Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton commission delays SASO agreement, asks city attorney to review flight‑training minimums
Summary
The Middleton Airport Commission voted to continue consideration of a proposed SASO agreement after the applicant could not attend and commissioners raised questions about whether the operator meets minimum facility standards and whether exceptions could jeopardize federal grant assurances.
The Middleton Airport Commission voted Tuesday to continue review of a proposed SASO (Standard Agreement for Specific Operations) for a flight-training operator after the applicant was unable to attend the meeting and commissioners raised questions about whether the operator meets local minimum standards.
Chair Lerman moved to continue the item and direct city staff to consult the city attorney on the minimum-standards document; Commissioner Schwartz seconded and the motion passed by voice vote. Brian (city staff) told the commission the applicant had a transportation issue and asked that the item be rescheduled so the applicant could appear virtually to answer questions.
Commissioner Schwartz said he reviewed the proposed SASO and the minimum standards and identified several provisions that could be disqualifying, including a requirement for a minimum office of 500 square feet, minimum hangar space of 3,000 square feet, total building space of 3,500 square feet and minimum land lease space of 6,000 square feet. "If I'm reading that correctly ... you can't have a flight school unless you have at least, or owned, hangar space of no less than 6,000 square feet," Schwartz said, noting that those requirements could be a "non‑starter" for the applicant without a city attorney's opinion.
Rich (airport staff) cautioned commissioners about federal grant assurances and non‑favoritism, saying the city must treat operators evenly and that making an exception for one operator "would put our federal funding in jeopardy" if other operators were not held to the same standards. Brian recommended staff either obtain an opinion from the city attorney or invite the city attorney to the next meeting to answer questions about compliance with the minimum standards.
The commission directed staff to work with the city attorney to review section 4 (and specifically 4.2, as raised in the meeting) of the minimum standards and to schedule the SASO item for a future meeting when the applicant can attend and respond to questions.
The motion did not resolve whether the applicant meets the standards; commissioners instructed staff to return with the city attorney's guidance. No formal approval or denial of the SASO agreement occurred at the meeting.
