Stevensville council tables FuelMaster maintenance contract amid ownership and safety concerns

The Stevensville Town Council on Wednesday postponed action on a six-month, prorated maintenance agreement with the vendor that supports the airport’s FuelMaster point-of-sale system after public commenters and council members raised unresolved legal and safety questions about ownership of the fueling equipment and oversight of airport fuel operations.

The proposed service agreement would have been a six-month, prorated version of a one-year contract for $850. Town staff said the vendor would retroactively apply about $820 in accumulated hourly support charges to the contract and provide unlimited service calls and parts for the six-month term. Ryan, a town staff member presenting the item, told the council: “If we sign up for a maintenance agreement for $850, they’ll apply those $820 in charges to this. Plus, we’ll get all future unlimited future calls for the 6 month duration.”

Why it matters: the system is tied to fuel sales at the Stevensville airport, and speakers said unresolved questions about who legally owns the FuelMaster equipment and who is entitled to royalty or revenue payments complicate approving a maintenance contract, could affect where fuel-sale revenue goes and create potential liability if fuel-handling and inspections are not documented.

Most of the public testimony came from a former airport manager (identified in the meeting transcript as Robert), who said he was the recorded owner of the FuelMaster system according to MasterFuel and Titan Fuels and described an ongoing legal dispute with a company called Hawthorne. “I am the recorded owner of that system,” Robert said. He said repeated attempts by others to change the merchant account triggered support calls that produced the $820 bill and that those calls were adding legal expense. “I'm not paying the bills that come from the town after an individual has been told we can't make any adjustments to this without the owner's authorization,” he said. He warned the council that the system “sat empty for a year” and that “there are a lot of issues with that system the way it sits” that could create liability if not fixed before fuel is put back in service.

Other public commenters asked who would receive revenue from fuel sales if ownership is unclear. Rich Berry asked, “How does an individual own something that the city owns?” and whether revenue from fuel should go to the town. Town staff and public speakers described a complicated history: equipment installed and changed hands among private operators (Choice Aviation, Hawthorne), disputed transfers, and periods with little or no formal lease or user-fee oversight.

Council discussion focused on narrow scope of the agenda item and the legal and operational uncertainties raised in public comment. The town attorney declined to give confidential attorney–client advice in open session but said the council could choose to waive privilege if it wished. Council members raised the option of tabling the item while the town attorney and staff assemble records and legal guidance. Council member Barker moved to table the maintenance-agreement item for further review; the motion to table was taken to a vote and the council tabled the item for follow-up.

What the agreement would have covered: according to staff, the vendor (identified in the agenda and discussion under slightly varying spellings as Syntech/Sentex/Syn Energy/Sentek Systems Incorporated) charges hourly for remote support and parts. Town staff said the vendor billed roughly $820 to establish the system and that the prorated six-month contract of $850 would absorb that existing bill and cover future calls and parts for the term. Staff also said the maintenance cost was not currently budgeted and that the town would need to find funds if the cost runs over the adopted budget.

Public records and operational questions raised at the meeting included whether daily fuel-quality inspections had been performed and documented, the status of any lease covering the fuel system or tank, and whether royalty payments or fuel surcharges had been correctly recorded and remitted to the town. At the meeting a public speaker said aviation fuel “has to be inspected daily” and that inspection records would be important “so that we don't have an issue for the city.”

Next steps: the council directed (through the tabling motion and subsequent remarks) that staff work with the town attorney to assemble the lease and related documents, produce records requested through the public-records process, and return to the council with legal advice and documentation before acting on the maintenance agreement. The council did not adopt the maintenance contract at the meeting.

The item drew extended public comment and repeated references to prior airport board meetings, contract history and a private legal dispute between a former manager and a vendor or prior operator. The council’s action to table preserves staff and council time while the legal and operational questions are clarified.