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), McDonough 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 Appellants 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 users of the Wetumpka Municipal Airport 

who own large hangars on the Wetumpka Municipal 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 Program (AIP) money. The receipt of AIP money 

obligates the Airport to act in accordance with Grant 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 City to respect their contractual rights to renew 

their existing leases for additional five-year periods. The other four tenants either signed the new 

one-year lease under duress4 or had recently negotiated long term leases (5 years or greater with 

renewable options). Finally, a ninth Airport tenant, Arrowhead Composites and Thermoplastics, 

Inc., (Arrowhead) conducts a non-aeronautical business of manufacturing fiberglass and plastic 

products. Arrowhead enjoys a privileged relationship with the Airport having recently (in 

October, 2009) renewed its lease for an additional five-year term with options for further fiveyear renewal periods. CA-3, C-95

 (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 maintenance 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 additional 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-aeronautical user over an aeronautical user is prohibited by the 

Surplus Property Act as well as the Grant Assurances. FAA Order 5190.6B at ¶12.5.6

When the Airport initiated eviction proceedings against the Complainants (this despite 

the fact that the Airport accepted McDonough’s rent checks after 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 finding that the Airport was not in violation of its 

federal obligations thereby giving rise to this appeal. 

ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Did the Director err when he developed the exception of “legitimate business 

purpose” to allow a sponsor to suspend its federal obligations? 

2. Did the Director err by finding that the City 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 tenant 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 lease aeronautical space to a nonaeronautical 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 airports to treat users in a fair and non-discriminating 

manner. 
5

4. Did the Director err by finding that the City gave an exclusive right to a nonaeronautical tenant by renewing its lease after the City refused to renew the 

Complainants’ leases? 

DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION

The Director cites in his Determination a “policy” that allows a sponsor to violate its 

grant assurances if there exists a “legitimate business purpose” to do so. (DD, p.22). Such a 

“policy” flies in the face of logic and reason. To allow an airport to circumvent its federal 

obligations under the guise of having a “legitimate 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 airport may suspend its obligation 

not to discriminate against jet aircraft or helicopter operators if it professes to have a “legitimate 

business purpose” in doing so for an undefined number of years. The “legitimate business 

purpose” exception to airport obligations is a dangerous precedent created by the Director here 

that must be reversed. 

Even if the FAA were to allow the City here to violate its obligations by way of a 

“legitimate business purpose,” the City had none because it did not undertake the feasibility 

study until after it had denied Complainants’ requests to exercise their 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 initiation of the feasibility study.
6

purpose” has gone away (the feasibility study ended March 26, 2013,9 by correctly concluding 

that the City does not need to move the airport. CA-2, CA-6) it has not negotiated with nor 

offered the Complainants anything other than a one-year non-renewable lease.10 CA-1, CA-7. 

The City knows that it is currently 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 with 5 year renewals. CA- 1. However, while the 

City admits its mistake, the City is sandbagging 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 Complainants to stop the violations being committed 

by the Airport and thereby to protect their substantial investments. These facts support the 

necessity for the Associate Administrator to reverse the findings of the Director, 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 renewed 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 when 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 Complainants’ 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 Grant Assurances. However, 

the Director distinguishes the Pompano case from this one by saying Pompano did not articulate 

a “legitimate business reason” whereas the City 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 related development [i.e., closing the airport]. This has 

resulted in the requirement that potential 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 assurance prohibit it from forcing such 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 provisions for the tenants 
8

such as liquidated damages for hangar replacement, relocation reimbursement, and automatic 

renewable options. Such leases can make adequate 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 aeronautical users; it dissuades them. Prudent 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 City has done this by demanding that 

the Complainants and other large hangar tenants enter 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 attempts 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 business purpose to support its decision to limit lease 

terms to one-year and no tenants were offered longer term leases than the Complainants.” DD at 

p.22. No significant differences exist 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 Associate 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 restrictions) – and this came in 2007 at a 

time before the City renewed the lease for Arrowhead in 2009. C-23, CA-3. To allow Arrowhead 

a right to exercise its option to renew its lease for an additional five years but deny McDonough 

a right to renew its lease is discrimination 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 express 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 Circular 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 McDonough 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 circumstances did not change between July 30, 2007 and October 5, 

2009, for the McDonough lease; nor did they change 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 when it renewed the Arrowhead lease. By doing so 

the City gave Arrowhead an exclusive right in violation of Grant Assurance 23. 

In reviewing the Director’s reasoning for allowing 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 appears to be a newly fabricated 

clause that the Director uses to create a dangerous precedent. Again, 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 airports to suspend other federal obligations 

including without limitation, EPA, Title 7 Civil Rights, and the rule of law as same relates to 

contractual obligations, among others. 

The Pompano lease initially had an “airport closure or relocation clause” that provided 

for long term leases (20 year) that in the event 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 owners that would have 

allowed them to keep a long term lease to protect 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. The 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 short term leases violate the grant assurances as should 

have the City here. 
11

Further, it is illogical to say that the Pompano Airport loses and the City here wins 

because the City had a “legitimate business purpose” and Pompano sponsor didn’t when the 

short term leases were offered to their tenants. First, the facts in both cases are identical in that 

neither of the leases used the word “temporary,” “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. The Director appears to think that the City here 

somehow communicated that to its tenants thereby distinguishing it from Pompano and allowing 

the City to have a short term lease where Pompano cannot. The fact is that the City was far from 

undertaking an airport relocation feasibility study in 2007 when it failed to renew the option for 

McDonough, and further in 2010 when it failed to renew Barnett’s lease. It was not until late 

2010 when the City authorized the feasibility 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 the Complainants in a bad light making them look as if they were 

in the wrong. The facts are that the Complainants have either paid their rents or they have 

attempted to pay their rents, but have had the rents 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 disingenuous at best. 

It is also a factual error for the Director to say that no tenant was offered a longer term 

lease than the Complainants. McDonough Properties, LLC, was “offered” a whole new lease 
12

(with significant other restrictions) 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 Complainants by signing a longer term lease with 

Arrowhead when Arrowhead, while not similarly situated, should not receive more favorable 

treatment than the Complainants because Arrowhead is a non-aeronautical user and the 

Complainants are aeronautical users. The City is in violation of its grant assurance by refusing 

to agree to the same or substantially parallel lease terms and conditions with the Complainants as 

existed between the City and other incumbent lessees. City of Pompano Beach v. FAA, 774 F.2d 

1529, 1536 (11th Cir. 1985). The Director erred in finding that the City 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 would not be impacted in the same manner as 

aeronautical users if the airport were relocated. Arrowhead and Curenton are not similarly 

situated to the Complainants. The record does not support the assertion that the nonaeronautical 

users were treated more favorably.” DD at p. 23. Again, the Director 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 Arrowhead was treated differently than the 

Complainants. And despite the fact that Arrowhead and the Complainants are not similarly 

situated (Arrowhead is a nonaeronautical user without 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 lease clearly shows that 

the City treated Arrowhead more favorably than 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 lease when it would not renew the Complainants’. 

The Director makes a point that the Complainants had not made applications for hangar 

improvement loans – just that they 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 the 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 does not go to the expense of submitting a loan 

application if the loan application will be denied. The Complainants 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 for a loan. Likewise, the Complainants did not 

approach the City for permission to improve their hangars because they could not obtain loans to 

improve the hangars. Again, it is intuitively obvious 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 renew McDonough’s lease. 
14

approach a lessor seeking permission to make improvements or expansions if it were impossible 

to fund those improvements or expansions. In this instance there is sufficient 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 could violate the self-sustainability provision 

of Grant Assurance 24 when it required the Complainants to sign a one-year lease. One-year 

leases are, on their face, contrary to an airport’s self-sustainability. Airports cannot attract tenants 

to invest in infrastructure and equipment necessary to operate an airport with one-year leases. 

The Director erred by finding that the City did not discriminate against the Complainants 

by allowing a non-aeronautical tenant to renew its 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 refused 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 extension 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 Layout 
sailing@raydawn.org 

From: <WADERAMSEY@aol.com>

Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:21 AM

To: <manager@internationalacs.com>

Subject: Emails from 10-14 to 12-2

Page 1 of 18

12/11/2013

From: WADERAMSEY@aol.com

To: regina@rbelawfirm.com

CC: manager@internationalacs.com, 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

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 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 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 than to frustrate the parties and stop airport 

operations/growth.  Again, we remain open to negotiate 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

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 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 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 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: 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 prior 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

12/11/2013
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 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

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 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 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

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 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 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

12/11/2013
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: 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

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 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 

Page 6 of 18

12/11/2013
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 11/6/2013 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

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 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 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 Currenton/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 Wednesday for your consideraton and review 

if i can return to work tomorrow. I believe that we have addressed your 

clients' concerns as contained 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 plan 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

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 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: 10/28/2013 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

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 - 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

12/11/2013
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 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

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 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 the 

sender 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

12/11/2013
From: 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

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 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 12 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

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 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 13 of 18

12/11/2013
Ramsey & 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 14 of 18

12/11/2013
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 nonbinding 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 15 of 18

12/11/2013
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 

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 16 of 18

12/11/2013
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,

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 any 

disclosure, 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 17 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 AM

To: <manager@internationalacs.com>

Subject: 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 contradictory, I am nonetheless pleased to finally 

hear from you. 

I have to echo Ray's conversation 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 revised 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 evaluation? 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 renewal provisions remaining, at the 

lessee's option? If you roll out a different rental structure 

than the existing leasees currently 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, where do you stand on the other 

provisions that I raised in my Aug. 12 letter? (see below 

summary).

a) Rental increases based 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 lease as may be require    by state or 

federal law?

i) Foreclosure/termination 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 clients will be facing spiraling legal fees 

that are completely unnecessary. 

Best,

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 any disclosure, copying, distribution 

Page 3 of 6

12/11/2013
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 12/3/2013 4:00:37 P.M. Central 

Standard Time, regina@rbelawfirm.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 renegotiation 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 desire 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 determination 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 incorporate 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 complaints 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 Department 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 ago. 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 this 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 the first week or so of January 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 close on finalizing a lease that will be 

acceptable to all parties. Although, the City 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 proceeding 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 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. 

Page 6 of 6

12/11/2013
Alabama Department of TransportationFeasibility Study for Western Elmore County, Alabama
FEASIBILITY STUDY 

For 

Western Elmore County, Alabama 

 Prepared by: Garver

 Prepared for: Alabama 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 CORPORATE USER SURVEY ................................................................................. 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 CORPORATE 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 AIRPORT .................................................................................................... 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 recorded 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 solicitation 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 – Bureau 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 potential 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 identified 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 surveys 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 their survey responses accounted for over 25,000 

operations. This indicates that the total operations 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 obligations. 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 RDC 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 justify 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 forecasted 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 95Ý 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 would 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 operators 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 ft2

0 ft2

2,200 ft2 same 

2,400 ft2

500 ft2

2,900 ft2

Paved Auto 

Parking 

Auto Parking 

Spaces 

2,400 ft2

7 same 

7,900 ft2

20 

Aircraft 

Parking 

Apron 2

 Based Apron 

 Itinerant Apron 

 Total Apron 

3,200 yd2 

3,200 yd2 

6,400 yds2 

2,836 yd2 

16,027 yd2 

18,863 yds2

3,973 yds2

22,453 yds2

26,426 yds2 

T-Hangars 

Executive/Co

rporate 3

90,600 ft2 

29,000 ft2 same 

108,000 ft2

36,000 ft2

Fuel Storage4 

 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 on 

the 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 during 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 professional 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 feet) 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 impact 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, should 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 type 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 Association (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 protected by a gated system with an electronically 

controlled entry code. 

Temporary security fencing will be required as the development is being 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 corporate 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 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 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 corridors, their associated right-of-ways and direct 

airfield infrastructure. The plan designates one 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 32Ý 31’ 38.429” N Latitude and 86Ý 19’ 51.579” W Longitude. 

The Airport is currently included in the most recent 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 3Ý 16’ W (NOAA – National Geophysical Data Center, 01/13) with an 

estimated variation change of 0Ý 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 northwest 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 Runway 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 determining 

whether 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 account 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 Highway 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 Municipal 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 95Ý 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 full-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 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 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 and 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 runway 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; 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, also encompasses the area housing the 

high pressure gas line easement. This alternative 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 less 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 existing 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 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. 

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, should 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 place 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 adjacent 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 incorporated 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 coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration 

and Alabama Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Aeronautics. 

The Wetumpka Municipal Airport serves a vibrant and 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 input 

on 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 contact 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 limitation: _______________________ 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 95Ͳ04 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 123.5Ͳ128.25
DFN: AN 72226A.PRN

72226 Montgomery, AL ANNUAL PERIOD RECORD 1995Ͳ2004

0Ͳ3 KTS 4Ͳ7 KTS 8Ͳ10 KTS 11Ͳ16 KTS 17Ͳ22 KTS 23Ͳ28 KTS 29Ͳ34 KTS 35Ͳ40 KTS 41+ KTS

360 257 625 478 135 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 0090 384 1159 925 402 28 11 1 1 0

100 411 1523 1176 371 29 1200

110 344 1381 908 256 17 3200120 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 0210 426 1056 465 120 51000

360

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

280

270

260

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

0Ͳ3 KTS4Ͳ7 KTS8Ͳ10 KTS11Ͳ16 KTS17Ͳ22 KTS23Ͳ28 KTS29Ͳ34 KTS35Ͳ40 KTS41+ KTS

220 449 991 402 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 0

170

180

190

WESTERN ELMORE COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY 

APPENDIX 

APPENDIX D 
Apron Analysis

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 E 
Apron Analysis

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 1

g

p

nortbpal

Soctlon ?3-r- !-10-tr, .i:tZ-6, ElnoEE Corinty

. thence S 00 deg. t8: 30r N 539,9t, to ir

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

.IrghY'ay14l-thg.nceBouthfesber1ya[onggatdL

Bear{ngg83deg.03ll{tctrora-'oletairce220

' llon pln anil enrl pf cqrvet Lhenbe continue 

Illghte-of-ttay S 88 cleg, Oli tt 3?9,60r to an 

',hence leavlng eald Rlghts-of,-t{ay N 00 de

'.5?5.i6r to an- lron ptni thenc;-ft ig-a"s.'

598;50 | to the _potni of, Deg.lnntng. corita

acre6, mofe 9r _lcea' agrl ly1n9 ln and belng 

bhe NE Ll[ ot th-e HE 1/{ of seotlon 23, f-16

. 

Elnore Countyr llabana.

conmense at En lron ptn r ocatoar at the N'orth

ol seotlon_ZJr r-la-frr-r R-t.z-Ee simdi" d;un

bhence s 89 degr.egg 45r 09" tr 59g.S0r to an l

. point of beglnnl!9 for the hereln desorlbe<

Land, thence I 00 Degrees tgr 30r fl 5?5.g6t 

pln located on the North Rlghts-of-ray o

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

',9
y { g

ihb agiee'il€nt daEdd'ab of Jure 1, figl, betreen 

. ramain tn f,ul1 force anit eff,eot. Itpon PIIA a

thle tc:c:, satd lgtaenent latdd odne 1r 198?

vqld and thls lease rhal] be anil becone ef,fe

"puct 

itua . heritribelor

ThB followtng ahall be the tetri6, conrllll

'ot thLu agrreenent!

.1. Said prenlssa are leb tos tlre purp

tormcr conillb|.ong and grovlalone harelnrfEet a

of twenty (?01 yearE oommenc.lng mlitnlght o

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 

r I r r

., .':..' 

- 

.r :-- ' '
flrst $10 mtllloi of gtoss annual tncome of th

activltlda at the loageil prenlles, plua one-twe

' of all gropa aunual lncone of Ell lnqom€ over 

than $12 rntlllon plue ono-fourtesnth of one pe

. annua-r lncbnrp of all lncone. wB! SI2 mllllon 

nllllon plue one-alxteenih.og on€ percent of

lnsome of all tnoone over 9t4 mtlllon lut les

plue ane-elghtsenth o! one Percent of, all groB

. lncome oyer .$L5 nllllon but le88 tbtn $18 

I b,wenttth of one percent of all groee lncone 

Durlng the flrsb flve year parloa tfie annual m

$51000.00. At the end of each fIVe yeat g

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

u .

Answer Ex

.i:.:.....1;..1... L.:. ;.d :l..- 

:..-.- ..'r-t..::r:.:'.ii: :ii':.'

:;^l':jjli-li.i.Il':$gg-'g*'gt1:'-*!:it:'ii:$"iitljJlljg's:""'::i:"'i:j:';::
2, I,t ts apeclflcally aE!€eil that the t

rtgfrtr rubJect to the 1awa, iuleg and regu

dtate1 counby and cJ.ty governmonts and qf, goo

engags ln lEe manufacturlng buelneas,

' 3. Ehs lregaeel ILs auccegrors and.asalg

oonskleratlqn hereof, Ctoe6 hereby covertan! an

L Ho'peroon on thg grounds of, raca, 

age, otr natlonal orlgl"n ehau be ex

partlclpatton lnr denled the bene

be otlrerwleo €ubjsctedl lc dl,scrtn

the usa of, saltl f,acllltlea.

B. That ln the constructlon of any l

'l

I
. 

{

.'the ux"aotlon ol rhlch.haa been or may be eegulrd

pfecedent to tbs expenitlturd of fedt,rrrl fundt fo

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

to iny congenaall,on alloued or provtded by 

sutferedl by legsee by rearona of any changes nhlc

ln the teaae and prgvldeil, futtherl that th€ IJB

requlrd to pay.any part rif 6uch conpenratlon.

. DutlnE tine of, war or natlorial emergenoy

traVe the. rtbht to lease the enllre property or 

to the unlbea Stabea Government f,oR ntlltary iae
. 5. 

. 

Thc,Iresaeq ahall

 not

sublegaB or aaal

sald prenteeg or dny parg thereofr rithput wr

.Leogor, the dBclslon of tha Ctty Counc$ of .t

rlabanai for whatsvatr reasonT aa !o vheth

conaB[t to r rublerue or aee!"gmmenb ls flna

belng expreraly understeocl anal aEreed by the b

sald CLty Counoll har the. sbeolut€ r.lght to 

to such eubleaee anrl tagtgnnent and €uch

blndlng.

6, Th6 sal.d '&ee6ee

addttl.onal bull{lng or

shall not have tbe rlg

faclllty on salil'prop
lagiulat!.oner,.'the, butl,dtng ahdll be renovEd o.t n

eald regulstlona at Laree'€a erFenae, dndl ths C

U.abls ln any way tt rqasons.of auch fallure.of, 

rclth suoh regulatloire or bulldlng on the ivrcing la

7. ThE r.pgeee shall retaln otrnerrhlp'of a

lnprovodente'on oaltl propetty lf, the lessec reloc

.ogsratg lte buelnoas. flre &essse shall hcv€ nl

ternlnatlon.of, thls agreenen! to trenovq all 

n51lonlng ths removal of all Dullttlnga andl _rro

slll levsl saial real prop€rt1l and acceptable grou

plaoett !o Frevent, eroslon. Acc€puEblE ground

eubJect to lh€ approval of leaaor. .The IrsrEee A

*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

p y 

py

g

responalbllltl' fel lareultg itlltclt nsy b

L€Eggt .antl/or lto anploy€eg on accounL of 

'Lecseere-enployeee Hhlle dhEagsit ln act

sonnEctlon ti'rtrr tne leaged prenlse8.

.' IJessee wtll carrJ' ltabtftty lnauran

1668 than One l{llllon ($1r0Q0r000.001 conbi

. 

the Clty of Wetumpiia nanedt bhereln as betng 

th€ clgy shall be futnlsheil wltb a copy o

polloles of lnsurance .tlur.lng the tetm 

axtenal,on or extenelons Lhereofr tt lE un

* :r ;,A0iW.er!,,E
g

;

g

rBal ptoFerty to Buctr a hetght ao aB not to 

obatrucLlon as dAtlneil by Federll Avlatlon Reg

qE the .correapondhg psovlalonE of any f,utura 

Itegulatlonu r

cr fhe taseee erpressly aglBeB f,or lteelf

End aBBIgneT to prevent any uEe of the herelnaf,t

property whlch would lnherf,ere wlth or adve

operatlon or malntenanse of, Lhe ahport, or ott

an alxport hazatrd.

dr {he IraEEotr ledetrves the rlght bo te

:

1

I

I

I

I

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

gglvllegea hereln gtant€dl anil alia[ acs€pt all 

and reaPonstbllittes hereln lnposed upon ttr Irea

an lndepenclent, cbntractor anit Ehall not..be the 

rupreaentqtl.ve bf ttre Ira€Bo!o rhe fi€ss.E

.reeponelble for lny anA ali. injurted io psrc

proper-ty gtowing out of otr son$eeted wlth ltr 

Iealed preatl.ses,

L2, Ic ls understood by andl bBtHeen bhe p

the LEssorts tltls to aEld.property la eubJeo

rlth a rroervatlon to the llnlteil $tateg gove

enrer{ency Hart{rle po$err anil that alt}rough't

. t..

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

:':J;..1i:;,=J-":;i:it::l-::;':':1"'i:;""i'ills'-ti'i::l::::' A.n SW g,r:FX ir
noErbbbtrrdlng oir ttre lasobi or ihe trbbsee untl.t..a

apprwale aha1l have bgon recelved.

. b. ' Nothlng ln thla lease Lg lntended t6 ue 

"the leagee herelcifote entered Lnto by and betileen 

othel leaair at the l{eguripka Huntclpal AlrportT bu

confllqtlng ptovlB!,on 1E.foundl to sxlutr then ttr

leaae 6ha11 be eubJecb to revlgLon tn orcler t

confllct.

c. lhie leEas Bgtee$Ent rnal fe crnqelled upo

of tlre Clty andt tbs teg6ee.

dr ln fhe 'event any CerB, condltlon sr 

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

foregolng, ine IJeEEeB Ehall have 5 €aye afte

nottca of, a nonetary default (30 dayo ln 

monitrrg itefaultl to curo Euch dlgfault,.

16r liEaaea agrEsB !o pay a reagonabl€ at

doet6 tf lt becoses necesqsry for Lessor to e

collect eny of tbe rent or to enfqrce apy 

' thts l,erBe, and &easee expreaaly welveg all e

the Leaaes under the lawc of the State of nlab

of ths Unltsil Stateg as agaLna! thE cqltectto

ar hereby lricurred or secured.
t6 Wl*nese '

;-i:.it i. t?,i.:ri,l, i i.:.f sa-.tt'i,i.i:gii,Xf :.g$t IiL;:::i
voluntarlly for and as tho act of saJd corp

Givan uniter rny hand and seal on th

,SsL{*-, 1e8s'

n6lts]orasmstz.:irt

! !',r i 

-,:i.. ., !! t-,

€omx

(oE

o) (oo

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 

i

t,
€

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

oE

. C@renE€ lG ao iron pia locrted.t thc S",C!i5;ri,:"r4ar of Scelioc 14, f-t8-N. R-17

rhcnce s 89P4t'0Ot r.| 1076-tor ro:rr iron pin il4:"rr,iiirtlrif :leginning t'or Ghc h(.(cio darcr

coasinue i 89oa5'oo" l.t !41.43' !o an iron pini+tkt,ittiri.otola'rs'i tlr.o.zr' co"an iron F

=67.rL' tc:n ican pia: rhcncc S 0te36r4frr't{ tIa0'..$'[i io rhe point of he6innin6. Cmtain

lcrr. .od lyinx in snd bcinx.r F;rrf of thc SE! of rhn $€! o-f sccriim 11. ?-ltl-rt. R-17-t. 

t. Larry E. Spclks, :8cairlered Enginecr and Lond Survc-yor. hcreby ccrrify rhc abq\

jrr( Lrur,U4 a6jf,rC(i thal Jtt F{ftF ef Chi,, survey nnd rlf:trio?: trav.. br..n c,sFlFfql in rc

:{ininurn fi.chnic:l sElodrrds r'or the Prlciicc ol Lsnd Sucufyinp in tha lic.rcc of ,tlabna. 

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. 

thcdcc S OOotS'lO" t{ 534.9:t' to.rn iron pin loc:rcd in a gurvc on the lloarh Rightr-of-U!:, 

chencc Soirchecrr€rly rlonc reid curyr (Ciror.t 8clrinB 5 8-3oO3' F; Ch;Fd Dilrlnci 230,941, 

of curvc; tlance concinoc :long rlid Bi6htr-of-ttry 5 88?3' H !79-6ll' to {n iron pia; the

o(-lJay N 00qt8'30" E 5?5,96' !o rs iroo pin; Ghcrrc€ t{ E9'o5tq6" E t98:50' tr, rde point of 

7.?a ecrelr. Rorc rr lcrrr rod lying in and bclnX, 8 psrt of tfic {E! ot chc tT:: of $cccion 

Elnorc couEty. Alrbos.l.

l. Lrrry E. Spcrkr. a Eegisrrred Enginccr and Llnd Sr3rveyor, hereby ccrtiliy thlr the 

corrccc E;rp rnd dsrcripcioo; (hst thr buitdin4r nou crtcrcd'on raid propercy al'q vishin th

chlr lhere rre oo cncroeehronri by brrildinpr an thc odjoining pEopcrtyi thit tlrere rc no 

or joint drivcenyr d*r or actort rrid llnd viribfei.6t tlre srrrfitcc of thr. Brourd; therc c

*ircr (excLuding vireo rrhir& rcnre fhe prcai:ea-only) or rtrrritrtrer chcrefor irrcludicg po

on or ou€r raid preniacrs. .rccp! lr gh6rn. lod 1..'ravc rcvicsed thl Foddr*t lnrrrrroce ldain

Eoundgry erp anrl (ound chn rlcrcribed ptogrircy ir lerced in r rpociul flood trre,srrt arca. 

gcceobcr t5, t978. Ccrmunit;r Prnel l{o- (}!0406 O00a A. Acsor{in3 tomy sunrey clrit 29th d

1."*

ra,h

.'i.:
t

L..

Answer Ex. 9 p
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

all of MCPrs rig

convey, assign and deliver unto Arrowhead, its successors, and assigils, and 6bfig-ations pursuant to a1I of the teims and-conditions set for

in the leage which exist- as of July 6 , L994. 

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
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 ce

that ?r,.'m'fS (QSW-, whose narne

P ffi , respectively of Amowhea

Bngi@lignedtotheforegoingconVeyance'theyassuchofficersandwithfu

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 da

. Ctr-..rrr6jr , , 1995 

'

0

BY

ATTEST:

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires
couNTY or 

T:k.=r.n. q\or

\i$rpr

I, the underpigned, a Notary Public in and for said counfy in said state, here

that NLvtuA doweu- and 4Jt elqq tut77 whose 

L tro' and Ff Ec. 5Ec{*a.;tt*t-- , respectively of N

Supply Corporation are signed to they as such officers 

fuIl authority, executed same voluntarily for and as the act of said corporation,

I tGIvEN UNDER MY FIAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this II 

#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 

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 rr

BY

lctAt

fRY
MeYon

Jnnnv WtLt ls

CMY CTEzudTREASURER

.IaNtcB G.'WttoRToN

CnY CotnqcnI{niq Hauruocrc

Lewts E, WasHrNGT

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 meeti

October in the Council Chambers of Wetumpka City Hall. Present were Mayor Jerry Wil

Councilmembers l(en Hammocl<, Lewis E. Washington, Sr., I(athy Holt, Chris Carter, and 

Jones. Also present were City Cler-l< Janice G. Whorton, City Attorney Jacqueline E. Aust

department heads, staff members, citizens of the cornmunity and the media. Agenda it

were discussed in addition to discussion on the possibility of a Farmer's Market, a freeze 

hiring part-time ernployees, and repairs for the Tulane Monument at the Wetumpka Cit

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 

2009, in the Council Chambers of Weturnpka City Hall.

The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jerry Willis. The invocation was given 

CouncilmemberJonesfollowed bythe Pledge of Altegiance led by CouncilmemberWash

Upon roll call the foflowing were present: Mayor Willis and Councilmembers Ke

Hammoclt, Lewis E. Washington, Sr., Kathy Holt, Chris Carter, and Greg Jones. Also pres

were City Clerk Janice G. Whorton, City Attorney Jacqueline E. Austin, departrnent heads

members, citizens of the community, and the media,

Councilmember Hammock offered a motion to approve tlre minutes of the work 

and council rneeting held on September 2L,2AA9, and Special Meeting on September 30

The motion was seconded by Councilrnember Carter with the Council voting unanimous

favor of the motion.

Engineer Larry Jarvis presented four proposals for the entrance road connection 

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
' $ 37,8I2 as a public worlcs project. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Washin

i with the Council voting unanimously in favor of the motion.

t

Councilmember Washington offered a motion to set aside funds from the 2009-2

. budget for repairs to the Black History Museum and the Martin Luther l(ing, Jr., Recreatio

Center with the scope and dollar amount considered at a later date. The motion was sec

, by Councilmember Jones with the Council voting unanimously in favor of the motion.

Councilmember Washington offered a motion to approve a request by Arrowhea

Plastics Engineering, lnc. to exercise an option of the July 29, L989, lease at the Weturnp

Municipal Airport for the first option period of five (5) years. The motion was seconded 

Councilrnember Hamrnock with the Council voting unanimously in favor of the motion.

A proposal for conducting Spanish classes for city employees will be considered a

next meeting.

The following resolution was presented:

Resolution 10-5-09

WHEREAS, The Alabarna Depirtment of Transportation ("ALDO?') has requested 

C1y of Wetumplca, Alabama, to execute a permit for modification of a traffic signal on U

Highway Z3L atthe intersection with Jasmine Hill Road pursuadt to Exhibit A attached h

and

WHEREAS, The City Council has considered the.request of the ALDOTto authoriz

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 fol

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 

sign a I

Z. Thatthe Mayor and City Cler!< are authorized to execute any documents nec

to permit the construction efforts pertaining to the traffic signal construction 

provided herein above as required bythe Alabama Department of Transport

', .. t: ,1;:i.;:: i: *!3lTit:t';-:i:i a ltltsiJr:rj*"*.t,-a*iy-frF
p

pp

y , 

. Councilmember Washington requested that Elaine Pace, 130 5t. Thomas Aven

appointed to the Crater Cornmission with the council voting unanimously on the app

Jan Wood, Executive Director of the Wetumpl<a Area Chamber: of Comrnerce, 

on current activities and asl<ed for volunteers for Frontier Days at Fort Toulouse

Councilrnember Carter described the Trail of Legends Adventure Race hetd la

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 2OII
This

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 the
Rules 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 of
them, 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 the
premises. 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 without
incurri: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

ILE

N

o

o

t

1oo o 'J' 1oo ffi' SCALE:1"= 100'

DAVE

.,iRATIISEY

!

1.O4ACRES
Alabama 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 in
Alabama 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 Back
Alabama 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@internationalacs.com>

Subject: Fwd: Dr. Kemp's Ground Lease Renewal - 4-15-13 email exchange

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

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 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: 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 his 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 not 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 that he wishes to continue leasing from the City. 

I am working on revising the Standard 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 privileged. This e-mail message and any files 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 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

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 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.

Page 3 of 3

12/11/2013