A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the imminent repair of erosion at the airport, scheduled for the week of the 19th. Contractor Ray Maker was identified as responsible for this work, which will address the eroded areas between the B and C taxiways and sections parallel to the runway. The repairs will include filling in eroded areas, removing old straw fences, and placing new mats, loam, and grass. Concerns were raised about water runoff from the runway contributing to the erosion, with one member suggesting that the banks are too steep and proposing a more robust stone foundation as a solution.

The discussion then shifted to the airport’s master plan, focusing on the proposed rebuilding of a storage building for equipment. The size of the proposed “S” building, at 1,600 square feet, was a point of contention. One member remarked, “that sounds small,” and compared it to existing hangars. The potential placement of the new building was debated, with suggestions to situate it closer to the tie-down area to reduce walking distance for equipment retrieval. Additionally, there was mention of two new T-hangars being proposed, potentially raising the total number of T-hangars to 18, with 2028 being suggested as a possible completion date for these projects.

The conversation also covered the airport’s tie-down area, where plans to reduce the number of tie-downs were discussed to accommodate larger aircraft wingspans. The need for greater spacing to meet regulatory standards was emphasized. Mayor Michael J. Nicholson expressed interest in installing solar panels on the west side of the runway. However, concerns about the slope of the land affecting the efficiency of the solar panels were raised, questioning whether they would pick up sufficient energy due to the sun’s positioning.

Some members expressed dissatisfaction with the size of the proposed buildings and the overall planning strategy. One member pointed out that an earlier project, initially estimated to cost $300,000, ended up costing $1.2 million.

A significant topic of discussion was the adequacy of three-phase electrical service at the airport. There was uncertainty about whether three-phase power existed, with references to prior discussions about potential buyers for hangars, specifically mentioning someone named Tim interested in purchasing a hangar. The previous infrastructure, particularly the lighting, was based on 220 volts, but there was confusion about whether it was single or three-phase power.

The conversation then turned to the wetlands area surrounding the airport. The need for proper flow in and out of the wetlands, and the necessity of fencing around the airport property to secure it from wildlife and unauthorized access, were discussed. Clarification was sought on the proposed location of the fence, aimed to be positioned roughly 100 feet from the runway centerline, and its purpose was discussed as a means of increasing safety and security.

Concerns were also raised about the height of the existing fence at the end of the runway, which some felt posed a hazard in the event of an aircraft overrunning the runway. An inspection was pending to determine whether the fence complied with safety requirements. The need for modifications to the fence was acknowledged, and it was suggested that the area should remain non-aeronautical to facilitate potential future business developments.

The meeting included a proposal to prioritize various projects, starting with the tie-down areas, which were deemed straightforward to repave, followed by the construction of additional hangars. A suggestion was made to position a new building adjacent to a ramp to ensure operational efficiency. The fencing around the airport was mentioned as a later priority, with some members recalling prior hesitations regarding the necessity of a complete fencing solution.

A debate emerged regarding the necessity of building a new structure for administrative purposes, which was seen as enhancing the airport’s professional image. One member argued against solar panels, favoring the acquisition of existing buildings instead, stating, “I’d buy that Kevin’s building and breathe on it before I want to put a solar AR in.” This sentiment was echoed by others, who expressed a desire to prioritize buildings that could serve multiple functions over solar installations.

Additionally, a proposal to improve water and sewage infrastructure was mentioned, with one member suggesting that such enhancements could attract new businesses to the area, thereby increasing property values. However, the feasibility of these improvements was questioned, as it would require coordination between local municipalities.