh >> 1.77 is the total of the three projects. Mindot has 90% of that. So, >> okay. So 90% of 1.77 million. >> Is it the 1.3 plus the 270,000? >> That's correct. >> 1.6 >> 1.6. >> Yep. Sounds about right. >> 1.6 million. Okay, we'll go with that. That's I was just curious. All right. Um I don't have any questions for you on the engineer report. This is Mara. No. Um and so we just move on from that. We don't need to approve anything there. >> No. >> Move on to internet service at the AD building. >> So, Mr. Chair and Commission, at the last uh meeting, we looked at uh our claims list and someone mentioned that, boy, it looks like we're paying a lot for phone service. And so, I did a little digging and to see what that $175 bill was. Um it turns out it it is uh not just a landline but it is a um internet service um to the AD building um the arrival departure building. And um in talking with Midco just kind of like a lot of us do with our cable and internet bill you kind of talk through the do I have a better option here. Um, and what I'm essentially recommending, if you want to kind of go to the second page of that memo, um, the the options there are what Midco offers. Um, and really we we have um another provider there, but their their um service really wasn't going to be adequate for what we needed. Um, currently we have 200 megabytes and we're on like a month-to-month type of plan. And so that's $135 a month um nominal charge for the uh the internet. And um we think very easily that we can get by with 100 megabytes and um you know if you cared to lock into a longer term contract, you'd uh save a fair fair amount of money there. So it would be $85 a month. So, it is staff's recommendation to um move our internet service down to 100 megabytes and um lock into a longerterm contract uh to save some some money there. >> That seems like a logical thing to do. >> Yeah. And just, you know, the internet is out there not just for Wi-Fi, but we do have it does run the credit card system >> and the security camera system as well. So, that's why we need these fixed IP addresses that >> the other service did not provide. >> So, you do have security cameras out there. I was going to ask you about that. I I think that's what Dave told me. Um >> I was I was hoping you did. I I didn't I've never I haven't been in the AD building in a while. So >> I believe there is at least one security camera. >> Okay. Um someone want to make a motion. >> Move to approve as staff recommends. >> That's too short. Okay, we'll accept that. All right. >> Any more words? >> Well, I'm used to more words, but I'll accept that. That's fine. I'll sec I'll second that. I'm recommend what staff recommends. Um any uh any there's a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? No. If so, all in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Okay, we'll go with that. Going back to the agenda on uh D, item D is selecting officers for 2026. We we are missing two folks tonight. So I'll I'll let the the mayor decide if you want to go ahead with this, but before we do, there's four positions here, and I know this probably goes back to ancient history and and how the commissions were written up. Um, I I see absolutely no reason for a treasurer or a secretary any anymore. I I don't know what you think, Mr. Mayor. If you want, I'll make a motion that we eliminate those positions from the commission as as a first step and then we can decide if we want to >> I would defer to staff on that to to confirm that there really isn't no need, >> you know, and as I'm looking at this, I think the the treasurer is an I I it's a mistake on the agenda. Um, if you look at the memo, I took the clip out of the city code and it says the commission shall designate one of its members as chairperson, one as vice chair, and one is secretary. Um, so certainly, >> but minutes are automated now, right? They get >> Well, these are these would this this would not just be the minutes. This would be the city code. Um, and so the code tells us this commission should have these three positions. >> Oh. So, um, what we would certainly entertain is a motion from the commission to suggest that the council revisit this part of the code and determine whether or not that positions >> Yeah, I'll make that motion that the uh the city council of Forest Lake revisit the officers required for the airport commission to confirm whether or not a secretary is still needed for this commission. >> That's my motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. Second from Mara. Discussion. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Okay. So, um, with regards to a chair and a vice chair, I'll ask city staff and the mayor. What would you like to do? There's only three of us here this evening. >> I So, what are the what are the roles? Obviously, your chair. Who's vice chair now currently? Do we know? Um, >> I might be Mark, but I I honestly don't know because Joe was relatively new, so I >> actually did the the the minutes uh >> was it Curtis? >> Yeah, the minutes. >> Congratulations. >> Curtis is Yeah. >> No. >> So, um, on the EDA last week, we we let the commission decide those roles. So, I'm open to whatever the commission feels comfortable with. I >> I don't want to hog the position. I'm happy to do it, but I don't want to hog the position. and the other two aren't aren't here this evening to to speak. >> I um I mean I'm inclined I I hate voting for this role when there's only three of us. Um and and had there been a full slate, I would certainly nominate you for chair again. Like I think you're doing a fabulous job in that role. Um >> but again, I think it's if if it's okay for us to wait until our next meeting. Okay, >> that would be my preference. I also know that we have had you know a number of meetings that are only three. So, um, hopefully we have a a larger group this next. >> Okay. So, do we need to make a motion to postpone this portion? >> I think that's >> that's just enough what we did. Okay. >> Okay. We'll move on to um item E, declaring default on uh the land leases on the vacant lots. And just to bring everyone up to speed, there's three lots or I'll let I guess I'll let you go on with that, Mark. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um there are three vacant lots uh as we have uh three vacant non-commercial lots. Um those would be lots number six, 19 and 27. And uh they're all currently um under lease. So someone holds a lease on the lot lot and has been paying um the ground lease for that in since the lease has been signed um each year. But, uh, the leases, all three of them have a clause that says that a hanger needs to be built on these within a two-year time frame. And, um, the I think the, um, one of the leases was signed in 2015. The other two were signed in 2017. So, we're well past the two-year threshold there. And, you know, that may not be as big a deal. You say, "Well, they're paying the the lease rate. What do we care?" Um to your point earlier about property taxes, we're not collecting any property tax on those lots. Um and then second of all is that we have a a waiting list um of an you know what's looking like it will still be about 25 people long. And so um that it seems a compelling reason to get folks uh to move along here. So um we have an airport. We got a lot of money invested in this. We want people to use it. And so, um, I think the other part of this is that Mindot, um, funds just about everything we do out at the airport. And so, we're gonna, if we're going to talk to these 25 folks and try to find a way to get them some more hanger lots, um, Midnight's going to look at us and say, "Well, you got three empty ones. Why would you want our money to build more?" >> Absolutely. >> And so, um, >> we've been pushing to get those built. >> Yeah. >> So, so you reached out to these folks? >> I have. Yep. Um, and they all, you know, got back to me in some way, shape or form and, you know, all expressed still an interest in doing it. Um, some with, you know, a little bit more level of urgency than others. But, um, so what you have in your packet tonight is a a memo I asked our attorney to draft up just um because we're dealing with leases here and we got to, you know, do legal documents. Um and her suggestion was that we um the lease, all three leases have a clause that um requires a 30-day notice to the lease holder to allow them to remedy it. Of course, you can't build a building in 30 days, right? >> So, that's a little unrealistic. So her suggestion was that we give them 30 days with which to contact me as the airport manager and uh negotiate a um a separate agreement that says we will build a or I will build a hanger on this lot by such and such date. And I think what we're asking from the commission tonight is a are you okay with this the language of this letter um and having that sent out to those three owners um or lease holders and then um some guidance from you as to the parameters with with which I would negotiate those agreements. Um it's it's my thought that certainly no more than two years but probably one year is more appropriate. Um, you know, at least maybe pulling a building permit and beginning construction prior to the end of this coming summer seems appropriate. Um, >> yeah, there could be some because of the seasonal stuff, it could be coordination wise when you get into the our winters and stuff, you really need to Yeah, if you're going to build the hanger, you got to break ground kind of early summer to be have it closed in. But I um I'm not an attorney, so I'm not going to question her language in here. is she knows the ins and outs. This has been an issue in front of of the city for a while. So, I'm going to trust that this will get them moving. Um um it doesn't need to be two years and or is a you know may maybe you stayed 18 months to pull a per permit because you're going to send this letter out when by March 1st or next tomorrow. >> Oh, tomorrow. >> Tomorrow's February 5th. If we give them a year, if they pull a permit, how quickly do they have to build after they pull a permit? >> Uh, six months is uh generally speaking is really the only timeline. You have to do some construction activity. If if you do absolutely nothing for six months, your permit expires. >> Okay? So, if we give them a year, then they have to pull the permit by that year. So, they'd have to pull the permit by February 1st of next year roughly. And so, they'd have to build by next summer at the latest. Um, >> yeah. So, I I don't if we want to put a a one-year time to pull a permit, that that works, I think. Um, >> yeah. Unless, you know, any other commissioners, you have any other thoughts. >> That reasonable reasonable time frame. They've had they've had how many years here? 10 years. So, >> um, yeah, I think that's a reasonable time. >> If I may, I think just one other requirement would be that I would u want to see a completion date. So even though building permits don't come with a completion date, uh the language in the lease says that uh construction of the building shall be completed and the building usable for its intended purposes within two years of the commencement. So the lease is contemplated you got to finish too, right? So that's the last thing we want out there is a half built >> thing. >> So um in in our in whatever agreement I come to with them, uh we would have a completion date on there as well. >> That and you want two years, you think? >> I think that's more more than enough. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. That's Yep. >> So, you want a motion to approve this or is this good enough just this discussion? >> A motion would be appropriate. Yeah. >> Um I'll make a motion to approve the proposed letter from the city attorney with a time frame to pull a um a building permit of of 12 months from now or I suppose February 1st of 2027 and a completion date of two years. That's from the date of the pulling the permit. >> I would say it's the leases say it's two years from the signing of the lease. I would say a year from the pulling of the permit is >> a year from pulling of the permit. >> Is there a second or Yeah, >> I'll second. >> Curtis seconds it motion and a second. Any other discussion on this? >> Without any other discussion, all in favor say I. I. Okay, we'll get hopefully get uh those three lots built out. Um land lease rates for 26 and 27. So, let me scroll back down. There we go. And Mark, I will let you um introduce where you want to go on this. >> Yeah. So, back in in July of last year, um I kind of brought this forward as a as the new guy in town here. I had to kind of um look at we were in fact we were preparing to send out the annual um lease invoices or whatever you want to call them. Um and I wanted to make sure that our accounting staff was doing so appropriately. So, I read some of the leases and come came to understand that um we only look at lease rates every two years. Not every lease says that, but enough of them do that we we try to do that where we only do it once every two years. Um and so I sort of set the table at that time to say here's how I'm looking at the lease rates as we come up to um what would be March of of 2026, which is the what the leases some of the leases say is the appropriate time to revisit those. And since we don't have a meeting in March, here we are in February. And um the a number of the leases talk about the the consumer price index as a way to establish the reasonleness of the of the rates. And um in my view, there are sort of two different ways to read that. One is that that is the reasonable rate. You shall use the CPI. I think another way to read that is that all else being equal, one of the things you could look at to see if it's reasonable, it would be the CPI and that we're, you know, as long as it's around there, then we shouldn't argue about it. It's that's reasonable. However, if there are other circumstances that would necessitate um higher rates, then we would look at higher rates. So, as we discussed that in July, there was some push back to the second view of it there and that no, the CPI really should be used and we shouldn't be looking at things like capital expenses and whatever the operating costs of the of the airport are. The lease didn't say we're going to cover all the costs of the airport. It just says this is my lease rate and it could be increased by the CPI. So with that view, I approached this task of looking at that and um the reason to me the reason you use an index and the reason indexes exist as opposed to sort of just an annual number um is that you can always go back to any point in time and retrue up yourself to that index. And so that is what I did is went back to the point in time where we set the initial lease rates at 9 cents a square foot in 2009 and then trude that up to today's CPI index number. And um that is the suggested staff suggested rates uh that are being proposed for both the uh non-commercial and commercial lots. Um I I think there's a I I'll I'll let um members express their view, but I think the general idea is that no, we should just look at our existing rates and then apply a two-year CPI growth to that set of rates and whatever we did in the past is what we did in the past and we move on. And so, um, we would just apply the current CPI to that past practice or at the current rate, excuse me. I think what the trouble I have with that is that in years when for whatever reason we don't raise rates, we have no ability to then ever quote unquote catch up. And we we have hamstrung ourselves. and and for I think a fiveyear stretch or so we did not increase rates and so um I don't know how to recover from that that miss and so other than the way I'm proposing here and I think again that's the beauty of an index is that you can always do that. So those are my thoughts and I'm happy to hear yours >> commissioners. I mean, I I guess I was looking over this and I went back and pulled some minutes from previous years. And in 2024, we increased the rates by 2.6%. Which is what the CPI was for that year. And in 2022, we increased the rates by 7.2%. Which is what the CPI was for that year. >> For the two-year >> for the two two-year. Well, it doesn't say. It just says well, >> but yeah, for the two years and the CPI relative. >> Um, and I understand what you're saying about the catchup. My problem, I guess, is or my my problem I have with that is is just that's quite a big jump right now, you know, if we're going to try to catch it all up at once, you know, where the CPI for the last two years is like 4.8%, 8% but then if we were to go all the way back to 2009 it's uh I I don't remember the maths. I think it was like 13 point some percent or >> the catchup would be something. >> So I mean that's quite a jump. >> Sure. So, um, I also found a staff memo from the March 2024 that says, "In 2018, the airport commission recommended and the city council agreed to use the Minneapolis St. Paul area CPI." So, I mean, it's kind of been past practice that we've been going by every two-year CPI. Um, I mean, if we want to discuss somehow to catch up. Not all in one big chunk. >> Yeah, >> I I guess I would be open to that, but kind of doing it all in one lump sum is bit hard to swallow. >> Sure. >> So on on what you said, I I didn't remember that meeting, but I know I've had that discussion. I expect I mean if if the city raises my lease rate by the CPI I can't argue that CPI is a very common number used for indexing and use. So and it's stated actually word for word in some of the leases and not in others but it's referred to as a market comparison and I didn't see any market comparison in your in your agenda and your your minutes. Um so and all previous increases that we have made as a commission and a city have gone from here to the city and they've approved them or or if they didn't approve them directly they approved the number we're at right now. So in doing the computation for the last two years to this year's as as Curtis said I think it comes out to 4.8%. I can I don't know if you need those. The number I think for for 2025 was 306.806 and for 2023 was 292.72 and you do the math on that it's 1.048. So 4.8%. So I I have again increase it by the 4.8 and that's our rate for the next two years from where we are right now. Um, but I I completely disagree with this or any catchup because it's everything's been approved to date by the city. Uh, so why would we why would we um I I won't even go down that road because there's so many rabbit holes to go down. But I have no problem with the CPI as a rate of of increase on the lease rent, which would mean that we increase um 4 I think our rate right now is it is it 0.17 for a non. >> Is that okay? And you multiply that times a 4.8% increase. It becomes um.1226 if I did the math right. You can you okay take my word for it anyway. But anyway, um, and then that would be the set rate for the year 2026 and 2027. And then in two years time, we do this again and and do that. So I have I have no problem doing that. >> Say that one more. Say say what you're I have no problem doing that. Say that again. >> Um, here I just applying. Okay. Uh, the new calculated rate. The new calculated rate per the full CPI increase would be 4.8% or 1.048 times the current rate which is 0.117 per square foot which equals 0.1226 per square foot. That rate is set for 2026, 2027. And we do this again in two years. But if the city says we're using the CPI, it's just the same. You just plug and chug the same numbers. I mean, maybe I mean, automate it and just make it the CPI if that would make it easier for everybody. I I I there's no way I can argue the CPI. I'd love to at some point. I mean, we have a possibility of having over a hundred hangers out there. If we have a hundred hangers out there paying property tax and and ground lease rent, we're taking in even at today's rates, it'd be over $250,000 a year in in property tax and ground lease rates. Um, in which case maybe there's not a need to increase it per the CPI, but that's a ways down the road. >> I think I think that's also the the that represents the current challenge, right? we aren't at that spot and you know operations are what they are. So how are we funding? >> Well, I I disagree with that part of the discussion because the city um I think I made some notes so I don't want to I don't want to misstate the city. This goes back a little in history but the city acquired the airport for the benefit of the city of Forest Lake, not for the benefit of any hanger owners. There were no hanger owners. There were no hanger lots. The city acquired the airport for the benefit of the city. Period. Okay. So, the city knew there were going to be operation costs. They knew there were going to be capital improvement costs. My hanger lease, and I can't speak for all of them because there's more than one out there, makes no reference whatsoever that I, as a hanger lot lee, am responsible for the operational cost of the airport or the capital improvement costs of the airport. It would be like it would be like if you I Clear Lake has how many houses are on Clear Lake? Do you know two 300 houses? Let's say 300 has one boat launch. Okay. Okay. Every homeowner on that lake has to use that boat launch, right? They don't have a choice. Every year that boat launch has require is damaged, requires maintenance during the year. I remember last year it got resurfaced or whatever, probably thousands of dollars. But you don't send a bill to those lakefront owners, do you? never have, right? Because that's public space. The water is public space. The boat launch is an access point to public space. >> Homes aren't leased. And I I think >> but the lease again. Okay. Well, that that's perfect. But the lease does not state anywhere in it that the leie has any responsibility for the cost the operational cost of the airport or the capital improvement cost. >> I I hear what you're saying. >> That's a contract. I have a to me that is just foundational in the lessy lesser relationship that there is in a part of any less lesser relationship and part of any rent calculation is always the operating cost that the leor is um is incurring the rent is always going to reflect that cost structure and so I I >> no that's maybe that's implied by by you if I rent an apartment I don't give a rat's ass what it cost. I'm paying the rent. That's what my my lease says. I'm paying the rent. >> The rent rate is going to be that that lesser sets the rent rate, but it sets and if they they raise the rent and I don't want to pay it, I move out. I don't I don't I haven't invested $350,000 on that piece of dirt. >> I understand what you're saying. I also This is why I think we have things like the CPI in to help guide that because there is a long-term relationship there. Um but I I just can't fully support um rents not reflecting the underlying operating costs. And I and I think there's some optimism in the financials that we see this, you know, this last year. And I think there's some optimism going forward especially with some of the growth that's out there but we're in this period of time where >> it things are tight and it's how are we how are we going getting through this you know >> so maybe it's a a discussion for further down the road if we if everybody's in agreement that moving per the CPI CPI P CPI consumer price index of the 4.8% 8% right now because once we do this expansion that we're talking about this million whatever there's not a whole hell of a lot left to expand >> and but I I think the part that everyone associated with the airport needs to recognize is that the city has covered the you know there was this pretty significant investment that the city just made as a result of the change in state funding and the fund balance you know discrepancy and there's there are those there those are real general you know property tax dollars that are being used to support the airport that >> as the as the city made that decision when they acquired the airport >> but the part but this is that partnership right part of that is because of the expansion of those projects and >> you don't have to you didn't have to do the projects you're getting a million dollar $1.6 million free I mean you can pass on that be idiots to do it but >> we and we all said we would be idiots to do it which is partly why we did it but again like we I the totality of all of the facts I think need to be part of how all decisions are made. And so this you know very myopic view of here here are the lease holders because the it lease holders are primary users of that airport. >> Oh no there over a given year hundreds of aircraft land at that airport and take off that are absolutely not associated with any hanger. There's military aircraft that come helicopters that come in. There's medical evac helicopters. There's aircraft from the state patrol that come in and out. There's a hell of a lot of use. It's just again got I go back to the boat launch. There's a hell of a lot of people that use a boat launch that have that do not have lakefront property. We don't charge them, >> you know, we don't charge the lakefront owners. >> It's part of the community. when you have a that as a part >> chair steeler I I think going back to your lake um >> thing we we have the weed harvester is a service the city provides that lake as a acknowledgement that the community as a whole gets a benefit there but there's a partnership there with other entities and in fact I believe the homeowners association um >> association >> kicks in some there >> yeah but that's not an that has nothing to do with an access point to the public space >> well sure but similar >> I'm talking about having an access point to the you're you're talking about improving the quality of the water. That would be like talking about improving the quality of the air that I'm flying in. That's I think that's an apples and oranges comparison. I'm talking about a pure access point to public space is that boat launch. Pure access point to public space is that runway. The only reason I have a a hanger there is because I can't take my plane home and put it in my garage. A boat you can take home, put in your garage. I think there's a big difference there. >> So, so I I want to under I want to understand a little bit more of the mechanics and how what's the I I couldn't explain to somebody else. Um and I I think I probably would need to I I need to be able to um how is it that we got how is it that we got out of sync? Why is it that by going through each year and making the adjustment to CPI, how is it that now that we're out of sync and that there is this foundational need for catch up? What's different in the interpretation that you're proposing that's different? Like I I I don't know if I could still articulate that difference. >> The only way we got out of sync is we didn't do the CPI. We did 0% increase for from 2009 to 2014. >> Oh >> yeah. I >> because we just as a city chose >> but where the airport commission city council chose to have zero increase. >> No increase. >> It was a gr it was a grass strip at that time too. was the operational cost probably less. >> But see, then there you're tying it to the operational cost. >> That's but that's what I mean. But that Well, I see what you're saying. But but um yeah, but that would mean if the discussion came up though, that's what it >> see. I think I think that's the fundamental problem. Don, with all due respect, is that you you just framed the reason for a 0% increase on operational >> amenities >> on operational costs being low, but we're not willing to frame a larger increase on operational costs being low. >> No, I'm not I didn't say that that was acceptable. I wasn't here in 209 through 14 or 17. >> But you reasoned. >> No, absolutely not. I just stated it it wasn't. That may have been the reason they used back then. I have no idea. I wasn't here. I also, you know, I haven't said these words out loud, but I just the same exact argument when we were talking about rates related to the golf course. Like, I just feel like for a municipality with the pressures that I mean, pay attention to property taxes all over the state right now and double double digit property taxes all over the state. Municipalities are under immense pressure to have oper have where we can have fees and make things user based a user-based structure and have things be self-supporting there is immense pressure to allow for that and um when you know council's making tough decisions on um on projects of all sizes yes just you know these airport projects have a 90% benefit from the state which is wonderful but also the size of the city contribution is also sizable. And so I just it's it's a it's a dance that we need to do of true partnership of you know what is the cost and how are we funding this together and you know when I look at the the dollar amount of the change >> it feels like given the opportunity for everybody at the table we're kind of fighting over pennies. I mean it's not that much. Um and so I I you talk about the money's not there. When the city acquired the airport, again going back in history, okay, this they acquired it for the benefit of the city, not again, not for the benefit of the hanger owners. And when they did so, they acquired such a mass of land that was associated with that airport that they sold it off for millions of dollars. Okay, that's where, if Mark, you weren't here then, but that's where the YMCA is. That's where the county and the library office is. That's where the hockey arenas are and the uh I think there's ball fields over there. There's where there's commercial buildings down there. The city took in millions of dollars and they could have taken those dollars and set some aside for operational costs of the airport because that's where that money came from and that's what should have been done and it wasn't. And that's not the hangar owner's fault. But you're making it the hanger owner's fault. >> No. No. What I'm saying is that lease lease fundamental to any lease relationship is some level of >> No, that's not true. >> That's not true. And the language in the lease is clearly stated. >> Absolutely not. >> And and the fact that I invest $350,000 in a in a building based on the language in that lease. I can't walk I can't just walk away and say, "Sorry, I don't I don't like the way you're changing the terms of my lease right now. That's that's a whole different animal than what you're what you're saying. So I I have if we want to move forward, I have no problem with uh moving forward with with the 4% 4.8% increase and holding that for two years. You want me to make a motion? I'll make a motion. I'll recommend to the city council of Forest Lake make a motion. I make a motion to the city council of Forest Lake to increase the ground lease rent by 4.8%. The new rate shall be applied for the years 2026 2026 and 2027. Um the uh thus for the non-commercial hanger lots the ground lease rate would increase from currently 0.1170 per square foot to now be I have this 01226 per square foot and similar would similar rate increase would apply to the commercial lots. have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'm um I'm I'm struggling. I'm struggling to follow your math. Um >> Oh, sure. What do you need? >> Well, I think we may have a foundational disagreement, but I'm I'm struggling a little bit to call you now. Oh, well, if you go to his table that shows the CPIs, >> you see the 2025 one he has highlighted in yellow down there. >> 306.806. >> Then go up two years >> to the 292.72. >> So, do divide one by the other, you get 1.048. Yeah. I um I can't >> Well, is there a second? >> Is there a second? >> Are we done discussing or >> Well, can we can we >> We should have a second before we continue discussion. That would really be the better >> Okay. Are you are you are you willing to um with are you willing to withdraw your motion and so we can have some additional discussion? >> Sure. I will withdraw my my motion so we have additional discussion. >> I understand I understand where you're heading. So So your map is essentially let's follow the path that we've let's follow the path that we've traditionally followed >> since I've been here in 2018. I I understand. Um and and I I think I and I have supported that path for as long as I've been on council 10. We have a you know eight year history of supporting that math. Um but I'm also open to I'm I'm open to there being again a different some some additional factors considered. Um, and I guess maybe where I'm uncomfortable with staff's position on where staff has, you know, landed at this number is that it is based on this catchup. And I am I am struggling with if if we're going to if we're going to deviate from CPI because of thing because of XYZ, whatever the reason is to deviate from CPI, let's do that. But let's not do it and call it just a catchup because we didn't adjust rates. You know, I I feel like we're we're looking I I feel like staff's look when I say we staff is looking for a rate increase that is driven by CPI, but it's it's it's a catch-up. And I appreciate the, you know, and agree with a catch-up isn't really necessary unless we're all going to agree it was a flat mistake and that the votes that have been taken for the last 10 years have been just a flat mistake or the votes to not raise was a flat mistake. Um, and if we're at a spot where we need that number to be higher, I would rather say, well, let's just not call it a CPI catchup. Let's call it what it is, and we're making this deviation and continue this conversation. I'm not sure we're ready to make that tonight. Maybe council is. Um I think we're here to kind of guide the discussion, but I feel like it's it's worth if we're moving away from CPI. Let's move let's kind of articulate what that is. And I think there's got to be some guard rails. The reason why CPI is in here is so it's an index we can go back to recognizing these are long-term ground leases that there needs to be some level of reasonability given to lease holders that we're not going to just have a 30% rate increase. Um so let's kind of articulate what that is rather than looking for it to come from a CPI catch up. That's where that's where I'm struggling again on what the right path is here. >> Yeah, that's I was trying to articulate earlier, you know, just jumping and catching up all at once is hard to swallow if that's the decision. to your point uh earlier u commissioner be I I I don't mean to diminish our discussion but it is we are talking about probably a $2,000 difference overall. I mean I think the the catchup quote unquote was a $3,500 increase in our revenues um at 4.8%. I haven't done the math but I got to imagine that's about a $1,500 jump or so. So, we're probably talking about the difference of $2,000 total. >> $2,000 total across all lease holders. That's correct. I mean, >> I And if that's the if that's the difference, I'm I'm not sure it's worth the ill will that ultimately comes from that. Um, >> agreed. >> We've, you know, certainly the amount of the fund balance that was provided was substantial and um and and again for reasons smart reasons that we all agreed to that was the right thing to do. Um but in I think what's challenging is you know in these next couple of years where we're very lean operating um it's how are we bridging that gap and doing so in a way that keeps keeps the public supportive of the airport. Um I know that that is that that is a challenge. Can I make my motion again? >> Yeah, for sure. >> Thank you for the opportunity to talk a little bit more. >> Uh, I make a motion to recommend to the Forest Lake City Council to increase the ground lease rent by 4.8%. The new rate shall apply for 20 2026 and 2027. Thus, for a non-commercial hanger lots, the ground lease rent rate would increase from 0.1170 per square foot to now be I have this on a separate page, unfortunately. 0.1226 per square foot. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? >> Point of kind of I guess point of clarification. So this is a recommendation to council. Is that correct? Right. And council ultimately decides. >> Um I think I um because of the I think the fundamentals of what we're talking about is important. Um and we we um it's worth additional it's worth additional discussion. The dollar amounts that we're talking about is not worth the fight in my opinion. Um so I will you know vote to support this tonight. And I think that, you know, again, given the dollar amount, let's keep the consistency and not make this the fight of the day. Um, but I again, we've got some tough decisions here in the next couple of years. So, >> so we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion? >> I passes unanimously. >> What is next on the agenda? Um, discussion. Hi, just an update from myself, airport manager here. >> So, we we do have a lot going on at the airport. Um I wanted to just report on a few of those things. Um I think the next airport commission will be another busy agenda. Um we do have um a couple things here. Just wanted to update everyone on we had a number of complaints about the fuel dispensing system in that uh people had questions about credit card charges and I think we've gotten to the bottom of that and that there is depending on your bank there there will be a hold put on your credit card um when you use the um gas dispenser fuel dispenser um and that that hold will go off after a couple of days or even a couple hours depending on the bank And um so we put a placard up there now that says, >> "Hey, by the way, you should know that this might happen to you." So we we haven't had a call since we put the placard up. >> That's good. >> People are reading that. So >> um we did uh just we've been doing some random uh website audits uh in terms of updating um information and our airport section of the of the city website was pretty out of date. So, we got some information from Silus there and got some nice uh updated information on the on the website. Um, we just took care of the MidCo bill. We'll do that. So, we'll get a little bit of savings there. Our on&m grant reimbursement, uh, our accounting staff has submitted that and we anticipate that coming through here in in midFebruary. Um, as I mentioned, I've been revisiting the waiting list. So, I've called everyone on the waiting list who didn't have an email address associated with their um name on the list and now have an email address for everybody. I think I I ended up calling about 10 people and only two of those 10 dropped off the list and so the list was >> 32 people. Um so, >> and we've never advertised or sent out any notification. That's just word of mouth that they happen to >> Right. And so, um >> so there's some demand out there for >> I do have a couple of um thoughts there. Um, and I think I'll I'll be bringing some of those thoughts to you on how to, um, engage with that group again because, you know, as we get these three lots, uh, folks deciding whether or not they're going to build on those and then, um, we'll look at what we look what we could do for expansion of the lot areas. So, >> um, we have had some interest in the commercial hanger uh, spaces as well or the commercial lots. Um we are discussing uh with the uh lease holder on hangar one um a potential tenant uh a new potential tenant in that uh building and um may bring back some information for you on at the next meeting on that. Um there are some uh logistical issues there that we're working through. um might end up being some revenue sources there as well. And u may end up discussing um oddly enough that how could someone uh rent space for a period of time to kind of secure adjacent space for expansion in the future and could we give them a some sort of rate to do that and and uh reserve that space even without building on it. So of course there would be a a time limit on there. Sure. Um, I mentioned the rules and regulations we hope to bring back to you at the next time as well and then we just discussed the hang our lease rates. So, I think we're in in good shape there. So, um, before we move for a motion to adjourn, should we run through everyone? Start with the mayor. Any comments? >> Uh, nothing tonight. Just other than thanks for your service, >> Mark. Nothing else. You your report, Mara? >> Nothing. >> Curtis? No sir. >> I don't have anything. So we're just looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. All right. Uh all in favor? >> I. We are adjourned at 704.