Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Leases topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport board debates shifting hangar maintenance onto lessees amid recurring collapsible-soil failures
Summary
A board member proposed that new hangar leases at Hurricane Airport include the full build-out footprint so lessees build and maintain drainage, curb and apron to reduce taxpayer exposure; the board did not recommend the change and voted to continue review so members can study the packet.
At a public meeting of the Hurricane City Airport Board, a board member proposed changing the city’s hangar lease approach so new lessees would build and maintain the full area required for their hangar projects to reduce future taxpayer maintenance costs. The presenter said the change would apply only to new leases and was motivated by repeated settlement and failures on airport soils.
The motion, read aloud by the presenter, asked the board to recommend that the City Council "increase the lease footprint on any new leases at Hurricane City Airport with the intent to move the maintenance of the building and surrounding improvements to include the required improvements attached to the approval of the lease" and specified that "the lease should extend a minimum distance of 15 feet in front of the hangar" (motion text read at the meeting). The proponent argued that city taxpayers have repeatedly borne the cost of repairs where geotechnical reports and standard construction practices have nonetheless resulted in settlement.
City staff explained that the current lease template defines a premises that adds 5 feet to the sides and back of a hangar footprint but does not extend a defined front-footprint, and that requiring a 15-foot front extension would be a material change from the current template. Board members and staff debated whether the proposal merely codified existing practice or would represent a substantive new requirement; several members also raised concerns about legal and liability implications if the city were to supersede or second-guess site-specific geotechnical recommendations.
The board took the motion to a vote; the motion did not pass at that meeting (members recorded more negative than positive votes). After discussing procedural options, the board voted to continue the item to the next meeting so members would have time to read and digest the full packet before making a recommendation to the City Council. The presenting member said he intends to forward the packet and his recommendation to the City Council so council members will have time to review the materials ahead of any council action.
Next steps: the item will be placed on next month’s airport-board agenda for further discussion and possible recommendation; the presenter indicated he may also present the packet to the City Council in the interim.
