summer day. >> Okay, we are now recording 5:30. Um, everybody chance to look the minutes. I sent them to you and for months or whatever need a uh approval for the
minutes. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, we can start right off, I guess, with G. >> Sure. >> We'll be all set. >> Yeah, absolutely. I'll try to keep it um as brief as possible, but I realize there may be some questions. Um, so
everybody should have a copy of Gail's project update for the month of June. Um project number one on page one actually um begins on page two. Really not much of an update. Um the last step of this
process was to upload the um airport layout plan um for FAA review. And so once they comment and you know we make any revisions that they recommend um we can close the project out and that'll be finalized and the airport will be
covered uh for the tree pairing and fencing um in accordance with environmental um environmental rules. So um at least from the federal side. Um any questions on that? I keep moving
along. Um the navigation easement project number two. Um so there have been quite a few developments. I know last time we talked about the parcel off of the 36N that's owned by the
Massachusetts Forestry Division and that is subject to um state law article 97. Um, and that's basically an article that protects um recreational and conservation space. And so we had a
meeting with um DCR, who's the department of conservation and recreation to ultimately be the coordinating party uh for that parcel on um the 29th. And we talked a little bit about that parcel and just really uh how
best to approach an an easement acquisition for that airspace above that parcel because there are quite a few um stipulations and um some challenges. I know there's another airport um that's going through a similar process uh with
with this type of article 97 land. Um, one of the items that was brought to our attention um, in that meeting by Department of Conservation Recreation was there may be another parcel off of that runway end that's actually just
subject to article 97. So, what I did just to be on the safe side is I went through all the parcels um on the runway 36 end and um I reviewed them against the um n natural resources maps that um that
DCR had provided um and found that there is certainly one other parcel that is subject to those rules and there's a couple of other parcels that were questionable to me that I'd like to get some answers. on um and so just to give
you a very very quick rundown of what the process is for acquiring easement over that type of land um basically any change to article 97 land um constitutes what they call a
disposition. So, if there's a change in ownership, if there is a change to um the use, as in, you know, it's a conservation parcel and you're taking trees down, these things are all considered um a disposition in the eyes
of Massachusetts state law. Um and so, effectively, the law says that there can be no net loss of this protected type of property. Um and so the process for getting that easement um and you know
the easement over the certainly one other parcel in question as well as you know may maybe I'm thinking possibly one more um as well but I need some answers from an attorney because the deed language wasn't really clear. Um
the process is you have to conduct um an alternatives analysis basically to um let the department of environmental affairs um know basically uh that you've considered other options other than you know
acquiring this land which you really can't do anything else because it's in the you can't acquire other parcels because this is the one parcel that contains the trees or the couple parcels that contain the trees. Um so part of that is um you do the alternative analysis to evaluate whether there are
any other reasonable alternatives which there wouldn't be but you still have to show your work per se. Um and then you also have to identify and purchase replacement land um which is you do a
fair market value assessment of the parcel and you have to find a comparable piece of land to replace that. Um, and that piece of land has to be uh the same acreage or larger in size and it also has to be 110% of the value um of the
lost parcel. So that um can be quite a quite a lengthy process. You also have to pass uh legislation that authorizes the article 97 action and they basically will accept or not um the replacement lands and the alternatives analysis and
everything else. Um, and there's also a fee required to compensate any loss of natural resources that has to be assessed. All that being said, this work is eligible under the airport improvement program. However, I think
that the process for getting, you know, getting to the finish line on some of those parcels on the 36 end, it it's going to be lengthy and it's going to set you back in terms of when you can do the tree clearing. I know they're working on a similar project in Martha's
Vineyard and it's been well over a year and they haven't um they haven't finalized the acquisition yet. Um so that being said, I'm just proposing to the commission. I haven't brought this to um Massie to your FA because I wanted
to discuss this all with you. But the runway um 18 end all the parcels they they don't fall under um any of these articles or provisions. So what I'm suggesting is perhaps phasing the
project so we can focus on the 18 end and acquiring those parcels and start to you know get um get the rights that you need to clear those trees. Um and then f you know following you know confirmation of the of the process and which parcels
we actually need article 97 coordination for um then maybe pursue those as a phase two and I just wanted to get the commission's take effectively right now you'd be cutting cutting the project um in in half is what you'd be doing right
now. Um, so just any thoughts? >> If you cut if you cut it in half, you'll end up with one approach to the airport that's been approved. Approved >> and that would be the approach landing on 18. Right. >> That's correct. Yes. >> And uh 36 is going to be left placed on
a back burner. >> I wouldn't say a back burner. I would just say it would be phased so that you know maybe and and we can talk about this um you know if we want to move forward even with the discussion. And like I said, I didn't even bring it to the agencies yet cuz I wanted to talk with everybody here first. Um, but they
should be able to answer some questions about like the timing and provide input for, you know, acquiring the easements. Do you do everything on the 18 side and then address 36, you know, easements and moving forward later or, you know, do we do an easement project here and start
the easement project on that end concurrently while other things are going on? So these troubled parcels of land which conflict with the approach to 36 are to the north. Is that correct or >> and I I actually brought um so I brought
>> the only thing with delaying is that it'll be more expensive. >> Well that that's my question for the finances of this. That's something again um that I can certainly
I can certainly dive into. I don't um you know I can pretty quickly get a an estimate for what the 18, you know, what that all would cost and break that down. That should be fairly simple to, you know, move forward on. Uh with the 36N
again, we're kind of doing our homework a little bit and um trying to trying to make sure that we fully understand which parcels fall under these provisions. Again, this would only be the second time that an airport in the state of Massachusetts pursued an easement over
this type of pro property. So, there really hasn't even been because Martha's Vineyard hasn't completed the process. There is not even really a precedent that has been set. Um, but there are lessons learned and things like that that we can learn from that. >> Does the land that we have to replace it
with have to be contiguous to the the piece that's there? Can we buy the land way out in western Massachusetts and because it's cheaper and put it >> does have to be in the same community. That is one of the one of the stipulations. It has to be in the same
community so that there's not a loss to the community of that conservation land. Um, so and what what they did say, uh, Department of Conservation and Recreation said because the airport is owned by Gardener, it's situated in
Templeton and the parcels in question are in Hoverston and there's another one, the other one is in Templeton. Um, there may be some wiggle room in terms of, you know, maybe being able to acquire something in any one of those municipalities. Um so again I I know
it's we were kind of expecting to have a finalized um scope for this project today. So I apologize you know that that's not what's happening. Um but just you know wanted to get this in front of everybody and answer your questions and you know even again not
asking for a vote on anything just getting your support before I reach out to the agencies and say hey what would this what would this look like if we if we split this project up. I mean, it would get you, you know, one step closer to your clear approach on 18, which you
do need. Um, you know, both ends, you know, I and I I brought the little copies of the of the plans. Again, >> would the uh FAA pay for the purchase of the other property? >> Oh, yes. Yes, they they would. Um, and and it would be the traditional funding
split, you know, 90% FAA, 5% state, 5% local. So, um, I can also, you know, I can I can do a little bit more digging and just see, you know, if anyone's even willing to provide any information about I mean, Martha's Vineyard, I don't know
if it's really a comparable, you know, comparable just because of the type of community, you know, that's in and the given the the cost of land out there. Um and and I don't know and again this would have to be um you know maybe an environmental firm coming in and
doing evaluation of what land is similar and identifying what that's what that parcel that would be comparable would be. I don't know if perhaps there's even a piece of airport property that's not being utilized that could be exchanged as part of this. Um it's it's just an
idea um that maybe could be could be a cost savings. Again, it's I cannot evaluate environmentally what is comparable and not, but I can get um you know, some more information on >> it. Just let us cut the trees.
>> They won't. It's And we asked them that. We did ask, you know, well, what if we just did a one-time, you know, tree clearing agreement where we came in and just, you know, only took the trees that were penetrating the approach surface.
And they said, "No, any change to the property whatsoever is considered a disposition." And it was we we tried >> every every angle. I know Jim, you were in that meeting as well and and we we asked every every question forward,
backwards. >> Said that stopped everybody. >> Yeah. So, it's um you know, >> any thoughts on that? Anybody got a question? Well, I think going forward so that you have a cleared and proper
approach in 18 is is a good step even though it's only half of what you anticipated. >> Right now, we only have an approach from the north. >> Yeah, >> that's the only approach other than the V approach and that's never going to
change I don't believe. So, if 18 is your primary approach, then you're taking care of >> you're taking care of your of your primary approach first, which makes sense from I think from a timing standpoint anyway. Um, of course, you know, cutting the project in half,
you're looking at, you know, half as costly for this project right now, but then down the road and, you know, again, the process for acquiring these parcels and it's so lengthy and you have to draft legislation and it's, you know, this whole alternatives analysis and all
these other components um that that I had mentioned. Um, >> and it has nothing to do with habitat. It's just trees. It's um the the trees that Yeah. the trees that need to come down. And because it's um there was an attorney present that was representing
the conservation and recreation department and she was very very clear that nope any change to that property whatsoever would be a disposition if you if the property changes hands or even if you were to just go and cut the trees. She was pretty clear that that that
wouldn't fly. They're very very strict about um these these parcels. They're actually um we were talking about perhaps um an inlue fee instead of purchasing a replacement parcel and they
even said that's not something that the Department of, you know, environmental affairs is is really even entertaining anymore at this point. So we I mean we we tried everything. We asked every question. Um, and I know I know it's a lot to digest today, but
>> Okay, we >> we do not own the property >> ever, >> right? You have an easement, >> just an easement for the state. >> That's the only thing. So, we do it's still maintained by the Department of Natural Re. So would everyone be
comfortable with me moving forward approaching mass coot and FAA and just seeing what they think about phasing the project and then I can give you a better sense of what that would look like in the future. I mean I think it really would be prudent to get on at least your primary approach now.
>> I think that makes sense for that second. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Now >> agree. >> I agree. >> Okay. Great. I will I will reach out um to the agencies then and provide them let them know this information then provide them the options that we're
talking about now. Um all right I will move on to the vegetation management plan and the updates really on page four. Um, so I know last meeting I provided the
commission with um a copy of the scope of services and um Mass DOT was still reviewing that scope um of services. say we got to a place where um Matthew T has still two outstanding
comments on the scope and one is related to article B and it's actually I did attach a copy um of the vegetation management plan scope. So, um, article B, airport planning on page one of that scope, um,
they're informing us that that is not going to be eligible for 100% funding and that it they would entertain it at an 80% mass 20% um, airport grant, which um,
and I just just a ballpark figure. Um it could be could be up to a,000 bucks or so for a local share. I'm thinking I'd have to crunch the numbers and you know you have to do a fee estimate and negotiate. The state does negotiations
on behalf of you know the airport themselves. So um that would all happen but there are really two options. a you know accepts the 8020 split grant for that article or I can approach um Mass
DOT again and just ask them if it's possible rather than doing the full airport layout plan part 77 airspace drawing update which includes uploading it to the FAA and having it reviewed and do you know taking comments and then
submitting it again with the final um versions you do need the analysis of the airspace completed to do the vegetation management plan. Um, but I can approach them if it is the profit of the commission and see if they would accept just the analysis as part of the overall
project at the 100%. Um, what whatever it is um that you that you prefer. >> So, what are we confused? Okay. >> Because they were reporting that Mass was going to pay for the whole thing at
one point. >> That's correct. >> Right. And they just can't do it. >> So they So they they're saying with the with the part 77 airspace drawing because that's part of an airport layout plan. It's it's that is more categorized
under like a planning task rather than rather than a tree crane. A safety project. they can easily fund at 100. Well, I won't say easily. That's I just spoke, but they they can they can entertain funding at 100% where
something that's a little bit more on the planning side of things, they um they will offer the the 80% state funding. Um so you do need analysis of the part 77 airspace because that is what the vegetation management plan
addresses and um so you know again at least at least analyzing those surfaces would be necessary. So we can which whatever is a collocative of the commission I can approach uh the DOT with
>> Andy do you have anything that >> so you're asking for a vote to go >> so and and there's one more task that we're waiting on. So, we're waiting on if you go on to uh the scope of work
page five, it's task GX. So, it's the and I highlighted them just to just to um bring it to everyone's attention. Um Mas DOT is considering that there may be a reduction in scope for this task. They're we're waiting for them to get
back on it to us. So, anything that would happen as a result of these changes would basically take things away from the scope, not add scope. Um, so I was hoping that the commission might um provide any final comments, any input on
on what you prefer for that um airspace drawing update and then um you know vote to approve the scope of services for the VMP vegetation management plan pending the additional mass DOT input and authorize either the chair or Isabelle
to um to you know approve any of those final changes or you know assign someone effectively to um approve any final changes to the scope. >> Oh yeah. Okay. So that's on the for the plan.
>> That's right. >> Yeah. >> And I'm happy to go through the sculpt. um you know and just talk about the different articles and answer your questions if you feel that would be helpful as well. I don't know exactly what to ask for or what I
don't understand. It's just this is just for plant they had. How many days did they have originally for the wetlands? They were going to determine that. So there are a couple different things. So the wetland task that we're talking about um >> task task X >> X
>> that would that's for wetland delineation um off airport property. So that would include your easement parcels potentially. Um and you know with the new development with the easement projects that may you know that may
change as well if we are deferring um some of the parcels on 36N. So, they're all everything's kind of intermingled. Um, and again, I'm happy to just quickly go through the scope of work and let you know kind of what you're what you're
looking at. It is um it is the scope of work that that was passed out at the last um at the last meeting. Anything that's been changed has a red line on it. because we've got on the north end we got the stuff that borders on Snake Pond.
I don't think there's Well, there's some other areas over on the other side, but they're not part of the scope or, you know, >> well, >> this one here that comes right down to the edge. >> Yeah. wetlands. So
>> is it within the 200 ft or 100 ft of the wetlands you have to >> plan or is that just for residential? >> There's there's typically there's a 100 foot wetland buffer um that that does fall you know under regulatory
requirements. Um but that would all be determined by you know as part of the vegetation management plan. GZA GZA geo environmental um is the um environmental specialist that we hire as part of these contracts to delineate wetlands and let
us know what types of resources are in those areas and then what permitting requirements um you know you're required to meet >> will they be interacting with our conservation commission or temple and gather >> yes okay >> yes that would be part part of the
permitting >> and yeah I I don't know if there's anything in gardener >> there. There isn't, but I think because the airport is is owned by the city of Gardener, it's prudent to, you know, GZA is recommending that that they also um
have, you know, >> okay, cuz it's most of it's templated that those >> Yes. Yep. I I um I brought copies just in case um because I know it's like So these are and I know we've seen these
before. So, sorry. >> This just shows the same um you know the the approach surfaces and what instructions are. >> And Jim, you have a copy of your own or yeah little
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I didn't I didn't know we end up using them. So save saving a little bit of paper. >> That's fine. Um >> so when we look at these maps here, this is not about the um the wetland subject.
It's about airspace and penetration. And right >> the first subject we were talking about, right? >> Yep. That shows you where um that shows you where the obstructions were located. And this was all part of the obstruction evaluation. Um, but when you're talking
about part 77, you also have a transitional surface that comes upward and outward from the sides of the runway. And so the um, vegetation management plan would look at those areas as well. Um, and you know, we'd
have to see what you know, what penetrations you have in those areas. Um which again that's that's the reason the big reason for the analysis um as part of the vegetation management plan is because those areas we didn't if you recall when we did the master plan they
didn't allow funding to do an airspace um flying the airspace. So, we didn't have current obstruction data as part of that process, which can be a little bit frustrating because you kind of end up doing some of these pieces peace meal instead of just doing it all as part of
one study. Um, so we didn't have the opportunity, we didn't have the data at the time of the master plan to evaluate all of those the whole total airspace around the airport. So, you know, and then of course the um the vegetation management plan follows,
you know, more of the airspace. So, you need to, you know, look and see what you have for we don't even know where the trees are penetrating on those transitional surfaces um or anything that's um you know, connecting everything, you know, from one surface to the next.
So basically the vote is to approve GGA and everybody to >> so so um it's really approving it's approving the scope of services pending the finalization of those two responses from the coot. I included a proposed
motion. Again if this is um you know if it's not the commission's prerogative we can certainly do it another way whatever whatever um everyone feels comfortable with. um you know but effectively the the scope is um other than that article
B that's highlight highlighted on page one um the rest of the scope is 100% funded by Mass DOT so whatever really whatever they approve is they're they're approving >> um
>> because they're approving the plan >> yes that's correct they're approving the scope um so it's really the the thing that's in question right now is that part the part 77 airspace drawing. Um I'm waiting for them to, you know, to get back to me on that, but I can certainly approach them. Like I said, if
you want if you don't feel that it's within the budget to expend the 20% of that task, um you know, I can we can approach it a different way. I would say let's keep going forward.
Yeah. Get we get get the see what they're going to do with the consider portion of the second half there >> for the other stuff for and uh as we get answers we can probably define
it more. >> Yeah. I mean this really this really is the the scope that you know again the only task that's in question is on page five task X. >> Yeah. >> And anything that would happen with within that task would be a reduction of
the number of site visits or possibly they may even say to eliminate that task altogether. I'm not certain where they'll land on that. Um we just >> I was hoping for some answers before I came to this meeting and um it's
they did not provide them yet. >> Kind of stuck in the middle, right? >> Welcome to the state of Massachusetts. Has the project from yet? >> They will not be notified until um until we begin the easement um acquisition
process. So those those private property owners would um we'd reach out to everybody once we have once we're under contract to actually do negotiations. We do outreach and we provide them with you know plans and let them know where the trees are located on their property and
what we're looking to do. We also give them information about what their rights are um when you know the government is approaching you for an easements of this kind. So we make sure that they that they understand that their rights and that they get fair market value and all those things. Um but no we have not it's
okay. I would say everybody agreed just to go forward and one step at a time and see what we what we're looking at cuz it's probably going to make a sizable
investment by the city if they go after the 20% but see what else shakes out. >> Well, it would only be 20% of the one of the money. >> Oh, oh, no, no, no. We're not talking about that. Um, >> no, I know this is about
>> this. Yeah. So, so we're we're just talking about the vegetation management plan, which is evaluating where are where wetlands are in relation to trees that you need to cut. >> So, you know, it basically gives the airport the ability to go uh smoothly
through a permitting process, not only for this initial cut, but for any cutting in the future, it will address that. It includes a five-year operational plan for cutting and maintenance and things like that. And then the state typically pays every 5 years for that to get updated as well.
So you'll always have a current plan of where the trees are located, what's coming next, how are those things being funded. Do you have the right equipment um to manage those the the vegetation and all that stuff? So this is kind of step one. you have to get the big plan done and then you get those yearly
operational plans which they call it a yearly operational plan but it's a fiveyear plan and um so guess we're kind of stuck >> well we move forward I mean I think this go to the next step and see where where
it takes us >> okay >> yeah I don't know what else to tell Okay. So, so that we're not we're not um we're not voting on anything then. We're not >> Well, it's just Yeah, it's the approval to >> keep going. Approval to keep going. Move
on with your >> with this planation. >> Okay. So, the so conditional approval of the scope basically pending um pending this this task and confirming.
>> What can I say? Yeah. And what they say and what they what changes. >> Okay. >> Cuz I think that all seem to have an opinion. >> Turtle walking around the parking lot. Oh gosh. >> Yeah.
And I already rescued one coming in here. He was right in the middle of the road. Stopped the car and put on the blinker and dude about that long. So see in the reader a couple >> so that'll move forward >> that'll move forward. Um okay and then
just forformational purposes I did include the the scope of services for the navigation easements that we're talking about knowing that that will that will likely change um if we take a phase approach. But that's all I had um for tonight.
>> Okay. Um any questions or >> because there we haven't gotten to the point for the independent cost review yet because we don't know yet. >> Not yet. No, not yet. That would all happen um that would all happen as part of you know basically what happens in the process is you have to approve the
contract items, right? >> And then once all of those items are solidified, you then can move into developing a fee and negotiating that fee with with the state. >> Okay. What is GZA acronym name please?
>> Oh gosh I can't remember the name. It's the name of the individuals who initially started the firm and I I it they they very very broadly go by GZA. It's a nationwide company that's uh
that's known by that name. >> What is wrote it down somewhere? >> They are the they are the environmental specialists. So they are the ones who would do the delineation of the wetlands. They would assess the wetlands. They would they will um you know let you know what permits you need
to do the tree clearing um in and around the wetlands. Whoever writes these things, it's nice to identify what the acronyms stand for. You're trying to read through it. Notice of intent. Ain't no line. I get it.
I have it written down somewhere, but I think it's on the other other costly and wasteful. That's what I assume. >> Well, that is all I have for tonight. So, I can give everyone for their time. Thank you. Somebody's doing a lot of
work. Oh, yeah. I appreciate it. Believe me. >> Trying the um Thank you. >> Okay. Um on Boston RCBA jet club is the next subject. The question is they were
looking for a way escape clause or anything like that. The only thing I can come up with is we give them a 3 month period. Renew it every 3 months. If we don't like each other where they walk away and
>> that would work. It's better to know >> rather than a full year. >> Yeah, you got >> for the full year first full year. >> I want to approach here first before I did them in segments. So let's Yeah, I was just going to say just make the agreement for
that period and >> yeah, sure. >> See what happens. >> I do think you know an extreme example or comment about this whole idea is having a bunch of men, young boys, people playing with their toys all over
the the terrain of this airport strikes me as something you'd only get away in a quiet little airport like this, you know. And uh That's a safety issue. It could be a safety issue. >> Well, it's only if they don't follow the
rules that we set down to, which they will, I'm sure. >> And they're talking to us cuz no one else will talk to my surmise. How about that? >> Well, I think you're stepping in the right pile, Dave. >> What do you mean?
>> Plum Island is doing I guess it's >> they're happy doing it, but they're >> distance. >> Way up there. Yeah. >> Way out there. I agree with Dave. I don't think they can find an airport around here that old. >> All righty. That's the problem. >> Well, that's his point.
>> We're talking about toys, frankly. Although, uh, >> I think the definition of a toy is sitting in a hanger. >> Yeah. Well, that that's true, too. Yeah. Big toys. So, >> it's all relevant, >> right? And I think this is, you know, we
I think we have defined what what they're going to have to do. And with the air boss and people, you know, responsible parties being with them >> if it leads to the betterment of the airport and improvement funds, uh, it's
maybe justifiable. But >> we're going to find out is by trying it, right, man? >> And if we don't keep throwing stuff against the wall and see what we'll never know. Okay. So, uh, I will approach them and see what they
say. Okay. Are we done with Boston RC Jet Club? >> I would say so. >> Guard counts by day month. >> Guard counts. Uh see guard counts for the May. This is May 1st through May
31st. And we wanted to look at how much traffic was coming in uh because the FAA sometimes asks us to use them traffic
uh to be used as part of their funding. >> So the heading at the top is seconds. Is that right? >> Uh yes. So this this shows an airplane traffic pattern and it assumes three radio calls in the traffic
pattern. So what this is saying is that the radio frequency on May 1st 368 seconds which is 6 minutes had a count of 40 in the traffic pattern.
>> 40 what? 40 transmissions. >> Um, was that divided by three already? No. >> No. >> No. >> No. You have to divide that by three, >> right? So, >> 40 transmissions over the course of 6 minutes. >> Yeah. And >> well, no, they Yeah, but each
transmission can only be or only 5, 10, 15 seconds. >> So, >> it just totals that up, >> right? So, I'm questioning some of these larger numbers. >> Yeah. I don't blame you. The the trouble is we're on a common air traffic
frequency. So I don't believe it's it's unique to us. It's doing orange. It's doing >> it's doing other ones because of the large numbers. We don't have that amount of traffic here. So my interpretation of
this is that it's not accurate. I think that there's you know I mean I wish we could listen to the the breakdown of what it was. We don't have that. But I mean, it just records the amount of time and what the transmission is. And I, you know, until
we get something a lot more sophisticated that will record those conversations, we wouldn't be able to determine it. But it's better than nothing. >> Give us anything though. It's nothing that we can give to the FAA mast because
it's intermingled with other airports. Yeah. So, >> it's up to them to decide where they >> It's not accurate >> and >> we can't determine who's South Bridge, who's US. >> So, what's the significance of this debt flawed or not? What is it? What would it lead to?
>> Jim wants it to collect it in case the FAA mass >> they always ask some kind of question and we don't have an answer for him. And the I I I know Kenny had that placed in the electrical room.
>> Mhm. >> And he had it so that it would re shield out a lot of the stuff. I mean, we're in a steel building and those radio signals aren't very strong and they do um but the electrical room has its own
energy field around it too. And it was right on the top of the Yeah, you might get something. But >> there more though, those >> it was in it was when there was the transformers in there and all that sort of stuff window there.
>> I don't know if it would be different if it was over in the other building. I don't know. I mean, >> that's that's the whole thing. and it would be just plugged in and down low in the in the outside anti that's quite >> well I don't see this information as
being particularly significant certainly is not indicative of this airport being overused or too busy >> we had two airplanes today not you know 106 so it's not accurate >> I don't know >> putting that out there it's not
>> right and I understand that okay >> you have you have the data what it's Yep. Um, account detail history. This is just an account from uh fiscal year from July 1st of last year through to
today. Uh, just so everybody has whatever transactions uh that time >> of what? >> Of everything. Everything for the airport is on that. Every account
for the airport is on that detailed report. >> Income >> everything. >> These are expenditures. >> Expend. >> You said expenditures expenditures. So that's what I've given
you. That's everything that has happened. Um it was one expenditure this month and light and water. We're down to $593.71. If you want to pass that around, um fuel activity for the month of May,
we have sold $2,1452 worth of fuel >> and 400 gallons. >> That is where is it? Almost 400. 341. That's for the month of May. And I think
we skipped March because they don't sometimes they don't send it right away. And that was uh $1,820.35. And uh I don't think I totaled up the uh I
didn't total up the number of gallons. That was from before. the budget and the city hall meeting. We're part of the committee and um for the budget I put in a lot of repairs
for our buildings and uh our equipment. Um, our equipment is 23 and 26 years old, but they have the original tires. You know what? If we're snowplowing, our tire, one of our tires goes, we have no
money to replace it. So, I put in um, let me see if I can find it. For vehicle supplies, I put in 18,000 for vehicle supplies and I put in 32,000 for repairs and maintenance, which includes lots of
things. um new tires for the loader the one time. Uh just the oil and the oil filters alone are hundreds and hundreds of dollars a couple times a year. You can't even afford to do that. >> And um
>> you can't afford not to do it. >> Right. Right. >> Twice a multiple times a year. >> How many how many hours they run? >> Couple times a year. Yeah, I'm assuming a couple of times a year. And then the repairs and maintenance, the window trim of the building, the front entrance is
rotted. Main hanger has a roof leak. Um, I wanted to split the electric from the main hanger to here so that uh Dominic the could pay his own electricity because that's a good part of our temp
water and um so forth. So, what we got is none of that. We got uh $1,200 for vehicle repairs, which we barely barely do that. And um
I also asked for snow plowing expense because we we plowed over 130 hours over the winter just for snow plowing. And that's at all times of the day or night. The three of us were plowing. And as you
know, it was a a big a big season. So I put in for 100 I think I put in 120 hours times three people times $50 an hour. You know, it's typical what the DPW would actually do.
>> Still a little anemic for the >> makes more. And they they didn't give us any of that. Um you know, we're all licensed based on the equipment that we're using. were licensed in the state of Massachusetts and uh
they didn't give us they gave us $300, you know, what do they do with that? But buy coffee, >> lots of coffee. Anyway, I tried. Um so if anybody wants to see the new budget,
>> so essentially there's like $22,000. >> This is the airport >> new budget >> more or less. Um 1,200 for vehicle supplies. >> Last year we only had $485. They did go up to 1,200 which is something. Uh 300
for snow plowing. >> Wow. >> It's really And I said to them, I said, "We cannot operate the airport on such a small budget." Jim said that out loud. >> Who who heard that? This is the um city
council's >> okay >> subcommittee which is the um welfare committee which we are part of. So that's what we got which is not not ideal and we're just going to have to make do and I said it's the budget is
flat. It's still flat. I said we can't operate on such a small >> So the total request was 125,000. >> Yes. Because I said, "We have 20 years of deferred maintenance." I said, "It's time to start doing that." I said, "We're part of the national transportation system." I said, "Should
this airport ever uh become not viable as an airport, the city would have to repay the FAA uh all that money for the runway, which for instance, the runway taxi ways $5 million. So if they don't start doing
the those 20 years of deferred maintenance, you know, something happens, they would have to repay the federal government for that money. So I mentioned that to him them and they know that that's all I have. I did get a an email
today from Trevor Mason who is an abuter who lives right past the corner down here. He says, "Hello, I'm the owner of 275 Airport Road, and I just wanted to reach out and say that I'd be happy to talk with anyone from the airport. If
you end up having to cut down any trees on my property to save the town some money, you can simply drop the trees and I'll take care of them once they're down." >> Thank you. >> Excellent. Like that guy. >> Cut all the trees in my yard and I'll take care of this down trees.
>> I'll take care of the trees. Yeah. Buy that guy a beer. Make it too. Nothing wrong with that. They might make firewood depending on what they are. >> He obviously wants some firewood. >> Anyway, so that's the grim news about the budget. It is what it is. And I
tried and we do have a lot of maintenance and a lot of vehicle maintenance, but they just weren't here. The only thing we'll get going for us with vehicles here is the uh the big truck's fairly new. It
doesn't have a ton of miles on them. It's got like 12,200 miles on it. >> That's got 320. >> I know the >> I just told my last page,
>> but it doesn't work out. miles or hours >> which is is >> I know what I don't know about the green tractor up top zero turn used a lot green tractor is relatively new also
>> yes green but zero turn gets used a lot >> I need this back but uh >> even though you have a one ton Ford that doesn't have 10,000 miles on it >> and it's got great range gear so I mean that's the only thing we got going for >> but the tires are Original. Original.
>> As long as it doesn't set outside, it's not a problem. If they don't rot, >> if they're not in the sun, >> be sets in whether it's moving or not. >> But you can buy tires if you want. Just >> I on the tire thing.
>> I'm not too I took those wheels off last year. They hadn't been off in ages. >> They They never been off. >> They've never been off. >> I struggle to get those wheels off. I tell you, it was a little amount of work. In any case, I had one bad tire on that truck. I took it off.
I put a tire marks on it. Said spare only. And I took the spare we had the new one, put it on. I don't have any bad feelings about those tires. We're not going 100 miles an hour. >> I agree. >> The same brakes are in it since 2001. I
mean, I'm going to be bringing that up, putting on a lift and going through it just to make sure everything's good this winter. get a plow issue with it and I think I hope it's not the controller cuz if it's a controller that's stupid money >> uh what's that the on which
>> the one time controller they the controller may have a bad circuit board or something that in any case it's it's nothing to worry about right now on the recent maintenance oil change that's pretty much what we got >> right and if there are any emergencies
especially during a snowstorm or something we would stop. >> But I understand their concern with, you know, we don't want to have to change a tire in the middle of the snowstorm. But I know a guy that knows a guy that has
some time around. >> All right, that's it. Okay. Um, we got a spreadsheet. I think I sent you guys a spreadsheet, too, that I don't have. I didn't print it out at all, but
I got it. Um, second to get it. >> Okay. You want this one back to >> Isabelle. you want to >> uh
>> is this one? >> Yep. Yep. Thanks. >> Okay. Anything else? Any questions? 11 motion to
second motion. 624 Isabelle on my outreach to PFA and mascot idea.