Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton commission forwards three options on SASO occupancy clause after Capital Flight objects
Summary
After hearing from Capital Flight's president, the Airport Commission voted to forward three options to the finance committee for the contested SASO rental/occupancy clause: strike the clause; align any charge with the 15‑year SASO term; or consider a 10‑year SASO as an alternative. Capital Flight warned that open‑ended post‑term charges would harm investment and financing.
The Middleton Airport Commission on April 4 discussed a contested amendment to the Specialized Aviation Service Operations (SASO) agreement involving a possible post‑term rental or occupancy charge that Capital Flight, LLC (named in the packet and represented in public input by Matt Hohfeld) said would undermine financing for its on‑field investments.
City staff summarized the history: the common council previously approved a SASO for Capital Flight with a term beginning April 16 and running to April 2039 (15 years). Capital Flight asked that language referencing a potential post‑5‑year rental/occupancy charge be struck because the company had invested in hangars and needed predictable lease terms to secure commercial financing.
The city attorney and commissioners reviewed models used by other airports and discussed alternatives that might address both city and tenant interests: (1) strike the occupancy language entirely; (2) keep the clause but synchronize any charge to the SASO term (15 years); or (3) offer a 10‑year SASO option (instead of 15) as an alternative to parties who object to post‑term cost adjustments. Legal counsel noted some airports tie charges to separate leases or gross‑revenue percentages, while others leave charges to lease negotiations.
Capital Flight’s representative said shorter terms or open‑ended fee exposure would make commercial lending and reinvestment difficult. Commissioners raised questions about economic impacts, FAA grant‑assurance constraints, and precedent for the airport. The commission agreed it lacked sufficient financial detail to set a fixed charge and voted to forward the three options with supporting context to the finance commission and common council for final policy and fiscal review.
The motion to forward the three options passed by voice vote; the finance commission will receive the recommendations, supporting notes and a summary of the airport commission’s discussion for deliberation and possible ordinance or lease language changes.
