Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Lease Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delasoft representative previews free lease-management system for county airport
Summary
A Winnebago County airport committee heard a Delasoft demonstration of Revjet, a lease- and hangar-management system that the vendor offered to install at no cost for a trial period; committee members pressed for clearer implementation costs, measurable savings and IT/finance integration plans.
A county committee heard a presentation and live demo of Revjet, a lease-management and hangar wait-list system from vendor Delasoft on Feb. 4. Chris Holm, who introduced himself as a Delasoft representative, described the product as a cloud-hosted tool for lease tracking, wait-list management, inspections and asset work orders and said the vendor can connect it to the courthouse billing system via an API.
The Revjet software, Holm said, includes a customizable landing page, Esri-based mapping layers for hangars and facilities, role-based access for administrators and tenants, and a wait-list module that collects aircraft type and contact information. In the demo, the presenter (introduced by the vendor) showed property listings, QR-code transient-parking submissions, automated invoice generation and reports such as expiring-insurance alerts.
Committee members pressed Delasoft on implementation details. Staff noted the county currently tracks 127 lease agreements and raised concerns about how the county’s finance and IT systems would integrate with a vendor API. Holm said the system can be linked to Tyler Munis so the courthouse’s payment records populate Revjet’s dashboard, but committee members said finance and IT would need to evaluate the connection.
On cost, Holm told the committee Delasoft would migrate data and install the system “at no cost to the county” as part of a special arrangement for this airport; he said in other jurisdictions the product is typically offered as a 90-day or one-year test followed by paid service. Committee members repeatedly asked who would pay and how to quantify operational savings; one member said there was no hard internal spreadsheet comparing staff hours and expected savings.
Questions also focused on user experience and clarity of the vendor presentation: a committee member said parts of the demo were hard to understand and urged the vendor to clean up the sales pitch before presenting to the full county board. Staff emphasized that implementation would require meetings with IT and finance and that measurable efficiencies would be clearer only after deployment and data collection.
The committee did not take formal action on the product at this meeting. Staff and committee members agreed to continue evaluating the system and to consider placing the item on a future agenda for further review.
The presentation was introduced during the director’s report and concluded with committee discussion and no vote; the committee set March 4 as the next regular meeting date.
