## 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. McDonough Properties, L.L.C., ) M & R Holdings, L.L.C., ) Tri-D, L.L.C., ) and Col. Frank Barnett, ) ) Docket No. 16-12-11 ) Complainants/Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) City of Wetumpka, ) ) Respondent. ) )
COMPLAINANTS’ APPEAL OF THE DIRECTORS DETERMINATION DATED OCTOBER 10, 2013 Raymond Veatch, Esq. Attorney at Law PO Box 109 Cambridge MD 21613 T: 678-478-6322 E-mail: manager@internationalacs.com Wade Ramsey, Esq. Ramsey & Associates, L.L.C. PO Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 T: 205-980-5109 E-mail: waderamsey@aol.com Counsel for the Complainants/Appellants. December 12, 2013

## 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. McDonough Properties, L.L.C., ) M & R Holdings, L.L.C., ) Tri-D, L.L.C., ) and Col. Frank Barnett, ) ) Docket No. 16-12-11 ) Complainants/Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) City of Wetumpka, ) ) Respondent. ) )

COMPLAINANTS’ APPEAL OF THE DIRECTORS DETERMINATION DATED OCTOBER 10, 2013

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.33(b), McD onough Properties, L.L.C., M&R Holdings, L.L.C., Tri-D, L.L.C., and Col. Frank Barnett, (collectively, “McDonough,” “Complainants” or “Appellants”) hereby appeal the Director's Determination (DD) dated October 10, 2013. 1 

## The Director found that the City of Wetumpka (“City,” “Respondent” or “Airport”) was not currently in violation of its federal obligations. The Appe llants request that the Associate Administrator issue a Final Agency Decision reversing the findings and conclusions contained in the DD because those findings and conclusions are not supported by the administrative record, law, regulations or policy.

1 

### The Appeal is timely in that the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel issued an Order dated November 13, 2013, extending the time for filing the appeal until Thursday, December 12, 2013.

## 3 BACKGROUND Briefly, 2 

## the Complainants are all aeronautical us ers of the Wetumpka Municipal Airport who own large hangars on the Wetumpka Munici pal Airport property and have enjoyed, in the past, long term leases containing terms of 10 years with renewable periods of 5 years each at the lessee’s option and not the City’s. The City owns the Wetumpka Municipal Airport property and has federal obligations by virtue of the successive deeds originating with the land transfer from the United States government through the Federal Surplus Act of 1944 and the Grant Assurances signed in return for Airport Improvement Pr ogram (AIP) money. The receipt of AIP money obligates the Airport to act in accordance with Gran t Assurances in all of its activity and not just the activity stemming from a specific AIP grant. 3 

## Of approximately eight tenants owning large hangars, four of the tenants (i.e., the Complainants ) have refused the demands of the Airport that they sign new one-year leases and have asked the C ity to respect their contractual rights to renew their existing leases for additiona l five-year periods. The other four tenants either signed the new one-year lease under duress 4 

## or had recently negotiated long term leases (5 years or greater with renewable options). Finally, a ni nth Airport tenant, Arrowhead Composites and Thermoplastics, Inc., (Arrowhead) conducts a non-aer onautical business of manufact uring fiberglass and plastic products. Arrowhead enjoys a privileged relatio nship with the Airpor t having recently (in October, 2009) renewed its lease for an additiona l five-year term with opt ions for further fiveyear renewal periods. CA-3, C-9 5 

## (page 22, January 19, 2010 letter from City renews lease for

2 

### An extensive background is set forth in McDonough’s Part 16 Complaint which is part of this record. 3 

### “Federal obligations relating to the use, operation, and ma intenance of the airport remain in effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed under the project, but not to exceed 20 years. . . . Additionally, there are three assurances for which the obligation continues without limit as long as the airport is used as a public use airport: Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights; . . ..” FAA Order 6150.9B at pages 4-2 and 4-3. 4 

### For example, Air Evac EMS Inc., failed to timely renew their lease for an additiona l five years through an oversight but was forced by the City, instead, to sign a new one-year lease. 5 

### References beginning with “C-“ are to the Complainant Exhibit List (a part of the record). References beginning with “CA-“ are to the Appellants’ Exhibit List found at the end of this Appeal.

## 4 first five year renewal period. Approved on October 5, 2009 in City Council minutes.) This discrimination favoring a non-aerona utical user over an aeronautic al user is prohibited by the Surplus Property Act as well as the Gr ant Assurances. FAA Order 5190.6B at ¶12.5. 6 

## When the Airport initiated ev iction proceedings against the Complainants (this despite the fact that the Airport a ccepted McDonough’s rent checks afte r terminating its lease) the Complainants were forced to file this Part 16 proceeding to protect their business interests. 7 

## The Part 16 Complaint resulted in the Director findin g that the Airport was not in violation of its federal obligations thereby gi ving rise to this appeal.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Did the Director err when he develope d the exception of “legitimate business purpose” to allow a sponsor to su spend its federal obligations?

2. Did the Director err by finding that the C ity could violate the self-sustainability provision of Grant Assurance 24 when it required the Complainants to sign a one-year lease?

3. Did the Director err by finding that the City did not discriminate against the Complainants by allowing a non-aeronautical te nant to renew its lease after the City refused to renew the Complainants’ leases?

6 

### Further, the caption under the picture on page 4 of Chapter 12 of FAA Order 2150.6B states, “The sponsor must be able to intervene if an aeronautical tenant decides to l ease aeronautical space to a n onaeronautical tenant to the detriment of aeronautical users.” 7 

### The Complainants understand that complaints filed under Parts 13 and 16 are not for the purpose of seeking damages or injunctive relief. And while such an action is not per se a qui tam claim, the objective of mandating airport compliance does benefit airport users by compelling ai rports to treat users in a fair and non-discriminating manner.

## 5 4. Did the Director err by finding that the C ity gave an exclusive right to a nonaeronautical tenant by rene wing its lease after the City refused to renew the Complainants’ leases?

DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION The Director cites in his Determination a “pol icy” that allows a s ponsor to violate its grant assurances if there exists a “legitimat e business purpose” to do so. (DD, p.22). Such a “policy” flies in the f ace of logic and reason. To allow an airport to circumvent its federal obligations under the guise of having a “legitim ate business purpose” would give airports carte blanche authority to violate the grant assurances whenever the airport finds it convenient to do so. In developing this new policy the Director has not defined the length of time that an airport can hold its obligations in abeyance or the extent to which it may reach in avoiding its federal obligations. For example, according to the Director’s logic, an ai rport may suspend its obligation not to discriminate against jet aircraft or helicopt er operators if it professe s to have a “legitimate business purpose” in doing so for an undefined number of years. The “legitimate business purpose” exception to airport obligat ions is a dangerous precedent created by the Director here
that must be reversed. Even if the FAA were to allow the City he re to violate its oblig ations by way of a “legitimate business purpose,” the City had none because it did not unde rtake the feasibility study until after it had denied Complainants’ requ ests to exercise thei r renewal options but restricted the Complainants to a new lease. 8 

## The new leases offered to the Complainants did not state that this was a temporary condition subject to any “legitimate business purpose.” Further, the City remains in violation of its federal obligations because while the “legitimate business

8 

### The City began the feasibility study on December 6, 2010. CA-6. The City demanded that McDonough sign a new five-year lease beginning in July of 2007 more than 3 years prior to the in itiation of the feasibility study

.

## 6 purpose” has gone away (the feas ibility study ended March 26, 2013, 9 

## by correctly concluding that the City does not need to move the airp ort. CA-2, CA-6) it has not negotiated with nor offered the Complainants anything othe r than a one-year non-renewable lease. 10 

## CA-1, CA-7. The City knows that it is cu rrently in violation of its grant assurances because it has communicated to Complainants’ Counsel that it is in the process of developing a standard lease that will extend the leases to a 10 year term w ith 5 year renewals. CA- 1. However, while the City admits its mistake, the City is sandba gging the continued and fervent efforts by the Complainants to renegotiate and sign a lease that is compliant with the City’s federal obligations. CA-1. These facts support the appeal by the Compla inants to stop the violations being committed by the Airport and thereby to protect their s ubstantial investments. These facts support the necessity for the Associate Administrator to revers e the findings of the Dir ector, and find that the City is in violation of Grant Assurance 22 by engaging in economic discrimination when it failed to renew Complainants lease but thereafter re newed Arrowhead’s lease; Grant Assurance 23 when it gave an exclusive right to Arrowhead by allowing it to renew its lease but denied the Complainants the right; and Grant Assurance 24 wh en the City demanded that the Complainants enter into one-year leases for the property on which Complainants’ large hangars were situated.

RESPONSE TO THE DIRECTOR

In an appeal of a Director's Determination, pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33, it is the FAA "Associate Administrator's responsibility to determine whether (1) the findings of fact made by the Director are supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and (2)

9 

### While the study is dated July 2013, Mayor Jerry Willis announced on March 26, 2013, that the study had been completed and that the airport was not moving. CA-5. 10 

### While the City apparently is developing a new standard lease inclusive of a multi-year term the City has not offered it to the Complainants. CA-1, CA-7.

## 7 each conclusion of law is made in accordance with applicable law, precedent, and public policy." (United States Construction Corporation v. City of Pompano Beach , FAA Docket No. 16-00-14, at 18 (July 10, 2002) (Final Agency Decision) “ Pompano ”.) In 

### considering the administrative appeal, new evidence may be submitted if it was not previously available and it could not have been previously discovered or proffered by the parties. (Roadhouse Aviations, LLC v. City of Tulsa , FAA Docket No. 16-05-08, at 13 (June 26, 2007) (Final Agency Decision)) The Appellants seek to supplement the Administrative Record by including supplemental documentary evidence that appear as Complainants’ Appeal Exhibit CA-1 through Comp lainants’ Appeal Exhibit CA-8 attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

## The Director correctly cites Pompano as being precedent for cases involving questions of whether short term leases violate an airport’ s obligation under the Gran t Assurances. However, the Director distinguishes the Pompano case from this one by saying Pompano did not articulate a “legitimate business reason” whereas the Ci ty did. His conclusion that distinguishes Pompano is flat wrong. The sponsor in Pompano did articulate a “legitimate business reason” in its airport plan for the short term leases. The final Airpark Business Plan in Pompano included the following language: 

## “The City has contemplated redevelopment of the Air Park by selling off the property for private, nonaviation re lated development [i.e., closing the airport ]. This has resulted in the requirement that potentia l tenants agree to short-term lease agreements.” Pompano at p. 7. (emphasis provided)

The Associate Administrator as well as the Circuit Court in Pompano agreed that despite articulating the business purpose of possibly closing the airport as a reason for the short term lease, the airport’s grant assu rance prohibit it from forcing su ch a short term lease upon its tenant. Such leases are obviously temporary and geared to the fair treatment of the airport during a time of airport expansion and/or closing if they contain equitable pr ovisions for the tenants

## 8 such as liquidated damages for hangar replacem ent, relocation reimbursement, and automatic renewable options. Such leases can make adeq uate provisions for allowing the lessees to recapture the costs of their investments. It can also provide for several alternatives the lessees could take should the Airport need to move. In our case here the Airport’s “take it or leave it” attitude was not fair, it did not allow the tenants to recapture their business investments, nor did it give the Complainants any alternatives if the Airport up and moved its operation. Such practices do not attract aeronautic al users; it dissuades them. Prude nt business persons wanting to protect their investments would not enter into such an agreement. An airport would not be selfsustainable if it drove away all of its potential tenants. The Ci ty has done this by demanding that the Complainants and other large hangar tenants en ter into one-year leases. And because the City received AIP money and is obligated for a period of 20 years after receipt of the AIP money, it is in violation of Grant Assurance 24 by doing this. 11


## The Director further at tempts to distinguish Pompano from this case by stating, “The facts in Pompano can be distinguished from the present set of facts because the Respondent in this complaint has articulated a legitimate busin ess purpose to support its decision to limit lease terms to one-year and no tenants were offered l onger term leases than the Complainants.” DD at p.22. No significant differences ex ist between the situations in Pompano and here. And other tenants were offered longer term leases. In Pompano lessee Brettman sought a 30 year lease but was restricted to a 10 year lease. The Associ ate Administrator and the Eleventh Circuit found that such a restriction was discriminatory and not permitted by the grant assurances because the sponsor had given a 30 year lease to Brettman’s competitors. The same situation exists in our present case in that the City signed a long term lease with Arrowhead (20 years with multiple 5 year renewals), but failed to renew McDonough’s 10 year lease with 5 year renewal options.

11 

### Sponsor assurances (C-53), FAA Order 5190.6B, p. 2-13.

## 9 When it came time for the renewal option the City reneged and gave McDonough the choice only to sign a new 5-year lease (with significant other restricti ons) – and this came in 2007 at a time before the City renewed the lease for A rrowhead in 2009. C-23, CA-3. To allow Arrowhead a right to exercise its option to renew its l ease for an additional fi ve years but deny McDonough a right to renew its lease is discrimina tion prohibited by the grant assurances. In addition the effect of allowing Arrowhead to renew its lease but denying Complainants the rights to renew their leases is providing an exclusive use to Arrowhead. The FAA maintains that, “An exclusive right may be conferred either by expre ss agreement, by imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements, or by any other means. Such a right conferred on one or more parties but excluding others from enjoying or exercising a similar right or rights would be an exclusive right.” FAA Advisory Circ ular No. 150/5190-6 at 8 (January 4, 2007). 12 

## The City conferred a right upon Arrowhead to renew its lease on October 5, 2009. CA-3. This was done after the City prohibited Complainant McD onough from renewing its lease on July 30, 2007. C-10. And it preceded the City’s decision not to renew Complainant Barnett’s on October 3, 2010. C-26. The airport circumstan ces did not change between July 30, 2007 and October 5, 2009, for the McDonough lease; nor did they cha nge between October 5, 2009, and October 3, 2010, for the Barnett lease. The City should not be allowed to refuse to renew the Complainants’
leases on either side of the Arrowhead lease wh en it renewed the Arrowhead lease. By doing so the City gave Arrowhead an exclusive ri ght in violation of Grant Assurance 23. In reviewing the Director’s reasoning for allo wing the City to reduce the lease period for the Complainants, case precedent does not include “legitimate business purposes” as reasons for

12 

### Because "[t]he agency considers that the existence of an exclusive right to conduct any aeronautical activity limits the usefulness of an airport and deprives the using public of the benefits of competitive enterprise," the FAA deems that the grant of an exclusive right at any airport upon which federal funds has been expended is contrary to applicable federal law. See, Niswonger v. American Aviation, Inc ., 411 F.Supp. at 766-67; Alphin v. Henson , 392 F.Supp. at 828, 832.

## 10 allowing sponsors to violate their federal obligations. The term app ears to be a newly fabricated
clause that the Director uses to create a dangerous precedent. Ag ain, if airports are allowed to suspend their federal obligations while simply invoking a “legitimate business purpose” of, say, an airport feasibility study, then airports across the United States will certainly be able to do the same. The result of this precedent would allow ai rports to suspend other federal obligations including without limitation, EPA, Title 7 Civil Ri ghts, and the rule of law as same relates to contractual obligations, among others. The Pompano lease initially ha d an “airport closure or relo cation clause” that provided for long term leases (20 year) that in the even t of closure or relocation the airport would pay liquidated damages to the tenants for the value of their buildings. Pompano at p.4. 13 

## The Complainants here would welcome such a lease. It made sense in Pompano and it makes sense here – The City could have negotiated a lease with the large hangar ow ners that would have allowed them to keep a long term lease to protec t their investments and also provide a liquidated damages clause that would have paid the large hangar owners for their hangars if the Airport would be relocated. But the City simply saw it fit to force a one year lease on its tenants and then confiscate their buildings , without compensation, had it decided to relocate. The airport sponsor
in Pompano was challenged when it reduced Brettman’s lease terms to ten years as compared to 30 years for others similarly situated. The sponsor in Pompano was found to be in violation of its grant assurances by doing this. Th e City here should have also been found in violation for doing exactly the same thing.

13 

### Pompano Airport changed its standard 30 year lease to a ten year lease because it, like the City here, contemplated, among other reasons, moving the airport. That reason was specifically mentioned in its Airpark Business Plan. The Pompano City lost its case because the sh ort term leases violate the grant assurances as should have the City here.

## 11 Further, it is illogical to say that the Pomp ano Airport loses and the City here wins because the City had a “leg itimate business purpose” and Pompano sponsor didn’t when the
short term leases were offered to their tenants. Fi rst, the facts in both cases are identical in that neither of the leases used the word “temporar y,” “business plan” or “relocation/closure” to describe the reasons for the shortened terms. But, the airports in both cases were contemplating an airport relocation or closure at some time. Th e Director appears to th ink that the City here
somehow communicated that to its te nants thereby dis tinguishing it from Pompano and allowing the City to have a short term lease where Pompa no cannot. The fact is that the City was far from undertaking an airport relocation feasibility study in 2007 when it fa iled to renew the option for McDonough, and further in 2010 when it failed to re new Barnett’s lease. It was not until late 2010 when the City authorized the feasibil ity study to even be conducted. CA-6. Regarding the factual findings in the DD the Director found that McDonough “had not paid rent from the end of his lease in 2007” ( DD at p.21). This fact is incorrect. McDonough paid rent to the City on December 29, 2011, and the City acknowledged the payment of rent in a letter dated March 2, 2012. C-42. And the City Attorney has admitted that M&R Holdings (Dr. Kemp) has paid its rent through 2013. CA- 7. That the Director got this fact wrong as well as many others is troubling. It has cast th e Complainants in a bad light making them look as if they were in the wrong. The facts are that the Complainants have either paid thei r rents or they have attempted to pay their rents, but have had the rent s returned by the City. For the City to attempt to return some of the rents “pending the outcome of the litigation” and, at the same time, accuse the Complainants of failing to pay their rents is di singenuous at best.
It is also a factual error for the Director to say that no te nant was offered a longer term lease than the Complainants. McDonough Proper ties, LLC, was “offered” a whole new lease

## 12 (with significant other restri ctions) limited to a term of five-years on July 30, 2007. C-10. Subsequently, Arrowhead’s existing lease was renewed for a 5-year term on October 5, 2009. CA-3. The City discriminated against the Comp lainants by signing a longer term lease with Arrowhead when Arrowhead, while not similarly situated, should not receive more favorable treatment than the Complainants because A rrowhead is a non-aeronautical user and the Complainants are aeronautical users. The City is in violation of its gr ant assurance by refusing to agree to the same or substantially parallel l ease terms and conditions w ith the Complainants as existed between the City and other incumb ent lessees. City of Pompano Beach v. FAA , 774 F.2d 1529, 1536 (11 th 

## Cir. 1985). The Director erred in finding that the C ity did not discriminate against the Complainants. The Director stated in the DD, “The fact that Arrowhead and Curenton do not have airfield use or access could mean that they w ould not be impacted in the same manner as aeronautical users if the airport were reloca ted. Arrowhead and Curenton are not similarly situated to the Complainants. The record does no t support the assertion th at the nonaeronautical
users were treated more favorab ly.” DD at p. 23. Again, the Direct or has failed to understand the
facts in this case. Curenton IS an aeronautical user that DOES HAVE access to the runway. As can be seen on Complainant’s exhibits C-2 and CA-8, Curenton owns a hangar adjacent to the airport runway. He operates a flight school that is an aeronautical function. To say that Curenton is not similarly situated to the Complainants is completely wrong. And it is error to find that Arrowhead was not treated more favorably than McDonough or Barnett when Arrowhead’s lease was renewed on October 9, 2009, and McDonough and Barnett’s leases were not renewed on July 30, 2007, and October 3, 2010, respectively. The record amply supports this fact. CA-3, C10, C-26.

## 13 Further, the record does show that A rrowhead was treated differently than the Complainants. And despite the fact that Arro whead and the Complainants are not similarly situated (Arrowhead is a nonaeronautical user wit hout access to the airport runway), federal law, regulations and policy require that Arrowhead NOT be treated more favorably than the Complainants. 14 

## By renewing Arrowhead’s lease AFTER the City refused to renew McDonough’s lease and BEFORE the City refused to renew Barnett’s leas e clearly shows that the City treated Arrowhead more favorably th an the Complainants. And while the City may derive a great deal more money from the rents of Arrowhead, federal law, regulations and policy prohibit the City from renewing Arrowhead’s leas e when it would not renew the Complainants’. The Director makes a point that the Complain ants had not made applications for hangar improvement loans – just that th ey had written letters inquiring about obtaining such loans – and that the Complainants had not approached the Airport for approval of hangar improvements. DD at p. 26. Such findings, again, cast dispersion on th e Complainants and accuse them of failing to go about this process in what the Director and the City believe to be acceptable. To the contrary, it is intuitively obvious that a business person do es not go to the expense of submitting a loan application if the loan applica tion will be denied. The Complain ants correctly suspected that a bank will not loan money for the improvement of a hangar if the depreciation or asset recovery period is not long enough to cover the loan. C-65 . And because the banks responded with letters saying that they would not loan money based on a one-year lease, it was pointless for the Complainants to then make an application fo r a loan. Likewise, the Complainants did not approach the City for permission to improve thei r hangars because they c ould not obtain loans to improve the hangars. Again, it is intuitively obvi ous that a prudent business person would not

14 

### Arrowhead’s lease was renewed on October 9, 2009, for a period of another 5 years. This occurred two years after the City refused to re new McDonough’s lease.

## 14 approach a lessor seeking permission to make im provements or expansions if it were impossible to fund those improvements or expansions. In this instance there is suffi cient evidence in the record to support a finding that loans cannot be obtained for improvements to leaseholds with one-year terms which thereby results in a conclusion that the Airport is not self-sustainable because of its policies.

CONCLUSION The Director erred when he developed the exception of “legitimate business purpose” to allow a sponsor to suspend its federal obligations . The dangerous precedent set by the Director in such a finding must be reversed. Airport sponsors must not be allowed to suspend their federal obligations to suit their convenience. The Director erred by finding that the City c ould violate the self-sus tainability provision of Grant Assurance 24 when it required the Comp lainants to sign a one-year lease. One-year leases are, on their face, contrary to an airport’s self-sustainabili ty. Airports cannot attract tenants
to invest in infrastructure a nd equipment necessary to operate an airport with one-year leases. The Director erred by finding that the City di d not discriminate against the Complainants by allowing a non-aeronautical tenant to renew it s lease after the City refused to renew the Complainants’ leases. The City’s renewal of Arrowhead’s lease after refusing to renew the Complainants’ leases is discrimination. The Director erred by finding that the City gave an exclusive right to a non-aeronautical tenant by renewing its lease after the City re fused to renew the Complainants’ leases. By renewing Arrowhead’s lease on October 5, 2009 , but refusing to renew Complainant

## 17 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. McDonough Properties, L.L.C., ) M & R Holdings, L.L.C., ) Tri-D, L.L.C., ) and Col. Frank Barnett, ) ) Docket No. 16-12-11 ) Complainants/Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) City of Wetumpka, ) ) Respondent. ) )
APPELLANTS’ EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit Exhibit No. Description CA-1 E-mails between Regina Edwards, Esq., and Wade Ramsey, Esq., Oct-Dec 2013 CA-2 Wetumpka Municipal Airport Feasibility Study dated July 2013. CA-3 Arrowhead lease with extens ion letter dated August 15, 2009. CA-4 New Standard Lease CA-5 Press release dated March 26, 2013 of study determination. CA-6 News article re December 6, 2010, City Council meeting to study airport relocation. CA-7 E-mails between Regina Edwards, Esq., and Wade Ramsey, Esq., dated 4/15/13 CA-8 Airport Layoutsailing@raydawn.org

From : <WADERAMSEY @ aol.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:21 AM To : <manager@internationalacs.com> Sub j ect : Emails from 1 0 -14 to 1 2 -2 

## Page 1 of 18

12/11/2013 From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com To: regina@rbelawfirm.com CC: manager@internationalacs.co m, pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Sent: 12/2/2013 1:51:19 P.M. Central Standard Time Subj: Re: : Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug. - Please Reply 

### Regina: I just left you a message. Your paralegal said you were meeting with a client. Please give Ray or I a call back today. I know he's left you several messages as well. Thanks,
Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and p rotected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is p rohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 11/29/2013 4:00:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, WADERAMSEY@aol.com writes:

Regina: Thank you for your reply.
Neither the FAA nor ALDOT are permitted to dictate key (contractual) terms of the leases between our clients. These agencies may only review airport leases solely to determine violations of their respective regulations , period. Of paramount importance, neither agency has any legal authority whatsoever to "approve" the leases between our clients. If you can provide some authority to the contrary, we'd be happy to review it. Following the outcome of the feasibility study last spring, the City, as required by the Grant Assurances, met with and agreed to negotiate a long-term lease with it's tenants. We relied on those good-faith promises, but the

### City has done nothing since then, this despite our repeated requests and calls to your office. If the City refuses to provide the latest lease draft by end of business Monday (Dec. 1) and enter into good-faith negotiations, we will be looking to move forward with our appeal. The results of which may include: 1) Tens of thousands of dollars of needless additional legal fees for the taxpayers of Wetumpka 2) 4 to 6 months additional delay pending the outcome of the appeal 3) The City precluded from letting any new leases for either existing or new tenants for 4 to 6 months 4) The City precluded from receiving any rental income for an additional 4 to 6 months 5) Another potential Part 13/16 complaint 6) Other potential state/federal litigation:

a) The City is currently in breach of the leases with renewal provisions b) Condemnation The bottom line is this, the airport leases have always been subject to both present and future FAA/ALDOT regulations. Thus, the City's dilatory tactics at this juncture serve no purpose other th an to frustrate the parties and stop airport operations/growth. Again, we remain o pen to ne go tiate the latest "draft" of the lease with the understanding that amendments may be forthcoming as the same relates to FAA & ALDOT regulations. We do not have that much to negotiate (see my Aug. 12 letter), so let' s get this done on Monday! Best,
Wade

R

AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and p rotected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or a ny attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Co de or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 11/27/2013 11:29:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, regina@rbelawfirm.com writes:

We ARE waiting on ALDOT and FAA;

Thank You, 

## Page 2 of 18

12/11/2013

### REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Elec tronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: Regina Edwards [mailto:regina@rbelawfirm.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:13 AM To: 'WADERAMSEY@aol.com' Subject: RE: : Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug. - Please Reply

Wade, we are not still waiting on the FAA and ALDOT for their comments before we finalized the proposed lease and do not anticipate being able to send the lease pr ior to the end of the appeal period.

Thank You,



### REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033 

## Page 3 of 18

12/11/2013NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Elec tronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:12 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Cc: manager@internationalacs.com ; pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Subject: Re: : Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug. - Please Reply



### Regina:

I contacted you last Wednesday, but have not heard from you. Please let me know where your client stands with the new lease. We would absolutely prefer not to spend our Thanksgiving weekend drafting an appeal (and running up legal bills on both sides), but rather with our families. I trust you feel the same way, thus the courtesy of a reply would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and p rotected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Int ernal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 11/20/2013 12:24:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, WADERAMSEY@aol.com writes: 

## Page 4 of 18

12/11/2013

### Hi Regina:

Thank you for getting back with me.

How much longer do you anticipate? Our goal is to finish the leases on or before Dec. 6th and then withdraw our appeal extension. Considering we have Thanksgiving to content with, time is now very much of the essence. Please let me know something today.

Thanks again,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penaltie s under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 11/20/2013 12:03:46 P.M. Central Standard Time, regina@rbelawfirm.com writes:

I am still waiting on a verification of a couple of things...

Thank You,



### REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 

## Page 5 of 18

12/11/2013109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510- 2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:23 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Cc: rayveatch@gmail.com Subject: Re: : Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug.



### Hi Regina:

Hope you enjoyed your trip out west.

I was glad to hear that you and Ray had a good chat yesterday. I was planning to call you today, but I'd prefer to review the latest draft before we talk. So please email it as soon as you can and I'll get back with you promptly.

Thank you,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distrib ution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and 

## Page 6 of 18

12/11/2013deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avo iding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 11/6/2013 3:48:18 P.M. Central Standard Time, WADERAMSEY@aol.com writes:

Hi Regina:

Hope you're feeling better.

Are you stating that you're going to incorporate all of our changes into a new long-term ground lease?

I presume those with renewal options on their current leases will be permitted to exercise those options without issue.

Regarding Col. Barnett's present lease which contains a 5- year renewal option, there are no provisions in that lease which make his renewal contingent on a renovation. As you recall, Col. Barnett has been waiting for a couple of years now for his renewal to be accepted from the City so that he could renovate and use his hangar , but he's been unable to do so. Moreover, had the City required renovation plans prior to Col. Barnett purchasing the building (a year and a half before the renewal period), we could understand that, but not after the fact. As a result, the City is estopped from making renovations a condition precedent for either the execution of a de novo lease or for the renewal of his existing lease. To do so would result in condemnation of the building.

Moreover, regarding hangar renovations et al.., to what standards would a renovation need to adhere? How long are the lease terms? Would there be time to amortize the investment etc...etc... Thus, without a lease and all the airport rules and regulations ("knowns") being sorted out first, drawing up plans and committing capital is premature at any juncture. 

## Page 7 of 18

12/11/2013

### I look forward to seeing the revised lease.

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i ) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed he rein.



### In a message dated 11/4/2013 11:38:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, regina@rbelawfirm.com writes:

I am not well, actually home with the flu. I have revised the proposed lease going back to the original one that Currento n/Kemp had and modified some of the language to address your concerns and have circulated to our people for review and comment. I hope to have it to you on We dnesday for your consideraton and review if i can return to work tomorrow. I believe that we have addressed your clients' concerns as containe d in your letter, but know that we still will have to have Council approval and submit to FAA and ALDOT before it can be finalized. Mr. Barnett will need to have a pl an to renovate and/or repair the structure on his lot as a condition of renewing his lease as it is currently delapidated and unsafe. I would suggest that he go ahead and prepare his plans for submission for approval. He should coordinate this process through the airport director Lynn Weldon. Do you forsee a problem with making all of the Commercial Operators lease terms commencing on January 1, 2014 and prorating the rent? Regina

-----Original Message----- From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, November 4, 2013 12:14 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Subject: Fwd: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug. 

### Regina

Hope you are well.

How are things looking on the leases? 

## Page 8 of 18

12/11/2013

### Thanks,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, f or the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another part y any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Sent: 10/28/2013 6:31:52 P. M. Central Daylight Time Subj: Re: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug.



### Regina:

We're ready to get the leases finished up, this week if possible. Is that doable?

Thanks,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYCLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and 

## Page 9 of 18

12/11/2013cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 10/28/2013 3:56:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, regina@rbelawfirm.com writes:

Is there something that you need from me before then???

Thank You,



### REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This email message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:34 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Cc: rayveatch@gmail.com Subject: Re: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug.



### Hi Regina:

We're closing in fast on the 30-day appeal 

## Page 10 of 18

12/11/2013

### period.

Thanks,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 

### In a message dated 10/28/2013 2:04:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time, regina@rbelawfirm.com writes:

Hi Wade, I have it on my schedule to work on this week!



### REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify thesender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or email at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof. 

## Page 11 of 18

12/11/2013From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 1:56 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Cc: rayveatch@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug.



### Hi Regina:

Any updates on our ground leases?

Thanks,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Sent: 10/16/2013 10:53:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: Re: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease - Aug.



### Hi Regina:

Hope you are well.

Pursuant to your request, attached is my Aug. 12, 2013 letter that I sent to you outlining our amendments to the City's latest proposed ground 

## Page 1 2 of 18

12/11/2013

### lease.

Notwithstanding a new lease being worked out, Dr. Kemp and Col. Barnett (along with other ground lease holders, e.g. Currenton et al..) still hold options to renew their current leases. So a de novo lease will need to be more attractive.

Many thanks,

Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### In a message dated 10/15/2013 6:05:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, waderamsey@aol.com writes:

Hi Regina:

Sounds good. I'll email it to you in the morning. Sorry was tied up today.

Thanks,

Wade 

## Page 1 3 of 18

12/11/2013Ramsey & Associates, LLC
PO Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O (205) 980-5109

Hi Regina: Sounds good. I'll email it to you in the morning. Sorry was tied up today. Thanks, Wade
Ramsey & Associates, LLC PO Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O (205) 980-5109

-------- Original message -------- From: Regina Edwards < regina@rbelawfirm.com > Date: 10/14/2013 4:33 PM (GMT-06:00) To: WADERAMSEY@aol.com Subject: RE: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease Hi Wade, we appreciate your willingness to move forward with negotiating the new leases. Please forward me another copy of the letter addressing your concerns so that we can start working on all of this.

Thank You,



### REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine 

## Page 1 4 of 18

12/11/2013and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-ma il message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 2:53 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Cc: rayveatch@gmail.com ; manager@internationalacs.com Subject: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease



### Regina:

Obviously we're disappointed with the FAA Director's non binding decision last week, but as you know we still have several other legal remedies at our disposal. However at this juncture, we prefer to move forward and simply negotiate a longterm ground lease that's commercially fair and reasonable for all airport hanger owners.

A good staring point is the City's latest proposed lease which you presented in early June. You have my August 12, 2013 letter which outlines our concerns. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kindest regards, 

## Page 1 5 of 18

12/11/2013

### Wade

R AMSEY & 

### A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Hi Wade, we appreciate your willingness to move forward with negotiating the new leases. Please forward me another copy of the letter addressing your concerns so that we can start working on all of this. Thank You,

REGINA B. EDWARDS The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510- 2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person (s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [ mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 2:53 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Cc: rayveatch@gmail.com ; manager@internationalacs.com Subject: Wetumpka Airport Ground Lease Regina: Obviously we're disappointed with the FAA Director's non-binding decision last week, but as you know we still have several other legal remedies at our disposal. However at this juncture, we prefer to move forward and simply negotiate a long-term ground lease that's commercially fair and reasonable for all airport hanger owners. A good staring point is the City's latest proposed 

## Page 1 6 of 18

12/11/2013lease which you presented in early June. You have my August 12, 2013 letter which outlines our concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Kindest regards, Wade RAMSEY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189 Notice: This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that anydisclosure, copying, distribution or use of the email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 

## Page 1 7 of 18

12/11/2013

## Page 18 of 18

12/11/2013

## sailing@raydawn.org

From : <WADERAMSEY@aol.com> Date : Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:21 A M To : <manager@interna tionalacs.com> Sub j ect : Emails 12-3 to 12-5 

## Page 1 of 6

12/11/2013 From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com To: regina@rbelawfirm.com CC: manager@internationalacs.com Sent: 12/5/2013 4:06:20 P.M. Central Standard Time Subj: Fwd: Airport Leases 

## Hi Regina: Thank you for the update. While I find some of your comments contradictor y, I am nonetheless pleased to finally hear from you. I have to echo Ray's conversati on with you this week, until we see what's in the lease and negotiate a final version, why waste the FAA & ALDOT's time when they will in all likelihood have to look at another version? Case in point, you've stated that the rental rate will be based on fair market value? If you don't have that number yet, how can the FAA/ALDOT "approve" it? Moreover, doesn't that conflict with existing lease holders who have renewal provisions? Furthermore, when are you going to include/negotiate the rate with the users as is required by the Grant Assurances? After the fact violates the Grant Assurances.

The notion that you think the re vised lease is "fair" sounds terrific. However, until we see the revised document, we're

## not in agreement. To your points: 1) We never stated we would not negotiate, quite the contrary. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. What we've said all along is that we would not execute a lease until the Director's decision was rendered. Again, we never refused to negotiate. In my Aug. 12 letter I told you what was acceptable and looked forward to hearing back from you, e.g. amended provisions etc.... Since that time we've been asking for the revised lease. In your Nov. 4 email, you promised the lease on Nov. 6th. Now you're telling us mid-Jan. 2) Who is performing this independent eval uation? Is this a commercial appraiser? How is that being paid for? Was a bid let for this service? Question, how is a fair market rental structure consistent with both the Grant Assurance of "self-sustainability," e.g. a quasi break-even business model, and the exiting leases which still have several re newal provisions remaining, at the lessee's option? If you roll out a different rental structure than the existing leasees currentl y in place, you'll be in violation of the Grant Assurances. 3) Besides the rental term of 10 years and two 5 year renewals adjusted via CPI, wher e do you stand on the other provisions that I raised in my Aug. 12 letter? (see below summary). a) Rental increases ba sed on what sort CPI calculations? Page 2 of 6

12/11/2013

## b) Renewal based on terms as the parties may agree? c) Unreasonable withholding of landlord's consent for assignments/sub-leases? d) $1mm performance bond for renovation/new construction? e) Damages cause by the City's actions? f) Termination period for non-use? g) Removal of the reverter provision? h) Changes to the leas e as may be require by state or federal law? i) Foreclosure/terminatio n windfall to the City? j) English rules for the City's attorney's fees on any provision? I urge you to forward the revised lease this week and begin a good-faith negotiation while we wait on the FAA and ALDOT. Otherwise, both our cl ients will be facing spiraling legal fees that are completely unnecessary. Best,
Wade

R

AMSEY & 

## A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, di stribution 

## Page 3 of 6

12/11/2013or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addres sed herein.



## In a message dated 12/3/2 013 4:00:37 P.M. Central Standard Time, regina@r belawfirm.com writes:

Good Afternoon:

I would like to give you all an update on where the City is on renegotiation of the airport leases:

As you know, we met with the majority of the Commercial Operator tenants in June to begin the process of renegotiati on their lease terms and at that time requested written documentation of their concerns and what they wanted in the leases going forward, The comments that I have received from the other tenants were aimed at the de sire for a longer lease term. In August I received a letter from you Wade, expressing what the concerns of your clients were in regards to the leases. In that letter you stated that none of your clients would execute a new lease until the Director had made a dete rmination on the Part 16 Complaint. Although, we understood that your clients were not going to proceed with negotiating and finalizing the new leases , the City still proceeded with the revisions of the proposed lease to incor porate and address most of the concerns expressed in your letter. I have met with our Airport Director and consultant on numerous occasions and spent many hours on drafting what I believe to be a very fair lease for the Commercial Operator tenants. Due to the fact of the previous informal and formal complain ts made to the FAA about the prior leases, I felt that it was necessary and proper that we submit the proposed lease to the FAA and ALDOT Aviation Depart ment for review and comment prior to presenting the proposed lease to your clients and the other tenants at the airport. This was done a few weeks a go. Also, in the process of making the leases fair and equitable to all tenants, we determined that it would be best to have an independent evaluation performed in order to establish the fair rental values of all properties at the airport. This evaluation would also enable the City to identify other possible sources of income that would make the airport more sustainable. We expect that th is evaluation will be completed by midJanuary. Page 4 of 6

12/11/2013

## We have talked to the ADO in Jackson today to follow up and have been informed that they are reviewing the proposed lease and have sent a copy to the Regional Office for review and comment. We were told that due to the holidays that it would probably be th e first week or so of Janua ry before we would have their comments.

As I told you before, we are proposing a standard lease with an initial 10 year term with two 5-year renewal options. In the event of new construction we would consider adjusting the term to allow for a depreciation of the improvements. The rental rates would be based on the fair market value of the leased property and then adjusted by the Consumer Price Index as we discussed. I believe that we are very cl ose on finalizing a lease that will be acceptable to all parties. Although, the Ci ty would love to have this process completed and the new leases in place by January 1, 2014, we are prevented from doing so since we will not have all the necessary information to finalize the lease by then, so it appears that it will be mid- January or so before this will be done.

I understand that you desire to appeal the Director’s decision as to the validity of the prior lease in the Part 16 Formal Complaint, which you certainly have a legal right to do so. Although, frankly, I am not sure what is the value of an appeal at this point, since we merely would continue to argue over facts that happened more than 16 months ago. However, please know that any appeal will not stop the City with proceedi ng to finalize and present a fair and equitable lease to all of our tenants as soon as we have received the pending comments and evaluation of values.

With best regards,



# REGINA B. EDWARDS

The Law Firm of Regina B. Edwards, PC 109 E. Bridge Street 

## Page 5 of 6

12/11/2013

### Wetumpka, AL 36092 Phone (334) 514-1011, Fax (334) 514-1033

NOTICE: This e-mail is covere d by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This e-ma il message and any filed transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-produ ct doctrine and contain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you received this e-ma il message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone at (334) 514-1011 or e-mail at regina@rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message w ithout making a copy thereof. 

## Page 6 of 6

12/11/2013Final ReportJuly 2013Alabama Department of TransportationFeasibility Study for Western Elmore County, Alabama

# FEASIBILITY STUDY
For 

# Western Elmore County, Alabama

Prepared by: G arver
Prepared for: A labama Department of Transportation

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Garver 

### i 

## REPORT SECTIONS PAGE NUMBER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 1 - IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. ......... 1-1 SITE SELECTION AND STEERING COMMITTEE ....................................................................... 1-2 STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................................................................. 1-3 POTENTIAL CORPORAT E USER SURVE Y ................................................................................. 1-4 WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT USER SURVEY ................................................................... 1-6 AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 1-8 INDUSTRIAL PARK FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................... 1-20 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... ....... 1-28

SECTION 2 – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. ......... 2-1 EXISTING AIRPORT ROLE AND CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ...................................................................................................... 2- 6 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................... 2-7 UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................... 2-8 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... ......... 2-8

SECTION 3 – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT/INDUSTRIAL SITE INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. ......... 3-1 EVALUATION FOR AERONAUTICAL EXPANSION ..................................................................... 3-1 EVALUATION FOR CO-LOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL PARK FACILITY ....................................... 3-9 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... ....... 3-13
FINAL CONCLUSIONS

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Garver 

### ii 

### APPENDIX APPENDIX A: POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY APPENDIX B: WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT USER SURVEY APPENDIX C: ALL WEATHER WIND DATA AND WINDROSE APPENDIX D: GENERAL AVIATION APRON ANALYSIS APPENDIX E: BUSINESS PARK APRON ANALYSIS

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Garver 

### iii 

## TABLES PAGE NUMBER

SECTION 1 TABLE I: RUNWAY DESIGN CODES ........................................................................................ 1-11 TABLE II: EXISTING AND FUTURE OPERATIONS/BASED AIRCRAFT ................................... 1-13 TABLE III: RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 1-14 TABLE IV: AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................. 1-16 TABLE V: AIRFIELD TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 1-17 TABLE VI: POSSIBLE CANDIDATES FOR LOCATION ON INDUSTRIAL PARK ...................... 1-21

SECTION 2 TABLE I: AREA PUBLIC USE AIRPORT FACILITIES .................................................................. 2-2 TABLE II: INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES ............................................................... 2-4

SECTION 3 TABLE I: RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 3-2

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Garver 

### iv 

## FIGURES PAGE NUMBER

SECTION 1 FIGURE A: POTENTIAL CO RPORATE USER SURVEY .............................................................. 1-4 FIGURE B: CURRENT USER SURVEY ....................................................................................... 1-6 FIGURE C: BALANCED FIELD LENGTH REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 1-15 FIGURE D: RECOMMENDED AIRFIELD FACILITY LAYOUT ................................................... 1-19 FIGURE E: 2.5 ACRE AERONAUTICAL BUSINESS LOT LAYOUT .......................................... 1-23 FIGURE F: RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT ............................................... 1-27 FIGURE G: RECOMMENDED AIRFIELD/INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT ............................. 1-29

SECTION 2 FIGURE A: NPIAS SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................. 2-3 FIGURE B: FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP – ELMORE COUNTY ..................................................... 2-7 FIGURE C: EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ........................................................ 2-9

SECTION 3 FIGURE A: ALTERNATE PRIMARY RUNWAY ALIGNMENTS – 4,000-FOOT EAST-WEST ALIGNMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3-5 FIGURE B: ALTERNATE PRIMARY RUNWAY ALIGNMENTS – 5,000-FOOT EAST-WEST ALIGNMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 FIGURE C: ALTERNATE PRIMARY RUNWAY ALIGNMENTS – 4,000-FOOT NORTH-SOUTH ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................................... . 3-7 FIGURE D: ALTERNATE PRIMARY RUNWAY ALIGNMENTS – 5,000-FOOT NORTH-SOUTH ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................................... . 3-8 FIGURE E: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT ON EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ...................................................................................................................... ... 3-12 FIGURE F: AIRFIELD/INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT ON EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AI RPORT .................................................................................................... 3-14

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Alabama Department of Transportation, Elmore County Economic Development Authority and the City of Wetumpka have teamed together to analyze the feasibility of developing a regional aviation facility and an adjacent industrial park in western Elmore County. The study began with the identification of the aviation/industrial demand for the study area, followed by conducting an inventory of the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport. The study concluded with the determination of whether or not the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport could accommodate the identified demand. 

## IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The recommended airfield/industrial facilities were based on the following: existing annual operations as recorded by the FAA; operational data recorded from user surveys; and data acquired from local agencies. Operations record ed included mostly small aircraft with some corporate traffic in the region. This fleet can be accommodated with an airfield configured in accordance with an FAA RDC of B-II-5200. While the required operations are not justified at this time, national and local general aviation data suggests a runway length of 4,000 feet would be sufficient to accommodate 100% of the small aircraft traffic in the region. The recommended industrial park facility is an estimated 140 acres. This acreage is based on the specific lot sizes, estimated transportation corridors, right-of-ways and direct airfield infrastructure. 

## INVENTORY A review of existing facilities and data for the study area was conducted that included: an evaluation of the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport facilities; an analysis of the existing surface transportation system; and an analysis of the local aviation area. 

## EVALUATION The existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport was evaluated for its capability to accommodate the recommended aviation/industrial facilities. An east-west runway alignment was chosen due to aeronautical characteristics in the area and also to minimize the impacts of permanent obstacles. Regarding the industrial area, direct airfield access lots and portions of the other industrial parcels would be available immediately, however construction of the entire 140 acre facility would require land acquisition in order to be developed in its entirety. Significant challenges are apparent, however the current site is capable of supporting the proposed improvements in a phased manner over the course of the typical airport planning period. 

## CONCLUSIONS The Feasibility Study concluded prior to the solici tation of input via public hearings before the Study Advisory Committee and the Site Selection and Steering Committee. Based on the findings, the current Wetumpka Municipal Airport is adequate to accommodate the present needs of the region. It is recommended that the identified planning goals be accommodated at the current airport’s existing location as those demands become apparent.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 1 

## INTRODUCTION The Alabama Department of Transportation – Bure au of Aeronautics, Elmore County Economic Development Authority (ECEDA) and the City of Wetumpka have teamed together to perform this Feasibility Study for the Wetumpka Municipal Airport and the western Elmore County region. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of providing a regional aviation facility and an adjacent industrial park in western Elmore County. The methodology used to evaluate the region would be the in-depth review of western Elmore County including the following: identifying the existing and potentia l aviation/industrial demand; conducting an inventory of the existing airport; and analyzing the feasibility of upgrading facilities at the Wetumpka Municipal Airport to meet the identifie d demand. The airfield and industrial park theoretically would be co-located to produce a complex capable of meeting the region’s aviation and industrial needs in a complimentary manner.
After discussions with ALDOT, ECEDA and City personnel, the initial target airport facility would be a regional type facility, as defined in the Alabama Statewide Airport System Plan (ASASP), conforming to all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards associated with Aircraft Approach Category “C” and Airplane Design Group “II” aircraft. The initial airfield layout would be constructed with a minimum 5,000-foot runway, augmented with all associated support facilities (partial parallel taxiway, aircraft parking apron, T-hangar taxilanes, aircraft storage hangars, terminal building, fuel storage and dispensing, vehicular access and vehicular parking). The airport would also be capable of accommodating a runway expansion to 6,500 feet. Finally, the airfield would be analyzed for the inclusion of a turf runway and adjacent industrial/business park. This section consists of the in-depth review of western Elmore County: the existing and potential aviation demand, the identification of the recommended airport facilities needed to meet that demand, and the identification of the recommended industrial facilities needed to meet the demand of current and future economic development. This section also includes the establishment of a Site Selection and Steering Committee, Site Advisory Committee and conducting airport user surveys. The user survey s are made up of potential corporate aviation users and current Wetumpka Municipal Airport tenants in order to determine the existing and potential demands.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 2 

## SITE SELECTION AND STEERING COMMITTEE A Site Selection and Steering Committee (SSSC) is an effective method to maintain local involvement and emphasis for projects. The SSSC for this project consisted of designated representatives from the local public agencies/municipal corporations in western Elmore County. The SSSC would be tasked with the following duties: 4 Provide specific size, layout, and characteristics of potential adjacent industrial park. 4 Receive and review draft reports/working papers. 4 Provide direct and indirect feedback on the process and draft documentation. 4 Assist in the dissemination of information developed for the study process. 4 Selecting the final site of the airport/industrial park complex based on the alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study. Site Selection and Steering Committee members were provided by ECEDA: 4 David Bowen, Commissioner – Elmore County Commission 4 Jerry Willis, Mayor – City of Wetumpka 4 Al Kelly, Mayor – City of Milbrook 4 Margaret White, Mayor – Town of Elmore 4 Clayton Edgar, Mayor – Town of Deatsville 4 Jon Chapman, Mayor – Town of Coosada 4 Barry Mask, Executive Director - ECEDA The SSSC was engaged early in the process providing valuable feedback during and after the initial project public information meeting.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 3 

## STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Study Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed from non-public organizations interested in the economic development of the Airport and western Elmore County. The SAC would be tasked with the following duties: 4 Receive and review draft reports/working papers. 4 Provide direct/indirect feedback on the process and draft documentation. 4 Assist in the dissemination of information developed during the planning effort. Study Advisory Committee members were provided by ECEDA: 4 Rodney Arp 4 Booby Barrett 4 David Bowen 4 Regina Edwards 4 Dennis Fain 4 Wayne Hathcock 4 Scott Lewis 4 Doug McGlamry 4 Gordon McWhorter 4 Jimmy Monk 4 Rick Olsen 4 Stuart Peters 4 Chad Shaw 4 Steve Sievers 4 Linwood Snell 4 Susan Waldrop 4 Gary Williams 4 Harold Wilson 4 Julie Young

The SAC would be utilized in the review of preliminary draft documents and providing feedback and comments from a local perspective on needs for additional information and revisions to draft reports.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 4 

## POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY Corporate users are an integral and important part of the success for a business class airport. In coordination with ALDOT, a survey instrument was developed and a list of potential corporate aircraft owners was compiled and surveyed. The focus of the potential corporate user survey was to determine potential aviation activity that would utilize an expanded airport in western Elmore County. Potential users were gathered from a number of sources. The local businesses and some potential users of an expanded airport were provided by the Elmore County Economic Development Authority (ECEDA). Regionally, corporate aircraft users were gathered from a commercially available source that tracks the flights of aircraft operating with instrument flight plans. Flight data for a 12-month period using the Wetumpka Municipal, Prattville, and the Montgomery Regional Airports was documented to identify corporate jet/turbine engine aircraft and their users. These efforts resulted in the identification of approximately 300 businesses that operated business aircraft in the region. FIGURE A POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY



### The survey instrument was developed in conjunction with ALDOT. The four-page survey asked for feedback in a number of different areas including business type, aircraft owned/operated, frequency of operations in the region, and airfield facilities desired or required. The survey instrument was reviewed and approved by ALDOT before dissemination. An example of the survey instrument is included in Appendix A

. Approximately 300 potential corporate user surveys were mailed with postage paid return envelopes. The recipients were also offered, in a cover letter, the opportunity to return the survey via email or fax to the consultant. This allowed the most options for the greatest return rate for this survey instrument. Before the surveys were physically mailed, one attempt to contact each recipient was made to more accurately identify the correct recipient of the survey.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 5 

### Of the original 300 surveys mailed out, approximately 38 were returned undeliverable which left 262 surveys that were successfully delivered to the potential corporate users. Initially, 17 surveys were completed and returned out of the 262 delivered surveys. In an effort to achieve better data and a higher response rate for the survey, a second copy was provided to those companies with available email addresses, who had not replied during the initial mailing. For all entities that had not replied but had no readily available email address, a follow-up attempt was made via telephone to reach each recipient. These follow-up efforts resulted in several more surveys being returned. In total, 23 surveys were completed and returned resulting in a return rate of approximately 8.8%. Surveys of this type are generally presumed successful with a return rate of ten percent or more. Based on the responses, approximately 12 business jet/turbine operators that visit or conduct business in the region on a regular basis stated they may utilize an airport in the western Elmore County region if the proper runway length were provided. Most of these users had a final destination point in Montgomery, and combined, would conduct approximately 178 operations annually. The desired runway length expressed by the business jet/turbine operators ranged from 4,000 to 5,500 feet with a minimum 5,000 feet being the consistent optimum length. While all the operations would need 4,000 feet minimum runway length to operate, only 104 would require 5,000 feet minimum runway length. Additionally, most of the potential business/corporate survey respondents have a desire for, or would utilize, some sort of instrument approach capabilities, an automated weather observing station and fuel at the airport.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 6 

## WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT USER SURVEY In an effort to determine what the existing use and activity is at the Wetumpka Municipal Airport, a separate survey instrument was developed for use with the existing based aircraft owners and pilots. The City of Wetumpka provided the mailing list for all the currently based aircraft owners. An example of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix B

. The survey instrument for the based aircraft owners was unique from the Potential Corporate User Survey. Much like the previous survey, it was developed in coordination with ALDOT. The local pilots and aircraft owners were asked to provide their input on the existing airport facilities and their existing and anticipated use on a one-page survey document provided in a postage paid return envelope. Due to the accuracy of the list provided, the Airport Tenant Survey received a much higher rate of return. The City of Wetumpka provided a list of 74 tenants with addresses on file. A total of 45 tenants responded out of the 74 tenants provided, resulting in a 60.8% return rate. FIGURE B CURRENT USER SURVEY



### The survey consisted of questions that included years based at the airfield, annual operations, aeronautical activity type, runway end use, equipment upgrades, and future operational levels. At the last FAA Form 5010 recording, the airport reported a total of over 39,000 annual operations. The respondents reporting from thei r survey responses accounted for over 25,000 operations. This indicates that the total operat ions reported on the FAA Form 5010 may be low and could be as many as 45,000 to 50,000 operations to account for those that did not respond as well as those itinerant users that were not surveyed. Of note, all the responses received reported their aircraft size/type fell in the small aircraft category weighing less than 12,500 pounds with approach speeds of approximately 50-80 knots. The latest FAA Form 5010 data shows a local to itinerant ratio of 18 percent local and 82 percent itinerant. The based aircraft

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 7 

### owners were not asked to estimate their local to itinerant operational ratio, but operations were broken up into monthly flights and touch and go operations. A follow up search for phone numbers was made to each of the tenants who did not respond to the survey. If a phone number was available, a follow-up phone call was made to the tenant.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 8 

## AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Existing and long-range requirements are used to determine an airport’s facility needs to meet the forecast demand as planned in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design standards. Facility requirements can be grouped into either the airside category or the landside category. Airside facility components include runways, taxiways, NAVAIDs, airfield marking/signage, and lighting. Landside components are focused on terminal facilities like hangars, terminal building, aircraft parking apron, fuel dispensing units, vehicular parking, and airport access requirements. Landside facilities can also include the infrastructure associated with industrial park development, maintenance, and support. 

## NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS (NPIAS) Federal funding assistance for general aviation airports is typically restricted to those airports included and recognized in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS is a report submitted to Congress in accordance with Section 47103 of Title 49, U.S.C. This plan identifies 3,356 existing and 55 proposed public use airports that are significant to the national airspace system and receive grants under the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP). This document is utilized by FAA management in administering the AIP. Cost estimates for the NPIAS are obtained primarily from airport master and state system plans prepared by planning and engineering firms for airport sponsors and state agencies. Criteria used to qualify an airport for inclusion into the NPIAS vary depending on the type of airport – commercial service or general aviation. Entry requirements for general aviation airports include: a) An airport that was included in the previous NPIAS should remain in the NPIAS if it is subject to a current compliance obligation resulting from a Federal Aid Airport Program (FAAP), Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), or AIP grant. An exception to this rule may be airports that meet both of the following requirements: 4 The airport is not included in an accepted state airport system plan (SASP) or metropolitan airport system plan (MASP). 4 There is clearly no longer a continuing system role for the airport or the justification that prompted the original grant of federal funds is no longer valid. An airport that meets both the above may be removed from the NPIAS if it is not subject to grant compliance obligations. An airport that meets both the above and that is subject to compliance obligations cannot be deleted from the NPIAS until AAS-400 determines that the airport can be released from its compliance obli gations. Prior to the deletion of the location from the NPIAS, the airport must be notified. b) An existing airport that is included in an accepted SASP or MASP may be included in the NPIAS if it:

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 9 

### 4 Has at least 10 based aircraft. 4 Serves a community located 30 minutes or more average ground travel time from the nearest existing or proposed NPIAS airport. c) A proposed airport located 30 minutes or more average ground travel time from the nearest existing NPIAS airport may be included if there is clear evidence that at least 10 aircraft will be based at the airport within the first year of its operation. d) An existing or proposed airport not meeting the criteria in paragraphs a, b, or c may be included in the NPIAS if it meets all four of the following requirements: 4 It is included in an accepted SASP and/or MASP, assuming one exists. 4 It serves a community more than 30 minutes from the nearest existing or proposed NPIAS airport. 4 It is forecast to have 10 or more based aircraft during the short-range planning period (5-years). 4 There is an eligible sponsor willing to undertake the ownership and development of the airport. e) An existing or proposed airport not meeting the criteria in paragraphs a, b, c, or d may be included in the NPIAS on the basis of a special justification showing a significant national interest. Such special justification includes: 4 A determination that the benefits of the airport will exceed its development costs. This would apply in some cases where an airport is included in an accepted SASP or MASP but the community it serves is within 30-minutes of the nearest existing or proposed NPIAS airport or less than 10 based aircraft are forecast in the short-range period. A technique for estimating the benefit of an airport, in terms of time saved and cost avoided by travelers, is included in the report, Estimating the Regional Economic Significance of an Airport , DOT/FAA/PPA92-6, September 1992. 4 Written documentation describing, for example, isolation (communities in remote areas or on islands), airports to serve the needs of Native American communities, airports needed to support recreation areas, or airports needed to develop or protect important national resources. 

## RUNWAY DESIGN CODE (RDC) CLASSIFICATION The Runway Design Code (RDC) as described in FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design , is a coding system to help identify and determine the appropriate design criteria for an airport based on individual runways. The RDC correlates the design and layout of an airport to the operational and physical characteristics of the ‘critical or design aircraft’, which directly influences pertinent safety criteria such as runway length, runway width, runway/taxiway separation distances, building setbacks, size of required safety and object free

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 10 

### areas, etc. The critical or design aircraft is based on the largest type aircraft expected to operate at an airport on a regular basis. The FAA defines this as a minimum of 500 operations (landings and/or takeoffs) per year. The RDC has three (3) components. The first component, depicted by a letter (e.g., A, B, C, D, or E), is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed based on each specific aircraft’s operational characteristics. The second component, depicted by a Roman Numeral (e.g., I, II, III, IV, V, or VI), is the aircraft design group and relates to aircraft wingspan and tail height. The third component relates to the designated or planned approach visibility minimums expressed in terms of Runway Visual Range (RVR). For example, a Beech King Air 200, with an approach speed of 103 knots and wingspan of 54.5 feet operating on a runway with 1⁄2-mile visibility minimums would have an RD C of B-II-2400, while a larger corporate jet such as the Gulfstream IV (G-IV) with an approach speed of 145 knots and wingspan of 77.8 feet, would have an ARC of D-II-2400. Table I RUNWAY DESIGN CODE on the following page illustrates the components comprising the RDC.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 11 TABLE I RUNWAY DESIGN CODES Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) Category Speed A < 91 Knots B 91 - < 121 Knots C 121 - <141 Knots D 141 - < 166 Knots E > 166 Knots Airplane Design Group 1 (ADG) Group Tail Height (ft) Wingspan (ft) I < 20 < 49 II 20 - <30 49 - < 79 III 30 - <45 79 - <118 IV 45 - <60 118 - <171 V 60 - <66 171 - <214 VI 66 - <80 214 - <262 Visibility Minimums Runway Visual Range (RVR) Flight Visibility Category (statute miles)

VIS Visual Approach Only 5200 1-Mile or greater 4000 > 1-mile but < than 3⁄4-mile 2400 > 3⁄4 - mile but < than 1⁄2 - mile (CAT-I PA) 1600 > 1⁄2 - mile but < than 1⁄4 - mile (CAT-II PA) 1200 > than 1⁄4 - mile (CAT-III PA) Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design.

1 Where an airplane is in two categories, the most demanding category takes precedence.


## GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS A General Aviation (GA) regional facility is one that can meet the forecasted aviation demand, capture operations that are currently missed due to aircraft utilizing other nearby airports, and meet the needs of the current airport users. Factors to be considered are the FAA minimum design standards and the capability to expand beyond that configuration. Business jet operators require longer runways than the runway length available at most “local airports” as defined in the ASASP. When business jet and turbo-prop aircraft operate under FAR Part 135 “Air Taxi” operations, the majority of insurance companies require them to operate from a runway of at least 5,000 feet in length. This requirement is one of the main criteria airport sponsors quote in an effort to just ify construction of a longer runway or analyze a new site.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 12 

## AVIATION ACTIVITY Foundational information for the Wetumpka Municipal Airport relating to aviation activity was gathered from several sources, such as the FAA From 5010-1 – Airport Master Record, FAA Terminal Forecasts, State System Plans, as well as local personnel. These forecasts provide a basic framework from which to project future operations based on current trends and annual industry growth trends. A review of these documents show existing operations for the year 2012 at the airport was 39,400. This count is slightly higher than what was projected in the 2005 Alabama State Airport System Plan, which forecaste d a total of 37,100 operations for the same time period. Each year, the FAA publishes an annual report on the state of national aviation in the country and provides a forecasting outlook for various sectors of the industry. The latest publication, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2012-2032 , postulates an average annual growth rate of 1.7% for all of general aviation operations and an annual growth rate of 1.7% for aircraft growth. Applying these rates to the existing baseline numbers of 39,400 operations and 80 based aircraft, provides a future operations number of 55,309 and 112 based aircraft by the year 2032. Table II on the next page shows the existing and potential future operations at Wetumpka Municipal based on the information provided by the FAA and most recent 2005 Alabama State Airport System Plan.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 13 TABLE II EXISTING AND FUTURE OPERATIONS/BASED AIRCRAFT Aircraft Operations Based Aircraft
2012 2032 2012 2032 FAA 5010-1 39,400 55,309 80 112 2005 ASASP 37,120 52,003 131 184 Source: FAA 5010 Data Sheets, and ASASP



### As evidenced, both forecast numbers are similar, with the exception of the based aircraft. Since 2000 was the base year for the ASASP projections, the starting baseline forecast number was extrapolated, which then applied the average annual growth rate of 1.7%. Future needs of the airport will be based on these projections in addition to the ability of the airport to capture operations from surrounding airports such as Montgomery Regional Airport once the airport is able to justify construction of a longer runway. 

## RUNWAY ORIENTATION Crosswind coverage of 95% or better is optimal for a single runway facility. Less than 95% will be considered an unsuitable condition. Crosswind coverage is important to operators of aircraft for takeoff and landing portions of flights. If a crosswind is present and is beyond the aircraft limitations, the pilot will not be able to takeoff or land safely. Out of 18 possible alignments, only 6 were found to be unsuitable by a small margin (Bearings 1/19 – 6/24). Appendix C shows the wind data collected for Montgomery/Elmore County. 

## RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements , provides guidance to help determine the recommended runway lengths for an airport, which is predicated on the RDC category of aircraft using an airport. By design, the primary runway typically is the longest runway, the most favorable wind conditions, the greatest pavement strength, and the lowest straight-in instrument approach minimums. Table III on the following page shows the recommended design length requirements for runways in the western Elmore County region of Alabama.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 14 TABLE III RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS

Aircraft Category Length Small aircraft with less than 10 seats 95% of small aircraft fleet 3,180’ 100% of small aircraft fleet 3,780’ Small aircraft with 10 or more seats 4,380’ Aircraft between 12,500 and 60,000 pounds 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,740 - 5,450’ 75% of fleet at 90% useful load 7,110’ 100% of fleet at 60% useful load 5,680’ 100% of fleet at 90% useful load 9,060’ Source: AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Generalized length only. Actual length requirements/need should be calculated based on the specific

aircraft’s operational nomographs. Useful load refers to all usable fuel, passengers, and cargo. Calculations based on approximately 200 feet above mean sea level airport elevation and mean

maximum daily temperature of 95 Ý F. Figures are increased 10 feet for each foot of elevation difference between high and low points of

runway centerline.



### As Table III shows, the runway length of 5,500 feet will accommodate 75 percent of the national fleet at 60 percent useful load and a length of 5,700 feet will accommodate 100% of the national fleet at the same useful load limit. A breakdown of the balanced field length for some of the most popular business jets in the fleet is provided in the illustration on the following page, Figure C . The lengths represented are based on a fully loaded aircraft, stage length of 500 miles, and wet pavement conditions. Three temperature breakdowns, consisting of standard day (59 degrees), 75 degrees, and 95 degrees, provide an idea of what runway lengths wo uld be required for aircraft to operate at the airport during various weather/temperature scenarios. However, a significant factor to consider when analyzing the generalized runway length requirements is that the actual length necessary for a runway is a function of elevation, temperature, and stage length. As temperatures change, the runway length requirements change accordingly. Thus, if a runway is designed to accommodate 75 percent of the fleet at 60 percent useful load, this does not prevent larger aircraft under operational restrictions and during specific climatic conditions from utilizing the runway. However, the amount of time such operations can safely occur is restricted. These design runway lengths do not absolve the pilot from calculating the specific runway length needed to conduct a safe takeoff or landing for the specific aircraft being operated during current weather conditions at the airfield.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 15 FIGURE C BALANCED FIELD LENGTH REQUIREMENTS



### Figure C illustrates the demands of business jet op erators for runway length with the blue horizontal line indicating the 5,000-foot runway length threshold. The orange line represents the 3,011-foot runway length at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport. While most of the users surveyed operate aircraft in the B-II RDC classification, there is an occasional C-I/II operator. Per the user surveys, runway length benchmarks were identified primarily at 4,000-foot and 5,000-foot minimum requirements. As mentioned in the inventory section later in this report, the FAA requires a minimum 500 operations (landing or takeoff) by a single aircraft or family of aircraft in one category before the airport will be required to meet design standards for a certain level of activity. The operational data did not meet the minimum requirements necessary for 4,000 or 5,000 feet, therefore a smaller runway environment is appropriate for the western Elmore County demand. However, activity from the surveys portrays long-term growth potential, and national data suggests that 4,000 feet of runway length would accommodate 100% of the small aircraft fleet in the area. Considering these factors, an RDC of B-II-5200 (see Table I ) equipped with 4,000 feet of runway length would be considered the ideal runway for the region. Table IV on the next page shows the requirements necessary for a B-II designed facility.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 16 TABLE IV AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS

Item FAA Design Standard (B-II, not lower than 1- mile vis. Min) Runway Design Width 75’ RSA Width 150’ RSA Length beyond R/W end 300’ OFA Width 500’ OFA Length beyond R/W end 300’ Obstacle Free Zone Width 400’ Runway Setbacks – Runway Centerline to: Obstacle Free Zone Length 200’ Parallel Taxiway Centerline 240’ Holdline 200’ Aircraft Parking Area 250’ Taxiway Design Width 35’ Safety Area Width 79’ Object Free Area Width 131’ Runway Protection Zone (Departure) Length 1,000’ Inner Width 500’ Outer Width 700’ Runway Protection Zone (Arrival) Length 1,000’ Inner Width 500’ Outer Width 700’ Source: AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design

.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 17 

## AIRFIELD TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Table V , Airfield Terminal Facility Requirements , summarizes terminal area facility requirements to accommodate the general aviation activity projected for the airport over the next 20 years. As the numbers below indicate, the airport will need to expand existing or construct additional facilities to support future operations levels and growth.

TABLE V AIRFIELD TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Facility Existing 2012 Proposed 2012 Future 2032
Based Aircraft 80 same 112 Annual Operations 39,400 same 55,309 Terminal Building 1 Public Use Space Lease Use Space Total Building Space 2,200 ft 2 0 ft 2 2,200 ft 2 same 2,400 ft 2 500 ft 2 2,900 ft 2 Paved Auto Parking Auto Parking Spaces 2,400 ft 2 7 same 7,900 ft 2 20 Aircraft Parking Apron 2 Based Apron Itinerant Apron

Total Apron 3,200 yd 2 3,200 yd 2 6,400 yds 2 2,836 yd 2 16,027 yd 2 18,863 yds 2 3,973 yds 2 22,453 yds 2 26,426 yds 2 T-Hangars Executive/Co rporate 3 90,600 ft 2 29,000 ft 2 same 108,000 ft 2 36,000 ft 2 Fuel Storage 4 Monthly Demand (100LL) Monthly Demand (Jet-A) Total Monthly Demand 7,200 gallons 2,100 gallons 9,300 gallons same 9,500 gallons 9,000 gallons 18,500 gallons Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Apron Analysis, Appendix D

1 The existing aircraft parking apron does not differentiate between based and itinerant

areas.
2 Public and lease space does not necessarily need to be provided within the terminal

facility. It can be accommodated in facilities such as FBO hangars, T-hangars, other individual hangars, etc.

3 This type of hangar typically accommodates more than one aircraft.

4 Forecast represents monthly fuel storage needs in gallons.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 18 

## SUMMARY OF AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Airport data has shown that the majority of existing annual operations consists of smaller aircraft. The operational data recorded from the potential corporate user surveys shows potential air traffic requiring 4,000 and 5,000 feet of runway length. While the potential is there, the number of operations needed falls short of the FAA mandated requirements for runway length justification. However, the possible growth of corporate traffic may warrant expansion in the future. After review of the existing demand, design criteria confirms an RDC of B-II-5200 is the correct designation for the air traffic in western Elmore County. The operational data reference above suggests that a shorter runway length is adequate to accommodate the immediate aviation need. However, national general aviation data and the potential corporate user survey data suggest a runway length of 4,000 feet would be sufficient to accommodate 100% of the small aircraft fleet and the potential corporate traffic growth in the region. Acceptable runway orientation would be bearings that fall between 7/25 to 18/36. The airfield also requires approximately 18,863 square yards of apron space for aircraft parking, and would be equipped with two full length parallel taxiways due to the large amount of operations in the area. Figure D, on the following page, summarizes how the typical airfield requirements for western Elmore County could be configured in a general manner.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1
– IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 19 FIGURE D RECOMMENDED AIRFIELD FACILITY LAYOUT

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 20 

## INDUSTRIAL PARK FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Elmore County is the fastest-growing market in the Montgomery River Region as well as one of the fastest-growing counties in the state of Alabama, and home to 80,000+ residents as of 2010. Understanding this, the City of Wetumpka, ECEDA and ALDOT have decided to identify the potential industrial demand to facilitate the expected economic development in western Elmore County. This demand would be formulated into a recommended industrial facility. The airfield and industrial park facility will be co-located to produce a complex capable of meeting the region’s aviation and industrial needs in a complimentary manner. Based on information from ECEDA, Wetumpka, and ALDOT officials, the focus is to attract businesses to the Airport that are compatible with the current aviation environment and provide a consistent revenue stream for the Airport. This focus for industrial development expounds onthe theme of the River Region and ECEDA, which is “to work to improve the economic wellbeing of the business community and strive to enhance the quality of life in Elmore County through the creation and preservation of jobs and wealth.” Retention of this focus is important when determining the conceptual layout of the proposed industrial facility layout. Incorporation of airport rules and regulations, minimum standards, and other applicable ordinances will need to be referenced to ensure conformity. Other engineering and utility documents will be reviewed du ring the future phases of this project.According to FAA grant assurances, each airport within the NPIAS should strive to be selfsustaining. Two of the largest revenue sources for airports are fuel sales and land leases. Development of an industrial park at the Airport focuses on this important potential revenue stream. Although hangars are the typical option for airport related development, development of small commercial, office, and/or light-industrial aviation compatible facilities will yield higher returns on investment for the Airport. The proposed commercial/industrial development will offer direct airfield access for aviation specific industries as well as indirect access for other aviation or non-aviation industries. The available industrial acreage would be separated into aeronautical and industrial land uses meeting all requirements for land use compatibility. The ECEDA has identified the following business types for development at the Airport’s industrial park: aircraft/aerospace components manufacturing, Tier 1 and 2 automotive parts, workforce education training centers, medical evacuation teams, data centers or technology cluster parks. Industrial/commercial development near an airport should not emit smoke, glare, or interfere with radio signal as these elements may affect the safe operation at an airfield. Airport rules, regulations and minimum standards outline basic operational characteristics for fixed base operators and specialized aviation service operators. However, this document will likely be amended in the future to account for additional requirements necessary for aeronautical and non-aeronautical development that is airport-friendly. Table VI: Possible Candidates for Location on Industrial Park on the following page describes each category and

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 21 

### shows the minimum requirements as they relate to building, industrial type, and apron. These criteria were applied and accounted for when developing the alternatives for the industrial park. TABLE VI POSSIBLE CANDIDATES FOR LOCATION ON INDUSTRIAL PARK Facility Typical Lot Size Industry Type Direct Airfield Access Aircraft/Aerospace Components Manufacturing and Refurbishing (and other Fixed Base Operators) 2.5-3 acres Aeronautical Yes
Automotive, Tier 1 6-8 acres Industrial No
Automotive, Tier 2 6-8 acres Industrial No Workforce Education Training Center 10 acres Educational No Helicopter Rescue Squad 2.5-3 acres Aeronautical Yes Data Center or Technology Cluster Park 20-30 acres Industrial No Source: Elmore County Economic Development Authority


## GOALS FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT For purposes of directing the layout process, goals were established to provide continuity for future development. These goals take into account not only considerations of the Airport, but the theme of ALDOT, ECEDA and Wetumpka. The industrial development goals are as follows: 4 Provide an effective direction for future development through the preparation of a rational, flexible plan; 4 Ensure that future development of the Airport will continue to accommodate a variety of general aviation activities; 4 Enhance the self-sustaining capability of the Airport and ensure the financial feasibility of all future development; 4 Encourage the protection of existing public and private investment in the land and facilities; and 4 Integrate the Airport’s ground access requirements with the local planning entity’s overall regional transportation goals. 

## TRANSPORTATION DESIGN CRITERIA AND DISCUSSION In preparing the industrial park layout, certain factors were taken into consideration. These factors include data provided by ECEDA and pr ofessional experiences, and are as follows:

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 22 

### 4 Aviation related facilities are a priority and should have immediate access to the airside infrastructure; 4 Apron developed for Industrial Park area was sized based on the data received from the Corporate User Surveys (see Appendix E for calculations); 4 Aviation facilities should be geared towards B-II Class jet aircraft and an occasional intermittent C-II Class Aircraft; 4 B-II Class Aircraft have wingspans between 49 feet and 79 feet, average lengths of 50-60 feet, and heights up to 29 feet. A typical B-II jet aircraft is the Cessna Citation II-III. CII Class Aircraft differ with average lengths of 75-85 feet. A typical C-II jet aircraft is the Grumman Gulfstream III (G300/350) but these aircraft are expected to be rare patrons of the facility. 4 Limited or minimal amount of ingress/egress points; 4 Application of existing FAA design standards for RDC B-II-5200 standards; 4 Building heights and set-backs will be compatible with future development and improved approaches identified for the airfield; 4 Parcels of land not conducive for such facilities should be utilized for smaller general aviation and/or office/business type structures; and, 4 The development of this area will require a dry detention pond and storm water drainage collection system to mitigate environmental concerns, protect neighboring property, and not attract wildlife. The industrial park layout was developed with each of these factors in mind. Additionally, anticipated standard lot sizes have been delineated, utility and roadway right-of-ways have been included, and apron areas have all been shown. For clarification, specific color schemes have been chosen to represent categories of development items. These schemes allow for easy understanding of facilities and represent responsible parties from a cost standpoint and are as follows: 4 Red: Helicopter rescue squad lot, could vary in location 4 Gray: Airfield pavement 4 Brown: 25-foot-wide Roadways (ROW for utilities provided, 65 feet total) and parking area 4 Blue: Proposed lot boundaries 4 Green: Hangars and office space As a starting point for the layout, a “Standard” hangar lot was developed. This standard lot contains a corporate hangar (150 feet by 100 fe et) with an attached 5,000-square foot office.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 23 

### Approximately 30 auto parking spaces will serve the office and hangar. The standard lot also includes an aircraft parking apron (100 feet by 200 feet) in front of the hangar. While the parcels offer the flexibility to increase and/or decrease in size, based on a tenant’s desire, the overall standard lot size would be 2.5-3 acres. All parcels of land could be divided in such a way to allow for vehicular traffic onto the airfield as well. Industrial lots were not shown due to the variability of the buildings needed. It was assumed that five to ten 20-acre lots could be subdivided or combined to address any concerns by a prospective tenant. Figure E illustrates this lot: FIGURE E 2.5 ACRE AERONAUTICAL BUSINESS LOT LAYOUT



### Should the Airport desire to adjust the “Standard” lot, the following two modifications can be easily incorporated to create a smaller standard lot serving smaller corporate aircraft. First, the size of the Hangar and attached office can be reduced in depth as well as width. Hangar minimum dimensions of 100 feet by 100 feet hangar and 3,000-square foot office is recommended with the subsequent reduction of the auto parking lot. Second, the business jet apron and aircraft parking apron can be reduced or eliminated in lieu of smaller taxilanes to each individual lot beyond the main apron.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 24 

## UTILITIES GENERAL DISCUSSION Since the development is on an airfield, all utility improvements, structures, and locations will be compatible with aeronautical use and not impa ct the future growth and development of the airfield. The planned land use for the majority of the development is corporate aviation, small and large aeronautical business, manufacturing, and light industry. These types of uses generally create heavy demand for water, sewer, and other infrastructure. The high demand systems, such as electrical, water, and sewer, shou ld be re-analyzed to satisfy all parties that the proposed infrastructure is sufficient to serve their anticipated needs. WATER The proposed development consists of hangars, offices, corporate hangars, and other industrial and maintenance facilities. All these facilities, with the exception of perhaps some of the hangars, will require large water demand. Typical occupancy loading will be evaluated once a clearer picture emerges of exactly what ty pe of businesses would locate in the industrial park. Average gallons per day per capita data, as well as non-peak flow, normal flow, and peaking flow will all need to be established. It was also determined that the buildings on site would require fire protection sprinklers. The National Fire Protection Associat ion (NFPA) code currently states that any hangar, or bank of hangars, shall not exceed 10,000 square feet or it must have either a fire wall or be separated from an adjacent structure by at least 50 feet. If the hangar, or bank of hangars, exceed 10,000 square feet or are closer than 50 feet to another structure, the entire bank of hangars must have fire protection sprinklers. Several of the corporate hangars and possibly the T-hangar development area may need to have mandatory fire protection sprinkler systems installed. The location of the proposed water distribution system and water mains will be located based upon the preferred site for the airport and industrial park. SANITARY SEWER A sanitary sewer system will likely be necessary due to the size of the facility and per capita traffic in office buildings, manufacturing facilities, etc. Access to an engineered sewage treatment system will be a major need at the existing airport location and any proposed airport/industrial park location. STORMWATER DRAINAGE A dry storm water runoff detention facility is recommended for the industrial park area. Not only will the detention facility prevent flooding both on and off site, but it can also serve as a containment area in the event of a fuel or other petroleum product spill. This will eliminate the need for extensive and redundant collection systems and containment areas. The ideal storm drainage system is comprised of a series of reinforced concrete pipes flowing from curb and gutter inlets and discharging into the proposed detention facility.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 25 

### ELECTRICITY AND COMMUNICATIONS Corridors for the electric and communications services will be vital within the development area. Significant electrical loadings will be expected due to the heavy demand from the types of businesses anticipated. For this reason, heavy transmission lines must traverse the general area proposed for this industrial park. Because these are public utilities, access easements will be provided. Since the development area needs to be compatible with aeronautical uses, it is anticipated that these utility systems will be located underground, instead of overhead. Because the systems are being requested to be run underground, the utility companies may charge a small surcharge to pay for the difference between overhead and underground installation. In either case, the size and appurtenances required by these systems are routinely designed by the public utility company with the alignment coordinated by the sponsor. NATURAL GAS Should a facility such as an FBO/Maintenance facility generate a heavy enough demand for natural gas, it may be considered to extend service to the development area at that time. It is expected that heating and refrigeration uses from the proposed businesses would not warrant access to natural gas. SECURITY FENCING In order to comply with FAA guidelines and security concerns, the airfield needs to be secured and separated from other uses. The landside and airside uses are clearly separated by a roadway without impacting vehicular access or flow. The only locations where automobiles will have to access to the airside system will be prot ected by a gated system with an electronically controlled entry code. Temporary security fencing will be required as the development is bein g constructed. As the development area is being leased, temporary security fencing should be constructed along the lot lines to isolate the land and air use areas of the development. As additional tenants construct their facilities, the temporary fence will be removed and/or relocated. 

## SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL PARK FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The recommended industrial park layout is focused on aviation-related developments with direct airfield access and compatible commercial/industrial development areas. The development area is an estimated 140 acres and utilizes the expandable business jet apron, offering immediate access to a parallel taxiway leading to the runway. This acreage is based on the specific lot sizes coupled with estimated transportation corridors and direct airfield facilities. The plan designates one vehicular entry/exit point to the apron for every two airfield business lots. New roadways provide access to the various hangar areas with ample auto parking throughout. The majority of the site is utilized to serve industrial facilities. Small T-hangar and box hangar structures will likely be situated on the opposite side of the runway. FBOs of many different size requirements could locate on the business/industrial side of the airfield. In the event that the Airport is able to attract more co rporate tenants, the lot width for the FBO is equal

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX



### Section 1 1 - 26 

### to the lot width for a bank of corporate hangars; therefore, this development area can easily be modified without significantly impacting the remaining development plans. The furthermost and largest portion of the site has been shown as office or commercial development area. This area has development areas of all shapes and sizes, as specified by ECEDA. Figure F on the next page illustrates the estimated 140-acre layout.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1
– IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Section 1 

### 1 - 27 FIGURE F RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Section 1 

### 1
- 

### 28 

## CONCLUSIONS The recommended airfield facility is based on existing annual operations and the operational data recorded from the user surveys. This demand revealed that the initially discussed C-II facility with a 5,000-foot runway expandable to 6,500 feet is not warranted at this time. Instead, the primarily small aircraft fleet can be accommodated with a smaller runway environment with an RDC of B-II-5200. Short term, national genera l aviation data and the potential corporate user survey data suggest a runway length of 4,000 feet would be sufficient to accommodate 100% of the small aircraft fleet and expected corporate traffic growth in the region. The recommended industrial park facility was focused on aviation-related developments with direct airfield access and airport-friendly industrial development areas. The development plan is estimated at 140 acres and includes an expandable business jet apron, offering immediate access to a parallel taxiway leading to the runway. This acreage is based on the specific lot sizes coupled with estimated transportation corr idors, their associated right-of-ways and direct airfield infrastructure. The plan designates on e vehicular entry/exit points and access to the hangars with parking lots. The majority of the site is primarily designed to serve industrial facilities. Small T-hangar and box hangar structures will likely be situated on the opposite side of the airfield in a more local general aviation environment. While general aviation forecasts influenced the aviation apron areas, long-term forecasts for corporate users influenced the apron geography for the industrial park side of the field. The two facilities would ideally work together to compliment the other. Final orientations and development would vary with the layout of a proposed site. Figure G, on the following page, summarizes how the typical airfield requirements fit together with the recommended industrial park requirements.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 1 

### – IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Section 1 

### 1
- 

### 29 FIGURE G RECOMMENDED AIRFIELD/INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 1 

## INTRODUCTION This section consists of the review of the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport and its available inventory. Airside, landside, transportation and utilities were examined and all available airport infrastructure items were converged to form the basis of Section 2.


## EXISTING AIRPORT ROLE AND CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT LOCATION AND ACCESS Wetumpka Municipal Airport, which accommodates approximately 39,400 annual aircraft operations and bases 80 aircraft, is a publicly owned facility operated by the City of Wetumpka. The City has the ultimate responsibility for any, and all, airport policy considerations, as well as operating and complying with all Federal, State, and local regulations as they relate to airports. The Airport has a designated airport manager. The Airport is located approximately six miles west of the Central Business District (CBD) of Wetumka and one mile west of the Town of Elmore. The current Airport Reference Point (ARP) is located at an estimated point of 32 Ý 31’ 38.429” N Latitude and 86 Ý 19’ 51.579” W Longitude. The Airport is currently included in the most rece nt National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Report to Congress, categorized as a General Aviation (GA) airport and is designated a Community Airport in the most recent ASASP. The Airport has an estimated elevation of 197- feet above mean sea level (MSL) and encompasses approximately 312 acres. The current magnetic declination is 3 Ý 16’ W (NOAA – National Geophysical Data Center, 01/13) with an estimated variation change of 0 Ý 6’ W per year. Access to the Airport is provided from Alabama Highway 14, with Airport Road providing the western boundary and Cook Road serving as the eastern boundary. 

## AIRPORT SERVICE AREA Table I , Area Public-Use Airport Facilities , lists information regarding the facilities and services offered at the nearest public-use general aviation airports to Wetumpka Municipal Airport. Understanding the capabilities and influence of the surrounding airports provides insight into existing and future aviation demand, as well as the airport role and service area. Figure A illustrates the NPIAS service area of 25 miles and defines the Wetumpka Municipal Airport Service Area.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 2 TABLE I AREA PUBLIC USE AIRPORT FACILITIES

Airport Distance from Wetumpka Municipal (NM) Runway Characteristics Aircraft/ Operations Airport Services

Wetumpka Municipal (08A) --- 09/27 – 80' x 3,011' 18/36 – 130’ x 2,876’ (turf) 80 Based A/C 39,400 ops/yr Fuel, terminal, hangars, courtesy car, aircraft parking Prattville-Grouby Field (1A9) 11 SW 09/27 – 100’ x 5,400’ 29 Based A/C 9,000 ops/yr Fuel, terminal, hangars, aircraft parking
Montgomery Regional (MGM) 14 S 03/21 – 150' x 4,011' 10/28 – 150’ x 9,020’ 136 Based A/C 62,000 ops/yr Fuel, ATCT, hangars, terminal, aircraft parking, maintenance, catering, courtesy car, rental cars

Chilton County (02A) 24 NW 08/26 – 100' x 4,008' 22 Based A/C 24,000 ops/yr Fuel, hangars, terminal, aircraft parking, flight training, aircraft maintenance, catering, courtesy car, rental cars Thomas C. Russell Field (ALX) 30 NE 18/36 – 96' x 5,422' 26 Based A/C 33,200 ops/yr Fuel, terminal, hangars, aircraft parking Source: NOAA FAA Atlanta Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 2013, FAA 5010 Data Sheets, and airnav.com

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 3 FIGURE A NPIAS SERVICE AREA

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 4 

## AIRFIELD FACILITIES INVENTORY RUNWAY The Airport operates as a dual runway system. Runway 9/27, oriented east and west, is the primary runway and Runway 18/36, oriented north and south, is the crosswind runway. RUNWAY 9/27 Runway 9/27 is 3,011 feet in length and 80 feet in width. This runway is constructed of asphalt, considered to be in good condition, and offers a main landing gear gross weight bearing capacity of 15,000 pounds for aircraft with single-wheel landing gear. The runway is marked and striped as non-precision and equipped with a Medium Intensity Runway Light (MIRL) light system and runway end threshold lights. No vertical guidance approach aids are affiliated with this runway; however, it is recommended at some point in the future, the airport consider installing a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) systems to serve each runway end. Each runway end provides its own specific instrument approach capabilities with details shown in Table II below. TABLE II INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES Runway End Approach Type Visibility Minimums Ceiling Minimum

Runway 09 RNAV (GPS) – LNAV DA Straight-In Category A – 1 Mile Category B – 1 1⁄4 Miles Category C – 2 1⁄4 Miles Category D – N/A 1,000' MSL/803' AGL 1,000' MSL/803' AGL 1,000' MSL/803' AGL N/A Runway 27 RNAV (GPS) – LNAV DA Straight-In Category A & B – 1 Mile Category C – 1 3⁄4 Miles Category D – NA 800’ MSL/603' AGL 800’ MSL/603’ AGL N/A Runway 09/27 Circling Category A & B – 1 Mile Category C – 2 Miles

Category D – N/A 900’MSL/703’ AGL 900’ MSL/703’ AGL N/A Source: U.S. Digital Terminal Procedures Publications, 13 December 2012 Category equates to Aircraft Approach Category 

### RUNWAY 18/36 Runway 18/36, 2,876 feet long and 130 feet wide, is the crosswind turf runway. Due to Upper Gibson Town Road on the south, this runway has a 593-foot displaced threshold for landing on the 36 end. The runway is properly outlined with 36-inch tall white cones. No vertical guidance approach aids are affiliated with this runway. TAXIWAYS The Airport’s taxiways consist of a full-length parallel offset 279 feet north of Runway 9/27 and a partial-parallel offset 300 feet south of the runway. The full-length 25-foot-wide taxiway provides access to various hangar areas and consists of a mid-field connector that offers access to the runway and terminal parking apron. In addition, two connector taxiways provide access to each

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 5 

### runway end. The southern 35-foot wide partial-parallel taxiway terminates approximately 1,000 feet west of the Runway 27 end. Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL) and taxiway centerline markings are installed along the entire length of the taxiway and its connectors. Holdlines and directional guidance signs are also present on each connecting taxiway. APRON The designated parking apron and tie-down location for itinerant or based aircraft is located north of the mid-field connecting taxiway and offers approximately 58,000 square feet of parking and maneuvering space. The outer portion of the apron appears to have been recently rehabilitated and is in good condition while the central portion is in fair to poor condition. Four designated tie-down spaces with anchors are provided for aircraft parking purposes. Located in the center part of the apron is the fuel dispensing tanks. Typically, tanks are located along the edge or perimeter of an apron to allow unimpeded maneuvering. HELIPAD/HELICOPTER PARKING There is a designated helicopter landing area and parking apron, approximately 3,200 square feet in size, situated approximately 250 feet east of the terminal parking apron. This landing area accommodates traffic and operations associated with Air Evac. 

## LANDSIDE FACILITIES Landside facilities at the Airport include all areas, structures/facilities, and amenities that are not considered a part of the airfield system. GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL The Airport currently has a dedicated general aviation terminal that provides approximately 2,200 square feet of space located on the north west portion of the parking apron. Amenities in the terminal building include restrooms and a resting/lounging area. Auto parking for the terminal is provided by a concrete parking lot north of the terminal building. HANGARS There are currently eight T-hangar structures on the field. These T-hangars include five 10-unit structures 40 feet by 320 feet, one 10-unit structure at 40 feet by 330 feet, one 8-unit structure at 40 feet by 215 feet, and one 4-unit structure at 40 feet by 120 feet. Five of these structures are located on the east end of field and the remaining three are located west of the terminal building and apron. Additional hangars include nine individual box hangars of various sizes situated north of the full-length parallel taxiway. Any future construction of these structures is solely dependent upon market conditions and future aircraft operations. FUEL FACILITY The aviation fuel tank includes one (1) underground AVGAS/100LL storage tank located underneath the apron. This underground storage tank has a capacity of 10,000-gallons and is

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 6 

### owned by the City of Wetumpka. Air Evac owns a Jet A tank but it is only utilized for their services. SEGMENTED CIRCLE AND BEACON The lighted wind cone and segmented circle, which conveys wind direction and traffic patterns, is located 430 feet south of R unway 09/27 and approximately 1,150 feet east of the Runway 9 end. The Airport’s rotating beacon, atop a tower, emitting alternating green and white lights indicating the Airports location, is on the eastern part of airport property, north of the T-hangar grouping. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREA The Airport property includes a large undeveloped parcel of property south of the primary runway and east of the turf runway. This approximately 106-acre area is available for development of industrial and aviation compatible type businesses.



## ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Environmental considerations are one component of the overall analysis in determiningwhether an aviation facility is suited for expansion. According to US FEMA maps, from the midpoint of the turf runway to the southern end of airport property, a 100-year flood plain exists. This flood plain generally follows a northwest to southeast flow pattern that ultimately terminates in the Alabama River. Overall, the airport is located near two confluence areas from three rivers that flow in the area. Approximately 2.5 miles east, the Coosa and Alabama Rivers converge and approximately 3.5 miles southeast, the Alabama and Tallapoosa Rivers converge. The Alabama River, which flows to the Gulf of Mexico, begins at these confluent points. Figure B on the next page illustrates the floodmap for the area.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 7 FIGURE B FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP – ELMORE COUNTY

Source: FEMA Flood Map 01051C0289E, Elmore County, AL, 18 July 2011.



## TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE The transportation network providing access to the Airport varies from two lane feeder to four lane arterial roadways. The primary access, State Highway 14, is a two lane road with turn lanes at various points along its route from the Town of Elmore, west, to Todd Trail, where it provides access to a four-lane arterial, Interstate 65. Airport Road, the western airport boundary, and Coosada Parkway, the eastern airport boundary, both run south for approximately for 3 miles from State Highway 14 before intersecting Coosada Road. Additional transportation modes near the Airport include a major trunk rail line owned by CSX. This north/south line is approximately 1,500 feet from the end of Runway 27. Any potential runway extensions at the airport will need to ac count for the location of this rail line, as relocating a rail line is extremely expensive and usually cost prohibitive. Additionally, coordination and seeking approval with most rail companies is long and arduous.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 8 

## UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE Alabama Power Company provides a majority of the power to the southern part of Alabama, which includes Elmore County. Major transmission lines with a height of approximately 40 to 50 feet are located on the west and south sides of the Airport. Ancillary electric lines from Central Alabama Electric Cooperative run parallel State Highway 14, which provide the service to the Airport. Brighthouse provides land-line telephone services, fiber optic cable, internet, and digital phone services to the region around the Airport. A telephone box is located along State Highway 14, just north of the terminal parking apron. Water is provided to the Airport along State H ighway 14 by the Elmore Water Authority. The main office building for this authority is located at the intersection point of Airport Road and State Highway 14, just west of the Airport. A water main is located just east of the entrance to the terminal and apron area. A dedicated sewer line is not available. Facilities on the field must rely upon in-ground septic systems. Natural gas provided by Alabama Gas Company is available in the area. However, further investigation is needed to ascertain the exact location of existing lines and junction areas to tie into. A high pressure gas line and easement traverses the southern end of airport property.



## CONCLUSIONS Wetumpka Municipal Airport is categorized as a General Aviation airport and designated as a Community Airport in the Alabama Statewide System Plan. It is included in the NPIAS and located in an area well served by general aviation airports. A review of the airside facilities, landside facilities, transportation corridors and utilities show an adequate measure of infrastructure and vacant property to the south. The FEMA 100 year flood plain is present on the property and is expected to heavily impact development. Currently, the airport is operating at an RDC of B-II-5200.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 2 

### – EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY

Section 2 

### 2 - 9 FIGURE C EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Source: Google Earth, Wetumpka Municipal Airport, AL 23 September 2012

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 

### 1 

## INTRODUCTION This section utilizes the recommended aviation/industrial facilities from Section 1 and the airport inventory from Section 2 to evaluate the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport. Section 1 outlined the following: existing and potential aviation demand; recommended airport facilities needed to meet that demand; and recommended industrial facilities needed to meet the demand of current and future economic development. Section 2 detailed the inventory available including the following: airside and landside infrastructure; environmental concerns; transportation corridors; and utilities available. The evaluation was based on the recommended aviation facilities that includes: runway length of 4,000 feet; ultimate expansion length to 5,000 feet; RDC of B-II-5200; and the associated safety areas and runway protection zones. In addition, this evaluation describes the capability of adding the recommended industrial facilities to the adjacent land parcels. Known obstructions such as utility lines, flood plains, non-airport property and transportation corridors were analyzed during the evaluation for their impact on future improvements.


## EVALUATION FOR AERONAUTICAL EXPANSION With future operations levels forecasted and future airfield facilities identified, the necessary information is available to determine what type of facility is best to meet the goals of the western Elmore County region. With ample vacant land available for landside development, the driving factor for the airport to remain in its current location is based on the airside needs, more specifically, runway length. In an effort to meet the 5,000 foot minimum length for business jet operators, a runway extension of ultimately 1,989 feet would be required. The operational data in Section 1 and national general aviation data suggest a runway length of 4,000 feet would be sufficient to accommodate 100% of the small aircraft fleet in the region in all-weather conditions coupled with aircraft insurance requirements. Acceptable runway orientation would be bearings anywhere between 7/25 to 18/36. Based on the two runway lengths, four separate runway development alternatives were explored. The first two are along the existing primary runway alignment at Wetumpka Municipal while the second set are aligned north-south along or near the existing turf runway. The figures on pages 3-5 through 3-8, Figure A, Figure B, Figure C, and Figure D , illustrate the requirements needed to accommodate each potential runway extension and the associated runway protection zones, safety areas, and object free areas. The existing 100-year flood plain and existing Alabama Power Company lines have also been shown on the figures to provide the limits of where potential development can occur. As reflected in these figures and in Table I on the next page, runway length deficiencies are shown at checkpoint intervals, as mandated in the Airport Design manual. The deficiencies are measured from the existing Wetumpka Municipa l Airport runway length of 3,011 feet.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 

### 2 TABLE I RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Aircraft Category Length Deficiency
Small aircraft with less than 10 seats 95% of small aircraft fleet 3,180’ 169’ 100% of small aircraft fleet 3,780’ 769’ Small aircraft with 10 or more seats 4,380’ 1,369’ Aircraft between 12,500 and 60,000 pounds 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,740 - 5,450’ 1,729 - 2,439’ 75% of fleet at 90% useful load 7,110’ 4,099’ 100% of fleet at 60% useful load 5,680’ 2,669’ 100% of fleet at 90% useful load 9,060’ 6,049’ Source: AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Generalized length only. Actual length requirements/need should be calculated based on the specific

aircraft’s operational nomographs. Useful load refers to all usable fuel, passengers, and cargo. Calculations based on approximately 200 feet above mean sea level airport elevation and mean

maximum daily temperature of 95 Ý F. Figures are increased 10 feet for each foot of elevation difference between high and low points of

runway centerline. 

## FIGURE A: 4,000-FOOT EAST WEST RUNWAY The first alternative, Figure A , maintains the eastern runway end and extends the existing runway to the west for a total length of 4,000 feet. Coinciding fu ll-length parallel taxiways, 240 feet from runway centerline, could be constructed and extended on both sides of the runway to accommodate terminal development on the north side of the runway and industrial development on the south side. Airport Road wo uld need to be closed to accommodate this extension. An aeronautical survey would need to be conducted to ascertain whether the existing 115 kV/46 kV power lines to the west or any other object in the airport vicinity pose an obstruction to the future airspace surfaces. This alternative will retain the RDC B-II standards and require approximately 12 acres of additional property. 

## FIGURE B: 5,000-FOOT EAST WEST RUNWAY The second alternative, Figure B , would extend the existing runway to the west for a total length of 5,000 feet. Coinciding full-length parallel taxiways, 240 feet from runway centerline, would be constructed and extended on both sides of the runway to accommodate terminal development on the north side of the runway and industrial development on the south side. Both Airport Road and a private road would need to be closed to accommodate this extension. An aeronautical survey would need to be conducted to ascertain whether the existing 115 kV/46 kV power lines to the west pose an obstruction to the future airspace surfaces. This

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 

### 3 

### alternative will retain the RDC B-II standards an d require approximately 25 acres of additional property. 

## FIGURE C: 4,000-FOOT NORTH SOUTH RUNWAY Due to the large amount of undeveloped land south of the main runway, the third alternative is a north-south orientation of the primary runway and is taking advantage of existing vacant airport property. The new runway, built to RDC B-II standards, would be 4,000 feet in length and 75 feet in width, with a full-length parallel taxiway on the west side. Access from the existing aviation facilities would be offered from a connector taxiway off the existing Runway 9 end to the newly proposed parallel taxiway. Landside access and new terminal development could occur from and adjacent to Airport Road. This alternative does not require road closure. It will require obstruction evaluation of a 115 kV power line beyond the southern runway end. Several homes to the east of the new runway may need to be acquired to meet ROFA standards or the runway could shifted to the west to eliminate this acquisition; however, shifting the runway to the west eliminates terminal development areas along Airport Road. This alternative also would require significant construction within the existing 100-year flood plain. In addition, a high pressure gas line easement runs nearly perpendicular across the runway layout. This alternative will retain the RDC B-II standards and require approximately 37 acres of additional property. 

## FIGURE D: 5,000-FOOT NORTH SOUTH RUNWAY The final alternative reorients the primary runw ay to a north-south alignment, taking advantage of existing vacant airport property much like the previous alternative. The new runway, built to RDC B-II standards, would be 5,000 feet in length and 75 feet in width, with a full-length parallel taxiway on the west side. Access from the existing aviation facilities would be offered from a connector taxiway off the existing Runway 9 end to the newly proposed parallel taxiway. Landside access and new terminal development could occur from and adjacent to Airport Road. While this alternative does not require the closure of any existing roads, it will require relocation or burial of a 115 kV power line. Additionally, it appears several homes to the east of the new runway will need to be acquired to meet ROFA standards or the runway could shifted to the west to eliminate this acquisition; howeve r, shifting the runway to the west eliminates terminal development areas along Airport Road. This alternative also would require significant construction within the existing 100-year flood plain, also encompasses the area housing the high pressure gas line easement. This alternativ e will retain the RDC B-II standards and require approximately 45 acres of additional property.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 

### 4 

## SUMMARY OF AIRFIELD SITE EVALUATION After the evaluations, and considering the known factors outlined above, the most feasible option is to keep the existing runway alignment and extend westward to the desired length. This would be the most sensible approach for expansion at the current site, and minimizes environmental mitigation, utility relocation and land acquisition. This alternative would involve relocation of Airport Road and the relocation of utility lines in the proposed runway protection zone. These particular utility lines would be le ss labor intensive and more economical than the larger concrete structures that traverse airport property to the south. In addition, the east-west alignment does not lie within an floodplains, thus minimizing the effects of future storm-water and the potential impacts of wetlands. The construction price of airfield infrastructure would decrease as it is proposed to utilize existi ng pavements. The figures on the following pages summarize how the recommended airfield facilities could be laid out at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE

Section 3 

### 3 - 

### 5 

### FIGURE A ALTERNATE PRIMARY RUNWAY ALIGNMENTS – 4,000-FOOT EAST-WEST ALIGNMENT

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 9 

## EVALUATION FOR CO-LOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL PARK FACILITY Utilizing the Industrial Park data gathered in Section 1, this section attempts to portray the ideal Industrial Park Facility at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport. Blending the proposed aviation and industrial activities is important when molding the conceptual layout of the proposed industrial facility layout onto the existing facility. Incorporation of the Airport Rules and Regulations, Minimum Standards, and other applicable ordinances will need to be referenced to ensure conformity. The current Wetumpka Municipal Airport’s Minimum Standards outlines basic operat ional characteristics for Fixed Base Operators and Specialized Aviation Service Operators. However, this document will likely be amended in the future to account for additional requirements necessary for aeronautical and non-aeronautical development that is airport-friendly. As stated in Section 1, development of an estimated 140-acre industrial park is the focal point of this particular task. ECEDA has identified the following business types for development at the Airport’s industrial park: aircraft/aerospace components manufacturing, Tier 1 and 2 automotive parts, workforce education training centers, medical evacuation teams, data centers or technology cluster parks. 

## TRANSPORTATION DESIGN CRITERIA AND DISCUSSION In preparing the industrial park layout at the existing airport, certain factors were taken into consideration. These factors are as follows: 4 Aviation related facilities are a priority and should have immediate access to the airside infrastructure; 4 Apron developed for Industrial Park area was sized based on the data received from the Corporate User Surveys (see Appendix E for calculations); 4 Two immediate ingress/egress points; 4 Building heights and set-backs will be compatible with future development and improved approaches identified for the airfield and; 4 Drainage modifications The industrial park layout was developed with each of these factors in mind. Additionally, anticipated standard lot sizes have been delineated, utility and roadway right-of-ways have been included, and apron areas have all been shown. For clarification, specific color schemes have been chosen to represent categories of development items. These schemes allow for easy understanding of facilities and represent responsible parties from a cost standpoint and are as follows: 4 Red: Helicopter rescue squad lot, could vary in location 4 Gray: Airfield pavement

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 10 

### 4 Brown: 25-foot-wide roadways (ROW for utilities provided, 65 feet total) and parking area 4 Blue: Proposed lot boundaries 4 Green: Hangars and office space See Section 1 for the Standard Lot size. Should the Airport desire to adjust the “Standard” lot, modifications can be easily incorporated to create a smaller standard lot serving smaller corporate aircraft. 

## UTILITIES Section 2 outlines the existing utilities at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport. The planned land use for the majority of the development is outlined in Section 1. These types of uses generally create heavy demand for water, sewer, and other infrastructure. The high demand systems, such as electrical, water, and sewer, shou ld be re-analyzed to satisfy all parties that the proposed infrastructure is sufficient to serve their anticipated needs. A brief evaluation of the utilities in the industrial area is as follows: 4 Water is readily available along Alabama State Highway 14. Expansion to the actual industrial area should be expected. 4 No sanitary sewer exists in the area. It is expected that an engineered sewage system will be installed to accommodate loads expected for an industrial system. 4 Stormwater in the area is diverted by older storm-water inlets placed in areas along the south side of the airfield property. It is expected that these inlets will be capped north of the runway, and filled and abandoned. Drainage will be diverted to the east end of airport property via satisfactory drainage structures and detained for post-development release in the open channels along Coosada Parkway. 4 A high-pressure gas easement is in pl ace at the airport and depicted on Figure E on page 3-12. Natural gas should be readily available at the airport site. 4 Electricity, telephone, fiber optic, internet and other communications utilities are readily available at the airport. 4 A portion of the airport along Highway 14 contains security fencing, however it is anticipated that the owners/leasees of the proposed industrial park shall determine where to place security fencing on their leases. It is the intent to fence/separate the AOA from industrial operations.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 11 

## SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL PARK SITE EVALUATION The recommended industrial facility from Section 1 contains an estimated 140 acres of land which includes lot land, transportation corridors, right-of-ways and aviation infrastructure. Areas available at the existing airport, outside all Aircraft Movement Areas and Object Free Areas, totals approximately 106 acres. While shuffling the sites to find the most appropriate layout for the facility, it was deemed necessary that approximately 56 acres of land to the southeast of airport property would need to be purchased to accommodate the entire industrial facility. This number is variable and will change depending on the application and location of lots, and the immediate and long term needs of the facility. Certain lots could be appropriately placed according to the demand at that point in time. Lots with direct airfield access could be constructed immediately with minimal obstacles due the land already being owned by the City of Wetumpka. The large 20-acre lot (or a mixture of other sizes) could be immediately located between the two runways north of the gas easement. More lots could be located at the extreme southern end of property. All other lots would require additional transportation corridors and additional land acquisition. Some of the proposed development would take place inside the 100 year flood plain, so consideration to earthwork costs should be included in development costs. Figure E on the following page illustrates the industrial facility footprint at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 12 

### FIGURE E INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT ON EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 13 

## CONCLUSIONS Using the data from the preceding sections, the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport was evaluated for its capability to accommodate the recommended aviation/industrial facilities in the western Elmore County region. While there would be significant challenges associated with the growth effort, the current Wetumpka Municipal Airport site is capable of handling the proposed demands in a phased, planned manner over the course of the typical airport planning period. Coordination with all municipalities and governing agencies will be a critical aspect of the development moving forward. Exact timing of the improvements would be based on the justification of exact airfield and industrial demands at the time and funding appropriations for all capital developments. Upon final review, it is recommended that the City of Wetumpka, ECEDA and ALDOT move forward with the planned facilities at the Wetumpka Municipal Airport site. Figure F on the following page summarizes the ultimate aviation and industrial facility footprint at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 

### 3 

### – EVALUATION OF WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR RECOMMENDED AIRPORT 

### / INDUSTRIAL SITE



### Section 3 3 - 14 

### FIGURE F AIRFIELD/INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LAYOUT ON EXISTING WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL CONCLUSIONS


## FINAL CONCLUSIONS The Alabama Department of Transportation, City of Wetumpka, and Elmore County Economic Development Authority joined together to investigate the feasibility of developing a regional aviation facility with an adjacen t industrial park in western Elmore County. The study identified the current aviation/industrial demand for the study area; conducted an inventory of the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport; and evaluated the capability of the existing airport to accommodate the identified demand. This study revealed that the current and expected aviation demand of the region, based on existing annual operations and the operational data recorded from the user surveys, is adequately accommodated with current airport facilities in the region. The study identified the demand upon the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport as recreational, sport, and other small aircraft operations, and this activity is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the business jet and corporate traffic demand is well served by other airports in the region, specifically the Montgomery Regional Airport and Prattville-Grouby Field Airport. The study’s inventory and analysis of the Wetumpka Municipal Airport identified the airport’s facilities as appropriate for the current and expected demand placed upon it; specifically, that of a facility configured as a Community Airport as defined in the Alabama Statewide Airport System Plan. Further, an analysis was incorp orated into the study to determine if modest expansion was reasonably feasible, resulting in the conclusion that the runway (and other associated airfield infrastructure) was expandable to lengths of 4,000 feet and 5,000 feet. However, such expansion is not currently justified and is included in this report for illustration and future planning purposes only. Also indentified was the potential demand for a co -located industrial park which consisted of a defined need for approximately 140 acres of readily available land for development. The study’s inventory of current airport property revealed land available for industrial development that is not readily usable for aviation purposes. This land area could accommodate portions of the approximately 140 acre industrial park, provided the development is compatible with airfield operations and following close coordin ation with the Federal Aviation Administration and Alabama Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Aeronautics. The Wetumpka Municipal Airport serves a vibrant an d vital role in the western Elmore County region, accommodating small aircraft operations at its current configuration and operational status. This study concludes that the Airport meets current and expected future demands.

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX



# APPENDIX A

## AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY – WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY, ALABAMA POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY

Thank you for your time! Page - 1 

### Dear Business Aviation User:
The Alabama Department of Transportation’s Aeronautics Bureau has commissioned Garver, LLC , to conduct an Airport Feasibility Study that will identify the airport facility requirements needed to best serve the growing western Elmore County region of central Alabama. The study will determine the feasibility of constructing a longer runway at the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport or developing a new replacement airport with a 5,500 foot runway that will serve western Elmore County. This important study is being conducted at the request of, and in cooperation with the City of Wetumpka, Alabama and the Elmore County Economic Development Authority (ECEDA)

. Your firm has been identified as a potentially valuable source of information in determining the future airport needs for western Elmore County which is one of central Alabama’s faster growing communities. By taking a few moments to complete the enclosed survey, you can provide extremely important inputon the type(s) of aircraft your firm operates, its utilization, and the aviation strengths and needs of the tricounty area of Montgomery, Elmore and Autauga counties. Specifically, we need you to tell us what type of airport your firm prefers to use and the airport facilities you feel are important to satisfy your firm’s air transportation needs. The accompanying survey is intended to be completed by your firm’s chief pilot. If you are not the chief pilot of your firm, please re-direct this survey to him or her. Our personnel will be pleased to answer your questions and re-direct any survey requests to your firm’s chief pilot if necessary. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed survey, please contac t Matt Mims with Garver, LLC at (850) 837-3330. The completed survey can be returned to Garver, LLC by one of three ways. The survey can be returned to us in the postage paid envelope we have included, it can be scanned and e-mailed to MLMims@GarverUSA.com , or it can be faxed to Garver, LLC at (850)837-4848 to the attention of Mr. Matt Mims. Individual survey data will not be released. The information you provide will be compiled with other responses to assist in determining the future airport facility needs and preferences for western Elmore County. Thank you for taking a few moments to answer the enclosed survey. Your answers and comments are important. Sincerely, Garver, LLC

## AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY – WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY, ALABAMA POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY

Thank you for your time! Page - 2 

### BUSINESS AIRCRAFT USER SURVEY This survey is divided into two parts. Part A seeks to obtain some information about your firm and your firm’s aircraft utilization when visiting the Montgomery, Alabama region. Part B of the survey seeks to determine the types of airport facilities your firm looks for or prefers when it visits the “River Region” area of Montgomery, Autauga and Elmore Counties.



### PART A: Business Aircraft Utilization 1. Business Name: _____________________________________________________________________ Principle Business Address: _________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: _________________________ Zip: _________________________ Telephone: ____________________ E-Mail: ____________________________________________________ Survey Respondent’s Name/Title: / 2. Type of business/work:  Manufacturing  Wholesale / Retail  Professional Services / Business Consulting  Construction  Real Estate  Government  Energy / Utilities  Aircraft Charter  Other (please identify): ________________________________________
3. What type of aircraft does your firm own or most often use when flying into the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region and where is it primarily based? Aircraft type(s): Based Airport: _____________________________________________________________________ 4. How often does your firm fly into the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region? _______ Never _______ trips per week _______ trips per month _______ trips per year 5. What airport does your firm most frequently use when visiting the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region?
 Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field)  Prattville – Grouby Field Airport  Wetumpka Municipal Airport  Other (please specify): _________________________________________ a. Is this airport your final destination or is it an intermediate stop en route to your final destination?
 Final Destination  Intermediate stop
b . If this airport is your final destination, do you and/or your passengers consider it a convenient location when you or they visit the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region?
 Yes  No

## AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY – WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY, ALABAMA POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY

Thank you for your time! Page - 3 

### 6. When your firm flies into the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region, how far do your passengers typically have to travel (one-way) by automobile to arrive at the place or business they are visiting (check the most often traveled distance)?:
 0-10 miles  11-25 miles  Greater than 25 miles
7. When your firm flies into the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region, what is the primary purpose of the trip for you or your passengers (please check those that apply)? :  Visiting one of your firm’s plan/business sites  Marketing/business development  Customer/client support  Parts/supplies/shipments (cargo delivery/pickup)  Plant facility inspections/maintenance  Business conferences/seminars/meetings  Other: ________________________________________


### PART B: Airport Facility Requirements/Preferences
8. Other than aircraft performance specifications, are there any runway length requirements that your firm’s aircraft is limited to?
 No  Yes (if yes, please check all that apply)  Insurance policy restrictions  Company policies  FAR Part 135 Requirements  Other (please specify): ______________________________________ If yes, what is your runway length limi tation: _______________________ feet minimum
9. What type of Instrument Approach Procedure do you most often prefer, utilize or require when visiting the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region?
 Non-precision (no GPS) approach  Precision (ILS) approach  GPS/WAAS approach
10. How often do you utilize the following types of Instrument Approach Procedure? a. Non-precision (no GPS) approach:  Never  Sometimes  Always b. Precision (ILS) approach:  Never  Sometimes  Always c. GPS/WAAS approach:  Never  Sometimes  Always
11. When considering landing at an airport, do you require an Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) to plan your flight?
 Never  Sometimes  Always

## AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY – WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY, ALABAMA POTENTIAL CORPORATE USER SURVEY

Thank you for your time! Page - 4 

### 12. How often do you purchase fuel when your firm flies into the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region?
 Never  Sometimes  Always If ‘Always’ or ‘Sometimes’, what is your typical fuel order? ______________ ____ gallons 13. What types of terminal facilities do you look for when considering landing at an airport? Check all that apply:
 Fuel availability  Quiet room for flight crew  Flight planning room  Hangar space  Business meeting (conference) room  Wi-Fi/Internet availability  Aircraft maintenance service availability  Car rental availability  Other (please specify): ______________________________________

14 . Would an airport with suitable runway length and other facilities/services located in proximity to the existing Wetumpka Municipal Airport (08A) offer more, less or about the same convenience as the airport you fly into when visiting the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region of Alabama (please check one)?
 More  Less  About the same
15. Generally, what runway length is required to meet your needs for all weather conditions in the Montgomery/Autauga/Elmore County region?
 Less than 3,000 feet  3,000 feet to 3,999 feet  4,000 feet to 4,999 feet  5,000 feet to 5,500 feet
16 . Generally, what percentage of aircraft useful load would you be able to utilize at an airport with the following runway lengths? Less than 3,000 feet: ______________________ 3,000 feet to 3,999 feet: ____________________ 4,000 feet to 4,999 feet: ____________________ 5,000 feet to 5,500 feet: ____________________
GENERAL COMMENTS
Please offer any comments important to you, but not previously addressed (please use additional sheets for your comments, as needed):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX



# APPENDIX B

### AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY – WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY, ALABAMA WETUMPKA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TENANT SURVEY

Thank you for your time! Page - 1 

### Mr. XXXX XXXX Street Wetumpka, Alabama
The Alabama Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Bureau, at the request of and in cooperation with the City of Wetumpka and the Elmore County Economic Development Authority , has commissioned Garver, LLC to develop an Airport Feasibility Study to identify the aviation facility needs to serve the Western Elmore County region. As a current airport tenant, you can provide valuable information concerning airport usage, needs and priorities. Your comments are appreciated, and can be returned in the postage paid envelope, scanned and emailed to MLMims@GarverUSA.com, or faxed to 850-837-4848 – Attn: Matt Mims. For questions please call Matt Mims, PE at (850) 837-3330. We assure strict confidence in your response!

PILOT AND AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY 1. How many years have you been a tenant at Wetumpka Municipal Airport? _______________ 2. What make/model aircraft do you operate? __________________________________________________ Do you:  Rent  Own  Neither 3. Indicate the type and percentage of your aircraft activity?
 Pleasure / Recreational %  Agricultural %  Personal Business %  Flight Training %  Corporate (Part 135) %  Military %  Cargo %  Other: % 4. Average monthly operations at Wetumpka Municipal Airport: Average monthly flights at the airport? __________ Average monthly touch & go’s at the airport? __________ Average monthly instrument approaches at the airport? __________ Average number of passengers per flight? __________ 5. Indicate your annual runway use at Wetumpka Municipal Airport? Percent Runway 9-27 (asphalt) usage? ___________ % Percent Runway 18-36 (grass) usage? ___________ % 6. Projected aircraft use?  Rent  Keep aircraft  Purchase other aircraft  Sell If “Purchase other aircraft”, what type(s)? _______________,_______________,________________ 7. Will your projected activity at the Airport:  Increase  Remain the same  Decline 8. Please offer any comments important to you, but not previously addressed (please use additional sheets as needed):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX



# APPENDIX C

### Elmore County Wind Data: Montgomery 95

Ͳ 04 All Weather Winds Runway Bearing Crosswind Component 10.5 13 16 18/36 95.00 97.32 99.41 01/19 93.49 96.93 99.3 02/20 93.98 96.65 99.23 03/21 93.81 96.58 99.21 04/22 93.9 96.69 99.23 05/23 94.21 96.92 99.31 06/24 94.64 97.24 99.42 07/25 95.17 97.58 99.54 08/26 95.73 97.92 99.65 09/27 96.32 98.24 99.73 10/28 96.87 98.49 99.78 11/29 97.27 98.7 99.82 12/30 97.48 98.85 99.84 13/31 97.5 98.92 99.84 14/32 97.28 98.86 99.8 15/33 96.87 98.63 99.74 16/34 96.31 98.25 99.65 17/35 95.67 97.78 99.53 Optimal Runway Alignment 123.5 Ͳ 128.25DFN:AN 72226A.PRN72226 Montgomery,ALANNUALPERIODRECORD1995Ͳ20040Ͳ3KTS 4Ͳ7KTS 8Ͳ10KTS 11Ͳ16KTS 17Ͳ22KTS 23Ͳ28KTS 29Ͳ34KTS 35Ͳ40KTS 41+KTS360 257 625 478 135 3 0 1 0 0010 240 758 490 122 3 0 0 0 0020 158 675 529 106 1 0 0 0 0030 188 667 400 98 4 0 0 0 1040 169 588 312 67 3 0 0 0 0050 162 484 288 59 5 1 1 0 0060 158 439 305 82 11 0 0 0 0070 180 443 422 152 14 1 2 0 0080 256 645 590 252 27 5 1 0 0090384 1159 925 402 28 11 1 1 0100411 1523 1176 371 291200110344 1381 908 256 173200120 252 938 622 181 16 0 0 0 0130 170 646 478 122 6 1 0 1 0140 159 607 464 139 16 0 1 0 0150 188 539 425 122 14 1 0 0 0160 178 610 406 155 17 4 0 0 0170 240 652 394 178 14 1 1 0 0180 234 729 539 190 11 1 0 0 0190 302 859 588 197 6 1 0 0 0200 357 999 597 162 4 1 1 0 0210426 1056 465 120510003600100200300400500600700800901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302402502602702802903003103203303403500Ͳ3KTS4Ͳ7KTS8Ͳ10KTS11Ͳ16KTS17Ͳ22KTS23Ͳ28KTS29Ͳ34KTS35Ͳ40KTS41+KTS220 449 991 402 94 8 0 0 0 0230 375 856 334 71 3 0 0 0 0240 292 717 354 66 2 0 0 0 0250 250 696 367 86 5 1 0 0 0260 201 684 429 112 8 0 0 0 0270 179 713 478 158 15 3 0 0 0280 159 746 590 252 40 4 1 0 0290 188 774 717 402 62 5 0 0 0300 181 848 785 459 71 6 0 1 0310 194 823 832 510 71 4 0 0 0320 185 762 797 509 60 2 0 0 0330 216 708 644 346 31 2 0 0 0340 184 550 485 240 17 1 0 0 0350 155 520 442 163 6 1 0 0 0170180190

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX



# APPENDIX DApron Analysi s Year Current 20 yr. Growth @ 1.7%
Transient Traffic 32,500 45,530 Local Traffic 6,900 9,666 Based Fleet 80 112 Total 39,480 55,309 Present Day Design
Aircraft Daily Daily SY Total Operations Aircraft Required SY
Transient 89 45 360 16,027 Local 19 9 300 2,836 Minimum Apron Area 18,863
Aircraft Daily Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Aircraft Design Design Adjusted Adjusted Daily Transient Aircraft 45 11 0 11 0 Based Fleet 80 60 20 10 70
Totals 125 71 20 21 70
20 Year Design
Aircraft Daily Daily SY Total Operations Aircraft Required SY
Transient 125 62 360 22,453 Local 26 13 300 3,973 Minimum Apron Area 26,426
Aircraft Daily Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Aircraft Design Design Adjusted Adjusted Daily Transient Aircraft 62 16 0 15 0 Based Fleet 112 84 28 14 98
Totals 174 100 28 30 98
Assumptions: 32,500 91% 6,900 9%

80

98 Based Fleet from 5010

Hangar Spaces Adjusted for 20 years @ 1.7% Annual Transient Traffic from 5010 Annual Local Traffic from 5010 Number of Apron Spaces for Larger Aircraft - Present Day Design Appendix 5 ALDOT System Plan

Hangar Spaces at Existing Airport (65 T-hangar spaces and assumed 5 corporate hangar spaces) 70 Number of Apron Spaces for Larger Aircraft - 20 Year Design 1

2 Airport Master Plan - Facility Requirements Airfield

91 91

Multi-Engine Aircraft Single-Engine Aircraft 128 128 AC 150/5300-13 Chapter 5

Apron Analysis

Page 1

### WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX



# APPENDIX EApron Analysi s Year Current 20 yr. Growth @ 1.7%
Transient Traffic 1,915 2,683 Local Traffic 406 569 Based Fleet 5 7 Total 2,326 3,259 Present Day Design
Aircraft Daily Daily SY Total Operations Aircraft Required SY
Transient 5 3 360 944 Local 1 1 300 167 Minimum Apron Area 1,111
Aircraft Daily Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Aircraft Design Design Adjusted Adjusted Daily Transient Aircraft 3 1 0 NA NA Based Fleet 5 4 1 NA NA
Totals 8 4 1 0 0

20 Year Design
Aircraft Daily Daily SY Total Operations Aircraft Required SY
Transient 7 4 360 1,323 Local 2 1 300 234 Minimum Apron Area 1,557
Aircraft Daily Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Apron Spaces Hangar Spaces Aircraft Design Design Adjusted Adjusted Daily Transient Aircraft 4 1 0 NA NA Based Fleet 7 5 2 NA NA
Totals 11 6 2 0 0

Assumptions:

1,915 100%
406

5

NA Annual Local Traffic from 5010 (assumed 17.5% will base plane, from GA numbers) Number of Apron Spaces for Larger Aircraft - Present Day Design ALDOT System Plan

Hangar Spaces at Existing Airport NA Number of Apron Spaces for Larger Aircraft - 20 Year Design All

All Based Fleet from 5010 (80/6900)*406

Hangar Spaces Adjusted for 20 years @ 1.7% Annual Transient Traffic from User Surveys, projected over the 300 survey respondents, 2,321, less the project based planes below Airport Master Plan - Facility Requirements Airfield

6 0

Jet or Turbine traffic 8 0 AC 150/5300-13 Chapter 5

Apron Analysis

Appendix 5

Page 1h*- ll 9' 

### 1



# ffi

STATB Otr I'L}EAHA riltfi"r{r.,Fh r trfl..ii:



### rJ$i:tiftrRAlig_
" COUtlfC OF E.ITHORB 

## 001il 8 nqREEHEIU TIIIS AGRSBIIENr made and entered Lnto on 

## \p+3. , 1989, by anil between bha undoralsned uunlc-lpal corporation, he:elnaftor referred HCPr lnc. ? a corporatlon, herelnaftet referred nnf'onl6.i'Sld,tF'?ft" 

### ' E.?r, ENSI rlt.Juo[E HEJUT?6 HASB
thts db - day of Clty of Watunpkar A to aE tleslorr and to as the 'L€g8eet.HrrNEsEEtgtThat f,oE qnd 

### ln congiilorablon 

### of the AutleB and obllgatlone hereby agsurned 

### iy-the part,lea anil 

### of the nutual agEeoment,E herolnafter stat€d, the geasor doea lieteby grant .Lo the rrasresr '-rubJect, 

### to th€ prwlslonal excdptrons'and reoervatlone herelnafber etated. certaln 

### rlghta anCt prLvlleg:s 

### In regard t'c a part 

### of the '.Tleiunpka Hunlclpal Al.rport propert:,r belng altuated ln.Elnore CounEtl Alabanar ind bel:,t'"'.igre -Bartlcularly dEacribecl ag'follovsr 'l Begln 

### at an lron pin;

. ..ated 

### at the nortbpalt Corner of Soctlon ?3-r- 

### !-10-tr, 

### .i:tZ-6, ElnoEE Corintyl Afabenji



### . thence S 00 

### deg. 

### t8: 30r N 539,9t, 

### to iri lron plli located 

### ln a cqrve. on bhe'ltorth Rlehbs-of-Hay 

### of 

### ffablrni : .IrghY'ay14l-thg.nceBouthfesber1ya[onggatdLurve(gfi;;e 

### Bear{ngg83deg.03ll{tctrora-'oletairce220.9{'lloan 

### ' llon pln anil enrl 

### pf cqrvet Lhenbe continue aleirs eaih Illghte-of-ttay S 88 cleg, 

### Oli tt 3?9,60r 

### to an 

### lrori plnr

. ',hence leavlng eald Rlghts-of,-t{ay N 00 deg. 1gr 

### 3. ii'
: 

### '.5?5.i6r 

### to an- 

### lron ptni thenc;-ft 

### ig-a"s.'-lsi oo. 

### a ' 598;50 

### | to the _potni of, Deg.lnntng. coritatnlng '1.?i acre6, mofe 9r _lcea' agrl ly1n9 

### ln and belng 

### a pdrt of bhe NE 

### Ll[ ot th-e HE 

### 1/{ of seotlon 23, f-16-N. n-t?-81



### . Elnore Countyr llabana.
conmense 

### at En lron ptn r ocatoar 

### at the N'ortheast 'corner 

### ol seotlon_ZJr r-la-frr-r R-t.z-Ee simdi" 

### d;unti, eralinrar bhence s 89 degr.egg 45r 09" tr 59g.S0r 

### to an 

### liba ptn ani



### . point 

### of beglnnl!9 

### for the hereln desorlbe<l 

### pajcet 

### -f Land, thence 

### I 00 Degrees 

### tgr 30r 

### fl 5?5.g6t do afr lron 

### pln located on 

### the North 

### Rlghts-of-ray 

### of Alabama

.'|tr;q,1r:rv..i,- '.;rr...i-rr -..!r.l..tr..z ri ,.-i1;;1r;; '.,:;;

. i 1.;",1.i..; ,' I 't rg

T t

t .i .1 I
) j

I



### ',9"qqge 1

### IRetj€[.rnlud__ 

## 00lt t7 ''Tfr:l'fitt'ffJ,)'ligP Ft$Jt|t 28 H A5B {lshwor Ho. -1{-t -l}r^-enoe along sald North Rlghts-of,-nay 

### I 88 Degrecs 0-3 

### I 00r 

### tl 590.00! 

### to an iron-pl.n1 thense

. 

### leavlng aaldl .Rlghgs-of,-t{oy N 

### 0l )egreea 

### 57r 00r $ '593'?0t 

### to an 

### iron 

### plnl thence 

### tt 89 Oegreee ,l5r 0Or E 6L2.97t 

### to the polnt 

### of beglnntng. Contelnlng B.0Z qgrBBr tttotrE 

### ot leas, and 

### lylnq 

### In anil being 

### a par! of, ths NB U4 

### of tho HE Ll4 

### of Eectlon 23, S-:3-Nr R-l?-Er Elnore Countyf llqbana. The above denerl_ptton. 

### ts taken from 

### [arry Er 

### sporltrf

,



### . suv€y doteal 

### llry 27 1909, A sutvey 

### of the leaaed premleee 

### ls outllnecl 

### ln ted end la attached hereto ae Exhlbtt 

### rA', In thB ev€nu 

### lt ls f,oundt Ltlet ghs above deacrlptlon 

### tB J,n'errorr the 

### Clty shall noL be 

### llable for such 

### error 4nd 

### uhall not bE taoponalble 

### .for tlrs consequengce of any nfutaheE 

### ln grid descrlpt{on. 1n -ang 6vont 

### thlo lease 

### la' dleapproveil-for ang reaudn by the feilesr,l 

### lvlatlon 'lrlmlnletratton {rFAi,rl 

### or ttis'Etat€ Department 

### gf Aeronautlcul. (rgutrr) 

### or bobhl the.Ctby ahalt: hot ba 

### llatte for coneeguencsE 

### of dkapproval of 

### thlo Iease by edthsr 

### ot sal{ agencleo. llowevcr, .l,n sub}i"eveRtr ihb agiee'il€nt daEdd'ab 

### of Jure 

### 1, figl, betreen the palttee shall

. ramain 

### tn f,ul1 force anit 

### eff,eot. Itpon PIIA and 8Dl appfovh,l o! 

### thle tc:c:, satd lgtaenent 

### latdd odne 1r 198?i btratt. bo 

### rrull and 

### vqld and 

### thls lease 

### rhal] be anil becone ef,festlve fou the tern "puct itua

. heritribelor ThB followtng 

### ahall be the tetri6, conrllllonr 

### lhd tgleerentl 'ot thLu agrreenent! 

### .1. Said prenlssa 

### are 

### leb tos tlre purposed and upop. ttro tormcr conillb|.ong and grovlalone harelnrfEet aet,fortlr 

### for a tern 

### of twenty (?01 yearE oommenc.lng mlitnlght on the 

### I day of .'*l t

,. t!

i

,t.. t, I i I I i

I : I I i'--lr'v.lt€r'-.-'d'\i,rt(:r.{.-.ri.b..l.t*-:;o &a:rr.::.ri.*ir,,aie,id'i..r.i-...r,r.i.,'!r 

## Sg.?,tr---. 19 8e 

## r and 

### ternlna.tlns on 

### tt 

## " - 

## i i a.y of I I I I

l.

I

r I r r,!,.,.. r.r r''., r.,r ^,r.!,r,,.tig...* ! t!-.!,i,i..i!,.!i{{i

., .':..' - .r :-- ' '..:! ', dtr' I :.. 

# (,. (

.4,. .iil

t:

.. 't 

# i
t t i

, 

# ,t
I ,I 

# .{

I

a

, 

# ,..t .l ,l t

. ,i I 'i 

### , . . .,. 

### .,

.. '..i1,r,.i"Jj



### . . ,. .ROLL?LFRAME-- 

## 00li ls ':1.. .i '-l ;'
f tLE0 tll ri(lgAIE oFFn€ ELir0fiE c0uBrY.tL, E,$.EHSL[!{, Jrri!|iE IrH Jui 26 Pil 2' 56 

### ArAqgjit:r 2009, thle leage perlod 

### shall be dtvlded 

### tnto fout eqUal trrme 

### of flve yeara 

### each. 

### ln addltlun Lo the tern mentlonecl abovs tho Ireedee 

### shall have tlre oPtlon 

### to renew 

### thle leaae 

### for an :tldltlona.I tern of, 

### flve (5f years on Buch terns ae 

### the Partlss hlVe agreed 

### bElo$. In. the eVenl that the Lresaee doea nob sl(srOlae 

### Ite optlon than sald l€aBe 

### rlll lmnadlately geEmtnaLs. 

### In thE event 

### that the leggee exerclees Lhe abovs nentlonsd opbton.the LeEaEe shall have one 

### addttlonll 

### ltve yoar optlon pallod 

### ' 0pun 

### ths expllrtlon 

### ot the secnnd optlonal tarmi 

### lf the aaile'hal baen exercleed' the teage 

### ehall explte 

### rhil tbe l,essee 

### ulll have no f,urther rlghln"uniler 

### ihls contract. Durlng each 

### of tbe'f,Ive year tsrnB, pIuE any fJ.ve year optlon period1 the Leasee 

### ehall pay'



### . aubJect 

### to the nlnlsun tent Provlelon llstecl belowl annual 

### tent to the Leesdr 

### ln'sn anount equal 

### to one-tsnth 

### oi on6 Petceng 

### of the 

### flrst $10 

### mtllloi of gtoss annual tncome 

### of the lreBsee f,ron 

### lte activltlda 

### at the loageil prenlles, plua one-twelfth 

### of one. Perseng 

### ' of all gropa aunual lncone 

### of Ell lnqom€ over 10 

### mllllon bub le.ssthan $12 

### rntlllon plue ono-fourtesnth 

### of one peroent oE 

### all .glo38



### . annua-r lncbnrp 

### of all lncone. 

### wB! SI2 

### mllllon but 

### lers than $1{ 

### nllllon plue one-alxteenih.og on€ percent of, 

### all Eross annual lnsome 

### of all tnoone over 9t4 mtlllon 

### lut less 

### tlan $16 

### nllllon plue ane-elghtsenth 

### o! one Percent of, 

### all groBs qnnual lnCOne of



### . lncome oyer .$L5 

### nllllon but le88 

### tbtn $18 

### ntLllon Plus one

### I b,wenttth 

### of one percent 

### of all groee lncone above $18 

### ntlllon. Durlng the 

### flrsb flve year parloa tfie annual mtntnun 

### lent ahall be $51000.00. 

### At the end 

### of each fIVe 

### yeat gernr lncludlng. anl' '3

':.{ rr I !r' i"it - u

. ".I t t

I

I -'t

!

t
;



### Answer Ex..
.i:.:.....1;..1... L.:. ;.d :l..- :..-.- ..'r-t..::r:.:'.ii: :ii':.'rl:' :;^l':jjli-li.i.Il':$gg-'g*'gt1:'-*!:it:'ii:$"iitljJlljg's:""'::i:"'i:j:';:: 9"'p.399,'9".},.n..:rJ,.ji:{..|'J]..,r...r'.!*;ij.i..rt'ili*il.':tiLr*.n,'i.l.rt.J'I!j':r;::jJj''.!ls..**|t'.lost I t! T T I

oFt:.on perioilr the ntnluu$ renl,al fse 

### sball lncreasg or d€creage dependlng upon the f,luctuatlon 

### ln the eonauner 

### prlcc 

### lnilex. IfI ninlmun rental ohajlgss 

### shall be based upon a Congumsr 

### lrlcs Index 

### ol -tJ-t_ and 

### ths Canoum€r prlce Inder 

### lletlnE as 

### 1t exlat, at 

### ths rroBt 

### recent 

### lteclng lrnrrredlately 

### prlor Ep the explratlon of, each 

### flvs year 

### perlod, The renE paymsnts rhaltr be made 

### ln crroalB no leeg than 60 d.ayo forlontng the end 

### of Lesgeela 

### flacal yearr Rent 

### for any f,ractlona! year ahall be protBtsct, Epon lentttanas 

### of the rental paynent,, 

### the IJeBEEB 

### wlll furnlah the 

### C.fy of ,flulTfpJtl vlLlr approprla'ta accounLing lnforiratlod 

### to vallda{.i ttre

. .rr'if:!t:,i'.;.i.: 'iiiii,_li.1tioe "f,ent clue under 

### thle agreemenb, The reoords 

### ot the li-ii'r'i 1i tr'.
, .'-

. '. 'ildiit" ii,'1riar be audlted 

### at any ttme by the r,eesnrt

" ll: '

. '. ilny holdover, rega,rdleoe of lts lengih, beyond any teln or ' toptlon'porlod shall ndb pe conritrued bo be a rendwal on bhs gane tetnr. lt betng dlatlncLly unalerstood by tlio lartie! that any renevol shail be uubJect bo renogottatton. 2, I,t ts apeclflcally aE!€eil that the teBdee chall huve the rtgfrtr rubJect to the 1awa, iuleg and regulatlons of f,e0eralr. dtate1 counby and cJ.ty governmonts and qf, good sa{ety pracLtcon bo engags ln lEe manufacturlng buelneas, ' 3. Ehs lregaeel ILs auccegrors and.asalgneT aE a.Farb of.the oonskleratlqn hereof, Ctoe6 hereby covertan! and agr€s thttl L Ho'peroon on thg grounds of, raca, cDlor, g*x, age, otr natlonal orlgl"n ehau be exclutled from partlclpatton lnr denled the beneflts of, oE be otlrerwleo €ubjsctedl lc dl,scrtntnatlon tn the usa of, saltl f,acllltlea. B. That ln the constructlon of any lmprovementr

-. -dr!..-.,' I i
I I
: !
,'
ti

'l I

J.,.:r.jj..iltr ^qLr!{l\r

iF i.. .t it I q I .i $!r 

### I 'ROLL?1.FNAH[-- 

### 00tr?0 '^frr!ffiff$lidif'

lt8Jur 26 Pil 

### t5? on1 ovo! or uhder auch landt anal ths furnlshlug 

### sf oervlce6 therson, no peroon on the. groundlr



### . of lace, colorl a€x1 allEp 

### or uatlonal dltgitl 

### shall be excluded 

### fron Fartlclpatlsn ln,

. denled 

### lhe beneflts ofr or othelnl,aa be EubJecL 

### to dlgcrlnlnati.on. 

### C, ThaL 

### the Dsssae 

### Ehall use thE prenlaea ln



### . oompllanee Hlth 

### all other regulrements Impoeeil 

### by 

### or putrBulnt 

### to tlele 49r Corle oE Federal RCaulatlons, Depattnen! 

### of [ranaportationl .qubtltle 

### lr Offlce 

### of the Secrebary, 

### psrt.2l. nondJ.asrlolnatton 

### ln f,ederally ansl.eting 

### prqgrrtrs 0f tbe DoPqrtment of lraiaportatlon/Effectuatlon 

### of rttle 6 

### of the 

### CIril RlghUc 

### lst of 1964 

### anil aB gald regulatlona nay be anendeil. 1g 

### Lr f,urther agreed that 

### ln'the event 

### of any breach 

### ot any 

### of :h6 above nondllscrlnlnatlon covonantar Lessor ehall hsve ttre 

### rtght to t€rmlnats 

### tlrir Jeasa ancl 

### to re-sneEr and repooaloa eaid lanGl.as 

### lf .satd lease hail never boen nade or 

### !.ssued. ;.,

. 4. 'ThiE leage. shall be euborillnate 

### to the'prov!,alonr 

### of any.

. exlatlng 

### or futurd agrEemsnts be.lerqen the Lssror and 

### the ontted



### . statecr 

### relative eo Lhe qperitlon or.rnu{ntenance of, thlo propertyl .'the ux"aotlon 

### ol rhlch.haa been or may be eegulrddt ss a condltlon pfecedent 

### to tbs expenitlturd 

### of fedt,rrrl fundt 

### for tlle developoent. 

### ot'tirfa proportyl provldterl, hoveverj tha! r,seEee 

### ihall be entitladl 

### to iny congenaall,on alloued 

### or provtded 

### by law 

### for any loaa sutferedl by legsee by rearona 

### of any changes nhlch nay be requ!.red 

### ln the teaae and prgvldeil, 

### futtherl that th€ IJBEEoT 

### Bhrll not bB 

### requlrd to pay.any part 

### rif 6uch conpenratlon.



### . DutlnE 

### tine of, war 

### or natlorial emergenoyl the lcaaor ohall traVe the. 

### rtbht to lease the 

### enllre property 

### or any 

### gart lhoreofl 

### to the unlbea Stabea Government f,oR 

### ntlltary iaej anile 

### ll any Buch 

# ,l

I

:

:

. li- I I l.lrr'-



### t 

### ..u 

# ' IfibLLqLFRAI'1[' "; 

## 'oni+zt .., ,.,.' :r..

.. ; t, , .

-

'"ffdldl$$$l"T'df l}$ 

### ltt 28 ffi ? 5?" "T F I
i

: jii t: rl

.t leaee 1g oxeiutedy the provLslone 

### of thls tqitrunent 

### ln ao 

### lar ar

they are lnconrlstent 

### $ith Ehe nesdls 

### of tlre government, ahall be suspandledt provldedtl howevetl that liesoee shall be 

### entltled to any oomgeneatlon allowed 

### or provliled by taq 

### for any lose sutferoil by Ilesaee by rebuon 

### of gush govarnnental takeover 

### of any parL 

### of the. eaid property hereby leEgeit to Lesoeo, and provJ.dotlT 

### further, th{t 

### Che.CIty 6h411 

### 'nqt bo requlted to pay any 

### part of such oonpeneatton' 

### IE 

### la furLher gtovtdled aptl a.greed .tha.! 

### lt ttre Unitee Etateg cov€rtlnent,'undsr l,tE aohttract, andl agrEuEent wtth 

### thi LeEairr olarcloea lLs 

### rteht to requlre tlre reveralon 

### of a.ll 

### rlght, 

### tltlr anO tnterest nhlch bhe lreesor.ilay oyo 

### ln aald property, huil E&ya 

### ta blro LeEFoE 

### 6 6un of, money 

### for tlle lnatailatton or etrucuure8 whloh har,6 been €rected on salil leaeetl property by the sald'IrseeeBi tben such car?ensation 

### ehall be paldl 

### to the erl'd f:GEEeg r



### . 5.

. Thc,Iresaeq ahall' not'sublegaB or aaalgn thlu.lease to ths sald prenteeg 

### or dny parg thereofr 

### rithput wrttten conseng.oJ the .Leogor, the dBclslon 

### of tha Ctty Counc$ of .the Ctty ot ltetunirka, 

### rlabanai 

### for whatsvatr reasonT aa 

### !o vhether 

### or not'lt shall conaB[t 

### to r rublerue 

### or aee!"gmmenb 

### ls flnal anit conclurlva, 

### It belng expreraly understeocl anal aEreed by the 

### boti parelae thot the sald CLty Counoll har the. sbeolut€ r.lght 

### to tlthhold 

### lta oonaen! 

### to such eubleaee anrl tagtgnnent and €uch' <taolslon 

### shall be blndlng. 

### 6, Th6 sal.d '&ee6ee addttl.onal 

### bull{lng or i. shall not have tbe rlght to sofiBtruct sny. faclllty on salil'properly wlthdrit first

...:fi:Tltn,!I'lr".'4tu"'q'!,'tsr"''liir"r"t'r'r'!jiii']'tr"'1rj"rrt"':t?r"'rt'i'i'r:L'Lr"t'"1\'{.* B, r 

### '1 I

.ti. i, t -t 

# i 'l' ' i 'f .t- "r ':," .NOLL?LFRAME_- 

## 00lfz? obtalnl.ng the $,rlbten concent 

### of the lessor 

### thereto.' (Replacement 

### or rebulldlng 

### cf e:.lselng lmprovenente whlch nay be dBmsgod by 

### flfe of other caaualLy 

### ehall not r€gulre Fuoh 

### connent.l rtre Leasor ehall not, unreasonably 

### rlthhold or delay 

### ltB conEEnt. In addltlonr Leasee 

### wlll be rbgutrerl 

### to obtaln a bulldlng pernlE frout the Ctty 

### of fstumPka' antl 

### a1l other appllcabkj pernlto 

### prlor to tha 

### lnltlablon of constJucblon. Iho L'6Esee 

### le aolely Ee6ponslbl€ 

### for eoelng thab any butltllnq 

### to b€.trllaeed on the pronleea 

### ls ln compllance 

### rith regulatlona of 

### the 8Ar and 

### the BDA antl any lawo onal regulatlons of, th6. Cttyf Counbyr sf.ate and FedeFrl. Gqvern|nentar. 

### In tlre cyent 

### ihat aiy "uctr 

### butldlng elected by lrBs8eo 

### lE pn the rrong .tand 

### qr aba1l not comply rtth.Euoh ragulatlonB, shdthcr due 

### to excesElve halghtr 

### .io"" proxlnrlty 

### to E ru$fay 

### or irny other vlblatton oE iny of,. rueh lagiulat!.oner,.'the, butl,dtng ahdll be renovEd o.t noillflodl 

### .'to neet eald 

### regulstlona 

### at Laree'€a erFenae, dndl ths 

### Ctty 

### rhalt not be U.abls 

### ln any way 

### tt rqasons.of auch 

### fallure.of, teasee 

### to conrply rclth suoh regulatloire or bulldlng on the ivrcing lan{. 

### 7. ThE r.pgeee 

### shall retaln otrnerrhlp'of 

### atl UutiAtngs and lnprovodente'on oaltl propetty 

### lf, the lessec relocalee or ceaaea !o .ogsratg 

### lte buelnoas. flre &essse 

### shall hcv€ nlnetsy ilaya 

### after 

### ternlnatlon.of, thls agreenen! 

### to trenovq 

### all buLldingaT eto. n51lonlng 

### ths removal 

### of all Dullttlnga andl _rroBertyl 

### the [eggEe 

### slll levsl saial real prop€rt1l and acceptable groundl cover shall b€ plaoett 

### !o Frevent, 

### eroslon. Acc€puEblE groundl coyer Ehalt be eubJect 

### to lh€ approval 

### of leaaor. .The IrsrEee AEreeg 

### to bear 

### all '*tl'dlg*lPi['l:$,']u'- aE JUt 26 

### f[ 3 5?'

*r. )tiii*$!q1i'J'r* 

### .1d",xti$liElf:s*ur$.Gs36!#:*'*to*' 

## **6ll'i-$9l;.:il:.;i:.J;::-i:--.iji-'I;!I':;i::':'31'j-"'li"'iJ:i;fl'$1:;]:';j":'::"i '

. ". "I"' a l li ir ' ' ",.:rr rll :: .'

. ."' rRot 

### L?lFRAl,rt.:*.''s'tJl{#,lg$1Jl$if
0 0 

### l.[ 2 

## 3 ffi JtL 26 Plt ?.s7 r'." 'I ---f I It

I l

:i

I 

### '
I I 'f I

I .l I I I I I I : e)rpsnrec 

### for th6 

### rqnor.ll 

### of all bull.dlnga ond oth€r ilsrEqnal

propertyr. the cleablng and levell,ng .ot 

### tha 

### lan{ ue 

### trell as bhe eEtabllshr(ant 

### of accoptablo grotnd 

### sovar. lho 

### clty of $etumpka ehall be granted 

### a llen agalriet auch structureg and tFprovBr$entg upon aald propofty 

### to thr exten! 

### of any rental paynongs due snd .owlng 

### st the ttme tho lr€d6e€ rslocatea otr q€atrea 

### to operete 

### lte burlnese. Sald 

### struatures ancl lnprovernents 

### ehall not bs dlsnantleitl damagedl 

### or ateetroyeal 

### untll .a1.1 outstanillng rental peynento due cnd orlng 

### to ldruor have been 

### pald, In the etenb 

### that ts8B€e 

### falla to renDvs 

### ths butldlhg, 

### etc. Hithtn g0 daye 

### thenr 

### at the opttons 

### ot ths tJessor the bulldlng and 

### all other



# .: property 

### shrll becorna the eo1-e pEopsrty 

### of the l€sEor, 

### 8. -IJe8s€s cqv€nant8 andl agreeS t0 cohdugt 

### .all 

### lto ar;ttvlttes and reniler 

### lta aervlceg 

### ln a sqfe rnanner. The !6EEee 

### ohqll be.

. r€EponEfbid' for. af 

### I $a emploleea 

### rhlls they. are on.duty ano 

### nill
..j keap 

### the' 

### ctby and 

### ita' enployeer gaf,e and. 

### hErnlegs f.iom 

### responalbllltl' fel lareultg itlltclt nsy be brooghE agatnat the L€Eggt .antl/or 

### lto anploy€eg on accounL 

### of any acts 

### of IJesEeB or. 'Lecseere-enployeee 

### Hhlle dhEagsit 

### ln actlvltleq or setvlcad tn. sonnEctlon ti'rtrr tne leaged prenlse8. 

### .' IJessee 

### wtll carrJ' 

### ltabtftty lnaurance 

### in sn ailqunt 

### of nof 1668 than One 

### l{llllon ($1r0Q0r000.001 conbinedl gingls 

### llmlts Hlth



### . the Clty 

### of Wetumpiia nanedt bhereln as betng Frobecbeat lherebyl and th€ 

### clgy shall be futnlsheil 

### wltb 

### a copy 

### of anl' 6uch 

### pollcy or 

### polloles of lnsurance .tlur.lng 

### the tetm 

### of bhls leage anit any axtenal,on 

### or extenelons Lhereofr 

### tt lE unatetstoodr horevbrr that :
I ; i l I

. '.1 { '1 Y 

# .t ,7 

### t ',J l

{

I I I I I 'I

t i



# * :r ;,A0iW.er!,,Ex'-9 

## Pqgg'I

## 1

irL t f, 't!

. ri. v 

### { i i9 b ll 4 t I I t I

, I 'l
I

I I i I I

{ I i
Ll it .l rl il ft 

### ,t

I t

I I a 

### I i ri

, i i ! I
I t i i
i i "RoLLil-rRAFiE--. 

### 00lt?tr '''iiil{ffi.'ffi::*Lt's

trs JtJt 26 Pl{ t'5?
the. lnEertlon .of thte clause lrr tbic lsase shall not be conetrued to be I reoognitlon of any llablltty of the Clty !n ttre ornernhlp of thls propertyr tt, belnE th6 llrm and deflnlte contentlo[ of the I€saor tbat tt ls not llable ln any way lor the operaUlon of, Iasgecrg buslnesg. ' 9. rr ilhe LcsBor !€€€rve6 unEo ltgelf! lta sUcce8EorB andl aealgnsp lor the use Bnd-beneflB of the publlc, a rtght of fllghb f,or the passage of alrcraf,c ln the altspace above tlre eurface of 'the rosl property herelnafter deecrlberll together wtth the rlgh! to. cauoe 1n gald alrepi,.ce 6uch nolae A6 may be {nherenE ln the operatlon of, alrcrafi, no* knorfl or hereafter ueoit, for navlgatlon of, qr lllght In the oald airspace, and for use o! aalil airagace for ianitlng onr taklng off f,ron or oFerattng on the alrport.

. b. iii6 leBEee oxpreauly agreed for ltgelfr ite. succoagolg and asatgnrl Eo rostf::i:t the helght of Btruotrres.r oijactB of naLirral'gro$th and oi :;' obgtluotlon on the herelnaEter deecrlbed rBal ptoFerty to Buctr a hetght ao aB not to constltuto an obatrucLlon as dAtlneil by Federll Avlatlon RegulatlonB, Eart ??, qE the .correapondhg psovlalonE of any f,utura EqdlerEl lvlatlon Itegulatlonu r cr fhe taseee erpressly aglBeB f,or lteelf,, lte rucce6Eorg End aBBIgneT to prevent any uEe of the herelnaf,ter descrlbeal taal property whlch would lnherf,ere wlth or adveraaly alleat the operatlon or malntenanse of, Lhe ahport, or ottlenrlse conetltute an alxport hazatrd. 

### dr {he IraEEotr ledetrves 

### the 

### rlght bo teko any aotlon 

## tr

9

: 1 I I I I -.'.4r.'d.r-a.{ts.?.'vrrr-l:r._..-,,.:+,.vt.fqr...rrr.,..-..q.,.jr: r:..r....-*1

q t |'id' l:" Y 

### ti
l.

t]. i; 5' '4, :.

1.. (

I I

, 

### .t

. t.
!

I I

;

t I i I i I I

., t
,T i I t I

, I
i ? i I t 

### fRblLqlFRAl'tLl' 

### 00tr?5 r|LE0 ril'rnoBATr orFt[r ILHORE COOIIIY.AL. - E.U. ilrsl[8..JUr.$[ 

### til5,u 26 Pt{ ? 5? conoldstn necaseary 

### to procesb the. 

### aerhl apprbaaheo'or tnaEinary surf,aceE dsacrlbed 

### In Eeilsral Avlatlon Regulat,lon 

### ?art ??,1S1 or 

### the oorredFondlng 

### provltlons o.E any 

### future pe<leral 

### tvlatlon Etgulatlonar 

### f,(r the 

### alrport or prev€nb auy qctlon nhlch1 

### ln the opl,Ittoh 

### ot'tlre tresaorr 

### or 

### qf thtr 

### Ell or the BDl, $ould 1.lntt the usefutnese 

### of the alrgorL or congtitqte a harard 

### to akerrEt. 

### 10, lhe Lsseee 

### shall 

### fully and ptorsptly pay 

### for al1 vater, 9t6.r..hostr 

### ltrghtr po$eEr telephons servtco. antt obher pubtla 

### rttlltles of every 

### tlnd condumed 

### by 

### lt anil turnlshed 

### to the ptellLE€s thtoughoub 

### ths tern hereo! and!. 

### all othercosto and e:rpeneeo 

### o! every lcind vhatuoever 

### of, or tn conneotlon wllh .Desaeers 

### ure, operat!.on andl nalntenanqe 

### of the'pfgnlEEs and 

### all .actl'ylr.169..3onquoteg. thoreo.n, .and. I.'essor 

### shatl hav6 $o reoponalbtllty.o.f any klnd 

### for such costs anil exlrensBs. 

### 11. .f,lttrough 

### ih. &"se"e uhall enJby 

### a1l of, 

### tlri rlghtr'.and gglvllegea hereln gtant€dl anil 

### alia[ acs€pt 

### all sE .Ure obllgatlone and reaPonstbllittes hereln lnposed upon 

### ttr Ireatloe ahnll do .ao.BB an lndepenclent, cbntractor anit Ehall not..be the egentr onrployee or rupreaentqtl.ve 

### bf ttre Ira€Bo!o rhe fi€ss.E€ 

### 6hall .be, oolbly .reeponelble 

### for lny anA 

### ali. injurted io psrcons 

### or ilanage to proper-ty gtowing 

### out 

### of otr son$eeted 

### wlth 

### ltr oparatlon ol} bhe Iealed preatl.ses, 

### L2, Ic ls understood by andl bBtHeen bhe partleE hereto.tttdt the LEssorts 

### tltls to aEld.property 

### la eubJeot 

### to and burdaneil 

### rlth a rroervatlon 

### to the llnlteil $tateg govern4ent 

### for nattonal enrer{ency Hart{rle po$err anil 

### that alt}rough'thla lnatrunent lg

. t..

' '' ' -, qr.;l*,t.J,(rvi'r.-r.ta,. r,b.{F.r?.-\: }, ri ;,ar.r"! a1..,: rjur ;1,.i....:n.n ;,y *
. ! .,t. ,.r. .'t 't.r...it:JllF'_ t.Y"rl ''l



### :':J;..1i:;,=J-":;i:it::l-::;':':1"'i:;""i'ills'-ti'i::l::::' A.n SW g,r:FX ir'9 P a 

### I e, l[' 0.'."'r'-":,.':';']i : ::' -'r:'rql n a 

## troulalrnmf;



# , 00|l?6 r|tED'il rR0sAIt.0Fiirst EI.HONg COUNTY.AL. 8.l|,EHsLtlrj1u0tl: ml .,ilt 26 H 2 5?

sornstLnes referrcd 

### !o as 

### q tleagei and tha 5rartlea arb referred to ag the rleggea" and 

### the rtresaort 

### lt ls not bhc 

### lntent of thr 

### partleo for the l,eas€s 

### to acgtrlfs Bny tnora 

### tnlefect iu tha pfernlfee leaeedl hereqnder than what, the Ireasor o$ns, andl 

### tlrst ths leagehold 

### rlghts o! lesa6E Eranted herEunilar are aubJect 

### to salit regervatlon. 

### 13. It Is underatood antl agreed that &eaaee, 

### or 

### ltsslfr lte enployeeul 

### lts succesrota 

### ln tntegest ancl, aoelgnsr and .apFrovgrl



### . aublegssa€, 

### Lf snyr 

### ylll hold 

### valld IlceDB€Br. 

### certlllcatlon anil .regletratlo.n aE requlred by 

### clty, eountyr atate and fedaral la$s 

### antl'regulatlons' 

### In addltlon' tlegssB 

### yill presdnt doeumentatton .of. sald licensurer 

### sertlfloitl.onl or rdElatratlon upon requeet of

1 t 

### bs'Bor. l 

### 1{. !r It ts underetoodl that 

### ttrls agreoment anal any.rcneval ch'ereof, shall b€ BubJBct 

### tr' opprovsl by the'sDA and 

### ftl, anil atiall noErbb'btrrdlng oir ttre lasobi 

### or ihe trbbsee untl.t..and'unlees"'suc'h apprwale aha1l have bgon recelved.



### . b. 

### ' Nothlng 

### ln thla lease Lg lntended 

### t6 ue Ln oonfllet 

### vlth

. "the leagee herelcifote entered Lnto by and betileen the 

### clly arri uny othel leaair 

### at the l{eguripka Huntclpal AlrportT buL 

### tn the event c 

### confllqtlng ptovlB!,on 1E.foundl 

### to sxlutr then ttre terne 

### of thla leaae 6ha11 be eubJecb 

### to revlgLon 

### tn orcler 

### to clear up any 

### confllct. 

### c. lhie leEas Bgtee$Ent rnal 

### fe crnqelled upon nutual songent 

### of tlre Clty andt tbs teg6ee. 

### dr ln fhe 'event any CerB, 

### condltlon 

### sr clause- 

### of thla 

### ,11

l'i:jil:;i';.'ljjl;;*1i!-.:;"i'::;:-""';':ri;--"::;r::ifslL{iillj"":l l:":l '''"' 

### Aryw-el..F.x'' 

### 9 PFge 1.1,"'',,,'trq, L r.

I ,.'r": .;\trr,{ !.. lr.

f 'llt0 tH:Pi0$AlE 0FlJttt, ELl,toit c0uIrY, At.
e ,fl, tll$Ltl{. JUr$t 

### mtu?6 Pll ?58 -!* I



# .:

i ' t'j it

-t

J t t. I I' 

### inbtl"4rnAile-:'l'



## 00ltut qontrao! le. ln confllct wtth any lan of, tha Strte of rlibnari or q! ths untteat gbates, tb ahall be taken ae amended and rnqdtfleil by such la}' to ths ettent ngceEBary ta uphold the vtlidily of, thls ' contract. .If lny claueei Eern or coaditlon Ls deletedl then bho entke agrceinent shrtl nob be voldr but the rsnalnilg prov!.elone shall renaln ln f,ull force and ef,f,ect. 15, In tha eveut the LeBsee ehould fall to pay tny lnstalluent of Eent itus h€Eeunder or should. fall to orrry out any pgovlglon of thlE agr€E$Entf then ln that svent, the Lessor shall have, the optlon to sansel thl,s leaee, ln wh{ch evEntr the lreruqr ghall be entlbledl bo lruneolcte poaee6elon of aald promlees or tha &esso,r nd,y deElare all una.ccruerl lnatallmenta of !6nt dqe and Bay;ble lnnerl!,ately; Eallure of tbo Clty to exerclae elther
't opt,ton defculb 

### lrl the LesBeE nhqll, not opetste as a ralver 

### o! such ...op.t'ton 

### :no." any EuDsequent 

### !e.f1ult, ilot*lthebandtng ttie



### .. foregolng, ine IJeEEeB Ehall have 5 €aye 

### after reuslpt 

### of t'rltten nottca of, 

### a nonetary 

### default (30 dayo 

### ln bhe event 

### of a ltonmonitrrg 

### itefaultl to curo Euch dlgfault,. 

### 16r liEaaea agrEsB !o pay a reagonabl€ attornoyro fEa and al'l doet6 

### tf lt becoses necesqsry 

### for Lessor 

### to enploy un attorn€y to 

### collect eny 

### of tbe 

### rent 

### or to enfqrce apy 

### o! ths provlBlons of,. 

### ' thts l,erBe, and &easee expreaaly welveg 

### all exengtlons gsoured to the Leaaes under the lawc 

### of the State 

### of nlabana, or 

### of 6ny rtats 

### of ths Unltsil Stateg as agaLna! thE cqltectton 

### of any debt hcretn 

### ar hereby lricurred or secured. E h

I t
, ..1 t J il T I 'l t

a , t .T
-a 't I '/ i 'i I ! I 

### 't i

:

!

I

..

: t2i"

.,. .... ,l*.
!Rb1-1.ALfRAl'lE_: 

### 00rh2B rN tftrNEEs NHEREOF, 

### the 

### city c!! wetunpkar by an or-{l.nance adoptedl by 

### tle clty council on eh6 

### l?th 6ay 

### of _July. 

### ,- ... r t989r hae csuEail theae prcrontE'Lo bu executed by lr€e 

### J. Hoodl 

### lte ltayorl and 

### to b6 atte-sted by Velma 

### N. Gober, 

### ltE Cleak, .and 

### ltr corporat,e Feal aff,l-xed bereto and the &oEaee hae eaused these 

### ' prBoents 

### to be executeit Uy

. 

### Ti nrmq P. j\q,ui.s. 

### --__, lrs Pre,sldqrt'F - -; andl r,o b€ 

### atresredtuyM*"o

. .,,.-,1t9. 

### $i,,,tn.ut ,, 

### " , ani 

### ttr corgoratlon Feat 

### 'afflxed hsrero $e.

I E rj 

# 1 rr[fJilitnlf,ftrf'9lff t.x. Irl6t]:ll, Jun{iE Es! JtJt ?6 Pll ? 58

I

I, I .t i { I rl ,I
:J n a :1 tj ,J
!1

!c it It !T il 4 { $ 1 I t t 

## t6 Wl*nese '

;-i:.it i. t?,i.:ri,l, i i.:.f sa-.tt'i,i.i:gii,Xf 

### :.g$t IiL;:::i"'{ t ts.... il
T 

## :RottZrnluf



# . i 001{?9 SIAIE 08 IIIAEAHT cogNTy 0P Err{oRs t'!lont$'o?'8&ilrrr!r.Fffi 6f9.]{]t ?6 P[ 

### ] 5s


## rr the underslgned, 

## I nstary publlc 

### In and 

### for the staLs of Alabanr 

### at rarg€f hereby 

### cerllfy: thaL Lee.,r, Iiood-ani vc-lrui n, Goberr whose nan:g 

### lE l{Fyo: and 

## clty iterk 

## fsr th'e 

## ciui;i lletunpkar are elgned -to thi toregoLng conveyancel and who- qre knowB to me, acknovledge{. bofor.e ns on thJ.s dav that, boino y T g the coltents sf,'the conveyance, they exe-euteA the iq;i f,or und or the act of ealA CIti, lyr lqg-E my hand qnd 

### real on 

### rhls tne 

### dli*aiy of 1989,

eTrrB or 

### .,F\+hrrrng.-. cool{rs 0F '.8\nn'qfiE,
11 the,und'erglgnedr a notury pubtlc in and 

### for the '=E\4S 

## *o ^ 

### at r.aigel' trorer:y 

### i'urtily trriri ano \)inrqnp CrLs.rr\tnr0__; whoae natleE._a8 ' a[d- 

### \i'i'\.f\o-.$rs *-ar are algned 

### to the and t.ho are l(novn to t[e. ree uect:lvr t ConV6laICe1 

## 1lg_y*^:r:_l"l,lf_ go. _.9.t 

### rBspecrlvely, bf,- icp,. _rn-c;. rr..s f,uv c!E Arter.r :"-.*y-t r-rtsgttgE;Lr.E ryt of h{;Ft. rnc;'r a corporatloDr dtrE _dlsngd,'to the for-egolng colr'|eyinc.er"'a'nd rrho 'ata uvlyulqu+v.rt qr5 osY|rr:\.,,'tr, EfiE rq5€gglng gc)nveyAnce, ano VnO AtA 

### fl:l1_ !o-I*.1-,a!!l:ll.*,0.eqd.tef,oro me 

### .tn 

## rhri day 

### !hgr, uetns lnformed of, the contentF'of ths coriveyan'ce, they ercCcutea the iai;; voluntarlly 

### for and as tho act 

### of saJd corporation. Givan uniter rny hand and 

### seal on 

### this tnu ,13* day of 

### ,SsL{*-, 1e8s'

n6lts]orasmstz.:irt

! !',r i -,:i.. ., !! t-, 

### l{

# l$fi

* ' tt

''Hdd*Sf,$l'lFiF dmsn ?6 Rr 

## r ss 

# .*, I S.: 

# f o q .l n g il n a, 

# iil

E'.f 

### .HI[ 

## il' inr 

## ill_

H Egi+



### :t 

### a € o m 

## x (o 

### E o) (o 

### o o) sT.rTE OF Ar/taArt EUTOEE COUITTY Gre x, n lrs *r l-rd rr. rA. N-ttt-t anrr qf Srdlm Zt T-rt-lt. f,-l}-g; Etrir Cirstf. al$-r: rlna A-iEfr5'Cq $ 't!'lq + !:| lc D&r rd rlict d b'glndtE fr thc bnlr <laqibrd P..s: rlf trtd: oraai 5 fil.:E $ '5-F r. r| 'ro Dh loc-rd flr UE tlotttr Blqhrr.rf't r d ,lt iba ttc. tl3 th..E rtoog .rA X{.tb Rt6f*r.o.-nw 5 |'tcff t EF.oil It D irDo .Ca: rlste 'Evltq rid R6|fr-'f{'; tt Drrst'(u l' gB.f tr n lcnr ftart: lh{E H &'.{6'F E sri-rr' :a tti 'oorc J.bq&nl|Er- cqrrrrrrE r.(' EtL rt r ls' Dd tldae lD rra li"'g I Frrlt ih;ta€.t/r !a tE liE rtr ca s-'Lo-rj. I-lr-}J. ' B-lr-E- Am Ccsaty; f,bbr. t, lrry E- Sp.rrrr- r Bqfud' Efiff rod bd 5.rft76- htrit erfJv th. nl* tt|t rad are#p(ni rt tn* r:d qrd: rhrg rll r'r*t d r+ir irr-.v ts di-lss hre b- qr.t d in r-ode dtl. rfrc lfi i-t TrctrniE t 'Scrtta.At f;'$*'nrrah -d |.rr*lt grtvrtlog in thc Srrtl ot Atrbo. Ac*.sng t Ey.{nsr r}L ltd dtl d ,bl- a't'.



### f,^,. 

## f- 

# lrJ,

- ftrrf E{Sf-tr a lrrbr hCidtrdan tte. t:'.t !
FOR 

### CITY OF WETUMPKA



### nncp zi

:

..: I r:.i 'J! +. ::

l:i

..: :i: t. .il; '!'_{

' ii ,..1 .2,i .:! .,i ir.t d{ ri

:-t'i ar:j j.l *i it i.i

'. .l j. l r.l rl v.l 4.1 i. l trl ...:1

. !..I 'r;l ::t I *-.f 3i i t,.i

:: ir t:

'i f:'

i.r
:!? i: {.

a. .:.

:1
5i

F.
*:

a; j!l

.,,: ,';:

t:

:

..t: .i,i .aa t:
.i: l'

: .'i

:i

i:

:.!a .s.l

:-.:1 L.;,-: ' :.,i i.: :..1 .+;'l
'.iJ :.:4 ;i:':l -'.t i.:j :t)::1 i;;
.:|.I a.t i'l :l tlt i..i ;..,1 j.'.i :'!f .l{ .t

; ,..1 -F*+4-..$a)q

J @ 

### € o m 

## x (o 

## E o) (o 

### o 

## \ 

# E. E

E*S d..t 

# !# aE =gr! (E E-,:l (\t 

### =Fg 

### 4 

# Et*

I I '+u E GJ E'* !t- 

### -\l r= :r' c5 J 

### o E 5-fAtE oF .\ll,E.$A

. ,.i

EI.|:ORE {;OUHT1' 

### ER*=..--

,. Begin ^re rn iron pin rocatcd et chc t-r"i##Sr;ii,!^of Scction 14. T-llt-t{. lt-17-E. Etoore coroty,-Alab*rai rhcnce S a9-45'Oo" t, lOt6.7O' co en iron p;ni i!i'.e{i+;..;i 62-r6'4f* E lt4o.4l' ro rn ilan pin; thr:n<.. l! s9-5T'Oa" t 105:.&6' (o an iron pio; chrncc S Ol-34'48" t{ t136i*.-ltir rh.c p,rinc,rf beginnin3. crrncrirtin6 J3.6tf ccre:. rcrc dr [e*. rnd tying io aod 5*ing a pa.r! of rhe S.(li;bf'dSc Sgi of Seetion t4. T-13-ti- fi-17-8. l]turrrr Coint:r- Alrb:ra:- "'.'i-"t ' ' z-i* r"iss

. C@renE€ lG ao iron pia locrted.t thc S",C!i5;ri,:"r4ar of Scelioc 14, f-t8-N. R-17-8. Eloor Cqrnt..v. Alabrsa; rhcnce s 89P4t'0Ot r.| 1076-tor ro:rr iron pin il4:"rr,iiirtlrif :leginning t'or Ghc h(.(cio darcribcd garccl of lrnrJ; thenco coasinue i 89oa5'oo" l.t !41.43' !o an iron pini+tkt,ittiri.otola'rs'i tlr.o.zr' co"an iron Fin: lhcnce tl S9"5J'oi" E =67.rL' tc:n ican pia: rhcncc S 0te36r4frr't{ tIa0'..$'[i io rhe point of he6innin6. Cmtainine ?.81 :rcrcr. a6rc or lcrr. .od lyinx in snd bcinx.r F;rrf of thc SE! of rhn $€! o-f sccriim 11. ?-ltl-rt. R-17-t. Elaorc Gr^hty. :llabanr. t. Larry E. Spclks, :8cairlered Enginecr and Lond Survc-yor. hcreby ccrrify rhc abq\re 6urvc:rt and dcrcriplions jrr( Lrur,U4 a6jf,rC(i thal Jtt F{ftF ef Chi,, survey nnd rlf:trio?: trav.. br..n c,sFlFfql in rcc.rr.tancr uith Ch* :{ininurn fi.chnic:l sElodrrds r'or the Prlciicc ol Lsnd Sucufyinp in tha lic.rcc of ,tlabna. Acc(rrdinq.to oJt ru(eet chir ?9th dey of t{arclr. 1985-

Alabm 8c];ietr:rcion t:o. 7l6q 7.?4 ASTcr Begin !t en lron pin'lcated ot tbc Htrrchc!.E Eorrrer of Srrccion:1. T-!8-.}', n-tt-E. Elnorc Councf, Alrbrtni; thcdcc S OOotS'lO" t{ 534.9:t' to.rn iron pin loc:rcd in a gurvc on the lloarh Rightr-of-U!:, of Al:brsc ilig,hray t4;. chencc Soirchecrr€rly rlonc reid curyr (Ciror.t 8clrinB 5 8-3oO3' F; Ch;Fd Dilrlnci 230,941, ro an ircro pin nod cn' of curvc; tlance concinoc :long rlid Bi6htr-of-ttry 5 88?3' H !79-6ll' to {n iron pia; theoco lcawing eeid tti6,l. ro(-lJay N 00qt8'30" E 5?5,96' !o rs iroo pin; Ghcrrc€ t{ E9'o5tq6" E t98:50' tr, rde point of beRinoins. corrcair .E 7.?a ecrelr. Rorc rr lcrrr rod lying in and bclnX, 8 psrt of tfic {E! ot chc tT:: of $cccion !}' T-t$-H. R-lt-E
, Elnorc couEty. Alrbos.l. l. Lrrry E. Spcrkr. a Eegisrrred Enginccr and Llnd Sr3rveyor, hereby ccrtiliy thlr the fotagoing, i: a Enrc lnd corrccc E;rp rnd dsrcripcioo; (hst thr buitdin4r nou crtcrcd'on raid propercy al'q vishin thc boundaricr of rrra; chlr lhere rre oo cncroeehronri by brrildinpr an thc odjoining pEopcrtyi thit tlrere rc no righc4-of-ggysr craeocnrc or joint drivcenyr d*r or actort rrid llnd viribfei.6t tlre srrrfitcc of thr. Brourd; therc crr no ol.rccri,c or rclcPltonc *ircr (excLuding vireo rrhir& rcnre fhe prcai:ea-only) or rtrrritrtrer chcrefor irrcludicg polc:, rnctrorc rnd guy uipqr on or ou€r raid preniacrs. .rccp! lr gh6rn. lod 1..'ravc rcvicsed thl Foddr*t lnrrrrroce ldainirtrlcion'Flood ltaaard Eoundgry erp anrl (ound chn rlcrcribed ptogrircy ir lerced in r rpociul flood trre,srrt arca. lccordinp to nnP dal;d gcceobcr t5, t978. Ccrmunit;r Prnel l{o- (}!0406 O00a A. Acsor{in3 tomy sunrey clrit 29th doy of ltarch. 1985'



### 1."* ra,h .'i.:.-{.. !. ..:, t..:., ....rrtrfi1: rjr.....4.t r-r;. :r. i,. :t;rt:',-r..-q'....i 1r \

'J

'!, { I 

### {'

U. I i.



## ' r,8N 

# - lhtze 24

I

t t' i'
,, t L..



### Answer Ex. 

### 9 page 18

### ASSIGNMtrNT OF 

### LEASE This Assignment 

### of Lease 

### ("Assignment") is entered 

### into as 

### of 

## this 

# b

_ day 

### of



# , 1995, 

### by and among 

### MCP Supply 

### Corporation, 

### a Delaware corporation rowhead Composites, 

### and Thermo Plastics, 

## a division 

## of Arrowhead. plastie Engineering, 

### (the 

### "City"). fnc., an 

### Indiana 

### corporation 

### ("Arrowhead") and 

### the 

### City of Wetumpka, Alabama



# . WHEREAS, I'{SC acquired 

### all of flre rights and certain 

### obligations under that certain
lease 

### between the 

### City and 

### MCP, 

### Inc., ("MCP"), dated 

### Juiy 

### 20, 1989, and 

### recorded on Rol1 91


### Frame 

### 0014i6, Probate 

### Office, Elmore Counfy, Alabama (the "Lease 

### "), tluough a 

### Memorandum 

### of Decision, dated 

### May 

### 4, t99+, issued 

### by the 

### United States 

### Bankruptcy 

### Court, Southern 

### Disuict 

### of Indiana, Indianapolis Division; 

# ,$

hereunder. 

### FOR 

## VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned 

### MSC does 

### hereby 

### grant, bargain, 

# sell, fk all of MCPrs 

# rights convey, assign and 

### deliver unto Arrowhead, 

### its successors, 

### and assigils, 

## and 

# 6bfig-ations pursuant 

# to a1I 

# of the teims and-conditions 

# set 

# forth n 

# in the leage which 

# exist- as 

# of July 6 

# , L994.

, 

# rtJ
FOR 

### VALLIE RECEI\rED, the 

### City, MSC ancl 

### Arrowhead each agree 

### that 

### MSC shall

I 

### have no 

### further 

### liabiliry under the Lease 

### whatsoeve 

### , whether 

### primarily or seeondarily.

$!-l ld.E i;tls.llgriltsilri. itlti.triltsriff "*.$!v!sl6titfogl-*1*'*o * 'oi,'o1' 

### a{'s



### WHEREAS, MSC desires 

### to assign 

### all 

### of its rights and 

### obligations under 

### the Lease 

### to 

### Arrowhead and 

### Arrowhead Desires 

### to acquire 

### atl of ttre obligationsurfirh?l 

# tffil/r 3( 

## ' n 

### ,-, 

# fk WHEREAS, MSC wishes to be 

### fully released, 

### both 

### primarily and 

### secondarily, 

### from all 

### historic and 

### prospective obligations under the 

### kase; WHEREAS, MSC and 

### Arrowhead desire to obtain the 

### City's consent 

### to the assignment

### IN WITNESS WHEREOX', MSC as Lessee 

### under the Lease caused these present 

### to be 

## 1\ I 

### executed 

### on this 

## the 

# U day 

## of 

## ; 1995, 

### MCP Supply Corporation 

# By ,r1<t*"*1,*-

ITS 

## srATE OF 

# \-.,*.{**o
COUNTY 

# OF riSr-*=*:-*.r"-

- I, t11e 

### undersigned, a 

### Notary Public 

### in and 

### for said 

### county 

### in said state, hereby 

### certify 

### that 

# ?r,.'m'fS (QSW-, whose narnes as 

# P ffi

, respectively 

## of Amowhead 

### Plastic 

# Bngi@lignedtotheforegoingconVeyance'theyassuchofficersandwithfulI authority, executed same 

### voluntarily 

### for and as 

### the act 

### of said 

### corporation.



### Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc.



# (4 

# (1.or9,fr.w)aC-""t
-. GIVEN UNDER 

# MY HAND 

## AND OFFICIAL 

## SEAL 

# this 

# 3 A day of

. 

# Ctr-..rrr6jr

, 

## , 1995 '

0



### BY

ATTEST: 

### NOTARY PUBLIC 

## My Commission Expires

### STATE OF



## couNTY 

# or "T*:k-.=--r.n*.* 

# q\or*\i$rprI, the underpigned, a 

### Notary Public 

### in and 

### for said counfy 

## in said state, hereby 

### certify 

### that 

# NLvtuA doweu- and 4Jt 

# elqq tut77 whose names aS 

# L tro' and 

# Ff 

# Ec. 5Ec{*a.;tt*t-- 

# , respectively 

## of NICp 

### Supply 

### Corporation are signed 

# to they as such 

### officers and 

### with 

## fuIl authority, executed same 

### voluntarily 

### for and as 

### the act 

### of said corporation, 

# I tGIvEN UNDER 

# MY FIAND 

## AND OFFICIAL 

## SEAL 

## this 

# II clay of 

# #J.Etr'n^tM' , 1995. 

# -{

Ua.u LIC 

## My Commission^Expires 

# Off b
, 

## f ?4 

# { (hw"q t[.,Qui.,tu,"
THE ASSIGNMENT OF 

### THE LEASE IS HEREBY 

### RATIFIED 

### AND APPROVED 

### BY THE 

## CITY OF 

### WETUMPKA.

I 

### THIS 

# THE l-p



# . DAY OF



### MAYOR



## ljirt-si*$Eejrji:nr.et1ll:el'ses&lsrij1r::li.sj=.r.rAn$ILf:F*, gfRgRr?r1**"1*eu!r*?*lrM :ri 

### r rrrf r' j:rr, 'j r..j-:'. r 

## i- .cf - ..- r



### BY 

## lctAt 

# fRY

### MeYon

Jnnnv 

### WtLt ls CMY CTEzudTREASURER 

### .IaNtcB G.'WttoRToN 

### CnY Cotnqcn

### I{niq 

### Hauruocrc 

### Lewts E, WasHrNGToN, Sn' 

## Karnv EIOIr Cnrus 

### CaRrEn GREG.IONNS 

# Srtp ffif 

# Wofffitttphm

January 

### 19, 2010



### Mr. Thornas 

### W. Kishel, 

### President Arrowhead Plastic 

### Engineering, lnc. 115L 

### North Hartford Post 

### Office Box 75 Eaton, 

### lN 47338-8774
Dear 

### Mr. Kitchel:

Enclosed is a copy 

### of 

### the minutes of 

### the October 5, 

### 2009, meeting of 

### the Wetumpka City Council 

### with a 

### motion approving 

### your request 

### to exercise an 

### option of 

### the July 

### 29,1989, lease at 

### the Wetumpl<a 

### Municipal Airport for the 

### first option period of 

### ftve (5) years.



### I 

# b;/qrg*

City Clerk

" 

## City of 

# W a'tur 

## aI 

# 3 eauly" P.O.Box1180oW€tumPka.Alabsma360921334/t6?-514?'Fax33d56?-130? 

## ;,..'i-jjij:-:ir;i*":sii

### Octobef 5, 2009



### Wetumpka City Hall 

### 5:00 p.m


### The Council 

### of the City 

### of Wetumplca hetd a 

### work session 

### prior to the first meeting in 

### October in 

### the Council Chambers 

### of Wetumpka City 

### Hall. Present 

### were Mayor Jerry Wilfis and 

### Councilmembers l(en Hammocl<, Lewis E. 

### Washington, Sr., 

### I(athy Holt, Chris Carter, and Greg 

### Jones. Also 

### present 

### were City Cler-l< Janice G. 

### Whorton, City 

### Attorney Jacqueline E. Austin, 

### department heads, 

### staff members, citizens 

### of 

### the cornmunity and 

### the media. Agenda items 

### were discussed 

### in 

### addition to discussion on 

### the possibility 

### of a Farmer's 

### Market, a freeze on 

### hiring 

### part-time ernployees, and 

### repairs for the Tulane 

### Monument at 

### the Wetumpka City 

### Cemetery.

October 5, 2009 

### Wetumpka City Hall 

### 7:00 p,m.


### The Council 

### of 

### the City 

### of Weturnpka met in regular session 

### on Monday, October 5, 2009, in 

### the Council Chambers 

### of Weturnpka City Hall.


### The meeting was called 

### to order by 

### Mayor Jerry 

### Willis. The 

### invocation was given by 

### CouncilmemberJonesfollowed 

### bythe Pledge 

### of Altegiance led by 

### CouncilmemberWashington. Upon roll call 

### the foflowing were 

### present: Mayor Willis and 

### Councilmembers Ken 

### Hammoclt, Lewis E. 

### Washington, Sr., Kathy 

### Holt, Chris 

### Carter, and Greg 

### Jones. Also 

### present 

### were City Clerk Janice G. 

### Whorton, City 

### Attorney Jacqueline E. 

### Austin, departrnent heads, 

### staff members, citizens 

### of 

### the community, and 

### the media,


### Councilmember Hammock 

### offered a 

### motion 

### to approve 

### tlre minutes of the 

### work session 

### and council rneeting held on 

### September 2L,2AA9, and Special 

### Meeting on September 30, 2009. 

### The 

### motion was 

### seconded by 

### Councilrnember Carter 

### with the Council 

### voting unanimously in 

### favor of 

### the motion. Engineer Larry Jarvis 

### presented 

### four proposals 

### for 

### the entrance road connection to the recreational complex and Coosa River Parkway as 

### follows:
$49,735. $43,055. 

### S4a,zst. 

### $g7,gtz. Wi regrass Con 

### struction Alexander Seal Coat A 

### & C 

### Construction 

### Stiff Contractors

### Councilmember Hammoc[< 

### offered a 

### motion 

### to approve 

### the low bid 

### from Stiff Contractors 

### for 

# ' $ 

### 37,8I2 as a 

### public worlcs 

### project. The 

### motion was 

### seconded by 

### Councilmember Washington 

# i with the Council 

### voting unanimously in favor of 

### the motion.

t 

### Councilmember Washington 

### offered a 

### motion 

### to set aside 

### funds 

### from the 2009-2010



# . budget 

### for repairs 

### to the Black 

### History Museum and 

### the Martin Luther l(ing, Jr., Recreation Center 

### with the scope and 

### dollar amount considered at a 

### later 

### date. The motion was seconded

, by 

### Councilmember Jones 

### with 

### the Council 

### voting unanimously in 

### favor of 

### the motion.
Councilmember Washington 

### offered a 

### motion 

### to approve a 

### request by 

### Arrowhead Plastics 

### Engineering, lnc. 

### to exercise an 

### option of 

### the July 

### 29, L989, lease at 

### the Weturnpka Municipal 

### Airport 

### for the 

### first option period of 

### five (5) 

### years. The 

### motion was seconded by 

### Councilrnember Hamrnock 

### with 

### the Council 

### voting unanimously in 

### favor of 

### the motion.

A 

### proposal 

### for conducting Spanish classes 

### for city employees 

### will be 

### considered at the next meeting.
The 

### following resolution was 

### presented:
Resolution 10-5-09
WHEREAS, 

### The Alabarna 

### Depirtment of 

### Transportation ("ALDO?') has 

### requested the C1y of 

### Wetumplca, Alabama, 

### to execute a 

### permit 

### for modification of a 

### traffic signal 

### on U.S. 

### Highway Z3L 

### atthe intersection with Jasmine 

### Hill Road 

### pursuadt 

### to Exhibit A 

### attached hereto, and
WHEREAS, 

### The City Council has 

### considered the.request of 

### the ALDOTto authorize the Mayor 

### to enter into an 

### agreement 

### to permit the traffic signal 

### construction efforts at 

### this location as 

### identified hereinabove.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED 

### bythe City 

### council of 

### the 

### city of wetumplca, Alabama, at a 

### regular meeting, 

### duly assembled, a 

### quorum being present, as 

### follows: 

# L. That 

### the Maypr and City Clerl( are 

### herebyauthorized 

### to execute 

### the permit (Exhibit A) 

### with the Alabama Department of 

### Transportation 

### to permit the following:


# a. Traffic signal 

### modifications at 

### the US 

### Highway 231 and Jasmine Hill Road



# . intersection 

# b. Operation and 

### maintenance of 

### the US 

### Highway 23L 

### atJasmine Hill Road 

### traffic sign a I 

# Z. Thatthe Mayor and City Cler!< 

### are authorized 

### to execute any 

### documents necessary 

### to permit 

### the construction efforts pertaining 

### to the traffic signal construction efforts provided 

### herein above as 

### required 

### bythe Alabama Department of 

### Transportation.



# ',

.. t: ,1;:i.;:: 

# i: *!3lTit:t';-:i:i 

## a 

# ltltsiJr:rj*"*.t,-a*iy-frF

# 3. That 

### this resolution shall become 

### effective immediately upon its adoption by 

### the City Council 

### of 

### the City 

### of Wetumpl<a, Alabama, 

### Adopted and approved 

### this the 5th day 

### of October, 2009.



# . Councilmember Washington requested 

### that Elaine Pace, 130 5t. Thomas Avenue, be 

### appointed 

### to the Crater Cornmission 

### with the council 

### voting unanimously on 

### the appointment.

Jan 

### Wood, Executive 

### Director of the Wetumpl<a 

### Area Chamber: 

### of Comrnerce, 

### repofted on 

### current activities and asl<ed 

### for volunteers 

### for Frontier Days 

### at Fort 

### Toulouse
Councilrnember Carter described 

### the Trail of Legends 

### Adventure Race hetd last Saturday 

### with 248 

### participants 

### from twelve 

# states.

: 

### Upon 

### motion by 

### Councilmember Carter, 

### the meeting adjourned.

ATTEST: is, 

### Mayor

e G. 

### Whotton, CitY Clerk

# #ns'ww&ewd

Plastlc Sngineer'rg, 

# lnr. *;'1';8{r

Corpomle Headqualers 2909 S. Hoyt Avenue Muncie,lN 47302

765.286.0533 Phone ZOS.2SO.togt Fu www.arrowhe adinc.com
e Muncie,lN a Eaton,lN ^ Elmore (Montgornery), AL ^ Fort Valley (Macon). GA

Since 1972 - Leaders ln Molding ldeas inlo Eeality
Conposite filolding ^ Gompmsion Molding ^ Hand tay-Up ^ Spay-Up ^ BMC ^ ffIl'{ ^ uf rn't 

### ^ LPffn't ^ Cotd Moldino ^ Vacuum Bag Molding 

### ^ Acrylic Rlgldiidng ^ R:llrusion Thernoplastic Molding ^ Vacuurn Formtng ^ VlnylWnpping ^ Exlrusion ^ BolallonalMotrling ^ lnleclion Molding ^ SlrucfunlF$m Molding Urclhane Casling Engineerlng I [Jesign

Prolessianal Menberships ^ Composiles Fabricalon Assoclatlnn ^ Soclety of Plaslfc Engineen 

### ^ National Manulaclurerc Association + MAPP 

### August 15, 2009



### The Honorable Jo Glenn 

### 212 S; Main 

### Street Wetumpka, 

# AL 36092

Dear Mayor Glenn:


### This letter 

### will serue as 

### written notice 

### of our election 

### to exercise 

### our option to extend the July 

### 29, 1989 Lease 

### (and assigned 

### to Arrowhead on 

### July 

### 6, 1995) 

## for the first option period of 

### five (5) 

### years. This lease 

### optlori covers 

### the former MCP 

### Plant, now Arrowhead Cornposites, located 

## at 1142 

### Highway 14, Elmore/ AL, 

## 36025. 

## It is 

### our understanding 

### that this option term 

### will run 

### from September 1, 

### 2009 

### to August 31, 

## 2014. Should 

### you need 

### anything additional 

### from Arrowhead 

### to effectuate 

### the election of this option/ 

### or should 

### you have 

### any questions, p[ease 

### contact me at 

### your earliest convenlence. Best regardsl 

# -4 I 

# / fl,tfw

' 

### THornt's 

### W. Kishel, 

### Arrowhead Composites, 

### A Division 

### of Arrowhead Plastic 

### Engineering, 

### Inc. 

# ,J \



# erz;W 

# tu+ 

# ry@

# STANDARD 

# LEASE 

# AGREEMENT FOR



# COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

WETUMPKA MT]NICIPAL 

# AIRPORT 

# CITY OF 

# WETUMPKA" 

# ALABAMA

NOVEMBER 

# 2OIIThis

and lease agreement made and entered 

### into on this day 

### of 

# 20 ,by between 

### the undersigned 

### City of Wetumpka, a municipal corporation, b.ereinafter referred 

### to as 

### "L€ssor" and 

### McDonough Properties, 

## LLC by Dave Ramsey, 

### an individuaVcorporation; hereinafter referred to as the ttl-essee".


### MTNESSETH:
The parties recite and declare: Lessor is the owner of an airport known as Wetumpka 

### Municipal Airport 

### ("Airport'), and the Lessee is desirous of leasing a portion of the airport facilities for use in the 

### field of aviation. Finally, that Lessor is 

### willing to lease a portion of the airport premises together 

### with such rights and privileges as are set forth in this agreement.
That 

### for an in consideration of the duties and obligations hereby assumed by the parties aud of the mutual agreemeuts hereinafter slated, the Lessor does hereby grant to the Lessee, subject to the provisions, exceptions and reservations hereinafter stated, certain rights and privileges in regard to a portion 

### ofthe Wetumpka Municipal Airport property, being situated in Etmore County, Alabama, and beins more particularly described as follows:
SEE EXHIBTT 

### "A''ATTACI{ED I{ERETO 

### A photo of the leased premises is outlined 

### in red aud is attached hereto as 

### Exhibit..A,,. In the
event that 

### it is found that the above description is 

### in error, the Lessor shall not be liable for such error and shall not be responsible for the consequences of any mistakes in said description. In the event this lease is disapproved 

### for anyreason by the Federal Aviation Administration 

### ("FAA") or the Aiabama Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics 

### ("ALDOT"), or both, The Lessor shall not be liable 

### for
consequences of disapproval of this lease by either 

### of said agencies. The 

### following shall be the terms, conditioas and agreements of this agreement:1. 

### TERMS OF 

### LEASE

Said premises are left for the purposes and upon the terms, conditions, and provisions hereinafter

set forth for a term of one (1) year commencing midnight on the 1st day of January, 20L2, and terminating

on the 

### 3l't day of December,2012, at and for the yearly lease rate of: $911.63 (Nine 

### Hundred Eleven 

### Dollarsand63/100),payableonthel't dayofJanuary,2012.Itisfurtheragreedthattheleaserate,ifthe

lease is renewed, shall increase by five percent (5%) annually. Said increase shall take effect each year on the anniversary date of the Lease. Any holdover, regardless of the length, beyond 

### tle term of this Lease
shall not be constued to be a renewal on the same terms, it being distinctlyunderstood that anyrenewal 

### of

the same shall require the consent of the Lessor and shall be subject to the renegotiation on such terms as
the Lessor may 

## fix. The Lessee shall give written notice to the Lessor of his intention to request renewal at
least sixty (60) days before the expiration of this lease.

2. 

### LEASE OF PREMISES
It is specifically agreed that the Lessee shall have the right, but not the exclusive right, and subject

to the laws, rules, and regulations of Federal, State, County, and City govemments and of good safety practices to engage in the activities outlined in the Airport 

### Minimum Standards.

3. 

### MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RT]LES 

### AND 

### REGULATIONS
It is understood and agreed that Lessee shall meet, and 

### complywith, the 

### Airport Rules and Regulations, and the 

### Airport Minimum Standards, adopted by the City of Wetumpka, for aeronautical

. activities established for the Wetumpka Municipal 

### Airport and supply Lessor those documents necessary to give evidence of such compliance. 

### It is further agreed that these 

### Airport Rules and Regulations and 

### Airport
Minimum Standards are attached and made a part of this Lease. 

### It is understood and agreed that the Lessee
shall comply and cause its servants, agents and employees along 

### with its customers to comply 

### with theRules and Regulations of the City of Wetumpka. 

### It is understood and agreed that these documents maybe
amended in the future and that the Lessee 

### will be subjected to those actions available to Lessor, as stated 

### in
the 

### Airport Rules and Regulations and 

### Airport Minimum Standards of the Wetumpka Municipal 

### Airport.

Lessee 

### will be provided 

### with amendments and they shall be updated as necessary.

4. 

### NON-DISCRIMINATORY PUBLIC USE
That the Lessee shall use the premises in compliance 

### with the 

### Airport Rules and Regulations and 

### Airport Minimum Standards and pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Departnent 

## of Transportation Subtitle 

### A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination 

### in federally assisted
programs of the Department of Transportation Effectuation of the Title 

### VI if the 

### Civil Rights act 

### of 1964,
and as said Regulations maybe amended. 

### It is further agreed that in the event of breach of any of the above
nondiscrimination covenants, Lessor shall have the right to terminate the Lease and to re-enter and

repossess said land and the facilities theteon, and hold the same as 

### if said Lease had never been made or
issued. This provision shall not be effective 

### until the procedures of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 

### 2I are followed and completed including exercise or expiration of appeal rights.

5. 

### SUBJECT TO PRIOR DEED AND 

### MILITARY USE
This Lease shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreements between the
Lessor and the United States, relative to the operation or maintenance of the airport, the execution of which

has been or may be required as a condition precedent to the expenditure of Federal funds for the development of the airport; provided, however, that the Lessee shall be entitled to any compensation
allowed or provided by law for any loss suffered by the Lessee by reasons of any charges which may be required in the Lease and provided, further, that the Lessor shall not be required to pay any part 

### of such compensation,During time of war or national emergency, the Lessor shall have the right to lease the entfue airport
ot any part thereof to the United States Government for military use, and, 

### if any such lease is executed. provisions of this instrument 

### in so far as they are inconsistent 

### with the needs of the govemment, shall be suspended; provided, however, that the Lessee shall be entitled to any compensation allowed or provided by law 

### for any loss suffered by the Lessee by reason of such governmental takeover of any part of ihe airport hereby leased to the Lessee; and provided, further, that the Lessor shall not be required to pay any part of such compensation. 

### It is further provided and agreed that 

### if the United States Govemment, under its confract and agreement 

### with the Lessor, exercises its right to require the reversion of all right, 

### title and interest which
the Lessor may own 

### in said property, and pays to the Lessor a sum of money for the installation 

### of

structures which have been erected on said leased property by the said Lessee, then such compensation
shall be paid to the said Lessee.

6. 

### COIipTTION OF 

### PREMISES. MATNTENANCE. UTTLTTTES Operator accepts condition of premises 

### 'AS-IS'. Operator acknowiedges that the City 

### of Wetumpka has made no representations or warranties relating to the coodition of the premises for any particular use, and the City shall have no obligation whatsoever to repair, maintain, renovate or otherwise
incur any cost or expense with respect to the premises, except as otherwise provided in the lease.
The Lessee shall be responsible to the Lessor for the maintena:rce and 

### utility service of its leased premises at the airport and Lessee agrees to keep the leased area and premises 

### in a neat and orderly mrnner in accordance 

### with the 

### Airport Rules and Regulations and Airport 

### Minimum Standards. During the 

### initial

tenn of this agreement and anyrenewal of 

### it, Lessor shall maintain and keep 

### in good repair as much of the airport premises as is not under the exclusive 

### contol of individual kssees.7. 

### SUB.LEASE AND ASSIGNMENTS

The Lessee shall not sub-lease or assign this Lease to the said premises or any part 

### thereof without written consent of the Lessor. The decision of the City of Wetumpka, for whatever reason, as whether to

consent to a sublease or assignment is 

### final and conclusive, it being expressly understood and agreed 

### by
both parties that the City of Wetumpka has the absolute right to withhold its consent to such sub-lease and assignment and such decision shall be binding.

8. 

### CONSTRUCTION OF 

### IMPROVEMENTS

The Lessor reseryes the right to further develop or improve the airport as 

### it sees 

### fit, and 

### without
interference or hindrance, but shall not unreasonably interfere 

### with Lessee's operation; and shall conform
to the 

### Airport Ruies and Regulations and 

### Airport Minimum Standards in addition to compliance 

### with regulations of the 

### FAA aud 

### ALDOT and any laws and regulatious of the City, County, state and Federal govemments. In the event that any such building erected by Lessee is on the wrong land or shall not comply 

### with such regulations, whether due to excessive height, close proximity to a nrnway or any other
violation of any such regulations of said agencies, 

### tle building shall be removed or modified to meet said regulations at the Lessee's expense, and the Lessor shall not be liable in any way by reasons of such failure
of Lessee to comply 

### with such regulations or building on the wrong land.

9. 

### APPROVAL. 

### MODIFICATION. AND T"ERMINATION OF'LEASE
It is understood that this agreement and any renewal thereof shall be subject to approval 

### by ALDOT and 

### FAA, and shall not be binding on the Lessor or the Lessee 

### until and unless such approvals
have been received. The Lessor reserves the right to modify or change the terms of this Lease at any time
in order to meet any requirements for Federal and State grants. In tJre event of the 

### FAA or 

### ALDOT, either

or both, shall require any modification hereof, the Lessor shall have the right at any time, to make any and
all modifications of this Lease which may be requested or required by said 

### FAA and 

### AIDOT, or either 

### ofthem, including re-writing the entire Lease. The Lessee shall be entitled to any reasonable compensation

allowed or provided by law for any loss, 

### if any, which might be suffered by Lessee by reason of any changes which may be required in the Lease, provided, however, that any such compensation must be
derived from some source other than the City of Wetumpka, and tJrat the Lessor shall not be required to
pay any part 

### of such compensation.
This Lease agreement maybe cancelled upon mutual consent of the City of Wetumpka and the

Lessee.
In the event any term, condition or clause of this 

### contact is 

### in conflict 

### with any law of the State 

### of
Alabama or of the United States, it shall be taken as amended and modified by such law to the extent

necessary to uphold the 

### validity of this contact. 

### If any clause, term or condition is deleted, then the entire
agreement shall not be void, but the remaining provisions shall romain in 

### fuIl force and effect,
The Lessor shall have the right to terminate any contract or lease 

### with a commercial aeronautical
operator or Lessee in whole or in part, upon the occurrence of any of the 

### following events:

- Failure on the part of the operator to pay the agreed charges when due.

- The failure of tlle operator to perform, keep or observe any of the terms, covenants and
conditions which they are obligated to perform, keep or observe under the contract or under the
Lease, and the 

### Airport Minimum Standards and Airport Rules and Regulations.
- The abandonment of the leased premises or discontinuance of all business operations for 

### thirfy (30) cousecutive days unless caused by an act ofnature, fire, or other disaster beyond the control


### ofthe operator.

- Use of tire airport for unauthorized or iilegal activities.


### It is agreed by the parties that 

### if the Lessee is convicted in any court, wirether slate or federal,

whether in Alabama or irr some other state, of any felony offense, where the felony conviction 

### will affect
their ability to carry out their obligations under this lease agreement, then the Lease shail immediately

terminate and the Lessee 

### will, within one hundred twenty 

### (i20) days of said conviction, vacate thepremises. The parties further agree that upon the Lease being terminated for the above-mentioned reason,
th.e Lessee shall remove all personal properly and the buildings on said premises in the aforementioned 120 day time period, and any equity the Lessee shall have 

### in said property after 120 days have elapsed shall immediately be divested from the Lessee and shall immediately vest in the Lessor, any provision 

### of
paragraph ten (10) or (11) 

### ofthis Lease, or anyotherprovision 

### ofthis Lease, to the contrary notwithstauding.

10. 

### TERMINATION BY LESSOR 

### If the Lessee fails to make anypalment due under this agreement 

### within fourteen (14) days of the
date on which the payment is due, the Lessor, at its option, may terminate this agreement and take possession of so much of the Lessee's personal property as is reasonably necessary to secure palmrents 

### of

the amounts due and unpaid. The Lessor shall have the right to terminate this agreement in the event that
the Tenant violates any terms of this Lease as hereinbefore stated. The Lessee shall be responsible 

### for all

costs or damages sustained by 

### kssor as a result of Lessee's default, including court costs and attorney

fees.



### 1I. DISPOSITION OF 

### IMPROVEMENT UPON 

### TERMINATION OF'LEASE Upon the expiratiou of this Lease or the termination of this Lease, any improvements made by the

Lessee 

### in a 

### NEW or 

### EXTENDED conhact after the date of January 

### I,2012, 

### will revert to the City 

### of
Wetumpka upon expiration of the lease. 

### All prior improvements owned by the Lessee are to be relocated
or removed at the Lessee's expense. Lessee shall have one hundred twenty (120) days to remove any and
all of his 

### building or other improvements on the premises, including but not 

### limited to storage tanks, pipes,

pumps, etc. In the event Lessee fails to remove any and all of said equipment then title to said item(s) shall
divest from the Lessee and vest in the Lessor, or, at the sole option of the Lessor, the Lessor may hire the item(s) removed from the premises and charge said expenses for such removal to the Lessee withoutincurri:rg any 

### liability to the Lessee. The Lessee shall also be required to grade and sod the foundation 

### in

the event he removes the building, etc.



### 12. DISPOSITION OF 

### IMPROVEMENT UPON 

### AIRPORT RELOCATION
In the event of relocation of the airport, tenant may lease premises at the new airport location
under a new lease agreement to be negotiated at that 

### time. All relocation costs that are not pre-approved

and negotiated 

### with the Lessor prior to construction shall be at the expense of the Lessee, and all new improvements shall be zubject to 

### Airport Minimum Standards.

13. 

### LIABILITY AND INSURANCE

Lessee covenants and agrees to conduct all of its activities and render its services in a safe manner.
The Lessee shall be responsible for all its employees safe and harmless from responsibility for law suits
which may be brought against the Lessor and/or its employees on account of any acts of the Lessee's employees while engaged in the activities or services in connection with the leased premises at the airport;

Lessee shall carry 

### liabilify insurance 

### with a combined single 

### limit in 

### tle amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for bodily injury and properby damage 

### with the Lessor being listed as a named inzured and protected person or entity on said policy, and the Lessor shall be firmished 

### with a copy of any such 

### policy

or policies of insurance during the term of this Lease and any extension or extensions thereof; 

### it is
understood, however, that the insertion of this clause in this Lease shali not be construed to be a recognition of any 

### liability of the 

### kssor in the operation of the airport, it being the 

### firm and definite

contention of the Lessor that 

### it is not liable in any way for the operation of the 

### airport. Lessee shall abide by minimum insurance requirements included in the 

### Airport Minimum Standards'14. 

## 9ITX STATE 

### ANp FEpERAL ACCESS 

### TO FACILTTTES
The Lessee agrees that the Lessor, 

### ALDOT, and the 

### FAA, shall each have access to all the facilities and records pertaining to the airport for any inspection, conhol or other purpose authorized by
law.

15. 

### AGENCY
It is further understood that although this instrument is sometimes referred to as a "Lease', and the parties are referred to as the "L€ssee" and the "Lessor", it is not the intent of the parties for tbe Lessee to acquire any interest in any real estate, but that the Lessee is merely granted certain rights and privileges to
the use of the airport property. Furthermore, although the Lessee shall enjoy all rights and privileges herein granted and shall accept all of the obligations and responsibilities herein imposed upon 

### it, the Lessee shall
do so as an independent contractor and shall nor be the agent, employee, or representative 

### ofthe Lessor.
The Lessee shall be solely responsible for any and all injuries to persons or damage to property growing
out of or 

### in connection 

### with its operation at the airport or any other facilities thereon.

16. 

### HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND AIRSPACE 

### PROTECTION 

# (a) The Lessor reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, for the use and benefit 

### ofthe public, a 

### right of 

### flight for the passage of aircraft in the airspace above the surface of the real properly hereinafter described, together with the right to cause 

### in said airspace such noise as may be inherent in the operation of aircraft, now known or hereafter used, for navigation of or 

### flight in the said airspace, and 

### for

use of said airspace for landing on, taking 

### off from or operating on the airport. 

# (b) The Lessee expressly agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, to 

### restict the height 

### of sttuctutes, objects of natural growth and other obstruction on the hereinafter described real property to
such a height so as not to constitute an obstruction as defined by Federal 

### Aviation Regulations, 

### Part77.

# (c) The Lessee expressly agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, to prevent any use 

### ofthe

hereinafter described real property, which would interfere 

### with or adversely affect the operation or
maintenance of the airport, or otherwise constitute an airport hazard. 

# (d) The Lessor reserves the right to take any action it considers necessary to protect the aerial
approaches or irnaginary surfaces described on Federal Aviation Administration 

### RegulationPntlT.'75, or
the corresponding provisions 

### of any future Federal Aviation Regulations, for the airport to prevent any
action which, in the opinion of the Lessor, or of the 

### FAA or 

### ALDOT, would 

### limit the usefulness of the airport or constitute ahazard to aircraft.

17. 

### AD 

### VALOREM TAXES 

### All ad valorem taxes to be paid on said land, 

### if any, shall be paid by the Lessor,

18. 

### ATTORNEY FEES
In the event that the Lessor takes any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the Lessee
shall be required to pay to the Lessor any and all cost, harm, and expense that may be caused by the violation, including, but not limited to, a reasonable attorney fee' 

### COMPLIANCE 

### WITH IMMIGRATION LAW
Before me, the undersigned Notary Public 

### in and 

### for said Counfy and State, personally appeared the undersigned, who being first by me duly sworn, deposes and says, under penalty of perjury, as follows:


### That 

## I and 

### my business have 

### not hired any 

### unlawful aliens; have 

### not had a business license permanently suspended for violating Alabama's Illegal Immigration Act pursuant to Section 31-13-15(f) 

### of ihe Code of Alabama; and that prior to 

### hiring any employees, 

### I and/or my business 

### will be enrolled 

### in and participating in the 

### E-Verify program as required under Section 

### 3l-13-25(b) of said Act.

LESSEE 

## - Authorized Agent
SWORN TO 

### AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME 

# THIS DAY OF



### NOTARYPUBLIC BY COMMiSSION EXPIRES:By: 

## IN WITNESS WHER-EOF 

### the parties have 

### hereinto set 

### their hands and seals. Lessor, City of Wetumpka



### LESSEE: McDonough Properties, 

### LLC

WITNESS By: Dave Ramsey, 

### Member Manager

PERSONAL 

### GUARANTY
The undersigned, do 

### herebyjointly and severally personally guarantee to the Lessor, the due and punctual payment of all rent payable under the Lease, as 

### well as the 

### full, prompt and complete performance by the Lessee 

### ofall the covenants, conditions and provisions contained in the Lease on the part 

### ofthe Lessee therein to be kept, observed and performed, for the 

### ftill term 

### ofthe Lease and any extension thereof, as permitted by the Lease, 

### with no less force and effect than 

### if the undersigned were named as Lessee in the Lease, and the undersigned 

### will forthwith on demand pay all amounts at any time in arrears, and 

### will make good any and all defaults 

### occuring under the Lease,

Witness Dave Ramsey - Guarantor

Sigred, sealed, and delivered as to the Lessor, in the presence 

### of

City Clerk
Done this 

# the day 

### of 

# 20-.I



# ) 1 

## DAVE RAIIISEY LEASE DESGRIPTTOH
COMMENCE AT CONTROL MONUMENT WETPORT 1986'; THENCE NORTH 75"15'5T WEST, 1958.54 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT PROPERry, SAID OORNER BEINGTHE POINT OF BEGINNING; T}IENCE ALONG EAST 

### RIGHT€F.WAY OF COUNTY ROAD 17' 

### souTH 00"58'34" WEST, 295.7A FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'01:26I EAST, 160.00 FEET;. THENCE NORTH OOO58'34' EAST,27O.OO FEET; THENCE NORTH 79'5-+i5? WEST, 162.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1.04 ACREIi, MORE OR LESS. P.O.B. FOR DAVE RAMSEY LEASE



### o o t, L 

### d o IL E

N 

### o o 

## t

1oo o 'J' 1oo 

# ffi ' SCALE:1"= 100' DAVE .,iRATIISEY

! 1.O4ACRESAlabama Aviator - Alabama Airports - Flight Schools in Alabama and Aircraft Rentals - News

http://www.alabamaaviator.com/news.asp?record_no=25298[12/11/2013 10:30:24 AM] 

### Subscribe to RSS Receive News Updates via Email:

3/26/2013 - Mayor Says Historic Wetumpka Airport Will Not be Moved WETUMPKA AL- Late Friday afternoon, Mayor Jerry Willis released a statement announcing the Feasibility Study for Western Elmore county and the Wetumpka Municipal Airport has been completed. The process of conducting a study began in December 2010, when the Wetumpka City Council approved a resolution allowing ALDOT's Aeronautics Bureau to conduct a feasibility study involving the airport. Barry Mask, executive director of the Elmore County Economic Development Authority, ECEDA, one of the partners in the study effort, Ryan Reed and Mike Griffin of Garvin Engineers, and Dr. John Eagerton, director of the Alabama Department of Transportation's Aeronautics Bureau presented the project for approval. The $150,000 cost of the study, being paid by the state Aeronautics Bureau, was to be completed sometime in November 2012, and then later presented to the Elmore County Economic Development Authority and the city. Since the study began, an ongoing lease dispute continues with an FAA complaint against the City of Wetumpka filed by certain airport tenants, some of which were served an evection notice. Most of these notices went to established businesses on the field. The complainants say the city is failing to provide a long-term rental lease under the stipulations of an FAA? grant assurance. This pending complaint could be decided by the FAA as soon as June.

Meanwhile efforts to gain support for the airport at its current location inAlabama Aviator - Alabama Airports - Flight Schools in Alabama and Aircraft Rentals - News

http://www.alabamaaviator.com/news.asp?record_no=25298[12/11/2013 10:30:24 AM]



### Inaugural Brewton Bullseye Elmore yielded the formation of an organization called the Elmore County Aviation Alliance. Comprised of tenants, businesses, neighbors and friends of the airport, the ECAA successfully petitioned the Alabama Historical Society for honorary listing in the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage. An announcement was made about the new airport historical status March 12, 2013. The airport property was deeded to the City of Wetumpka in 1948, and was originally known as Elmore Auxiliary Airfield No. 2, one of seven auxiliary fields to Maxwell Air Force Base during World War II. The field was constructed to relieve congestion at Maxwell and Gunter bases when Maxwell Field was designated the Southeast Air Corps Training Center. At that time, Wetumpka was the nearest incorporated municipality to the field in Elmore County, so the city was given the property. It has remained in continuous operation. Mayor Willis stated, based on the verbal communications with Garver and ALDOT, the city, as owner and sponsor of the Wetumpka Municipal Airport, is pleased to announce it does not anticipate the Wetumpka Municipal Airport will be moved from its current historical site. No date on the release of the Feasibility Study or site selection was noted in the statement and the rest is still up to the FAA. -B Meyer, Read Full Statement at the Millbrook Independent , FMI: ECAA <-- Go BackAlabama Aviator - Alabama Airports - Flight Schools in Alabama and Aircraft Rentals - News

http://www.alabamaaviator.com/news.asp?record_no=25298[12/11/2013 10:30:24 AM]



### Competition- 12J

Copyright Alabama Aviator Web development by Infomedia Terms of Use Privacy Policy$100K to study Wetumpka airport relocation

http://www.elmoreeda.com/News/frmArticle.aspx?NewID=1069[12/11/2013 10:37:32 AM] **Demographics Available Property**  **Taxes Education** 

Local Schools Universities **Utilities Transportation**  **Labor & Training Local Industry**  **Incentives Information**  **Requests Media**  **Links**

Wetumpka Downtown and Riverfront Development Tweet



### Corporate News

Finley new ECEDA director Alabama economic development chief: State "on precipice of great things" Elmore county to score $4 million in ATRIP money County awarded added $4 million for road work Zaxby's debuts in Wetumpka New EDPA database will innovate site searches with layers of information Retail touted as viable economic development focus in Alabama The joys of summer: Thousands turn out for music, food, fireworks, fun at Millbrook Summerfest New Elmore Co. warning siren system in place Organizers estimate 2nd annual event draws 10,000 

# $100K TO STUDY WETUMPKA AIRPORT RELOCATION December 15, 2010 Janna Gurtler Harris Wetumpka Progress Article Source » Subscribe

Next » The Wetumpka City Council passed a resolution Dec. 6 requesting a study to be conducted on the Wetumpka Municipal Airport to determine possible expansion or relocation of the airport. The proposed feasibility report will be conducted by the Alabama Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division. Barry Mask, executive director of the Elmore County Economic Development Authority (ECEDA), originally approached Dr. John Eagerton, chiefof ALDOT's Aeronautics Bureau, about possibilities for the airport's future. According to Eagerton, the feasibility study will cost between $100,000 and $120,000 and will be completely paid for by ALDOT at no cost to the city of Wetumpka or Elmore County. The report would take nine or 10 months to conduct, and the results would then be brought back to ECEDA and the city council for review. Mask believes this report to be a critical step in bringing jobs to Elmore County. "This site where the current airport sits has some unique characteristics highly valued in the industrial economic development sector," the economic development director said. "Those are rail, high pressure gas, high volume electricity, and 15 minutes within I-65." The Wetumpka Municipal Airport is located on Alabama Highway 14 in Elmore, skirting the nearby communities of Coosada and Millbrook. "When I met with Dr. Eagerton, I made it perfectly clear that we want this to be a win-win proposition," Mask continued. "We don't want to deprive anyone of things they are currently enjoying. But if we could bring jobs in for the airport to move elsewhere or be expanded, why not look at all the factors?" Mask pursued Eagerton with this proposition after realizing how many possible jobs for Elmore County were being lost over the past 14 months. "We have had three different industry inquiries from the Alabama Development Office. There are only four other sites in the state of Alabama where there are 250 acres, rail, and gas. How many times can we turn away 300 to 400 jobs, with a $20 million to $35 million payroll?" Councilman Ken Hammock said he received a letter from the chairman of the Wetumpka Airport Authority voicing strong opposition to this project and wondered if the council could have more time to study this from all sides and make a decision at a later date. Mask appreciated Hammock's concern but expressed his belief that it was time to move on with the study. "I think some of the people who are opposed to this are opposed to it tonight, they're going to be opposed to it a year from now, and they're going to be opposed to it five years from now," Mask said. "This has been out on the streets for a couple of months now, and I think anybody trying to prevent it at this late stage is simply trying to delay it." Mask went on to say that he and Dr. Eagerton had already met with the president of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) to discuss concerns. "They left feeling very good about the project," he noted. Councilman Chris Washington was highly in favor of the feasibility study, stressing the need for growth and jobs in Elmore County. "As Rep. Mask said, we have the gas, we have the electricity, and we have plenty of water. This should lower our water bills. It's still going to be centrally located. We cry about people going elsewhere. Why? Because we do not want to move forward. Let us move forward now. It's only a study. After the resolution, we could all come together and discuss. Let's stop waiting." According to Eagerton, the current 3,000-foot runway does not accommodate corporate aircraft. The River Region's Wave of the Future! ABOUT ECEDA MISSION STAFF CONTACT US ECEDA NEWS

4 Like$100K to study Wetumpka airport relocation

http://www.elmoreeda.com/News/frmArticle.aspx?NewID=1069[12/11/2013 10:37:32 AM] "The question is, do you want an airport that is a really good airport for sports and recreation and activities, or do you want an airport that supports not only sport aviation activities, but also supports corporate aviation that can accommodate jobs, businesses, and industries that all communities in Alabama are striving to achieve?" Dave Ramsey, owner of a hanger at the airport who also has a land lease there, is in strong opposition to the study. "If it turns out that the airport is to be relocated, history and experience shows that most of the existing aircraft owners will not move with the airport. Fifty-six percent of renters live in Montgomery," he said. "The reason they're in Wetumpka is because Dannelly (Field) is too expensive. If this airport moves, the cost of rental for a hanger, land, or gasoline will be the same as Dannelly, but Dannelly will then be closer to 56 percent of their aircraft owners." Ramsey went on to say, "It may turn out to be that the airport should stay where it is, in which case the $150,000 is down the drain." Councilwoman Kathy Holt retorted, "If it's allocated money, it's not going to go back to the taxpayers anyway. It's already designated money, so it's not like if we don't use it, it's going to go somewhere else." "No, but maybe it could go to a new hanger," replied Ramsey, "That would be much more constructive than blowing it on a study like this." Ramsey continued to voice his concerns about financing a new airport. "If the airport moves, you're looking at $10 million to $15 million to build it. Where is that money going to come from, and who is going to pay for it? Is the airport going to be owned by Wetumpka? It's bad enough working with Wetumpka." Holt and Mayor Jerry Willis questioned what problems Ramsey had working with the city. Ramsey responded, "Are you seriously saying to me that you don't think it's hard to work with you people over the years? We've got empty corporate space on our airport plan. We've had people contact us wanting to build a hanger." Ramsey claims that over the last five years, six companies wanted to build hangers at the airport, but that the city would not provide a lease for them. "It's not a very good situation," the aviation enthusiast said. "I urge the council to vote 'no' for the present time, and let's talk about it a little more." Eagerton went on to discuss examples of airports being built in the face of local opposition that now have a wide range of economic success. He also voiced some of the options for the current airport. "Something we see all across the United States is that some people will come in and want to shut down the airport with no plan to replace it," Eagerton said. "This is an opportunity to not just build a new airport but find a good use for the existing airport. We see this as an opportunity we can support from the state level." After the study is complete, Eagerton said the research will then be presented to the council. "When we complete this study, we will bring you the answers," he said. "It will then be your decision to proceed further with the results of the study or not."

© 2013 Elmore County Economic Development Authority. All Rights Reserved. ABOUT ECEDA MISSION STAFF CONTACT US ECEDA NEWS

## Raymond Veatch

From : <WADERAMSEY@aol.com> Date : Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:24 AM To : <manager@interna tionalacs.com> Sub j ect : Fwd: Dr. Kemp's Ground Lease Renewal - 4-1 5 -13 email exchang e 

## Page 1 of 3

12/11/2013 

## Ray: Please note what she's saying about the old leases...."not been offered by the City since 2011"....
Wade

R

AMSEY & 

## A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PRIVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distrib ution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avo iding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.



### From: Regina@rbelawfirm.com To: WADERAMSEY@aol.com Sent: 4/15/2013 2:29:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: RE: Dr. Kemp's Ground Lease Renewal



### Hi Wade: Dr. Kemp said he was paying for 2013 but upon further research it was determined that he had already paid for 2013 through hi s current lease term. The City refunded the money to him and he wrote void on the check and gave it to Lynn Weldon. I have requested a new check be issued because there is no rent due at this time and the City is no t able to hold funds in escrow for debts that are yet to be due. As you know the old airport leases have not been offered by the City since 2011 and have been replaced by the Standard Commercial Operators Lease. We have received notice from Dr. Kemp in compliance with the sixty day notice requirement th at he wishes to continue leasing from the City. I am working on revising the St andard Lease for 2014 and anticipate meeting with him and the other Commercial Operator Tenants in the next few weeks to discuss it with them.

# REGINA B. EDWARDS, P.C.
Phone (334) 514-1011 - Fax (334) 514-1033
Web: www.rbelawfirm.com 109 E. Bridge Street, Wetumpka, AL 36092

NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510- 2521 and is legally privileg ed. This e-mail message and any files tr ansmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and a ttorney work-product doctrine and c ontain confidential and privileged information intended only for the person(s) to whom this e-mail message is addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone at (334) 514- 1011 or e-mail at regina@ 

## rbelawfirm.com and destroy the original message without making a copy thereof.

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com [mailto:WADERAMSEY@aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:05 PM To: regina@rbelawfirm.com Subject: Dr. Kemp's Ground Lease Renewal



## Regina:

I hope you are well.

On April 1, Dr. Kemp hand delivered his five (5) year renewal notice to the City's Airport Manager, Lynn Weldon. Dr. Kemp's rent check for 2013-2014 has cleared his bank, so we're just waiting on the confirmation from the City. When do you think we can expect it?

Many thanks, Page 2 of 3

12/11/2013

## Wade

R AMSEY & 

## A SSOCIATES, L.L.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 O 205 980-5109 F 205 980-5189
Notice : This communication along with any attachments are PR IVATE - CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION - WORK PRODUCT and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i ) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addres sed herein. 

## Page 3 of 3

12/11/2013