 All right. Let's call it to order. It's the F work commission meeting at about the 403 p.m. On the 19th of. January. 2022 first item is the agenda. Is there a motion on the agenda? I move to approve the agenda with three amendments. Most remain to approve the agenda is presented. Is there a second? I'll second it. No, I don't. I don't know what the amendments are. Thank you. And to George, what are your amendments? Yeah. So these were just three items that were inadvertently left off of the follow-up items from last week. This has to do with the minutes of the meeting, right? Yes. There are three items that are missing from the follow-up items section of the agenda. Okay. So the first item is the agenda. The agenda is the incidents with police at the airport. 11.06 the map of the 50 homes and the noise program. The homes by community and what the appeal process is. And 11.07 the director of aviation job description. I think the aviation job description. I think we have approved and sent forwards. Is that correct? Nick? Do we send that to HR? That was the follow up was that it was to be sent to the city HR department. So if that has been happened that we can strike 1107. Okay. Any discussion. Hearing that all in favor of approving the agenda as amended signify by saying hi. Hi. Opposed no. So ordered. Next time is the public forum. Anyone. We have someone with their hand up. I don't. I don't see anything, but. Christopher Weinberg. Who's that? Christopher Weinberg would like to speak. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Lumberg. We're just going to, we're just going to pull them over real quick. Christopher, you'll be able to speak in just one second. Yeah. And how do you spell his last name? W E I. N B E R G. He's on the screen right now. Thank you. Now I think I, my mic is working. Can everyone hear me? Yep. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to address the commission today. On the agenda, as I noticed is a resolution that I, and a large number of other general aviation stakeholders. Originally drafted. The resolution has changed. Chris may interrupt you. You may not be turning to speak now. Or you can speak when we get to the resolution on the agenda, which is your, I'll go ahead and speak now. If that's okay. Sure. Go ahead. So as I was saying, the resolution has changed significantly since the original draft. It lacks many of the things we had hoped to see, but we still do want to look at the resolution. We want to work collaboratively to develop a plan that accommodates the needs of all of the stakeholders of the airport. The objective of the resolution is not to play beta's development and growth. And in fact, everyone involved with the effort wants to see beta succeed. However, we want to see that it's done in a way that does not disadvantage existing airport tenants and users while giving preferential treatment to beta. One of the major concerns is that the airport had an opportunity to be open and honest with the public by including attachment a outlining the impact of the beta license agreement, which was made available for public review. Similarly, it had the opportunity to be open and honest when directly questioned about the impact of the license agreement on existing tenants. Instead it chose to be deceptive by intentionally not including attachment a until the city council demanded it. Subsequent to this, the airport also provided multiple assurances that no existing tenants would be impacted by the license agreement and pending lease with beta. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case. Some may argue that the assurances were not properly interpreted, but the fact remains that at no point did the airport when asked on multiple occasions, directly tell existing tenants that their leases would be impacted by beta's license and lease agreements. In fact, the airport was intentionally evasive when asked the question. As the commission considers the development of an inclusive plan for general aviation, I challenge it to address the loss of trust that has developed between the airport and the general aviation community. I encourage the commission to address the lack of honesty that has occurred regarding this matter. And I hope that the commission will fulfill its duty to ensure that the airport operates ethically and transparently regarding the beta lease and license agreement as well as future matters. Thank you for your time. All right, commissioners. I'll take exception to our normal rule of discussing matters in the public form. So I think we'll allow the commissioners to ask questions that Mr. Weinberg and first of all, Mr. Weinberg, would you identify yourself and who, who you represent? I represent myself and I'm speaking on behalf of approximately 56 general aviation stakeholders that were involved in the original drafting of the resolution that was the kind of the catalyst for the resolution that is on the agenda this afternoon. Mr. Weinberg, all we have is a current resolution. So it's difficult for us to assume the, the resolution of the draft resolution that you refer to. The only resolution is the one that's on the agenda today. And I don't know how you want us to deal with that. I'm going to be on the, again, I wanted to share my input via public comment. I'm planning to listen to the dialogue regarding the resolution as it's proposed. And I wanted to share that information with the commission. Okay, commissioners, you have some questions and Mr. Weinberg. I have one. I'm just a little confused because I thought you started your comments with the draft does not include all the things or items that you had hoped it would. But that doesn't really help me either add them to the resolution or respond to them. And I think that's what Bill was getting at. We don't have a copy of. What you see as the appropriate draft. So how would you like us to. Well, we can, we can certainly provide the original draft. Interacting director Longo has a copy of that, which was shared with him and I don't want to speak for, for Nick, but the draft that I've reviewed that's on your agenda today is an evolution of that original draft. As it was developed by this group of general aviation stakeholders. And it evolved with whom. That would be a question. I think you'd have to ask. Acting director Longo. Okay, so what you're saying is the draft that. Those people you're representing or speaking for. Was not was changed somehow and we don't have a copy of that. Is that what you're saying? I think there's much more to this conversation as part of the agenda item. Both city counselors of the city of Burlington have been involved and have. Sponsored and revised the resolution on their behalf, not with recommendations by myself and my staff. So this, this is a much more complex conversation than just. Just the multiple reiterations of the resolution with a resolution that you have today is the only resolution that has been proposed to the Burlington city council right now, although there are amendments being worked on this week. Nick, so this, the only, the only official document is the one we have in front of us. That's correct. That was the one preferred to the airport commission by the city council. That's what we have to consider. So. It's very. This discussion about a draft is really not germane to this discussion because. One, we don't have it to was not approved by the council. So it's moved. So Mr. I understand that and I think that the larger issue as I indicated in my comments, I understand that from the beginning that that resolution was likely to evolve in whatever shape it takes. We want to see it go forward. We want to work together with the airport. I think the primary issue that I am sharing with the commission is the bigger issue of trust and transparency in terms of how the commission is going to evolve. And how the commission is going to evolve. And how the communications regarding. The license and lease agreement. Took place and how we can have assurances going forward that. Things are going to be done transparently and communicated in an ethical way, given the fact that that did not take place. With the conversations and interactions leading up to. I think that's a good point. Okay. Mr. Chair. Well, while I, I definitely disagree with Mr. Weinberg and I think I've been very open and clear throughout this entire process. I'm not here to debate. I have an airport to run. And I have the commission and the city council to report to. I think there's an enormous amount of complexities to this conversation and I just want to thank you. And I just want to thank the team in the airport for moving forward with so many different elements of this complex situation. Like I said, there's many more items on the agenda. In the future and more complexities to the situation. But I, I. I definitely take into account what Mr. Weinberg said and do disagree. have a chance to even review it before it was passed on. Okay, thank you. But Mr. Weinberg, before we leave the subject, you made some serious accusations about distrust and misleading and things of that nature. Nick, you wanna respond to that? To my knowledge, you often make public display of your open meetings and where they are, the context. How would you respond to Mr. Weinberg's accusations? Which are pretty, I take leverage at that, frankly, but go ahead, Nick. Yeah, absolutely. And this again is a much larger conversation going back to master planning work, working with many other different committees throughout the multiple years of these conversations. Yes, his statement was correct on the specific item of the licensing agreement with beta technologies, a short-term agreement to move soil in a specific area. That license agreement, as he mentioned, did not have an exhibit A attached to it. And that's what he's referring to. That was because we are still undergoing active negotiations with non-aeronautical tenants, meaning we're requesting or terminating leases, non-aeronautical leases, each one of the tenants, each one of the general aviation tenants we are currently working with right now, specifically within the Valley. And I do take issue with his statement that I think he said the majority or many of the GA community members, this isn't about all GA community members, this is about a few GA community members and even fewer tenants of the Burlington International Airport. I have many other GA community members that are in support of many other items happening at this airport. Again, this is such a complex situation and I appreciate Mr. Weinberg's interpretation of the many items, but frankly, many of them are inaccurate in how he's presenting them. Okay, let's, any further questions we'll debate this down the agenda, but for now, any questions of Mr. Weinberg? I do though, just one question. Mr. Weinberg, when you mentioned that there are 56 stakeholders, how many actual businesses in the GA community does that 56 stakeholders encompass? I can get you an exact number and follow up via email. It encompasses at least six larger companies than there are individuals that use their aircraft for business purposes. So it kind of depends on the definition of company. Sorry, in terms of tenants, you're saying there are six tenants in the GA community which support this effort? That are located in the valley, which is the area that we're talking about, yes. Okay. All right, welcome, Jeff Munger. I've been waiting to have you see you on the screen. Good to see you guys. Anything else? Okay, anyone else in a public forum? I don't hear anyone. Okay, so we will then close that item and we'll go to the consent agenda. Is there any motion on the consent agenda? I move that we adopt the consent agenda and place its contents on file. Most of them made their second discussion. Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed no, so ordered. Next item is an action item. Maintenance garage, yard rehabilitation. Something we'll make a motion in this regard. So I'll move that we request the Board of Finance and City Council improve the execution of a contract with ECI for the maintenance yard project as well as the related budget amendment. The second. Oh, second. Second, discussion, Larry? Sure. Basically, if you've been over there, this is years overdue. The yard is not safe. It needs to be replaced. It's about 23,500 square feet and also houses a underground storage tank, which takes on water that we have to pump out. So this will fix that problem in the short-term until we have a long-term plan for our long-term storage of snow removal equipment. But this yard has needed to be done for years. It's in terrible shape and this will be a complete reshaping and a two-inch space course and two-inch wearing course and concrete over the underground storage tank. Okay, thank you. Any discussion of Larry? Any questions of Larry? Seeing none, I'm ready for the question. If so, all in favor of the motion signify I'm saying aye. Aye. The opposed, no. So order. Larry, you still get the mic for a construction update. Oh, we have a 5.02 bill. 5.02, yeah. So this is the- I don't have 5.02. I do. It's on the agenda. Okay, I printed this out. Okay, so I'll make the motion that we request the board of finance and city council approve the execution of a contract with the end court property management for the maintenance garage roof replacement project as well as the related budget amendment. There's a motion. Is there a second? Okay, Larry, this is yours. Right, as I'm sure you're aware, this is the two maintenance buildings adjacent to the yard we just spoke about on the other side of the airfield from where the terminal is. This is where we store all of our equipment, do all our maintenance on all our equipment and the roof is in disrepair and needs to be replaced and both on the major main building which is where all the maintenance takes place and then on the second smaller building it's where we store materials for deicing and type stuff like that and water gets in and ruins the material. So it's costed us money so we need to replace these roofs. You know, if Bill or Mr. Chairman Keough, if I may add just a quick sentence that these two items are related to the same exact building which really displays the necessity for eventually replacing this building. Not only is the location and the size of the physical building too small for our fleet and our mechanics to properly operate but like Larry was saying, that the useful life of this building is approaching its limitations for what we need to do and that's why we're putting some money, some funds into it today to accomplish immediately what we need to accomplish. Okay, good, thank you. Any questions or staff on this issue? Jane, are you ready for- Can I, I'm sorry. So just to follow up, I was thinking that this was the building that you described needing a new one with the zoning task force. So, and you said yes. So my question is, it makes sense to certainly fix the roof because that a new building won't happen for a while but when and if the zoning changes then you can build a new building where you want, will this building be repurposed or torn down? This is a great question. Yeah, it is yes to answer your first question. Yes, this is that same building. This is our maintenance shop that eventually would be relocated or put into a new location on the airfield or airport. This building would definitely be repurposed. So that's why, regardless of what happens, this is a building that we would lease out eventually in the future. Thank you. Anyone else ready for the question? If so, all in favor of seeing if I'm saying aye. Aye. Opposed no to order. All right, moving on. Larry, you're still got the mic open. Construction update? Yes, I provided enough construction update. Are there any questions on what I presented? No, it's very succinct. I like your red type and gives us a history and updating them by color type. It's been a good idea. Any questions of Larry on a construction update? Okay, next item will be a terminal integration project. Larry? Right, I think the pictures in the construction update tell the story. Great progress has taken place. The roof's going on, the insulation and the fins or wings, it's coming along very well. The only really great news and update is is the TSA is gonna supply their newest and greatest equipment and it'll be here in July. So we have to be ready to receive the new TSA screening equipment in July and then be operational by our goal is October. That's the only new information. You ought to stop by, take a walk through this. It's amazing the down, the first floor where there's multiple rooms being constructed. As you can see in the pictures for TSA and other items, it's just remarkable how fast this is coming along. So you had no COVID-19 is that effective workforce for the supply of materials? The contractor had already placed orders in advance and they have very strict protocol for COVID for not only this, but they're also doing the NOAA project in the building and NOAA also has strict procedures for vaccinations and testing and all that type of stuff. So they've done well. Okay, so there's no anticipated delay or any indication of that? There might be an item here. But no, we should be, right now we're in great shape. Well, good, glad to hear. Any questions of Larry on construction update? Okay, here we go, we'll move on. Marie, I know you've got some good news. Well, I'm gonna go through our little financial package here. I like to keep everyone informed and aware of where we are with all of our stimulus grants. We have not been needing to draw down on our stimulus money. I've told you that each month and for the results ending November, our profit and loss statement, we again did not need additional stimulus monies to cover our expenses, meaning our revenues were high enough that we got from all of our partners and our tenants to cover that. The good news I have a feeling you're speaking of is we just signed and received a $7.6 million grant package from the American Rescue Act. And we did not owe any money either under the grant anticipation note or the revenue anticipation note. I'm gonna get into a little bit of the specifics about the revenue. So our year-to-day revenues are almost $9 million. That is about half, it's about $4.5 million higher than what we were seeing a year ago compared to a year ago. So a big difference we're seeing in revenues and the recovery of our revenues. And I also wanted to, I have a chart here and I think it's really interesting. I didn't compare it to, I didn't show the comparison the last month, but the numbers are creeping up even the percent of recovery. So our parking revenues are at 72% of what they were pre-COVID for the same time period. Car rentals are 106%, CFCs are 80%, PFCs are 71% and landing fees are 75%. So we really have seen better than we had forecasted. It's difficult to know how quickly things rebound and there's still some uncertainty, but it's going well so far. Are you able to- Can I ask just a little question on the car rental revenues? Is part of that uptick just it costs so much more to rent a car? I think that it is because the volume is not equal to the number of people that we're renting. But I think in general, not only at our airport, but around the country, the slowdown and closing of things during the COVID beginning, we don't have as many cars and there's more of a demand for them. It's, we come back really great and really strong. And so I think people are having to pay, there's a premium. That's what I thought. All right, thank you. That's why you're seeing- Maria, I have a question. Early on you said we just received $7 million. Was that the amount that the airport got? Yeah, the $7.6 million from the American Rescue Act. What is that going to be used for? That is similar to the other, the CARESA and the CARES Act money, where we can use that for, if we have any shortages in our revenues and we need to cover expenditures. So we can use it on a lot of stuff. We can even use it on debt payments if we wanted to. There's a particular things that we can use it for. We have four years to use all of these recovery monies. So we do have time to plan and we have time to get through the remainder, whatever it may be of this pandemic. It's similar to what Maria was saying, Bill. This is a critical timeframe. We're in a pretty sensitive time within the pandemic right now. I think we're all hearing lots of things happening across the board in many industries. And these stimulus, CARESA, ARPF, those are all going to back us for quite a timeframe. So it's very critical that we take a moment to understand exactly what our future forecasts are going to be looking like before we make any immediate decisions. Marie's doing enough fantastic job controlling the financial piece to this equation. And so thankful because when you add up all three, we're approaching $18, $19 million on all three of these grants. And that includes concession relief, which is really important to some of the terminal tenants, that terminal environment tenants to make sure that they're successful on the back end of this pandemic. So really, really critical component to this. So are there very many strings attached so that you're quite limited in where you can use it? Or is it sort of like an elastic band or under? That's a great question. We have a lot of flexibility in how we use these funds. So there are some things we can't use it on. You know, I can't go out and put up a whole new building or something like that. So, but it has a pretty broad things that are acceptable for me to spend that are aviation related, so airport related. It's pretty broad in what I can use it for. And it also, like I even mentioned, it could be used for debt service and things like that if we wanted to. Some of the immediate requirements, especially with the first round, was to retain all employees by accepting this grant funding, which of course we did throughout the pandemic. And then as we go into future, just like Marie said, there's some components and requirements. And sometimes, for example, for equipment specifically, there's requirements to get additional approvals by the FAA before we proceed with any funding. But generally, it's to support the expenditures of the airport. Okay, wow, that's good money. Okay, any further questions of Marie or Nick? I see Jeff has a question. Yeah, I got a question about the flexibility. Normally, you can't match federal funds with federal funds, but is this as flexible as it can be where we could match federal funds that come in with using this money as our share? That's a great question. I think you're referring to the local share, right, Jeff? Yeah, yeah. Two things I'll say about that. Under the CARES Act grant, we are allowed to use this, the CARES Act money. There are certain dates that it has to fall within, but we're allowed to use that for our local share match and we have been. And that's, in fact, I think I say that up here that we've used, let's see, $1.4 million already has been used out of the CARES Act money to reimburse and cover the local share. That's pretty tremendous. That's a big deal. That's a big deal, I'll say. That's $1.4 million that we didn't have to take out of our cash and that you'll see and I think that's one of the reasons our cash continues to grow. I cannot use the CRISA or the American Rescue Act money in that way, but the reason is because the newer grants for two years in a row, the grants that we were receiving from the FAA were all 100% federal dollars. Wow. The TIF project is 90%. So that was an exception. It was sort of a supplemental funding and it was still subject to the 90%. But all of these other grants that we're talking about, the last 13 grants that we've gotten have all been 100% federally funded. So everything, if you look at the AIP receivable, when you look at any numbers, AIP 120 and above are 100% federal monies. And so again, there have been numerous, numerous ways that we've been very fortunate. There's been some positive things that have happened. Incredible. Good. Yeah. Any further questions? Marie, I don't know if you finished your report. I don't think she finished it. If anybody has any questions, I mean, it's there. I'm sure you've all looked at it. You know, I'm happy to entertain any questions you may have. Yeah, I just have two, Marie. So you mentioned CFCs and you're right up, right 84% of the full year budget already and we're four months in. So given that it was so hard to predict and honestly still is so hard to predict, is there a point at which you sort of, you read, maybe it's not formally done that way, but like do some kind of re-forecast as to where you think you're gonna finish the year up because it started out so much stronger than what you originally thought? I think that's a great question. You may see, there may be a need as things evolve through the year. Sometimes I have certain budget expenses that, and you see that in the two proposals we just put forward that you just approved, that we have to sort of shift funds to cover something that we knew was sort of coming and maybe we budgeted, but it came in higher than we thought, right? So I think you're gonna see some of that and there may be some opportunity if we have something like that, especially if something happens, sometimes I don't wanna reduce other line item because I'm unsure whether we'll still have those expenses that we may need to do. So you may see as a year goes on and I get above the 100% of CFCs, maybe I'll do a budget amendment for that, but if I don't necessarily need the money, I'll probably leave it as is, but we monitor that and we'll certainly welcome any good revenues that we are getting. Absolutely, okay, and then on the expense side, I noticed, which line was it? The professional and consultant line is running about only 18% versus being a third of the way. So is that budget more back loaded in the second half of the year or are we just not doing some things we thought? Right, no, there are definitely some things that are a little bit back loaded that we'll see transpire as the year goes on and with some of those expenses might lag. So I might be 30 or 60 days in terms of posting them so we see more at the end. I do expect some, we have some line items that we haven't necessarily spent as much in and others that we're spending more in. So we'll see how that shakes out, but I think we're gonna probably, well, probably you're gonna see that definitely up a little bit in that percent. Okay, thank you, Mara. Hey, what else? Nice job, nice job, Mara. Thank you. Next item is the noise monitoring system from Hannah. Hannah, your mic is open because you opened it. Go ahead, Hannah. Hannah's just letting Jeff show him in and Jeff just arrived so he's gonna join us right there. Oh, okay. Hi, Jeff, where are you? Hi, all, I apologize for being late. Okay, good, welcome. Okay, Hannah, you're up. She's muted. Hannah's just pulling up the screen for you, just one moment. Oh, okay. I think I have it, I'm wondering. Oh, I hope that doesn't take too long. I can mention one more thing to the convention commission that I meant to mention. We are exploring and working with some bond council to... Should be one of our tabs there. To... Sorry. Mara, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. To refinance our 2012 bonds. We are looking at this for two reasons. It is, those bonds are becoming callable. They'll be callable in July of 2022. And so we are exploring it and it looks like we could potentially say just because of the way interest rates are today and the way they're forecasting, we could save about three quarters of a million dollars. So we're looking at that. If we can save money, we want to go through and do something like that. And so we'll be keeping the commission updated. The bonds would be selling. We're thinking that right now, if we do go forward, it'll be selling in April, the beginning of April. So 90 days before those bond payments, they would be callable. And we'll keep you apprised of that. We are working on resolutions and other things to bring looking at a February timeframe to bring something to the board of finance in the city council. So I'll keep you in the loop as we make sure that that would be something, if we can save money, then we want to do it. Tim. Marie, what is the coupon on the 2012 bonds and what are the rates we think we would need to pay now? So the coupons are about 5% right now on average on the existing bonds. And the rate that they're looking to do, they would actually probably sell, the effective interest rate would be much lower. But they would probably sell at, they would keep the rate similar and sell a very good premium. And we would actually reduce our outstanding bonds. That is sort of what we're working with and still looking at the best options for us if we're moving forward. And do you have a feel for that effective rate? I don't remember what it was, but I wish I did. I should have looked it up. That's okay. Just if you just issued me an email. Yeah, that's a good question. Okay, we're all set? Thanks. Yes, thank you. Okay, Hannah, you're sharing your screen. Yes. So right here we have an overview of all of the current noise comments that we've received through the Vector System that we have posted on our website and soundbtv.com. And last time we shared this information was from our November meeting. So since then we've had about 90 more comments, which is more than half what we had last time. So- So when you say comments, you're talking about complaints? Yes, yes. Yeah, complaints we've had about, so total we've had 164 compared to 74 that we received two months ago from November. So we're just gonna keep sharing as these come in, just the totals. And if you'd like to see from month to month comparisons, let me know and we can display it that way. But since last meeting, the number of comments, just this breakdown, this first slide, there's 69% that come from a New North End caller in Burlington is 48. And then when you see is the 29%. So 69% total is just from two individuals. And then we have right here, the 20% of single commenters or those sending a noise complaint and unique commenters or those that have done between two and five complaints through the 11%. So that varies a little bit from last time with the, there was 42% with just those two individuals total for those that Burlington comment are in the one you ski. So now it shows how that's changed with all of those comments. We also have the breakdown of common origin. So this shows enlarge percentage of those individuals, but also shows a small percentage of South Burlington, 5%, Colchester and neighboring communities, Grand Isle, Williston, Charlottes. Grand Isle, whoa, okay. And just a breakdown here of the types of comments, obviously largely military related and then a few related to commercial or helicopters and a few that they've marked as jet. So that's categorized based on how the commenters fill that in on the form. So that's coming from them. So does anyone have any questions for me? I do. So this may be a question for Nick as well. I'm not sure. So I look at, this slide just is amazing to me because I did the math and if I did it right, that means the new North End person made 65 comments and the Lewinowski person made 47 comments. Has these two people identified themselves or is it anonymous? And if we know who we are, have we done any outreach to these two people? Yeah, good question. Within the actual form, the online portal, the online form, not only did the commenters have the ability to send something to us, we can respond back to them within the same portal. Typically goes to an email address as well. So we typically respond to some of these comments. Some of them are repetitive or happen on the same days for the same type of comment. We can do additional reach out to these particular folks. We have worked a little bit with them trying to explain the program and trying to explain outside of the noise and some of the military events, additional programs associated with the FRA noise programs and we'll continue to do that as well for not only these two, but for any comment or anybody interested. So that's good. So apart from these two, if I look at the other wedges, so for the most part, we're frequently responding to the comments. It's not just that they submitted in a box and they never hear back from us. I would say for most of the single and unique commenters, I understand you're not going to respond 65 times to the person from the new North, like I understand that. But I just want to make sure that those particular, they seem to have a particular agitation. So I just want to make sure that we were reaching out to them if we knew what they were. That's a good point. And unfortunately, many of those comments are inappropriate to actually respond to anyway. So we don't necessarily engage in that. Fair enough, I understand that. Thank you. Do we have a, I'm sorry if I missed this, but do we have a sense of total number of individual comments, individual commenters that we, that there are? We do. So that, so in, oh, I see what you're saying. So breaking this down by how many people have commented. We can easily get that. Yeah, I was actually going to make that recommendation on slide two, that that'd be done by unique commenter. All right. Because I think it really distorts, those two callers really distort this chart. Just on simple math here, if you take the 20% of single comments over 164 commenters, right? That's about 33 people plus you add in the individual, the two individuals. So that's 34 people. And then there's a handful of the two to five commenters. So we're talking a range between 35 to 50 comments. I came up with 52 people, not 52 people, other than the two big people. There you go. Yup. One thing I just want to remind us is that a lot of people, if it's military jet noise, know to respond to the air guard. And those numbers are not in this. Right. That's a great point. I have to believe that a good portion of the neighborhood in South Burlington that is most impacted by the military jets or the airport, for that matter, know by now that you make your complaint to the Air Force and that the airport can't do a whole lot about the military noise. So until we get those figures in specific identified respondents, the numbers are kind of helpful, but I don't think tell the whole story. I completely agree with that, Helen. And you're absolutely right. In fact, even on our website, we do show the phone number specifically for the air guard if there is a military complaint to go directly to V-Tank. We don't get that information direct. We don't get that to add into these particular charts. So it is not the full picture. One thing that we can analyze from this, which I think is a critical component to not only the outreach, but the potential strategy to reduce noise levels is all of these others, if you go to page three, all of these other comments, we can actually track the radar information. And it's been really successful, including some of the military information, very few because it's much difficult to track that. We can actually show the commenter that this aircraft or a particular aircraft was over their house at a particular time. And some of the responses that we give are, this is how fast the aircraft's going, this is what the altitude is, this is where the destination is, and if there's anomalies or something that doesn't seem right from an air traffic perspective or a departure or an arrival procedure perspective, we can raise those concerns instantly with our air traffic partners with the FAA. And that's one of the real key benefits in my mind so far that I've seen from this program. But from a military perspective, you're absolutely right. This is not the full picture. And will we ever get the full picture? Good question, Bill. Okay, any other questions on this very important topic? It's amazing that the information that we get and interesting what the public reacts to and anyway. So any further questions of Hannah or Nick or anyone else? Thank you Hannah for that presentation. Very good, very compelling. Okay, go to, let's talk about this general aviation and the recent resolution on our agenda. Nick, give us a background to that. What's going on here? I mean, we heard Christopher Weinberg talk about seemingly some injustice being done. Straighten us out. And what do you want us to do with this resolution? So go ahead. Absolutely, and there are, this is a dynamic issue. Lots of things are changing as we discuss both of these subjects within this item here which is the general aviation, which is what we were talking about earlier in the meeting, the resolution and specifically the geographic area in what we call the valley apron, which is just an area, a geographic area on the southernmost point of our airport closest to one of the old quarry areas. The second part of this topic is the rezoning request on the northern part of our airfield. So both all of these situations are in some capacity related to each other. Last year, late last year, we brought forward a license agreement, license agreement between the city of Burlington, the Burlington airport and beta technologies, a short-term agreement to move soil, just soil, not to build, not to construct and not to lease land, move soil in a specific area that I requested to fill in what we call a gully underneath our approach path. So a great benefit to the airport and a huge cost savings because this is going to be part of a future airport project. That license agreement is now active and the dirt is being moved. There is blasting activity happening just about on a daily basis to remove significant amount of subgrade rocks. It used to be an old quarry and the beta technologies is now moving through the process of permitting and eventually constructing their really amazing new facilities. One of the complexities to the situation was as was stated earlier in the presentation, a map that was referenced as exhibit A, that map referenced a geographic area specific to the license agreement, not to a lease agreement. And that license agreement, or excuse me, that exhibit A defined portions that I was negotiating with non-aeronautical tenants, mostly related to Pete's RV, a landscaping company and potentially other commercial tenants. Those tenants were, yeah. Nick, what's the difference? I mean, I think another difference between a license agreement and a lease is there, how does that apply to this situation? So the license agreement was very particular on what this company was able to do. In this particular case, it was to move that soil, essentially perform earthwork within that particular area. Might I add a significant risk to that company to do that because this is not a lease of the land. This is not guaranteeing that this particular company, beta technologies would receive a lease on that particular land. So great benefit to the airport, a bit of a risk for beta technologies. And my interpretation of the event, and you may hear from others tonight, is that there was some concerns or interpretation of the exhibit A, not being part of that license agreement and interpreting that as involving aeronautical tenants and involving the airfield or removing areas of the airfield. As I mentioned in my November meeting, no portion of the valley, no portion of any aeronautical tenant or any airfield portion of any of the existing leases are impacted by the license agreement or our negotiated lease agreement with beta technologies. I'm very happy and I'm tremendously thankful for the general aviation community. And they do play an important role at this airport and always will inclusive of the many things that you read inside of this particular resolution and potentially a new resolution. There are many benefits to the general aviation community. Since many of these conversations have happened, I've had individual conversations, I've had in-person conversations, and I've also reached out to each one of these tenants to formally extend and lease, a very specifically lease to each one of the valley tenants. I truly am committed to making sure that these tenants and the businesses associated with the leaseholders of the Burlington International Airport are accommodated for today and in and into the future. It's very unique circumstances with each tenant. So it's not necessarily an appropriate item to say that each tenant should have a specific lease and each tenant should be given the same exact lease. Each negotiation happens separately with myself, with the staff of the airport administration and with legal counsel. And that's what's happening right now with many of these leaseholders. There is a portion, and you may have seen this in the media, there is a portion of one tenant that we have asked to utilize and share a parking lot associated with the beta technologies building. That one tenant is Mansfield Heliflite. They are working on the design, they're working through the permitting process, and we are working through the lease negotiations. As you know, you have not even seen that lease or recommended to board a finance or city council, the beta technology is leased because it is still actively being negotiated. If this particular... So is there any, what is the concern? The double use of that same parking lot by beta as well as Mansfield, is that two people wanting to use the same parking area? Did it get that right? There could be, and in my interpretation, there's concern over only one person using it versus a shared use. There have been conversations about potential uses from one tenant to the other. And I think there's been some great ideas thrown at the table. And I think an important piece to all of this, there's never been any formal requests in writing or any construction documentation for this particular parking lot. This is not for aircraft. This is totally outside of the airfield. This is a parking lot that has generally been vacant for quite some time. So that's what's being detailed and negotiated separately. I don't think it's fair to go too much into the details of some of those negotiations as they are currently being actively discussed and negotiated with multiple tenants. This particular resolution is one that I do support. This resolution was put on the city council agenda a few weeks back. I do and I can support this. And I was able to participate in the writing with one of our city councilors. I was under the interpretation that it was also going back and forth with some of the general aviation tenants. Again, I want to remind it. This is not all general aviation tenants. This is a few general aviation tenants that have leases with the Burlington airport that are apparently not in favor of this particular resolution or portions of it. I don't want to. There's six out of 56. That's what I think was testified to the committee. I know of two tenants that have signed on to that resolution. Yeah. The original resolution that was proposed, I could not support it. And I don't mean to bring up the history of this, but I think it's an important concept to the overall conversation. We've had over the last two years that the airport and the city staff have done an outstanding job creating a very complex, very detailed master plan for the Burlington airport. That master plan went through so many versions and so many conceptual ideas and conversations, not only internally, but within the public. We held three different versions of public meetings. One was a technical advisory committee which detailed pretty much everything out on our airfield, whether we were talking about future capital projects to shorten a runway which is being proposed in future years or the general aviation, new facilities or different facilities within the general aviation community. We've had great outreach. We invited many of those tenants that are currently in the Valley, some of them coming to our technical advisory meeting. Some of them did not. So there were many opportunities to discuss our future at the Burlington International Airport. We also held regional advisory committees which generally talked about the non-technical items, but the items really critically important to the traveling public, like the ground transportation that were in the terminal building and access and communicating and working with the Chamberlain Airport Neighborhood Planning Committee and other South Burlington committees and departments. So a lot of great effort went into that aspect of it. And then both of these were combined into a few public open houses as we describe them and as we advertise them in newspapers and the media. So there were other opportunities to actually join us right here in this room and throughout this mezzanine to talk about those open public processes. I couldn't support that original resolution because it described a new committee, a committee that would essentially reopen the conversation that we just had, a committee that I think did such an incredible job to identify future uses of general aviation at the Burlington Airport. That doesn't mean to say that this master plan can't change. That doesn't mean that this master plan is not going to be amended over time and our capital plan shifted, whether we have future capital funding opportunities or changes in FAA regulations. There's lots of opportunities to change some of these master planning items. And that's why I think this current resolution is a great way to detail or pull pieces of our master plan out, present them to you, the airport commission, present them to the, I always forget the acronym bill, so I'm probably gonna have to lean on you a little bit, but the two committee, a subcommittee of the city council to identify those future growth opportunities of general aviation for current tenants, for current longstanding tenants, which we truly do appreciate those longstanding tenants and the opportunities that might arise to potentially build new apron, build new hangers and make sure that there's available space for current and future tenants of this region. As I mentioned in the beginning, general aviation is a critical and great component of an airport ecosystem. And I'm gonna continue to advocate for that as best as I can, while also advocating for a future tenant, one of the largest tenants at the Burlington International Airport to help supplement and potentially reduce costs for the traveling public and potentially for our airlines. Everything that we do is associated with running this airport, making sure that we have competitive prices and rates for our tenants on the airfield, but also for our airline partners, making sure that they are competitive and have the appropriate rates to entice and encourage new markets and new airlines at the Burlington Airport. So it's an, and they can be compatible. Current and future tenants, small and large businesses can be compatible at this Burlington International Airport. So there's a lot of progress on the horizon, which leads me to this final item here, which is the rezoning request. We talked about this a little bit at the last meeting. I was able to join Helen and the rest of the rezoning task force, a subcommittee of the South Burlington Planning Commission to have our first meeting to discuss the future area or the area that we identified within our master plan that could potentially house a new snow, snow and maintenance equipment facility in potentially new general aviation hangers. When I'm asking to develop, we weren't asking to advertise that this is a building that we're going to build today. This is simply a rezoning request to look at the future, which we know is going to take some time. And most importantly, and I think South Burlington is right on with how they are producing this particular task force, make sure that it's a compatible fit adjacent to the Chamberlain neighborhood. And I think the first meeting, I think there's a lot of questions that happen and a lot of great feedback. And I think we're going to be able to identify the appropriate future use of this area. And my hope is to make sure that it's identified for future general aviation and future maintenance facility needs. This new maintenance building too would also house airport administration, airport operations and our maintenance department. So this is a large consolidated building to remove some of the critical areas, including this room and some of our administration offices just adjacent to this room, critical areas that could be used for the traveling public that we so desperately need within our terminal, especially as we rebound out of the pandemic. There's a really great future for us. Of course, the master plan has been adjusted with those commercial operation future. However, we're climbing that ladder very quickly, much quicker than we anticipated, even through some of the most challenging parts of the pandemic, which in my opinion is right now. But I think there's a great future to exceed those master plan forecasted numbers to accommodate the Valley tenants, the Valley West apron, which has been a vacant apron for over 10 years that we're now able to identify and lease out to future areas of the airport or unused areas of the airport today that potentially could work for the future of aviation here. As you can see, this is a portion of the picture. This is a very complex issue that not only includes what I've talked about today, but we also have to consider FAA regulations and everything that we do, local regulations and everything that we do. And there's so many details associated with each one of these elements, whether it's funding regulations, development regulations, height regulations associated with airports. There's many components to this conversation. I do support this resolution that you have before you today. I'd be happy to share the previous versions as Mr. Weinberg said. I don't think it's necessary. And I also, just to relay future information that might appear on the Monday night city council meeting, there's a proposed change already to this resolution that may be presented at the Monday night city council meeting, which I think I can support that one as well. It's a bit broader. It still does identify the future uses and also the encouragement of general aviation. It also adds in the component of the rezoning task force, making sure again that we're working in a collaborative effort to identify the future area of that particular zone that we've requested, which is in the packet. And then the third element to the change of the resolution is a sustainability effort, making sure that the general aviation community, that we study and understand the future sustainability efforts of the general aviation community. And that includes what type of fuel is being used. There's a national conversation happening right now, specifically on that topic, and making sure that future development needs or future aircraft needs. And most certainly one of the tenants future tenants that were in current tenant and that we're negotiating today, data technology incorporates electric abilities within the aviation community. That's an important piece. And a few months ago, you actually approved and recommended a $170,000 contract with VHB to specifically study sustainability efforts within the Burlington airport. I'll present it later in my director's report, but I have even further exciting news to truly hit that head-to-home run with sustainability efforts and not just study them, but actually implement them and coordinate with various other communities, whether it's South Burlington on their energy efforts and planning efforts in of course, Burlington and some of our neighboring communities. There's a substantial amount of funds available to us that could address that last item or change to this resolution. Hopefully I didn't talk too long, Bill, but I think that's the general concept. Like I said, I do support this current version that you see in front of you tonight. This is not an action item that we're asking for. And I do support in concept right now, I can support some of the adjustments, although I haven't fully interpreted them just yet. Okay, thank you. Boy, that was a boatload of information. Nick, is the beta at least in jeopardy in any of these proposed, not, let me restate the question. Is the beta agreement in jeopardy here in under any of these circumstances? And if so, what is it? You know, I don't think it is. And I think something that we, many of us have agreed to already is nobody wants to impact some of the future development or future, just the future growth of a company whose sustainability efforts are far beyond anything I think we've seen in a long time. And that doesn't just include their aircraft. That includes the actual building that they're producing in geothermal. Again, they're still going through the permitting process, but I don't think it jeopardizes anything, especially in the resolution's current capacity. And that's in a very important piece to me financially and for the future growth of the airport that it doesn't impact their lease negotiations. At the same time, I want to make sure that it's inclusive and incorporates current tenants lease negotiations where appropriate. Again, each tenant has a unique circumstance that must be negotiated separately. Okay, the commission members got questions of Nick on this very important issue. Questions? Anybody? So did I miss a public speaker at the beginning of this meeting and talked about this issue or no? Yes, you did. Okay. Any questions? Well, Nick, has this resolution been referred to the airport commission? Not right now. I think it was tabled. It was tabled. That's correct. A couple of weeks ago, it was tabled off of the city council. This new revision to the resolution which is a great point, Bill, incorporates the airport commission. That's another component that I wanted to incorporate in any of these versions of this resolution. I thought it was critical that this wasn't excluding the airport commission. That's a very important piece to it. So the resolution amendments that are being proposed that I just saw tonight do address returning it back to the airport commission for comments on the resolution before it proceeds any further. I believe Monday night though, it's going to, there is going to be a motion to approve the amended version. As soon as I have a final copy of that, I will send it off to all of you. Well, do you, I mean, were you, I'm not sure what the commission, I don't know how you feel about this thing. How do you feel about what you heard from Nick? Do you like what he said? Do you address Mr. Weinberg's concerns or who are you on this whole thing? Somebody? Well, I, I don't quite understand all of Mr. Weinberg's concerns. So I think what Nick said and what he is willing to accept as this resolution, it's, I mean, more work for him bodes well. I mean, I think it sounds like some of the goals are good ones. So, I mean, I guess that's my reaction. I don't know enough to know exactly what the nuances of concern are from Christopher Weinberg or Weinberg and the people he's representing. So, could I interpret that as supporting the resolution? Yeah, I mean, I guess if Nick thinks it's a good thing to do when he wants to do it, I don't know why I would be opposed to it. Okay. Anyone else? As I read the resolution, I actually thought it was like getting into Nick's business a little too much. You know, there seemed to be like this undertone of we are not encouraging GA growth at the airport. So therefore we need to pass a resolution to make sure we support it. So I was kind of perplexed by that. So, but if Nick is supportive of the resolution, I believe Nick is and all the airport is supportive of growth in general aviation. So if Nick is supportive of some of the additional reports and other things he has to generate, then I am supportive of it as well. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Well, I don't think they should pass it before we have a look at it and give them our yay or nay. I mean, I think it concerns the airport. It should come from us. Okay. All right. Anyone else? Okay. Yeah, I think you have some. So how are you going to, Nick, how are you going to relay this information to the council? Yeah, so I'll relay this to the city council sponsor of the resolution who is councilor Ali Jong. I'll relay the conversation that we're having tonight and even offer the recording if needed to address some of Tim's concerns. Initially, that's exactly how I felt as well. But I think it's an important, it is an important ability whether through this resolution through the master plan or just general conversations, I think it is important to say that we do support this resolution. And I think, not I think, I do support that comment in the resolution knowing that it isn't detailed in a way that impacts the direction and the day to day and the ability to run the airport or step into kind of the day to day activities of the airport. So there are some elements in there and especially in the original resolution that really were much further into creating the ability to offer policy or changes or direction of the airport, including the master plan that just wasn't acceptable to me. It just didn't make any sense to any concept that we just went through with the master plan. But I do, and I can support this resolution and I believe I can support the new resolution that's proposed and like I said, I haven't seen the final, final copy yet, but I will submit, I will send that to you all when I have that. Okay, thank you. Anyone else for Nick on this topic? All right, so let's move to a director's report. Bill, I don't know if it's appropriate. I do see a hand or two up and I saw somebody comment something in the chat. I don't know if you wanted to address that or not. I didn't know if you saw that. Okay, no, I don't see that. Person identify, is it herself and? Hello? So, Mr. Jim Richards, it should be able to talk now. Yes, hi, this is Jim Richards. And Jim, you were representing who? I'm one of the GA tenants in the Valley. My company is called Aerodyme. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Well, commission, I think one of the central points in the motion as originally put forth by a lot of work down here involving solid dozen people, so key players in the existing general aviation community at the airport. One of the key things we were getting at there is the undue level of influence that the single new private party coming to the table, coming to the airport's table is having. And we were worried that there would be impact to the existing community and that opportunities for growth or even continuation of current activities might become fettered or limited or somehow blocked. So that was one important component of what we did put forth was that we were looking for some sort of body of people or representatives to be established that could not be swayed by the inputs and requests from any single private entity. And that has, that is no longer in the resolution. So while I think there is a lot of good stuff in there and I do support it, I proposed at the council meeting, the city council meeting last week, proposed an amendment of my own, which was adding an item nine to the draft as it stood at that time, which would require equitable treatment of general aviation stakeholders without preference for any single stakeholder or any group of stakeholders, less than 80% of all stakeholders. So with that said, whether those words are appropriate or stated correctly, that was the concern is that there is a situation of the existing tenants being run over roughshod by this new entering entity. And we're not speaking against the airport's interests in supporting the growth of GA and welcoming new players and in fact, welcoming this new single private entity. But we do want to see that the needs are met across the board, including the existing long-term companies, such as my own long-term tenants with growth plans of our own and so forth in the midst of relatively limited real estate. And myself, I'm supporting Nick at his request, be speaking I think at the South Burlington meeting tomorrow night in support of the opportunities for more space to be purposed to GA, around the airport. We do agree with Nick that it's a key part of the lifeblood of the operation of any good airport. So we're in for all of that, but that's a rocky road and whether and how much additional space can be found and can be developed into GA use in the years to come I think is a very real question. So we've got our spot down here in the valley, the historical valley that one of the cores of GA at the airport. And I suppose firstly we're looking to protect it. We don't want to lose any of the valley because it's all we've got. And we'd like to think we could have some elbow room for growth to develop the general aviation industry and opportunity across the board. So again, I had proposed that resolution to the city council when it last met or that amendment requiring equitable treatment. And I do state to you today that I do believe that's very important. Thank you very much. Any questions of Mr. Richards? Okay, is there someone else in the queue that would like to speak Nick? I believe there was, I think Mr. Weinberg had his hand up or a chat message. Okay, we'll give you another shot, Mr. Weinberg. Are you there? You're there. Thank you again. Again, I'm not by any means trying to make this personal against Mr. Longo. I guess the crux of the matter- Please don't, please don't. I'm not going to. The crux of the matter for me is a statement that was just reiterated to the commission that aeronautical tenants were told that they weren't going to be impacted by this license agreement. And that is just factually untrue. There is in fact an aeronautical tenant that hadn't impacted by the license agreement. There may be a variety of other factors that have gone into play, but the statement that continues to be made is not a truthful one. This is not, we're not talking about a private enterprise that keeps strategies and plans private. It is supposed to be a transparent public organization that shares plans and communicates open and honestly with public and the members of the community. And that is the issue that I think is continuing to cause concern among the broader community of GA stakeholders. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners and members, any questions of Mr. Weinberg? Okay. Nick, when you report this meeting to the city council, I would hope that you would include that we are testimony for Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Richards. Absolutely. So they know that we get both sides of the story. But my own, make a personal comment here. This property is owned by the airport and we are the airport is the entity that negotiates each lease with every tenant. And they don't have to be the same when one tenant does not necessarily depend on another tenant. But that's my two cents. So, okay. Any other comments you wanna make on what you've heard tonight on this issue? Okay. So, is this also your director's report, Nick? Or do you wanna go there? No, the director's report is a little different. Okay. Let's hear it. So while Hannah is sharing the screen real quick, you may have noticed a new face at the table here. So one of the first things that I wanna introduce is my new deputy director of aviation operations. Dave Carmen, who's on with us tonight has now been promoted to deputy director. He's been with the airport for almost 10 years. He has an enormous amount of experience, decades worth of experience, both as a pilot, airport manager, and airport operations specialist at various locations. He's gonna be a massive asset to this airport, to the future of the airport, and a critical component to our day-to-day operations. As he is, he knows the technical pieces left and right. As I mentioned, he's been here for 10 years as an airport operations specialist, but now he gets to manage that operation, and I couldn't be more excited for him, and I couldn't think of somebody more better to do that. So I do wanna introduce Dave Carmen, and if it's appropriate, Dave wants to add any words. Sure. All right, thanks very much for having me on here, and yeah, I've been at the airport for about nine, two, nine, and 10 years, and it's good to be part of the administrative team. Actually, a little bit about myself, if you don't mind, just so that everybody kind of knows my background a little bit. I actually have a lot of flight experience. I actually started it off back in the late 1990s, became a, you know, got my private pilot certificate and worked my way up, got my multi-engine, my instrument rating, and ultimately my flight instructor, and I did that for several years, and I still actually maintain the flight instructor. Got to have about 2,000 flight hours right now, and I was also a instructor at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University for several years, and teaching airport development and operations. So I was also a flight instructor at Kent State University in Ohio, as a multi-engine commercial, and also served as a charter pilot with about, again, about 2,000 flight hours. So I've developed and gained a lot of perspective, varying perspective from the air and from the ground. I've been to countless numbers of airports in the United States and Canada, and I'm also, along with being a professional pilot, I was also a paramedic, when my wife and I lived out in Ohio. Before moving to Vermont, I worked as a airport operations specialist at the Harrisburg International Airport, did that for about three years, and then prior to joining BTV back in 2013, I served as the airport manager at the Rutland Southern Vermont Regional Airport. Many don't know that that's the second commercial service airport. A lot of us know of the Burlington Airport as being the only commercial service airport in the state, but Rutland also has Cape Air that flies from Boston, or Rutland to Boston and back about three times per day. Yeah, that's about it. Again, I've been here for about nine, 10 years and very general aviation centric. A lot of my flight time was as a flight instructor and a lot of experience in small aircraft, but I also flew as a charter pilot, flew with the King Air and some of the TurboProp aircraft as well. Awesome. Thank you so much, Dave, and yeah, like I said, I couldn't be happier to introduce them and get them on board, and you'll see them at all at future commission meetings as well. You must have started when you were about three. That's a lot of them. I'm not as young as you think, so. You're saying you look young to me. Welcome, Dave. Welcome to the crowd. Thank you very much. You're part of a, as you can see, I hate to use this analogy, but you're part of a train that's headed way into the future and you're gonna play an important role in that, helping out Nick and the rest of the staff. So again, thanks for coming in. Good selection, Nick, good selection. Continue, Nick, with your report. All right, so this is extremely exciting to report to you today. So I think you've all heard in the news that bipartisan infrastructure bill was passed and that had a very large element of aviation to it. I've broken down very basically from a funding structure, what that means to airports overall. So we're talking about $25 billion invested into the airport industry over a five-year period of time. And those are broken down by those numbers right there. The arrow to the left is for about approximately $5 billion nationwide in discretionary funding. So essentially replacing aging facilities or updating facilities like our terminal building, encouraging competition, which means both out on the airfield and within our airline industry. And I think one of the most important things, and this comes directly from Secretary of Buttigieg is the energy efficiency and sustainability efforts related to airports specifically. 15 billion, so that left pool of money, that is a very competitive pool that we are going to aggressively try to capture for facilities like our terminal building. 15 billion of this total appropriated funding is specific to airport infrastructure based on a formula, very similar to some of the CURSA and other grants that Maria was talking about before. So it's based on a formula based on number of in-plane passengers in other various procedures or methodologies. Very happy to report, and big green right there, Burlington International Airport has been allocated over $4 million for federal fiscal year 2022. That's this year, that's the year that we're in right now. So that $4 million is above our entitlement funds, which we receive about $3.5 million a year for most of the big projects that you see us working on. That's above and beyond any supplemental grant projects like our terminal integration project, which was $15 million, and above and beyond the 18 or so million of CURSA, CARES, and ARPA funding that we received specifically for COVID. $4 million a year for five years. So this is a tremendous effort. It changes our capital plan. It changes not necessarily our future projects of the big stuff related to the airfield. I think we're in a really great position. Larry really does a fantastic job outlining and laying out that future capital plan. This is gonna allow us to update some of our equipment needs, possibly a new maintenance facility, possibly other infrastructure needs associated with our terminal building. Don't worry the next one. One of the things that immediately I wanna work on within this current year's federal fiscal year 2022 is a couple of things. Like I said, there's some opportunities in our terminal and out on our airfield, but immediately I would like to promote a million dollars worth of sustainable projects at the Burlington Airport, utilizing these infrastructure funds. That could mean, and we don't have this laid out yet, but that could mean new solar panels, possibly renewable energy sources on our road to potentially the greenest and a net zero airport, which it would be tremendously difficult to do, but something that we need to try to accomplish or move down that road towards. There's some procedural changes that we need to address as well. Dave actually already pinpointed one of them, and that's to utilize renewable electric resources within the airline industry, making sure that they're not running any ground power or diesel or jet powered generator sources, but rather renewable energy source right here connected to the terminal building, electrifying many of our items within the terminal building and beyond. A million dollars is gonna take us a little bit of the way. It seems like a lot, a lot of funding, but it's a great first step that I'm extremely happy to report to you today, and it's gonna elevate the criteria and the competitiveness to be associated with a sustainability project, which is the essence of this bipartisan bill, especially with the aviation community. I'll stop there, but just in case there's any questions, Bill, and then I can move on. Then any questions so far? I just have a little one. Do you know what the other airports in Vermont have received? I don't know that offhand. Just curious. I believe it's in the $100,000 or so dollar range. I can get that full spreadsheet, which it does identify every airport. Great, thank you. Okay, continue. So it's part of this infrastructure bill as well as other funding sources. One, Larry gave an amazing update to the terminal integration project. I threw in a couple of more, a couple of new pictures in here. This is actually a new initiative that I started. These pictures were captured actually from a video. Once a week or once every couple of weeks, Hannah, my director of photography, Shelby, Dave, we actually produce a video series for our entire staff that don't necessarily get to participate in some of these projects, but can really enter some of the big projects and big tools that we get to operate from. Dave actually produced his first video just last week and these are some of the interior pictures of our terminal project. The bottom right hand side, if you were at our groundbreaking ceremony, that is the steel beam with all of our signatures on it when we had the groundbreaking ceremony. So if you take a tour, when you go to the new stairs and the top of the stairs, the beam is gonna be right at the top of the stairs. You're not gonna see it, but you'll know, you'll know. The next immediate terminal renovation that I'd like to propose right off the bat, the whole team is helping out with this one. Marie, from the financial point of view, of course, we're relocating the North TSA checkpoint. That checkpoint no longer will exist by the end of this year, which opens up an enormous opportunity to expand seating and capacity within that North Concourse. What I'd like to do is open up this entire area up, remove some of our aging escalator areas, open up opportunities for existing restaurant and news and gift stores and relocate a couple of elements to the North Concourse. This is conceptual drawing. I know it's a little bit difficult to see, but the idea, the premise here is it does open up the door to expanding that area, allowing more seating and opening up more seating opportunities for the restaurant, as well as potentially automating and better securing our exit lane in the North checkpoint. There's tremendous technology out there right now for automated exit lanes, which would help us out tremendously. And I think Dave and Shelby are jumping for joy for that one. That is all I have for you today. Those are big topics, big future funding opportunities. And I'm really excited to share what those future goals and future terminal layout looks will look like into the very near future. My hope is by the end of this year, some of these projects will be well on their way if not opened up. Wow, that's most exciting. Any questions of Nick on this tremendous program he's just launched for us with some $4 million and then some. Any questions of Nick? Yeah, Nick, thanks for sharing all that and great stuff, congrats to you and the team. Do you have any renderings of what the integration, the terminal integration project will look like? We do, yeah, I can share those with you both interior and exterior renderings. Right now, in fact, we're working on the signage or the logo on the exterior of the building making sure it fits correctly with what we want it to feel like. But we can share those with you, absolutely. Yeah, I'd love to see those when you- Okay, yeah. Okay. Anyone else? Bill, I have a question, but not specifically related to the presentation. Go ahead. Nick, I was talking to somebody who just recently traveled through the BTV airport this week and they noticed that a lot of passengers, both pre and post TSA were not wearing their masks. You know, they weren't wearing masks or they were wearing them in such a way that they would not cover their nose and or mouth. I'm just curious, is there any enforcement that happens in that regard or is it just kind of like an honor policy? Like please wear your mask and that's as far as it goes. No, that's a great question. And I don't know if it's a coincidence or not. I've had other people reach out to me just this past weekend, maybe the holidays or whatnot. Occasionally we do see, we don't patrol the terminal per se. We do have operations specialist and ambassadors viewing some of this. We do have our police department that's also looking for masks, but that's not their primary goal. And of course we have the transportation security administration and the airlines that will not allow anybody through security or onto an aircraft without a proper mask and fitted properly. There are repercussions to not wearing a mask in the terminal. Those are spelled out by the Transportation Security Administration and recommended by the director of the airport for civil fines associated with not wearing a mask in the airport, up to $1,000. So there are some significant penalties that's certainly not something that I'm interested in moving forward with right away unless there's some really serious or systemic issues involved with not wearing a mask. We've had circumstances here where we have had to remove passengers from an aircraft for not properly wearing a mask. And certainly as we've seen in the past couple of months some misbehavior of passengers on aircraft as well. Nothing significant and usually handled very quickly. And usually there's always more to the story that we can identify a particular situation. But specifically to the mask, an abundance of signage. I think I'm gonna add more signage to make it very clear. In abundance of verbal communication all of our ticket counters say wear a mask all of our TSA locations, airline locations. And we do not have masks readily available for folks to take, but that hasn't been the issue. We do have a couple of thousand masks standing by. So if anybody comes into the airport going, oh boy, I totally forgot my mask or it's in my car. We can accommodate them and give them a mask almost immediately. But that's not the primary concern. Usually everybody has a mask in their bag or we're two years into a pandemic. So many people have the mask that fits for them. And we'll continue to monitor it too because that is a very serious situation, very serious violation of federal funds within a terminal building. And potentially that will ruin somebody's traveling experience. Okay, thank you. Are you all set to him on that? Yes, yes, thank you. Let's go to the general affairs. Any general affairs that you wanna share with the commission before we go to the follow up items? One thing, Helen, do you have something you wanna share with the commission? No, except South Burlington imposed a mask mandate on businesses starting this morning. Okay. So we're fully masks, just like Burlington. Okay, excellent. So please come back and shop in our community. Okay. Listen, I was sort of taking it back, but do you know that members of the Burlington commissions and boards are now gonna get paid. You're gonna get $50 a meeting. Take that to the bank, start Nick, fill us in on that, please. So it certainly still is a work in progress. I thought it was fair to come, please. Oh, no, it's there, it's there. So $50 per meeting. And this is not just for the airport commission. This is for all boards, all commissions within the city of Burlington. And some paperwork is required, of course. So if you have that or if you can send that my way or to Hannah, that would be great. But that's the gist of it. And that's to encourage, I don't think we have an issue here at the airport commission. We've always had a great group and a great strength since I've known the commission, but yeah, $50 per meeting that you attend. So if we went to weekly meetings, we'd make a bundle of money, wouldn't we? Well, it's your prerogative, Mr. Chair, I guess. I don't know how many meetings. Anyone else want to chair this general affairs category? Anyone else? All right, let's go to this follow up item thing, which I think is becoming a little bit more important. I think the public right to know orientation is still out of stay there. The airport rules for taxis still out of stay there. And that air guard information, I'm kind of disappointed we hadn't heard back from the air guard, but they promised us that information so readily. Nick, did you respond to that at all? Yes, so no, they did respond. They responded actually the night after your commission meeting. So it is attached inside of that agenda item, the numbers that you requested. Yeah, I'm sorry if you didn't see that. So it's under public content within that. So you have to click on that agenda item on board docs. And then you'll see a summary of all air guard members living in Vermont, Chittany County, and then they weren't able to break it down by community, but they were able to count Burlington, South Burlington, Williston, Winooski, and Colchester. How many people that are members of the guard that live in those communities? And how do I, again, I tap on that air guard data, tap on that and it'll give me the information. Correct, yes. It's over on the side under the agenda item details. Okay, I'm sorry, okay. Bill, I can quickly read it to you. It's 759 guard members live in Vermont, 337 in Chittany County, and 150 in local communities surrounding the airport. Okay, good. Okay, thank you. I'll do that when we get off the air. Okay, Tim, you wanna deal with the follow up items? Sure, we had, so we had two that we added to the agenda, which is oven of five, the analysis of types of incidents that the police at the airport's handle. What's the status of that? Yeah, so I'm working with acting chief Murad, as well as Sergeant Nadeau, who is part of the airport division of the Burlington Police Department to, what's the word, complate the entire package. I'm hoping for a year's worth of data to display and show you the types of incidents that they respond to on the airport. So my hope is at the February meeting, I will have a formal presentation for you for that. Okay. Great, thank you. And then 1106 is the map of the 50 homes in the noise program, how those homes are broken up by community and what the appeal process is. If a homeowner feels like they should have been part of the pilot, but was not. Absolutely, I think that's a good item to keep on the follow-up items. We do not yet have that map available. There are some of the appeal processes associated with our implementation plan. And we just went through the first 19 houses, Larry, or 20 houses, 19 approved. The number of people that came forward were 19, they were all tested and they all are selected. There was one that called in late, or noticed it's late, but well, after all the equipment had left. So we're working on that one. So we can secure the first 10 that we have the funding for and then we're going to do a grant application for the next 10. And then part of both of those grants include the outreach of a hundred more homes for the next year. And part of that outreach, we can start producing those maps, Tim, to not only identify the pilot program, but the next 50 houses, and maybe even color code it beyond that 50, plus 50, plus 50, et cetera. Great, that would be insightful. Thank you. So can I just ask, when do you think they'll start working on the first 10 homes? We're going through the design for the first 10 and it will be out to bid within the next couple of months. The first 10, and then construction over the summer. And we're in hopes that we get a quick grant response for the other nine or hopefully 10th person that came in late to get that done, get a grant this year for those to get it done this year, but that all remains to be seen with respect to the grant it's issued. Yeah, sir, Helen, okay. Tim, do you want to continue? Sure. That's what we have for old ones. I have four takeaways from today. So I'll just read those back. Nick, you'll relay our feedback and the public comments. We're going general aviation to the city council. Helen's request to know how much each for my airport is receiving, how much money each airport is receiving under the infrastructure bill that just passed. Jeff Shulman requested that you share the renderings of the terminal integration project and the pie chart on the noise complaints, the second pie chart to be by a unique commenters. So that's what I had for the four takeaways is are there any other additional requests either from staff or from the commission that I may have missed? Okay, hearing none, we're all set. We will entertain a motion to adjourn. I move that we adjourn. Motion to remain seconded. Seconded. I'm adjourned by saying aye. Aye. We are hereby adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone.