 For December 2nd, 2020, the regular airport commission meeting at 407. The first item or the second item is the agenda. Do I have a motion? Yes, Bill. Read out the agenda as presented. Do I have a second? I'll second that. All right, thank you. Number three, public forum. Is there anybody on? I can't tell that wishes to speak at this time. All right, let's move on to the consent agenda. Number four, the approval of the minutes of our regularly scheduled meeting of October 21st, 2020. Do I have a motion? The hand is up. Yes, I can't. Bill, you're just gonna have to say, okay, go ahead. I move we accept the consent agenda, place it on file. Do I have a second? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Item number 4.02 in planements. Is there any motion? That was part of the consent agenda, Mr. Chairman. Okay, all right. Is there any discussion? We already voted though, right? Okay. Oh, now here we go. Action items, item 5.01. Proposed city of Burlington Charter Change, adding the city of Lewinowski seat to the airport commission. Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Discussion? Can we hear from the proponents or recognize Eileen? Hello, Eileen. Hi, folks. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Eileen Blackwood. I'm the city attorney. And I wanted to start out by saying that it looks to me as though I apologize on your agenda that you didn't get a copy of the specific language that you're being asked about, but I know it was conveyed to the commission some time ago and maybe just a quick history and reason behind this. About a year ago, the city was in discussing with South Burlington and Lewinowski a number of items and was negotiating a memorandum of understanding with those two other communities about a number of airport items. One of them was to add a seat for Lewinowski on the airport commission. And at the time that the city council was looking at it, they wanted to hear what the airport commission felt about that. At the time, the airport commission was not favorable towards it and in part because folks wanted to see whether or not the memorandum of understanding came together and put that into. That has occurred and Director Richards, has done a lot of work on obtaining funding for the local match or the airport noise, which was one of the major issues that was pending among the communities. So we believe that we're now in a position to try to move forward with part of what the city agreed to which was to add a Lewinowski representative to the commission. If I could share my screen, I can put that language up there. So I'm gonna do that. Can you all see that now? Yeah. So what this would require is this would be a change to the city of Burlington charter. The charter is a state statute that's passed by the legislature. And in order for that charter to be changed, what happens is that a question would get put on the annual city meeting ballot in March. If the voters adopted it, it would then go to the legislature and the legislature would be asked to make this change to the city charter. And if the legislature passed it, then the governor would have to sign it before it would go into effect. So the question here, this is the question that would go on the ballot. The format you're looking at this, this is the resolution that the city council looked at in considering this question. So the question would be, shall the city of Burlington charter as amended be further amended to increase the size of the board of airport commissioners to seven members, including adding a representative from Lewinowski. And we set that up. And so what you see here that says section 120 enumerated, this is the current language of the charter. And you will see down on line 26 that we are recommending changing four legal voters of Burlington to five and adding and one legal voter of the city of Lewinowski. The idea behind that is that historically when a legal voter of the city of South Burlington was added, an additional Burlington representative was added to the airport commission. So it seemed to make sense to be parallel with that. A second rationale is that the city has been taking steps to have many of its boards and the majority of its boards have five legal voters of the city of Burlington on them. And so if there are additional folks moving it to seven, total members is still within the kinds of the variation of the police commission is seven members as well. It also requires a change to another article in the charter and that is article 84 here, which says the board of airport commissioners shall consist of five legal voters of said city of Burlington and then section B lays out the South Burlington representative. And then we put similar language about one legal voter of the city of Lewinowski in there. That's all of it, yes. So if you all, so what the city council is looking for is for an indication of your support or concerns or how anything you would like to convey to them about this, I think the administration is asking for your support of this because it's been part of what the mayor and the leaders of South Burlington and Lewinowski have discussed and agreed to put forward. Happy to answer any other questions you might have. Thank you. Questions for Eileen? Yes. This is significantly different from what we were expecting from the commission level. This has been pending for a week and we now get it at the last second which puts us at a disadvantage. I had no idea that this would be part of the proposal and I'm wondering why this happened. I mean, I know the city's busy with COVID-19 and I understand all that, I've been part of it but here we are at the last minute. Do you know why this is so much? You mean why this item got on your agenda at the last minute? The adding the Burlington taxpayer to the commission making it seven people and some of the provisions of this seems last minute. That this is verbatim from what the city, this is the city council resolution from December of 2019. So this was the proposal all along. Well, this is Jeff Munger. Eileen on a memorandum that you prepared on the 1st of January, 2020 section F. It says that the airport staff recommended not changing the current governance structure of the airport and encourage substantial exploration before making changes that may disrupt the airport's current successful trends. So I don't know, you said that this was done in December of 2019 and then yet there's a thing from the airport staff. I don't know whether the commission took any action. My memory's a little bad, but that's just, I mean, if someone on the airport staff wants to explain that and if they change their position. I think what you're quoting from is a different matter and that had to do with the, an issue of concerning regionalization. And what we're trying to do here is particularly because you're adding a Burlington representative and a Winooski representative, this isn't seen as changing how the airport is governed. Well, it says that it's for the addition of a Winooski representative to the commission, could be considered. You know, I'd still like to know what the pros and cons of this all are before going further myself. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Can I ask questions of the mayor of Winooski? I don't know who's talking, but I can't hear all. Taking the background. I think, I think, yeah, can you hear those questions about everyone on this team? That is because, Jeff Munger came here, still or no? Yeah, I can hear you. Yep. Bill was just asking if you can be okay to ask Christine a question about. Yeah, I think that's fine. Okay. All right, first of all, I mean, thank you for your work on the airport regional governance work. You and your staff did a lot of work on that document and just to let, you know, we appreciate all the work that you've done on that, right? Anyway. Thank you. Well, Kristen, you're right there. Kristen, you're there? Oh, thank you for having me. I don't see you on the screen. There you go, okay. Okay. What does Winooski bring to the table of the airport commission if this happens? So our bodies, if you will, our cities, the airport, we are gonna be working together for probably decades through this noise mitigation program. And so having a formal relationship to make sure that we do collaborate on that for years into the future is important. I think the advisory seat sets us up to make sure that we have an established reoccurring connection and an easy entrance to collaboration. It ensures that should airport leadership change, should Winooski leadership change, should the members of this body here change, not rebuilding our relationships together that we have that formal connection going forward. If there are other changes at the airport that impact Winooski, we are right there and able to have a voice in the discussion to make sure that concerns are heard and that citizens are bought into changes that are made because they were able to participate in the process. Okay, I have four more questions in a statement. What elements of the airport operation interest Winooski like automobile, traffic, flight patterns, commercial and military operations, noise issues from non-military aircraft? Like automobile traffic, is that an issue? Automobile traffic generated by the airport, is that an issue for Winooski? I don't think so, it has not been an issue up to this point. Okay, how about flight patterns? Is that a concern for Winooski? Yes, we sit under the flight path. So I think all of the commercial and military aircraft activity is something that we would like to have a voice in. Do you know that the airport commission has no role in flight patterns, but okay, how about commercial and military operations? Yes, again, I think because of where we sit adjacent to the airport, those are of interest to us. All right, so the next one I have concern is noise issues from non-military or commercial aircraft, do you have an influence in that? An influence I don't know, but an interest in being a part of the discussion, yes. Okay, all right. Mayor, there can be occasions when Purlington taxpayers are financially liable for some airport improvements either through a direct tax or shared responsibility for bond issues. Winooski, as a commission member, would vote on that. Would Winooski be willing to share Burlington's financial responsibility for that? Oh, we are not willing to share financial responsibility. We are not receiving any financial benefits. And it's my understanding that the airport operates as an enterprise fund separate from the municipal finances of the city of Burlington. Okay, has Winooski been affected economically with the operation of the airport? And if so, how? Yes, Winooski as well as almost any community that sits under the flight path has lower property values than the surrounding area. Well, Christine, you've got an East Island street or West Africa East Island street. So major housing developments have received building permits from the city of Winooski right in the flight path. And certainly they're, I think that they're well occupied. So how does that reduce property value? I mean, our home values are lower than they are in Burlington or other areas that are not impacted by the noise. We don't have a shortage, like people still wanna live here, but the home values are lower. Okay, all right. Does Winooski see anything wrong with the management of the airport that now operates? I have not heard anything specific beyond us wanting to have formal communication and collaboration and insured into the future. Okay, I think it was back in November, 2019 that the Winooski city council passed a resolution seeking in essence, the change in the management of the airport transferring ownership to a proposed regional commission. You remember that? Yeah, so there was past advocacy for a regional governance structure. We are no longer seeking that. We are seeking a seat on this advisory council. Well, that's interesting. That's a shift. So, okay. Let's see, Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski have been working for a long time on a memorandum of understanding, but which has three elements. One, a change in the governance of the airport. Two, a commission seat for Winooski. And three, working with the three communities to provide a local match for matching federal money. Where either you or Aileen can answer, where do we stand on that? Any progress on that? Yeah, so in March, that had been, was on the agenda for this group to review and provide feedback on that meeting was canceled as the pandemic set in. I would say that myself, Mayor Weinberger and Chair Reilly were all very pleased with where that document was and we are ready to bring it back and move it forward so that we can actually execute that. Okay, are you anywhere with the financial elements of that MOU? I don't believe there's any actual financial obligations involved. Okay, all right, those are my questions. I have a statement if I may, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, sir, go ahead. It appears to me that Winooski wants to see a movie, but does not want to buy a ticket. That Winooski would like to have a seat on the commission only because it wants to. And apparently so does Mayor Murrow Weinberger. If this issue passes, soon to follow maybe Williston, Richmond, Colchester, and so on. I think this move by Mayor Weinberger is a political one. I'm not sure why. Director of Aviation Richards and his very capable staff are doing an excellent job running the airport, COVID-19 notwithstanding. We have to remember that this commission is only advisory. It has been a long while since we have been asked for our viewpoint. We were not asked nor would we have a say in the removal of 200 houses in South Burlington. We were not asked nor would we have a way of saying in any operations in the Vermont Air National Guard. We were not asked about the design of the planned hotel at the airport or the viability of the COVID-19 test site at the airport. The proposed issue before us would add another vote to change the governance of the airport. South Burlington has had a seat at this table and Burlington's relationship with that city has been great until recently. At one time, the chair of the commission was a member from South Burlington. Now the relationship is modified somewhat. The airport is the largest taxpayer in South Burlington. Yet, the city of South Burlington brought us into court challenging the airport property assessment that cost both parties thousands of dollars in court costs. Today, it is abundantly clear that South Burlington would rest ownership of the airport from Burlington to a regional commission. If we added Manuski to the commission, probably South Burlington will get a companion, a companion vote to stay away, to take away our valuable Burlington asset, our airport. The airport does an excellent job running the airport, benefiting adjoining communities, the county and the state. I hope we defeat this proposal. Manuski wants to see the movie, but doesn't want to buy a ticket. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other commissioners have any questions or discussion they'd like to bring up? I do, Mr. Chairman. I'll go ahead, Jeff. Yes, Tim. Go ahead, Tim. Okay, I appreciate my fellow commissioners throwing us on this and some of his concerns. I don't share the concerns in exactly the same way. I do think it's the airport demands a really important asset for the city of Burlington and not supportive of the immigration effort. I don't view the addition of the Manuski seat on this board, particularly with the company with another seat. Yes, can you just pick up, please? I can't quite hear you. I'm sorry. Sure. Can you hear me? Is that better? Yes, thank you. I'm not sure if you heard that. I said I appreciated your thoroughness, Bill, on this and understand where you're coming from. I don't share your concerns in quite the same way. The airport's a really important asset for the city of Burlington. We've invested a lot for many, many years in it. I'm not supportive of the regionalization effort, as I understand it now. I don't think that the addition of a Manuski seat on our commission, particularly if it's accompanied with an additional Burlington seat, is a wreck to Burlington's control. I think it's understandable that Manuski is interested in having a seat and being part of the conversation. And it sounds like there's been quite a bit of discussion at the mayoral level, the administrative level, between the communities about this. And so I understand what they're asking for and at a personal level, I'm supporting of this charter change, which obviously doesn't start and end with us. It seems like we're just one small piece, frankly, of the process. I'm not even sure if my one question I mean is, does it matter whether the airport commission supports this or not in terms of whether or not it actually will go through and be voted on? Does it matter? I think the counselors would say yes, they want to know what you all think, so. That probably wasn't the best way to phrase the question. Can it go through without the airport commission support? It could go through without the airport commission support, so I guess. So I appreciate that. I appreciate the process personally supported. Tim, did you want to contribute? I did, thank you, Jeff. So Aileen, my first question is for you, I'm going back to the January report that Bill referenced. I went back and I looked at the agenda from the February meeting where this topic was introduced. And on agenda item 5.01, you were asked to do free things. You were asked to affirm that the commission is satisfied with the current form of governance. You were asked to oppose any efforts in Vermont legislature to form a change in governance or ownership and to also continue to support and encourage the efforts for Burlington to work with neighboring municipalities. Now, at the time we received that document, the memorandum of understanding was well underway at that point. So there was consideration of Winooski gaining a seat. So I think earlier you made a comment that the document that was produced was in reference to regionalization, but in reality it was well known that Winooski was pursuing a seat at that time. So I'm curious why we would have received a document in February saying we are opposing any efforts to change in governance, knowing that Winooski was seeking a seat. And now we're in December and we're saying, well, let's set that aside and let's consider Winooski having a seat. So maybe you could help me understand what has changed between February and today. So I think what I'm saying is nothing has changed that what we were talking about in that memo had to do with the idea of regionalization of the governance and in different governance and ownership structures of the airport. And that's what we were looking for guidance on and we're talking about opposing. The this issue of Winooski having a seat had already been dealt with by the council. You're right, perhaps we should have flagged that differently. I can just tell you that we weren't thinking about that issue as that issue had already been referred on. So I apologize if that was confusing because we certainly didn't intend it to be. Yes, I think, I mean, I can't speak for the rest of the commission, but it certainly was confusing to me because that is at the same meeting where we were talking about adding a seat for Winooski to the commission. So I hope you can see how it was confusing to have adding a seat being discussed and yet having a document that talked about not changing the governance of the commission. And I apologize if that was confusing and that probably is the fault of my office and a regionalization issue that was for us separate from the MOU and the adding the Winooski seat. So I apologize if we confused you all with. Well, thank you for the clarification that's helpful. I don't know who can answer this question. I don't know if this is, who can answer it, but I'm gonna just ask it. How has it decided that Winooski merited consideration for a seat and not any of the other neighboring municipalities that are also impacted by the operations of the airport? My understanding of that is that Winooski is impacted much more directly by the operations of the airport and has in particular in relation to the current noise maps has a great deal of interest in what is happening with the airport around not only noise issues, but as a result of those, the larger operations, they in addition, they are a community that requested to have a seat on the commission and Director Richards may be able to speak more to this, but I believe there were some inquiries as to whether or not other communities had an interest and there was not interest at that time in having a representative. So that was sort of explored, but we felt that in particular Winooski had a much more direct impact from the airport than the other surrounding communities. I agree with that. There's no question that of all the municipalities that are not currently on this body, Winooski is definitely the most impact. I have no disagreement with that. It's interesting that there was, I didn't know that there was a solicitation to other communities to see if there was interest in joining the commission. So that's... I'm hesitating to call it a solicitation as much as it was in... Inquirement. Yeah, I mean, I think it was more informal than that. Director Richards can weigh in. It actually was a very informal conversation and governance has changed in Williston since then. So it was some time ago and I would not want to, in any way say that's their opinion today. Since then a lot has happened, the F-35s are here, the reality of them are here. So it may be a completely different discussion today than what we had back then, but that's what I know to be true at this point. And so along that line, if another municipality were to express interest in joining the commission, assuming that this eventually goes through when Winooski is granted a seat, it could compel other municipalities to also express interest in joining the airport commission. I'm curious to know, if say Colchester, Essex, Shelburne, and you name it, expressed interest in becoming part of the commission. What would the city's position be? Would the city be receptive to that, acknowledging that they are impacted? Or would the city say, well, you're impacted, but not as much as South Burlington or Winooski are, and therefore would not support the addition of other municipalities on the commission. I don't think that the city of Burlington has made a determination on that issue. What I know has been discussed is that there was, that of course that option came up, that that might be a possibility of what would happen next, and discussion has ranged from folks saying, maybe there would be some other kind of lesser advisory committee, that those organizations, those municipalities could be a part of, or other affected folks that they would, they have been, I believe, invited to join various of the airport committees that already exist, and or, and by committees, I mean not necessarily formal entities that have a decision-making authority, but that are involved in things like the noise mitigation studies and decision-making and those kinds of things. And I think the city at the moment is perfectly comfortable with the current status with all the rest of those communities. As I said, it's just, I don't think there's been a broad discussion or in any kind of decision one way or another about that issue. Yes, obviously it is a possibility that those inquiries would come in and I think if that occurred, then there would have to be some further discussion about that. Okay. I mean, that does concern me a little bit that that hasn't been thought through, but then again, I'm not aware of other conversations with other municipalities. So it's difficult for me to speak to. I wanna ask Mayor Lott a question if I may. Sure, go ahead. So I know Mayor Lott, you've been to a few of our meetings and I know how Colston and other representatives of Winooski have come to a few meetings and it's been great to have you all there. I'm curious to know from all the meetings that you've been to and the other Winooski representatives have been to, what do you think would have been different if Winooski had been at those meetings for the last year or two years, as opposed to, I should say having been there and being a voting member of the commission as opposed to being present. Can you give some examples of how votes may have been different or any of the actual governance activities would have been different? Well, I have to admit that I do not recall the majority of the meeting content, especially having gone through such a lengthy break this summer in actually attending these meetings. I don't think that any, there are no votes that come to mind that could have been different outcomes. I think there's been some useful information in hearing about progress on the hotel, changes to operations, changes to things with taxis. Our biggest concern obviously is around the noise map, the noise mitigation, things related to that, which our communities will be engaging together on for four years to come. I would note that as Commissioner Kio noted that those are things that we do not discuss as a commission. So I think those are things that are more served in some of the broader community discussions that happen, whether it's the RAC or the TAC or other bodies that meet, those aren't generally topics that we discuss at the commission level. So- May I ask what you would say your primary topics are that you are responsible for? Well, I think that's a great question that, as Commissioner Kio noted, we are a principally advisory commission. If you look at the agenda, even for today, there's really nothing about the government, I shouldn't say governance, it's the wrong word, the operations of the airport that is on the agenda. We're good. And that is very common in the agenda items from any commission meeting that we have. I do see an item about noise complaint reporting. I do. And the question is, we can ask for statistics, but we cannot change the policy as to what might be generating that noise in the first place. I guess this is the last thing I'll say. This is a challenging issue for me because I really do believe when you skis impact. And I really do want to see a way that voices can be heard. At the same time, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to do it. This commission itself is largely symbolic, as Bill noted, it's an advisory commission. And I feel like the addition of Wynuski's seat is a symbolic gesture to add a seat to a symbolic body. And I think I said the same comment back in February when we had this meeting. You know, I don't necessarily oppose the seat. I guess I feel that the addition of the seat is not gonna generate the result that the citizens of Wynuski hope will result by adding the seat to the commission. That the policies and the overall operations of the airport are not going to change by adding Wynuski to this body. May I respond to that? Yes, please. I am well aware that this is an advisory body. And the objective here is not to change policies necessarily. The objective is to be a part of the conversation, have our voices heard. Maybe you hear something that leadership takes in and makes a policy adjustment on their own. You know, South Burlington gives their updates every meeting, there could be a Wynuski update where we could inform. You discuss in plain mints. Perhaps some commentary is possible there of how we're being impacted. I think there are different ways. My constituents want their voices heard and they wanna be a part of the discussion. We are not asking for a guaranteed outcome, which is why this request for the seat is different from a regional governance structure. We wanna be a part of the discussion. We're not asking to be a part of your, you know, governing decision-making body. Tim, anything else? I'm also, thank you. All right. Jeff? You know, as far as that question about policy, it's to my knowledge, and Jean, correct me or Nick, but it's pretty much driven by the FAA. And we are advisory and I'm not sure that all the things that Wynuski wants can't be done without becoming a member. I just would like to see some more discussion and pros and cons about it, but I'm only one. So if there's... Jeff, do you mind? No other discussion. Yes, Jean. I think Councilor Powell also has a comment. Councilor Powell, would you like to speak first? I'm happy to, Director Richards. However, if you'd like to go, go ahead. I always like to talk, but please. Okay, so Mayor Lott, I apologize. I'm sorry that we've never had the opportunity to meet in person, hello, in a virtual way. I'm Karen Paul. I'm a city councilor in the south end of Burlington, and I have spent, as the people that are on this call can attest, have spent an enormous amount of time on airport issues. It's a subject near and dear to my heart. A number of people that are on this meeting were a part of the strategic planning process that occurred about, I guess, it's now been about six years ago or so, both Jeff, Jeff, Bill Keough, and of course, the airport staff. So, yeah, I just wanted to say a couple of things. The first is that, as you can imagine, Mayor Lott, this is a small town, we all know each other. My good friend and former Council President, Bill Keough, and I usually agree on just about everything. We don't agree on this. He had mentioned that Manuski wants the seat, that Mayor Weinberger wants a seat. I would like the seat, and I had reservations from the get-go about this only because I felt that it was important that a few things, other things happen before this charter language go before the voters. And I think a lot of those things have been done now. The MOU, my understanding, and of course, as you know, I wasn't there, but my understanding is that there's a lot of negotiation, a lot of balance, a lot of give and take. South Burlington has had, we've had our moments with South Burlington, we've had our moments with Manuski, but that doesn't mean that we can't figure out a common way forward. And I think the MOU is a way of getting us there. And now that that has moved forward, I was one of the city councilors that actually wanted it taken off of our agenda this change way back when because the Airport Commission had not been given the opportunity to weigh in. And even though it is advisory, make no mistake, you know, city councilors, mayors cannot keep track of everything. They rely on commissions and boards to do a lot of that on the ground work. And it does matter how they vote. I think it matters to all city councilors, and I'm sure in Manuski it matters to you. But I hope that the commission will take a few steps back and realize that there's a lot that has gone in and into this process. And I hope that you will support this. You know, it was part of the strategic plan. Those of you who are at all those meetings know that there was a long discussion about adding a seat from the city of Manuski. And that was a long time ago. And it's a decision whose time has come. And I understand why Manuski wants a seat at the table. I don't think that they are going into this with out open eyes. I think they know that there are many, many things that we, I mean, the city council has no control over whether or not there are F-35s flying in and out of Burlington. You know, we've all been a part of this conversation for a really long time. And I think we all know what can and can't happen. The only thing that I would say, and if you wish to speak to this mayor a lot, I'm happy to hear, the only thing that I think is important to understand is that when the city of Burlington appoints commissioners to any commission, and we'll just talk about airport, you know, the goal of a commissioner is to support the airport to, you know, to certainly scrutinize the financials, offer a valid, you know, offer an opinion, be there when there are decisions that are made, and the airport staff looks to the commission for that input. But I think it is really important to know that underneath all of it, it is a general feeling of support for the health and welfare and stability of the airport weather. You are in South Burlington and don't, so to speak, own it or not. And, you know, I think that is important. And last, I just wanted to say, and then I will be quiet so that Director Richards can talk, is that I personally see this as a positive. We've had a lot of rancor between South Burlington, between, with us, between Manuski, and, you know, we're finally working together in a very collaborative way. I see this as a positive. We have to give this a chance. And I hope that you will support this. I would, you know, I think there's a big difference, you know, Bill said something about not having a seat at the table. And I think some of that relates to one of the members of the Strategic Planning Committee, which was Edwin Coladney, longtime CEO of US Airways who grew up in Burlington. And he said that, you know, if you don't have skin in the game, you shouldn't have a seat at the table. And I think when it comes to regionalization, I think that absolutely is true. When it comes to the Airport Commission, I really, truly do not see it that way. And I hope that the Airport Commission will support that. So that's all I have to say. I appreciate you listening to me. And if you want to respond to any of that, if not, that's fine too. Thanks, Sharon. I appreciate you, Councillor Paul. Thank you. I would like to to your point about appointing a representative that is there to support. I absolutely believe that. And I think that my current council, the leadership that we have in Manuski feels that way as well. You know, we have our own commissions and bodies. We appoint people to various organizations in the area and the goal is always to move forward. And when I think about the airport specifically, it is also about moving forward, right? And even if there are decisions made that are not ideal for us, at least we can share, you know, maybe here's a way to tweak that or we can bring that back to our community proactively and get ahead of issues. And I think also would like to just add that the current council that has been serving in myself included, you know, we, as it comes to the F 35 specifically, which not your purview, right? But as part of this discussion, we are focused on moving forward, moving forward with noise mitigation with this seat at the table and no longer being in that position of constantly battling. Jean? Yeah, Jean. So I'd like to, first of all, talk about, you know, the direction, you know, that Mayor Weinberg, you know, the whole purpose of, you know, the years of work that he's put into this. And I know if a councilor really were here, she would also be in favor, but I obviously her vote doesn't count because she's not here, but she has put a lot of time in Mayor Law has put a lot of time in working with you know, Mayor Weinberg. And it isn't about necessarily getting a seat at the table. It's about, you know, a collaboration, it's about understanding, it's about compassion. And, you know, working with Mayor Law has been, you know, not always fun, but definitely rewarding, you know, meaning she's hard, she, her city councilors are tough, but they're fair. And I, they have shown what it could be to have a representative, a fair representative. And I have to say from my experience so far, they've been extremely supportive of the airport in every way that they could be, you know, they're, they are realistic about what's going on, but at the same time, understanding of this asset and how important it is to this region. But again, they do have direct impact, you know, from the airport. I have found the example of collaboration that Mayor Law is speaking of has been very beneficial. And again, just like many of you airport commissioners, I don't always like what you have to say, but I have to listen to it. And I have to do the best I can to do with, do something with what you're talking about. I am, I know that the mayor has put considerable hours into this relationship. It wasn't good at all. It is fantastic today. It's as good as it's been in a really long, long time. And it might have been quiet before, but maybe not so good today. We're having discussions and fair discussions. And, you know, I think even with Helen commissioner, really we're doing the same or councilor really, whichever title we, she too is trying to represent her community in a better and more fair way and more collaborative. So I do want to let you know that, you know, I don't believe this is as much political as it is fair to, you know, impacts that people are having. And yes, you can have a voice by coming to one of our meetings. But I think it feels better to be able to be part of the conversation. And I think that's what the mayor is looking for is to have everybody at the table to have those discussions. You feel like you're involved. You feel like you're part of it. And so I just want to let you know, I know that he's worked hard. I don't always agree with, you know, everything that goes on, certainly regionalization. I am in no way in favor of that. I believe, you know, I have my opinions and I'm going to stop it right there before I get in trouble. But I know that the city has worked really hard and it's not about where the money comes from or was it doesn't. We have spent a hundred years building this airport. It is nothing less than amazing for a airport in a community our size and to have anybody, which I was notified yesterday by a South Burlington resident, that there is a big push for regionalization again. That disappoints me, you know, that somebody wants to steal this airport in the city of Burlington. That's unacceptable. And, you know, the city has worked for years on this, but it's not unacceptable to think about our neighbors. And since the very first flight, you know, that it flew over Winooski and they still fly over Winooski. So I'm speaking for Gene Richards right now and that thank you Mayor Lott for all your considerations. Maybe you won't be here forever, but for your time, your efforts, you've led an example of what it could be. And I know that we have appreciated your consideration, your fairness and leading the way to what this, the possibilities of this. So, you know, in some ways I, you know, I'm gonna go to Eileen and Eileen Blackwood and just ask her if, you know, does this in any way impair us? You know, if we do, if we do, you know, they do go towards us for regionalization. Does this hurt this help us? Does this put us in a bad position? And if the case is no, it doesn't, then, you know, I support it wholeheartedly 100%. I don't think it hurts it. I think it helps us in our argument about regionalization, which is that the governance remains with the city of Burlington, but that we're willing to hear voices from the impacted communities and then involve them in closely in what is going on without giving over the governance authority. And lastly, I know I've already said it once, but working with your council, mayor has been absolutely amazing. They treat us respectfully as you do. And it is an example of the way it should be when we go to South Burlington and other communities. And certainly we have that with Williston. And I just want to say thank you and that I do support it. Yeah. Yes, any, yes, Bill. I'm not gonna get into a lot of details of my response, but I know that Nick and Jean have, to the noise mitigation program have reached out to make sure that Wunuski and other communities are in that technical advisory committees. And I have attended some of those things that Wunuski has been well represented and has had plenty of input on the noise mitigation program. Oh, I think that the airport staff has done a great job in reaching out to that. And I think the last three or four meetings, Wunuski has had a representative at the airport commission meetings. And I don't know what sort of feedback they were given, but Wunuski has been involved in a lot of the decision-making processes that communities have been involved with. I mean, that can help decision. Some of them we can't, but noise mitigation input has been one of them. And so we've gone in that direction. And okay, better stop there. All right. Any other discussion? So are we? Was there any, I know, Tim, did you have a question for me or not? I think when you were speaking, I don't know if I answered your question. I don't recall having a question for Eugene, but all my questions have been answered. Thank you. All right. I just want to make sure, because I thought you said, Gene might be able to answer that. And I'd love that opportunity. All right. So we gonna vote on the motion 5.01 to change the charter adding a city of Winooski seat to the airport commission. To recommendation to the city council. Correct. Ready to vote? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Tim. Aye. Jeff. Yes. Yes. Yes. Bill. No. Jeff Munger. No. So Bill, you're the Roberts rules of order. What happens now? The motion fails. And we so report to the council charter change committee and to the city council in that order. That correct? That's correct. That's correct. That's what I'm talking about. About Helen's habitations about with us today, being reported that she has strong feelings about this. And I recall that from that conversation. Yeah, she's for it. Yeah. I mean, I'm just wondering if, I don't know if we can bring it back up at our next meeting or have a special meeting. But it just seems inappropriate to not have her voice in this conversation. Actually, can't Jeff, I mean, we voted on the matter. We shouldn't even be discussing it at this point, but in all deference, she was absent and that's where the cookie crumbles. What would be the reason we couldn't bring it up at the, you know, have another motion? Because we just decided it. I guess I would add here that, I think, Bill, if I can finish what I was saying, it's clear to me that if Helen were here today, that this motion would have passed. And I think that when the council reviews the two to two tie, if you will, on this decision and recognizes that Helen was absent today, I'm sure the council will interpret it as a three to two decision in favor of adding a new ski to the seat, which I think is the proper interpretation of what happened. Jeff? Yes, sir. Yeah, Bill. Can I mention one thing? Excuse me. Well, I thought I had the floor. Okay, I guess not. You go. I just want to let you know that I just heard from Helen really that she tried to call in and wasn't able to get in. So I don't know how that counts in this whole COVID world, but I just want you to know she did try to call in and wasn't able to get in. The matter has been discussed. I mean, you know, that's, that's who it is. What I wanted to say is that this issue has to be set and city council has until the 20th of December to decide what items go on the ballot. That's the, and I mean, correct me, but as December 20th is the deadline for items to be on the ballot because the city torturer's office needs that time to get the ballots printed. So city council has other issues like rec control or something else like that, that they have to decide by the, and their meeting is until the 21st. So city council, I think has to have a special meeting who decided to, so our recommendation will have to go through city council before it's meeting on before December 20th. That correct? Just to clarify, it's my understanding it's coming. It is likely going to be taken up by the council on Monday. This coming Monday the 7th, they are likely that we are preparing to give the report to them then. And just so you understand, I agree with everything Bill said about the rulings under Robert's rules. And, you know, this is, this will be reported as a failed vote by the airport commission, but that doesn't mean that we, that all the rest of the sentiments can't also be conveyed. People will certainly be asking those of us who attended this meeting, you know, myself, councilor Paul, probably director Richards for, you know, what were the concerns, things like that. And, and we will certainly convey that, you know, the whole picture to the city council in our report on that. Eileen, can I ask you a question about the charter? What the citizens will actually vote on? Will there be any reference in the ballot item to the fact that it was not supported by the airport commission? Won't be on the ballot item per se. There are voter information sheets that the city will put out. And usually we probably would not mention of commission's involvement in that, but I'm not sure that decision's been made. That's my only concern is that, that somehow this vote influences, inappropriately influences how voters might look at the charter ballot item. And I guess one other suggestion I would have is that each, you know, anybody and including each of you individually can submit written comments to the, to the city council. So I'm less, I'm actually less concerned about the council than I am about voters. If their, their perception is that this wasn't, this ballot item wasn't supported by the airport commission. I would have to go back and look for a certain, but you know, my recollection since I've been here is I don't recall that we generally talk in any formal documents that are used to support ballot items about what, what entities voted for or against other than to generally say this is being put forward to be put on the ballot. And does it have been passed by two thirds majority in the charter change? No, it passes by a simple majority at the city council and, but it then goes to the mayor and the mayor has an opportunity to veto. If he vetoes, then it has to pass by, come back to the council and they would have to pass it by. But the same as the voters, the simple majority? Simple majority with the voters. Simple majority at the legislature and then the governor. Moving on. Item 5.02, Champlain UIC contract amendment. Nick, I suppose. Move, I moved the approval of the item and refer, and after a second referred to Mr. Longo. I'll second it. You want an overview? Yeah, sure. Last year we brought this before you, we had gone out for an RFP for support with respect to the underground injection control system, which treats our glycol from the icing of aircraft. This requirement includes four large pump stations, storage tanks, controls, and now with the new added Paxley Way G project, oil, huge oil, water separators from the terminal apron area. This is, you know, like my job, a 24-7 job, and it needs attention every day. And we went out for proposals and got pricing last year for five years, but we were asked by management to just do it for one year to give it a try. And this is a very valuable service and it's a help to me with respect to a 24-7 operation. Question for Larry. Sure. Yes, Bill. Larry, is this the EPA standards and every other standard, I know it's a sensitive item? Yes, as the memo, we fall under the Vermont DEC and all federal requirements and we meet those requirements. I would add as prior to this whole UIC and stormwater systems, there's also permit compliance management, which is a totally separate thing. And I'm pleased to report that I've gone up for RFP for those services and I'm very certain I'm going to be able to drive down the cost of those equivalent or better than the cost of this where this is an ongoing 24-7. Thank you. Any questions? Hearing none, all in favor of 5.02, the contract amendment for the UIC. Aye. Aye. 5.03, window washing services contract with home window and maintenance. Move the approval and recommend to the Board of Finance and City Council. Second that. Discussion. I noticed that this is a contract that is relatively small and wonder why the Airport Commission can't just approve this. It's under the whatever it was, $200,000 I think is what we could approve without it having to go to Finance and City Council. Am I wrong about that? That would be wonderful if that were the case. Unfortunately, it's a $50,000 mark. Once it's over $50,000. I said $200,000. I thought we had up to $200,000 where it didn't have to go downtown. No, it's a $50,000 threshold. Well, that ought to be changed. Okay. That was part of the, Councilor Paul mentioned the committee report. Part of the committee report in addition to adding a seat to the city council was to raise that threshold from $50,000 to $200,000. So sorry, Jeff Munger, but we've gotta go this step by step. All right, so Nick, do you wanna talk about this contract? It looks like it's pretty straightforward. Super straightforward, but I'm gonna let Shelby talk about it. Okay. Thank you. Back in September, we issued the RFP. One local company did respond. One company from Massachusetts did. The scope is the same as it has been for some time. We received two bids. The most qualified bidder was the local company, the home window and maintenance service. They are currently badged. So it will be a seamless process. Their pricing was also lower and they had a more comprehensive safety record and safety plan, especially related to COVID. It is a five-year term contract for roughly almost $19,000 a year. We did add a contingency in there, but that is just for unforeseen circumstances, especially as we start doing some construction and things of that kind. Thank you. Any questions of Shelby? Are we ready to vote on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Onward to number six, 601, financial package. Marie, is Marie not on? I am on. I had to unmute. Good. I was finding the cursor and put it on the right screen. So hello to everybody. I will go through the financial package as I've included in the package. I want to, and I'm going to keep doing this to sort of highlight the money and how we're spending the money on the CARES Act money. That was, as it turned out, absolutely essential for us to do our business this year because we have lower implements, we're going to have lower revenues. And you're going to see a theme in that as we go through today and talk about the financials. The CARES Act, I'll be putting together the next reimbursement over the next week or so, which we'll be going and looking at October, but through the end of September, we've currently drawn down yes, four different reimbursement requests. We still have out of the $8.7 million, we still have $4.7 million, almost $4.8 million left to dry down, which we anticipate will be drying down pro-Rata throughout the rest of this fiscal year. Our debt coverage score for the current year through September, including those funds, including the CARES Act money is 1.52. The year-to-date revenues, here's where I know you'll all be very interested, the year-to-date revenues excluding the CARES Act money is $2.464 million, which to compare it to last year for the first three months, that is lower by about $3.4 million. So just to give you some perspective on the significance and the impact that we're having by having so fewer people flying through. So that's a pretty big significance. We did draw down $1.66 million in the CARES Act. And so that's allowing us to cover all of our bills well and still meet our debt coverage score, our target goal. The year-to-date, I point out, the largest revenue changes that we've seen, so decreases in our revenues, parking fees are about $1.3 million lower for the first three months. The rental car concessions, about $750,000 lower for the first three months. The CFCs, so the cost of the solar charge, about $450,000 lower, and landing fees, we also saw quite a reduction of $338,000. So I just want to point out the highest ones without going through each and every line, but you're welcome to ask as we go through this today to ask questions or anytime, ask questions on any of the individual lines, but those are certainly having the biggest impact that we're seeing. The year-to-date expenses were about just under $3 million for the first three months and we're running a little bit lower year-to-date than we did last year. We are doing our best to tighten our belt on all of our expenses and controlling those things that we can, safety, maintenance. I mean, we always have parts, we have to maintain a lot of facilities, a lot of buildings, the runways. And so there's only so much we can do to impact directly, but we are doing the best job that we can to be prudent in the expenses that we're doing. The airport improvement programs are receivable, looks like, I mean, it looks like it's a negative. And the reason for that, I want to, it's a combined number. We owe the FAA, we owe them $2.1 million. And that is a combination that's, they have yet to bill us on the resolution for us buying back or keeping, I should say, keeping the Kirby properties, we pull those out of the grant and we were able to sell them in August. And then we have finalized things with the FAA and they will be short, we're anticipating shortly that they will be sending us, telling us to go about and process that and return those funds to them. So that's what you see on AIP 109, if you're looking on that specific grant, it's a net net of what we had some expenditures they owed us on, and then we still owe them money. So that's $2.1 million will be returning to the FAA on that particular grant. And we owe just about $2 million from the FAA that's always moving, we're always paying bills and we're always seeking reimbursements. So just in the last on November 30th, just this month or this week on Monday, we received some pretty large reimbursements from the FAA. So, we've got some projects that we're, Larry will talk about the construction projects but we've held some pretty big bills with taxiway and other projects that are always moving. And on the cash, $13.4 million in our operating account, which is, we're in a very comfortable position to cover all expenditures that we have coming our way. So attached, you're gonna see, you've got all the individuals for the revenue expenses, the debt coverage and of course, all of the resources talked about. Does anybody have any specific questions on any of that? I do, Marie. One question on the financials and then one question not related to financials. So based on the fact that we've drawn 1.6 million of the roughly $70 million that's available in the CARES that's roughly proportional, right? A quarter of the year through taking roughly a quarter of the funds. Do you think that piece will continue and the CARES funds will last basically for the entire fiscal year? Or do you think it might dry up sooner than that? So to clarify, we did draw down about $2.3 million for the last year. We draw down for the last fiscal year. So I mean, I'm at up to 7 million, that's remaining. Yes, yes, so right. So we had 8.7, we drew two down point. So we had about 6.4 and we've drawn down 1.6. I'm thinking we're probably going to pretty comfortably get through into the spring and depending on how quickly that our expenses go up and how bad our winter is and things like that are going to can impact it. I'm hoping we can get through the end of the year. I think it will be a challenge to get all the way to the end of June using that money, frankly. But there's a lot of unknowns. We have there's the industry itself will change as this vaccine comes out. There's other things that we can't control but we also are not benefiting from any of that until it happens, right? So we're not seeing it. Jean, I can see you want to add to this. So Marie and I and Rich Goodwin and Catherine have been working also on a, I would call it a refinance for the airport for all of our debt. What I'm looking for right now is, you know, again, looking for looking ahead, worst possible case. And that is if we don't get any more carers money. I can't imagine that we won't but I don't think it's going to come easy. You know, if you look at what's going on now we should have received it probably in October but what we're planning on doing as a backup is we're looking at our entire debt of the airport and taking advantage of the interest rates and refinancing the entire debt. And then there's a Rich Goodwin is working with a, you know, a lender who will waive our fees. I mean, our payments for 24 months. And so that would give us the ability to adjust through this process and not necessarily have all this weight and burden put on the airport. You know, like you said, we need to continue running the airport every day. It doesn't matter if we have one or 15,000 people we need to still be here. So what we're trying to do is look at different opportunities so that we could take that debt, move it forward. What it would do to our bottom line is again this is just really rough, very high level but it would add about $30,000 a month to our debt load. And, you know, we're not there yet. You will certainly have time to talk about it but we still need to go over it with the mayor and people downtown. This is just creative thinking outside the box. And what I'm trying to do is make sure the path moving forward is a burden can be for the airport. So that's, you know, we think that refinance could be a real good opportunity to lower interest rate, lower payment and some deferral and it will give us time to kind of catch our breath and leave it. And then Marine, my other question is the status of the 2020 audit. I don't know how that's going in this COVID world, but. That's the next item. Oh, I guess I have an old, oh, sorry. I have an over copy of the agenda, my apologies. We are prepared to talk about that next. All right. First of all, I move we accept a financial report and place it on file. I'll second that all in favor. Aye. Aye. So next, should I just continue? Cause the next item is the product. Yeah. All right. And Tim, I know, given your financial background that you will enjoy reading this after the meeting and you may have additional questions for me. So, you know, I always offer that to any of you if you have additional questions that you would like to. Our audit is actually technically due the end of December. So we are happy that last week, last Wednesday, November 25th, our auditors were able to issue a clean audit report. We're always happy. They were very pleased with the coming in and looking at all the controls and looking at all the numbers and getting through all of that. So in spite of all the COVID and all the changes that we have to do, we still had a very successful audit. And, you know, they take a look just for everybody's benefit. They come in and they look to make sure that what we're showing and our numbers and they make sure that it's right. You know, they make sure does everything have backup and tie and are we including everything as far as all of our revenues or expenses and then everything on our balance sheets, all of our assets, you know, from capital to all of our bank accounts and investments. We do everything and calculate everything correctly. And, you know, so they came through and they gave us a clean audit report. Some of the highlights, I'm gonna start, I'm gonna, there's a lot of pages of the audit, but the management discussion and analysis, the MD&A, which is like the first 12 pages of the audit is probably for all of you, the most interesting to look at. The rest, if you ever, you know, if you wanna see our income statement, the balance sheet, the statement of cash flows, those are the heart and our footnotes. Those are the heart of the audit, but the MD&A, the management discussion and analysis portion is where we go through and we give some context to what's happened over the last year, some context to the biggest changes. And so just to give you a couple of, you know, highlights, we go through and we have some charts in there that talk about the debt coverage score, right? We have this bond covenant says we have to have 1.25%. And we ended up at 1.31%. Now, you may recall, we have an airline agreement. That does give us the ability to come back on the airlines and raise those rates to make that debt coverage score. However, you know, Gene and decided and the management team decided that it was probably not in our best interest, the airlines are suffering as well. And we felt that it was sufficient to exceed our debt coverage score, which we did and comfortably and not come back on the airlines. They were very generous the previous three years when we should have given them back money under that same airline agreement, they allowed us to retain it and use it for changes. So that was, you know, part of the healthy discussions that we had and we'll all hope for a better year for the airlines and the airport going forward. So that was, you know, that's a big deal that we made our debt coverage agreement and ratio even in these times that we were impacted for 15 months under this pandemic. And there's a lot of discussion talking about how the pandemic impacted us. To give you an example, and I'm just gonna point out a couple of highlights and I'm gonna jump out of the way because maybe some of you have questions, but, you know, I talk about in this MD&A kind of summarizes and it looks at, like for example, parking. Parking made up approximately 29% of all of our revenues for the airport. Unfortunately, we saw a decrease in parking of 26% from last year to this year. So it gives you some idea when you're looking at the operating revenues versus this year versus the previous year, they're comparative statements. They look at both years. You're gonna see some pretty big changes there. Again, with the car rental facilities, they make up about 13.5% of our overall revenues. And we saw a decrease of about 14% for the car rental revenues. So just to give you some ideas, the other thing is our overall operating revenues, they did decrease. We saw a pretty sizable decrease in our overall operating revenues as far as our presentation goes on the financial statements. Curious enough, the CARES Act money that we got, $2.278 million, it shows up under other revenues. So it kind of shows up below and it's a, even though we use them for operating expenses. So we had money, but this is what we're required to do. The guidance that comes out of the accounting standards board, they tell us where we have to put things. So we have to follow that. And with that, those are sort of the high levels without going through all of the pages of the audit. But I welcome any questions, if any of you have them or want more explanation. Well, I see a hand. A hand. Is the audit report available online? We will, I don't think it's been posted online yet. I do know for certain that it will go on the city website under, they have a section where they put all of the audit reports. I'm not sure if we put it on our airport site. That's a good question. We certainly can and we file it. Could you send us the recommendation? Could you send us the airport portion of the audit report or is that too voluminous? Well, it's actually the entire report that you have in the board docs here is all airport. We have our own audit issue that is independent from the city. Okay. It is all airport. So everything in this report. What's in the packet is the whole thing. Yeah, it's specific. So Bill has it already. And what you could do is if you could make sure you and Shelby tomorrow, you post it on our website. If that's all right and wherever it needs to go down to. I think that's what Bill's asking for. Yeah. Okay. So Shelby, you put that on the website then. Okay. Now, Marie, did the auditor make any recommendations for any changes and procedures with the airport? They did not. The auditors and in talking with them, they have not expressed any recommendations that we do anything differently on the airport side. They also do the citywide audit, which has yet to be released. There will be a central city management letter that will come out, but I do not believe I've not been told. And in any way that there are any airport items that we should be correcting or changing. So I think that's a very good sign for how we're conducting ourselves on the airport side. That is an outstanding sign. Hey, Bill and the commission. I just, when I, as they came in to do the audit, I met with them, I always meet with them day one. I always meet with them on their way out. They were, again, I think very pleased with the efforts of Marie and her team, and our team here and how hard everybody works on their documentation and their processes. And we do take all recommendations very seriously and implement them. And I just wanna say, again, Marie hits it out of the park here with her team. And it's not easy. These audits, as you know, Tim and all of you, I guess, you know, Jeff, Bill, they're tough and they ask a lot of tough questions and they put a lot of burden on Marie and there's a lot of work. So I'm very proud of the efforts that I've put forth and the results as well. So I just wanna know that I was very pleased when they exited the kudos they were giving to our processes and how we're doing. And even the way we're thinking outside of the box to make it through the year, I had run what I just said to you by them and they go, geez, you're already thinking about that? I go, yeah, we need to. It's something that the team has put together as a safety. So thank you, Marie. Thanks for what you've done so far. Thank you. The move we accepted financial report and placed it on file. The audit report, I'm sorry. Audit report and placed it on file. All second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay, 6.03, we need Larry again for the construction update. Okay. It's a good time of year for me because things are starting to settle down. Airport, Airport Carrier, Airport Rehabilitation, phase six is completed. We'll be closing that project out. Phase seven, I'll talk a little bit later about the remain overnight area. For everybody's information, we have relatively new terminal apron around the entire terminal and airport. Over the last several years has been reconstructed and rebuilt. The quick turnaround facility is complete. Hannah has filed the final certificate of occupancy with the city of South Burlington. We're waiting for inspection. The big news is that taxiway Gulf Realignment that Nick and operations are getting ready to open that up tomorrow. So the airport will have a full parallel taxiway to the main runway. Nick's all over that and have that done tomorrow. The other things that we don't talk about in this are the other significant improvements like the stormwater infrastructure. In some of the pictures, you'll see the stormwater infrastructure, the oil wire separators that help us if there was a, is there always is. There's a spill and could go in this before it goes into our UIC system that we talked about earlier. New fencing, the FAA standard, that's not decades old, a reconstructed perimeter road. So that's all coming to a close. And I tied like the whole project up for Nick today. And that was a $35 million project and all. So airport master plan, the final compilation of documents are being completed by the consultant with the airport layout plan. And the projections, that's pretty much done. Hotel, there was a decision made, it was approved. There's a condition where they have to contribute to our landscape master plan, which we need to move forward. The TIP project, as everybody knows, the terminal aviation project, we have a supplementary funding of $10 million. We completed the preliminary design build design, put it out for RFP, went through a significant selection process and angle birth was the person we chose to move forward with. We've started preliminary stuff on that project. We submitted two weeks ago, the final grant application for the project, which I know the FAA is diligently working on because they keep asking questions and you should have a response to that $15 million grant application real soon. New security system. We are day to day, there's bits and pieces of work that goes on in that. I would estimate that we're gonna probably see, you know, all the cameras and access pads and all that start within the next few weeks. Inland baggage system, the TSA asked us to apply for engineering grant to design an upgraded security inline baggage system. We did a significant RFP, we had seven proposers and we selected to move forward with past row associates. I have, from when I printed this to now we've submitted that to the TSA. They've acknowledged the receipt of that and I anticipate moving that forward as soon as they do their review and if we have to respond to any comments. Chamberlain school, HVAC system, the design goes on, we anticipate, you know, we have like, I think it's 160 days to get pricing for that to be under construction in the spring that we have meetings week to week to review the engineering plans on that. Noise monitoring grant we received. We have the RFP ready, it's been submitted to the FAA. They gotta get back to it tomorrow so Hannah can get that posted. I spoke earlier about the RFP I did for the stormwater and UIC permit compliance management assistance, that's, you know, groundwater monitoring, sampling, analysis, inspection, all of that. Again, I had seven proposers for that versus what we had two years ago was one or two. We anticipate finalizing that in the next couple of weeks with people's review on who we move forward with there. In your part, I'm giving you some additional stuff by October 30th each year, we have to put in readiness applications to the FAA so they're prepared for what we are going to apply for for the next upcoming year. So that, the readiness forms included the tip determining integration project which we've gone over hotspot remediation which there were several slides I provided that showed guidelines, a new parallel taxiway from the end of runway one on the east side to taxiway Charlie. So you can look at those if I have any questions you can ask me. I'm sorry, the terminal apron, phase seven that I spoke about earlier, we had applied for a $9 million grant. That was quite a reach, but we wanted to be ready. We received 2.5 million to do the first portion of that this next year. And we, again, we will be applying for the remainder of this upcoming year. That's why the readiness form was filed. Also some minor readiness forms with regard to follow up from the master plan on navigation easement review and environmental future projects. That was quick as I could do it, Bill. Thank you, one word. Any questions for Larry from any commissioners? Larry, I just had a comment. I really liked the photos. I liked seeing the work that's going on. If there's any way that you can just put a caption underneath as to like what it is or refer it back to the project, that would help me tie it, but I love seeing these photos, this is great. I will do that. And my plan was eventually to have a little bit better organized too. So yes, I'll do that. Okay, but thank you. I really like it. Move or accept a report, place it on file. I'll second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Jeff, I'm switching off camera, but I'm still on, okay? Yeah, okay. All right. South Burlington update, we know we can't have that as Helen is home sick. So Jean, we're right into you with the director's report. So I'm going to just say ditto on Larry and everything that's going on here. That's a very active, when you talk about, you know, the airport and what it does for our community. If you listen to Larry was speaking about that's huge as far as, you know, financial stimulation for our community, but it's also amazing that Nick and Shelby and Larry were so great about, you know, getting these grants and bringing them to fruition. You know, we're in super shape and have taken great, you know, great pride, great work during this downtime of COVID to get a lot done. And people have worked carefully and wisely and in return, all the things that Larry spoke about are happening plus a lot of other things. And one of them I did want to talk about is beta technology has almost completely renovated North Hanger and is doing very, very well, you know, as a new business in our community and a new type of technology. You know, the electric aircraft, I do believe they're going to be incredibly successful with it, but they're also looking at other growth opportunities here at the airport. And we continue to work with them on that. But once COVID is done, I would look forward to giving you all a tour of that amazing facility. It is like no other. It's as far as a business enterprise and a business building, it went from zero to a million is what it did. It looks so impressive. And when you do go there, you're going to be very pleased with one of our assets looking as great as it does, such a poor condition to such a great condition. And I'm very pleased with that relationship. We also continue to work the, what we call the PIC which is the self end of the airport. And that is now with Kurt and one of our other folks, Mike. And they worked the good part of the summer, I would say shaping it. And so it's now I think ready for development. It's in really, really great shape and better than it's ever been. And so I'm very excited to start looking at the potential for that. We're running out of spaces to lease people which is a really good problem to have. When we came here, we had a fair amount of vacancies. You know, I think economic cycles go up and down and you know, we've also dealt with our deferred maintenance and things that are I think in super shape. I'm quite excited about where we, how we're ending this year and going into spring. We should have a pretty good year as we come out of this COVID. So I think as you heard from Marie, Larry and the team, you know, things are going very, very well. I'm really happy to say, you know, that Vermont gas was, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know, a key factor to the 10% on the sound program. I've also talked with Senator Lay's office and to make sure that we're able to continue that program, we'll need additional funding potentially. So they are, I think they're gonna possibly be coming up with something shortly to compliment what Vermont gas has done. So lots of good things happening and feeling really good. We think around end of second quarter, beginning of third, you know, we will be coming out of this in a really good way. We don't think that the, you know, we had about a 50-50 split, you know, with business versus leisure and we believe the leisure will probably take off initially and business will lag, but that doesn't mean that our numbers will be down. We think people are quite excited to, you know, at some point when things are healthy, people wanna get back out there. So I know personally, I am excited for that. Any questions for me about the airport and how we're doing? I'll make sure, Jean, Femi, Jeff, okay? Yes. Jean, I know you probably can't tell me much, but tell me what you, tell us what you know about the future of electric aircraft. I can tell you, it's here. And, you know, that I actually met with Kyle Clark this afternoon and there's one other electric aircraft business that's actually in, I think it's in either China or Japan that's our biggest competitor, but we're right there. We're at the one and two. So, you know, what's really nice is I think right now it's flying about a hundred miles and our goal is to get over 200 miles, but what's really nice about ours is every little tiny piece is pretty much made here except for the main frame. And they build it as they create it. And so the real drawback has been in batteries and we're making great, great, great progress on the batteries. We've lightened the aircraft considerably, also the main frame and the compulsion of it moving forward as well as going up and down as they've made great, great headway since the very beginning of our relationship here. So I think you will see probably within 24 months you're gonna see some huge successes. And I am extremely confident that even I in my lifetime will get to, and I believe it or not, I actually am not a good pilot. I actually think, Bill, I'll be able to fly this aircraft. I mean, I've actually spent some fair amount of time in the, Nick, the emulator. And I actually, I spent about three hours in it and I flew all over. I didn't crash until I wanted to come down. So no, it's actually very, very, very nice. Great technology. I'm very proud of our relationship. I'm very proud that they decided to keep it in Vermont. It's really hard to do that these days because there's so many other incentives outside of Vermont, but they have kept it in Vermont and that's a great thing for us. So I am very, very, does that answer your question or not? Yes, it does. Thank you. I have a follow up about many of us are lucky enough to go to Florida or Arizona or wherever this winter. And I expect that those who do that are looking at safety and flying. I know that certain aircraft allowed people to occupy the middle seat, put their own personal, I mean, you have a place in Florida too. How do you feel about flying to Florida, we'll say in the middle of January? I am disgustingly selfish because I don't want to miss a week or two of work. So the governor's rule- Never mind that, I'm talking about flying. But I have a problem, but if I didn't have a problem and I didn't want to be here, I would say I feel 100% comfortable traveling. I think that you have to be wise, you have to wear your mask, but you also have to know where you're going. And right now I wouldn't fly to Florida for all the money in the world because of what's going on down there. And what I'm mostly concerned about, Bill, is if I fly from here to Florida, if I get sick here in Burlington, I am Gene Richards and I'm one of, what is it, 30 something people that are, or 17 people that are in the hospital. If I go to Fort Myers, Florida, I am one of hundreds that are in that hospital. And I'm just a name tag. And I don't want to be that at any hospital. I want someone to know and take good care of me if I happen to get sick. So I would be, I feel really good about aircrafts. I feel really terrible about the number I might be when I get there. Thank you, thank you, appreciate that. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Gene, are you done? I am done. Yes. Okay. Commissioner's items. Go ahead. Just everybody have a great holiday and thank you for everything that you have done. To be on our commission, this has been a real tough year. And I know that I heard some comments that you, how you feel about being on the commission. I hope that you know there's great value in every one of our conversations. And we try to make the very best of it, but I do value your input. And I need your input to make sure that you're representing our community the very best that you can. So I do want to say thank you for that and I wish you the very safest of holidays. Okay, thank you, Gene. Commissioner's items, 9.01 is Google Alerts. What commissioner, is this you, Bill? No. No? No. Ken, was this you that asked for Google Alerts? Yes. So basically this was in reference to, I think two commission meetings ago with trying to keep the commissioners more up to date on what might be happening. And the suggestion from airport staff was to subscribe anyone who's interested to that to Google Alerts. And basically what that service is, it's a service that's on Google, it's free. And they go out and they scan all of the latest articles and websites that have certain keywords in them. And that's a service that the airport's been willing to set up for anyone, any of us commissioners who are interested in receiving updates in the public as to what the public is saying about the airport. Ah, okay. So is that thing done? Shelby or Gene that you're looking for from us on that? Anyone that is interested to be happy to set it up, just let me know. Okay, I would be for sure. Thank you, Shelby. Yeah, me too. Okay. And I can say one thing, Jeff, I'm sorry. One thing about like, sometimes when we have press conferences, they're decided the day before or even during that day, it's been really weird with COVID. Oh, I know. Tomorrow, we're gonna have a press conference on taxiway G, I think. So the thing is, is we really want one but I've been trying to pull something together but it's also working with the mayor's office and it's just not, I just don't want anybody to think that we're not listening or hearing you. I do hear you. It's just really, really hard during these times. And then I honestly don't wanna be next to you in a vehicle. So I have another problem. You know, the thing is I don't wanna get you sick. So there's multiple issues going on here. Like this is out on a taxiway where probably Nick and I and maybe Shelby and we'll be getting there in different ways. So I don't want you to think we're excluding you. We do appreciate you. There will be better times ahead and we will be better at communicating with you and having you involved in what we're doing. Thank you. I understand it's very difficult in the times we're living in. Come on, vaccine. 9.02 is a noise complaint report. I think Bill did something on this, correct, Bill? Yeah. I would move the adoption of the proposal. Then we can discuss it if there's a second. I can second it. I'm not sure what the proposal is. Well, I think I can't pick it up on my iPad, but it's, I think we sent something out to that affect him, but basically it's a request for a report to the Airport Commission of those people who call into a complaint of noise. Again, I don't have my coffee here because the printer's not working. Basically it would, if somebody calls in with a noise complaint, which they do now, a gather, but that person's name and address, it would be on this log name address and the type of complaint. Is it, if the complaint knows it's a military aircraft or commercial aircraft or doesn't know which aircraft it is and what it would give to the commission, it would give the commission an idea of where these people live and the number of complaints. That's my proposal, but I'd like to hear from staff if you do that now and if this presents a major work item for you. Nick, you wanna talk about that? Sure, yeah, and this was definitely a collaborative effort. Shelby and I put this together. Shelby goes through many phone calls. We do have something set up and have had set up for many, many months now over, well, maybe years now, on our website. So people can fill out these forms. The intent of the forms or the complaints, whether calling in or writing in on the website is for everything all commercial and general aviation aircraft. And then there is a noise complaint website and hotline that the Air National Guard also maintains. Just a caveat that these do not include any information from the Vermont Air National Guard. These are only phone calls and emails received by the Burlington Airport through our phone hotline and through our email address. As you can see, this is just a summary of the phone calls, both by aircraft type, as well as what we classify as unique last names. So if a particular person calls in multiple times, we can track that. One of the highlights here is this bottom section, the top five callers and emails, all of this is compiled together. So five people are by 59% of the complaints are by five individuals, just for some context. However, by aircraft type, 93% possibly a little bit greater because there are of course some unknown complaints on there based on what the message is received, 93% are by F35 or likely F35 complaints. Again, this is only phone calls and emails received here at the Burlington Airport and it does not include anything from the Vermont Air National Guard. And on our website, there is the hotline and phone number to reach the Vermont Air National Guard. So Nick, is that possible that we could, do you remember the chart we did a few years ago that actually listed the address? We did a map and then we also did what, we did like a pie chart, like where they came from. And just so that it might be a good tool for us to revitalize for the commission. What do you think about that? We can do anything. We have a significant amount of raw data, meaning we have addresses, phone numbers, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know what we can give out. I'm sure we can give out everything. I don't know what we would be comfortable giving out. I feel comfortable giving it all out. I think that the bottom line is it's all public information. And if you're comfortable with that, I would like to give a draft next month to the commission. Maybe you and I and Shelby could work on it. Go back to the one that we did already and we'll do a draft report next month and see if that meets your needs. That sounds good because I think the addresses indicate where at least, it would show us something and it would give us some idea as to where these geographically, where these addresses are. And if someone refuses to put the name and address down then we wouldn't accept the complaint. But I think it'd be very helpful to us and to others. Of course, the National Guard ones are there. We don't want access to them because the department wouldn't give it anyway, but that's fine. But I think if we had our own, I think it'd be helpful to us to look at it. It's a sample copy next month to be very helpful. I appreciate that. Yeah, I can add to that. I had similar projects three or four years ago and Google actually has a feature where you can basically take a list of addresses and Excel and it will plot all the push pins for you on the map. So if you have a database of the addresses, Google can help you do a lot of that work. Wow. Perfect, yeah, we can absolutely connect that up. Maybe we had to do it though, but I know it's possible. I'm sorry, Tim, I'm still in first grade when it comes to computer stuff. So I'm still in first grade. We're gonna pin it. All right, so do we need a vote on this or on your motion, Bill? Yes. All right, all in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Okay. So before we adjourn, the next meeting should be on the 20th of January. That's the third Wednesday of the month unless there is need for some special meeting, as always. So with that, I will entertain a motion. Don't move to adjourn. I'll second that motion to adjourn. All in favor. Aye. Before that, before we do that, again, I wanna request, if we could go into the room 10 minutes before the opening of the meeting so we can get all the technology squared away if it was phone calls or gallery displays, whatever, I'd appreciate that, okay? Thank you. Got it, Bill. Thank you all. Okay. Bye. Bye, everybody. Happy holidays, everybody.