The Town of Payson Common Council held a regular meeting on March 26, 2025, starting at 4:02 p.m. and adjourning at approximately 7:26 p.m. after an executive session. The meeting included a proclamation for the Lady Longhorns basketball team, a presentation on the Unified Development Code (UDC) update, approval of a development agreement for a 72-unit affordable housing project, a discussion on the Beeline Bus Route Improvement Project contracts, and a move to executive session for legal advice and contract negotiations.
Every year same time this time and then call this meeting to order the common council for the town of Payson March twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five. Please bow your heads and your hearts and let's go before the Lord. We come to you today with uh those of us who love Payson, those of us uh who have been delegated and elected uh to lead this beautiful town, Lord. We pray that by the power of the Holy Spirit, Lord God, that you would grant these leaders favor and discernment, put people in their path, Lord God, that would give them good scriptural basis uh for who you are and how they are to lead, and we pray your protection upon uh all those uh that are in leadership here in Payson Lord, that you would guide this meeting, and it would be all done according to your will, and we ask you for unity, Lord God, and purpose and in spirit, and bless this uh discussion today, Lord. We love you and we trust in you in Jesus' name we pray. Council Member Ferris is present electronically. Uh mayor and council. I'm here to address a uh an issue with the airport, and it is fees and security versus security. And I want to just put out right there, there is some disingenuous information going around that the uh the gates and through the gates and the fencing is required by federal law. This is a misconception. That is not true. Where this information came from, but there is no federal mandate from any federal agency of any initials, make up any three you wish, demanding that there be security at this airport. This airport is not a group two airport. It is not covered by what is called FAR Part 139. There is no security necessary, not even a fence necessary. Now let me say, I think the town was wise in putting up the fence for a wildlife control. And that's your purview. Keeping elk off the runway is a really, really good idea. Um unfortunately, the javelina get under the fence, and you know, we address that as necessary. However, um there is it is not designed to keep people off of this airport. And this is a this has been a problem with other airports that don't fence their uh perimeters, but we are not required to have any security, and because of that, um we morph into a separate issue, which uh should be something that will the airport commission should address when they come to it, and that's the residential through the fence agreement, which is a misnomer by itself because it contains the word fence. There doesn't need to be a fence. The fence is this derails the entire conversation. So I judge I just want it known that if the town of Payson wants to fence the airport, put in gates, charge fees for the gates, that's on the town of Payson, and the town of Payson is certainly authorized to do that. It's their airport, but it is not mandated by any federal regulation anywhere, anyhow. That's all I need. I got a minute left. You can give it to somebody else. Thanks. Thank you. Mike White. I haven't had my menu. Hi, my name is Mike White, and very active with the uh airport, and with my last name, I'm used to being at the end, so I'll be happy with number two. All right, my position tonight is to advocate for the continuing uh continued management of uh the hangars, the the 10 T hangers at the airport by Payson hangar one, right for a number of reasons. Um now the existing contract is a 30-day notice contract and contains elements from the original one like 30 years ago. Now, some of those things that still exist, I think still should continue to exist is that uh PHO as a fixed-based operator is responsible for all the maintenance administration expenses, payments, and everything that goes with those hangars. We we'd like to continue doing that. We're literally, as it says in the contract, an independent contractor and operator, and part of that is a re as a requirement to indemnify the town from liability responsibility. So I think that's a major uh positive position for the town is to continue that. Uh, right now we're paying uh and it goes up every year, but seventeen thousand one hundred dollars for the 10 T hangers, plus we spend about six thousand dollars a year in insurance uh taxes and electricity, and it does say in the contract that the hangar rate would be a function of fair market value, competition with other uh not competition, but comparison to other towns. Right, another thing here. Uh one of the reasons where we think it would be better to stay as it is. If a town assumes responsibility for maintenance of the hangers, I think you're gonna see a huge increase in maintenance costs to the town because I think you're probably uh restricted to use certain uh or certified purchase certified by purchasing uh contractors who are gonna from the valley are gonna charge you a lot more than what we've been able to do using local welders, people like that to get it done. And there are reports floating around that we don't agree with at all. And speaking as an engineer, I can kind of specify why. The the uh existing inspections is uh very flawed, suggests replacing all hangar doors because one or two had some uh defects, most of which were uh cosmetic, not really structural. That's another topic. Uh another thing we do is uh we administrate everything for the uh 10 leases uh with 10 different um hangars. We do all that. You're the town would have to assume all that.