AEDAB Topics Relevant to Airpark Homeowners
Jennifer Webb
Braun Mincher
Dear Ms. Webb and Members of the Airport Economic Development Advisory Board,
Thank you for Ms. Webb’s email yesterday, included below, regarding AEDAB’s invitation for community input. In light of that invitation, I am providing the following input directly for the Board’s consideration.
I am writing as an Erie Air Park property owner and directly impacted stakeholder regarding the proposed through-the-fence (“TTF”) fee structure currently under consideration by the Town.
This correspondence is intended to (i) consolidate prior input previously provided to the Town and AEDAB, (ii) incorporate observations based on recent Board discussions, and (iii) respectfully request that this submission be included in the AEDAB meeting packet and entered into the official administrative record as the process moves forward.
I am copying the Town Clerk as well, with the request that this submission be included in the Town’s official administrative record relating to the proposed TTF fee structure.
I recognize that AEDAB’s role is advisory and that final policy decisions, if any, will ultimately rest with Town Council.
For reference, I previously submitted detailed communications to the Town on February 17, 2026 and April 3, 2026 outlining legal, financial, and procedural considerations associated with the proposal. For convenience, I am attaching copies here again, along with a copy of the Airport Update Presentation made by Town staff on February 17, 2026.
Independence of Submission
This submission is provided independently for direct consideration by AEDAB and is not conveyed through or limited by any homeowners association representation.
Additional Material for Awareness (Attached)
For completeness of the record, I am attaching a memorandum that was recently circulated by an anonymous sender under the name “Erie Taxpayers.”
I do not have any knowledge of the author’s identity, and I am not in a position to verify or adopt the specific claims or conclusions contained in that memorandum. However, given that it has been broadly distributed to Town officials and stakeholders and appears to reflect a detailed review of the issue, I wanted to ensure the Board is aware of it and has access to it.
My comments below are independent of that memorandum and are based on my own review of publicly available materials and AEDAB discussions. I am not coordinating with or submitting this correspondence in concert with the sender.
Prior Materials Already Before the Board
As reflected in AEDAB materials, a legal white paper addressing Erie Air Park easement rights has already been provided to the Board. That material raises significant issues, including:
- Enforceability of existing easement rights
- Potential constitutional implications
- FAA-related considerations tied to TTF access
Given that these issues are already part of the record, clarification as to how they are being incorporated into the evaluation of the proposed fee structure would be helpful.
Clarifications Based on April 16 AEDAB Discussion
Based on the April 16 AEDAB meeting, several points appear directly relevant:
- Concerns regarding potential litigation risk and FAA compliance exposure
- Discussion of whether the recommendation should be reconsidered or modified as it applies to Airpark residents
- Acknowledgment that AEDAB relies on Town staff and legal counsel for analysis
- Recognition that certain legal and policy questions remain unresolved
- Variability in financial assumptions, including differing deficit figures
In light of these statements, clarification as to how these issues are being addressed prior to further advancement of the proposal would be appreciated.
Key Issues for Consideration
Based on both prior correspondence and recent discussion, several areas appear to warrant careful evaluation:
1. Financial Model Clarity
- Consistency of deficit figures and underlying assumptions
- Transparency of methodology used to evaluate “revenue neutrality”
Public Town materials, including the February 17, 2026 airport presentation, appear to rely on a specific revenue model and deficit analysis in support of the proposed fee restructuring, which further underscores the importance of transparency regarding assumptions and methodology.
The February 17, 2026 staff presentation reflected a modeled increase in fee and rent revenues from approximately $141,367 to $385,129 and a reduction in the stated annual net impact from approximately $(272,677) to $(28,915); however, as noted in my April 3, 2026 follow-up correspondence, subsequent public discussion appears to reflect a recurring general fund operating subsidy of approximately $168,000, which further underscores the importance of transparency regarding the assumptions and methodology underlying the Town’s financial model.
2. Legal and Property Rights Considerations
- Interaction between proposed fees and existing easement rights
- Potential constitutional considerations
3. FAA / Grant Assurance Considerations
- Whether FAA coordination has occurred
- Potential exposure to Part 13 or related compliance concerns
4. Equity Across Airport Users
- Comparative treatment of residential TTF users versus other airport users
- Interaction with property taxes and existing obligations
5. Enforcement Framework
- Legal authority and mechanism if fees are not paid
The same presentation also reflects that new hangar development was already being actively pursued, which reinforces the importance of incorporating reasonably foreseeable hangar-related revenue into any long-term airport financial analysis.
Relatedly, previously circulated consultant materials appear to contemplate a homeowners/property owners association structure for residential TTF properties, which makes clarity regarding any such governance concept especially important.
Process Transparency and Accessibility
In attempting to review publicly available materials, certain AEDAB resources appear difficult to access, including non-functional links and limited availability of agendas and minutes.
Additionally, AEDAB meetings appear to be conducted in person without remote participation options, despite recordings being made available afterward.
Given the significance of the proposed TTF fee structure and its direct impact on a defined group of stakeholders, improved accessibility, whether through clearer materials or participation options, may support more effective community engagement.
Prudence in Advancement of the Proposal
Given the number of unresolved legal, financial, and procedural questions reflected in both the existing public record and recent AEDAB discussion, it would be prudent for any further advancement of the proposed residential TTF fee structure to await reconciliation of the underlying record and completion of the Town’s legal and regulatory review.
Requested Actions
In the interest of supporting a well-informed process, I respectfully request:
- That this submission, together with the attached memorandum referenced above, be included in the AEDAB meeting packet and entered into the official administrative record for any future Council consideration of this issue;
- Clarification as to how existing legal materials and recent discussion points are being incorporated into the evaluation; and
- Availability, to the extent appropriate, of:
- Financial modeling assumptions
- Legal analysis
- FAA coordination status
- Enforcement framework
Closing
I appreciate the time and consideration of AEDAB, Town Council, and staff on these issues. As a local resident and stakeholder, I am available as a resource if helpful and would be glad to provide any supporting materials referenced above.
Thank you for your continued work on this matter.
Respectfully,
Braun Mincher
2520 Cessna Drive
Braun Mincher
Dear Chair and Members of the Airport Economic Development Advisory Board,
I am writing in advance of the June 18, 2026 AEDAB meeting regarding the continued discussion of the Erie Municipal Airport / Erie Air Park through-the-fence fee proposal and related agenda items.
I am submitting these comments in my individual capacity as an Erie Air Park homeowner, aircraft owner, pilot, and directly affected stakeholder. I am not writing on behalf of the organization styled as the Erie Air Park HOA, the Erie Air Park homeowner group, or any other organization.
Please include this correspondence, together with the attached prior correspondence and supporting materials, in the June 18 AEDAB meeting packet if feasible, and in any event in the permanent meeting record and minutes for the June 18 meeting. I also respectfully request that the minutes reflect receipt of this written submission and identify the attached materials as part of the record. If this submission cannot be included in the packet before the meeting, I respectfully request that it still be circulated to AEDAB members before discussion of the resident TTF fee agenda items, if feasible, and preserved as written public comment for the June 18 meeting.
I am copying the Town Clerk, Town Council, Town staff, and the Erie Air Park homeowner Google Group so that the same comments are available to AEDAB, the affected neighborhood, and the broader public record.
I appreciate that the published June 18 agenda includes several important items, including the agenda item described as the Airpark HOA presentation, Jennifer Webb’s motion to rescind the resident TTF fee recommendation, the 2027 budget request, the annual presentation to Town Council, the draft AEDAB bylaws, and the 2027/2028 work plan. Because these items are interrelated, I respectfully offer the following supplemental comments.
By way of background, I previously submitted detailed correspondence to the Mayor, Town Council, Town staff, and AEDAB members on February 17, 2026, raising legal, financial, FAA, property-rights, and procedural concerns regarding the proposed TTF fee restructuring. I also submitted an April 3, 2026 follow-up regarding the apparent difference between the previously referenced $272,677 airport deficit figure and the materially lower recurring General Fund subsidy figure later discussed publicly. In addition, I submitted written comments in April through the Erie Air Park homeowner Google Group thread after Ms. Webb invited homeowner input regarding AEDAB’s request for an HOA presentation.
This email is intended to consolidate those prior public-record concerns, supplement the record in advance of the June 18 AEDAB meeting, and request that these issues be affirmatively reflected in the Board’s minutes and permanent record.
First, I support AEDAB’s review of Ms. Webb’s motion to rescind the resident TTF fee recommendation, or at minimum to withdraw or defer that portion of the prior recommendation until the Town has completed a clearer legal, financial, FAA, and procedural review.
As stated in my prior correspondence, I do not oppose a financially sustainable airport or fair, lawful, and properly documented user fees. I support Erie Municipal Airport and want it to remain successful. My concern is that the resident TTF fee proposal appears to have advanced before several threshold issues were resolved, including:
- the actual airport funding target the Town is trying to meet;
- whether the claimed deficit is a recurring operating shortfall, a broader enterprise accounting number, a capital-related figure, or something else;
- how future hangar development revenue, ground leases, fuel flowage, FBO revenue, and other airport revenue streams are being incorporated;
- whether property-tax-supported costs are being separated from enterprise-specific airport costs;
- whether affected residential properties have been accurately identified and categorized;
- whether comparable on-airport users have been identified for FAA-consistency purposes;
- how existing recorded easement rights are being evaluated;
- whether the 1987 Easement has been analyzed through a current legal opinion;
- what legal authority and governance structure would support any future taxiway or property-owners association;
- how any fee would actually be billed, collected, disputed, enforced, and administered; and
- whether affected homeowners have received adequate direct notice and opportunity to be heard.
Second, I respectfully request that the Board be careful not to treat the Airpark HOA presentation as a substitute for direct homeowner input.
To avoid misunderstanding, I use “HOA” only as shorthand for the voluntary or informal organization commonly referred to as the “Erie Air Park HOA.” To my knowledge, that entity is not a mandatory Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act homeowner’s association with any authority to bind all Erie Air Park property owners on matters involving individual property rights, easement rights, airport access, municipal fee obligations, or potential future taxiway governance.
I appreciate any neighbor or community representative who is willing to engage with AEDAB and the Town. However, that organization does not speak for me, and I do not believe it should be treated as the sole or binding representative of Erie Air Park property owners on matters affecting individual rights or obligations. Nor should it be treated as an authorized agent for all affected property owners absent clear evidence that those owners have expressly granted it that authority.
I appreciate that Ms. Webb previously posted to the Erie Air Park homeowner Google Group inviting homeowner input regarding AEDAB’s invitation for an HOA presentation. I also responded in that same thread and copied AEDAB, Town Council, Town staff, and other stakeholders with written comments for the Board’s consideration.
That said, the Google Group outreach appears to have had limited reach, and I am not aware of any broader follow-up outreach to affected record owners in advance of the June 18 meeting. Given the significance of the issues being discussed, including residential TTF fees, recorded access rights, potential airport funding assumptions, future budget planning, and future work-plan priorities, I respectfully suggest that AEDAB and the Town not rely solely on Google Group or informal organization-channel communications or an HOA presentation as a substitute for direct notice and meaningful input from affected homeowners.
I also respectfully request that the June 18 meeting record reflect receipt of my April written comments, my prior February 17 and April 3 correspondence, and this supplemental submission, and that these materials be preserved as part of the public record for the resident TTF fee discussion.
Third, the 2012 White Paper now attached to the June 18 agenda reinforces the need for caution. That White Paper addresses historical Erie Air Park through-the-fence easement issues and concludes that the easement remains significant. Whether or not the Town agrees with every conclusion in that document, its inclusion on the agenda confirms that legal uncertainty remains part of the discussion. AEDAB should not treat that uncertainty as resolved unless and until the Town obtains and publicly discloses a current legal analysis addressing the 1987 Easement, the affected properties, and the Town’s authority to impose new or restructured residential access charges.
Fourth, I continue to believe the Town should first define the airport funding target before debating fee mechanics. The February 17 airport presentation referenced a current annual net impact of approximately $272,677, while later public discussion suggested a materially different recurring General Fund subsidy figure. That distinction matters. A fee structure cannot be evaluated fairly unless the Board and the public know what amount is actually being recovered, why that amount is needed, and which costs are included.
Before AEDAB makes or renews any fee recommendation, I respectfully suggest that it request a written staff reconciliation showing:
- recurring airport operating expenses;
- recurring airport operating revenues;
- capital expenses and grant-match obligations separately stated;
- administrative overhead and indirect Town costs separately stated;
- any General Fund transfers or interfund amounts separately stated;
- existing revenue from on-airport tenants, hangars, tie-downs, fuel flowage, FBO operations, commercial users, and residential TTF users;
- anticipated future revenues from hangar development or related airport projects; and
- the specific annual revenue target any new fee structure is intended to achieve.
Fifth, the proposed structure should be evaluated under a transparent cost-of-service and comparability framework. If the Town believes residential TTF users should contribute to airport costs, the Town should clearly identify what costs are being recovered from those users, how those costs were calculated, and how those charges compare to similarly situated on-airport users.
That analysis should account for distinctions among affected properties. Direct runway/taxiway lots, inland deeded-access lots, vacant lots, homes with hangars, homes without aircraft, active aircraft users, and non-aircraft-owning access properties may not all be similarly situated. If they are treated the same, the Town should explain why. If they are treated differently, the Town should explain the basis for those classifications.
Sixth, the proposal should account for property taxes and avoid double recovery. Erie Air Park homeowners already pay property taxes, a portion of which supports the Town. To the extent airport-related administrative, public-safety, infrastructure, or overhead costs are already supported by general revenues, the Town should clearly explain how any new access fee avoids duplicative recovery.
Seventh, the Town should reconcile the affected-property count. Prior materials appear to reference a limited number of residential TTF properties, but my review of plats, easements, and Air Park lot configurations suggests the access-property universe may be more complex. If access-based fees are being structured around property counts, those counts should be documented, publicly verified, and tied to the applicable recorded property rights.
Eighth, the consultant concept of a residential taxiway or property-owners association requires careful legal and practical review. Publicly available prior airport planning materials appear to contemplate a structure under which residential Air Park properties might form an association to collect TTF fees and remit a single payment to the Town. While that may have been intended as an administrative simplification, it raises threshold questions:
- Who would create the association?
- Who would be required to participate?
- What legal authority would compel participation?
- Would the entity be voluntary or mandatory?
- How would directors be selected?
- What authority would the Town retain?
- What statutory framework would govern the entity?
- What enforcement rights would exist if a property owner refused to pay?
- How would existing easements and private taxiway obligations be handled?
- Would such an entity create new CCIOA, municipal-authority, or property-rights issues?
Those questions should be resolved before any recommendation assumes that a homeowner or taxiway association is a workable collection or governance mechanism.
Ninth, I urge AEDAB and the Town to avoid any fee methodology that relies on ADS-B or similar flight-tracking data to impose landing fees, touch-and-go fees, or airspace-radius-based charges.
ADS-B is fundamentally a safety and situational-awareness technology. Using it as an automated billing platform raises separate legal, policy, privacy, implementation, and public-trust concerns that should not be casually folded into the residential TTF discussion. Any proposal using ADS-B, flight-tracking data, or automated aircraft movement data for billing should receive separate legal, policy, FAA, and public review before being considered.
That does not mean the Town cannot consider fair and reasonable airport fees. It means that ADS-B-based billing should be treated as a separate and highly sensitive policy issue.
Tenth, if AEDAB discusses the 2027 budget request, I respectfully request that any assumed revenue from new or increased residential TTF fees be separately identified as provisional and not treated as adopted policy. Budget planning should not create pressure to adopt a fee structure before the legal, financial, FAA, and procedural issues are resolved.
Eleventh, if AEDAB prepares its annual presentation to Town Council, I respectfully request that the presentation include not only the Board’s prior recommendation, but also the unresolved resident concerns that have been raised in writing. Council should be advised that the resident TTF recommendation remains disputed and that affected homeowners have raised issues regarding easement rights, FAA compliance, cost-of-service methodology, access-property counts, HOA representation, public outreach, property-tax overlap, enforcement mechanics, and fee administration.
Twelfth, as AEDAB reviews its draft bylaws and 2027/2028 work plan, I encourage the Board to include a formal community engagement process for airport matters affecting Erie Air Park residents and other affected stakeholders. At minimum, that process should include:
- direct written notice to affected property owners before recommendations affecting access rights or fees are advanced;
- a clear written-comment procedure;
- remote or hybrid participation options where feasible;
- a process for acknowledging written submissions in meeting minutes;
- public posting of materials sufficiently in advance of meetings;
- coordination with the Town Clerk to preserve the administrative record; and
- a standing work-plan item for residential TTF access, airport-neighborhood relations, taxiway coordination, and FAA compliance.
Finally, I am unable to attend the June 18 meeting in person. As I have noted before, it is unfortunate that AEDAB meetings appear to remain in-person only, without a practical remote participation option. These issues directly affect many homeowners, pilots, and property owners, and a remote or hybrid option would likely increase participation by residents who cannot attend in person on a weekday evening. I encourage AEDAB to consider remote participation, written comment procedures, and broader outreach as part of its bylaws, work plan, and community engagement efforts.
Erie Municipal Airport and Erie Air Park have a long and unusual relationship. Residential and commercial through-the-fence access is not an incidental issue at this airport; it is one of the defining features of the airport’s history, planning, and long-term relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. That relationship deserves a deliberate, transparent, and legally defensible process.
I respectfully request that AEDAB rescind or defer the resident TTF fee recommendation unless and until the Town has completed the necessary legal, financial, FAA, and procedural work; broaden resident outreach beyond the HOA presentation; avoid treating any voluntary Air Park organization as the binding representative of all affected property owners; and ensure that all written stakeholder submissions are preserved in the public record.
Respectfully,
Braun A. Mincher
2520 Cessna Drive
Erie, Colorado 80516
Office: (970) 212-7201
E-Fax: (970) 224-4999
Email: Br...@BraunMincher.com
Attachments:
- February 17, 2026 correspondence regarding Erie Airport TTF Increased Fee Proposal #2026-119
- April 3, 2026 follow-up regarding airport deficit clarification
- April 22, 2026 homeowner / AEDAB correspondence regarding TTF fee issues (Below)
- February 17, 2026 Town airport presentation materials
- 2012 Frascona legal opinion / White Paper regarding Erie Air Park through-the-fence access
Braun Mincher
Dear AEDAB Chair, Board Members, Mayor, Councilmembers, Town staff, and Erie Air Park neighbors,
I am writing in my individual capacity as an Erie Air Park resident to share the attached consolidated resident-prepared white paper regarding the residential through-the-fence fee discussion at Erie Municipal Airport (KEIK).
My purpose in preparing this was straightforward: over the last several months, there have been many separate communications, public meeting discussions, resident comments, Town materials, AEDAB materials, FAA-related questions, recorded-easement questions, financial figures, and several shorter working papers. Rather than continue adding separate emails or piecemeal memoranda to the record, I tried to consolidate the key issues into one organized, source-disciplined document that can serve as a common reference point for AEDAB, Town Council, Town staff, residents, airport users, and counsel.
This consolidated paper supersedes and replaces my prior resident working papers and related issue summaries on this topic. It is intended to gather those points into a single, more useful resource.
The paper is deliberately counsel-neutral. It does not argue that residential TTF fees are unlawful, and it does not argue that the February 2026 proposal is ready for adoption. Its core recommendation is about sequence: before fee mechanics are debated further, the Town should publish a reconciled airport funding target, a title-verified access-category map, and the financial model; complete and disclose the legal, TABOR, FAA, and recorded-easement review; and provide direct notice and a structured Q&A process for affected owners of record.
I would respectfully ask that Town Council and Town staff include this submission in the public record for TTF Fee Proposal #2026-119 and forward it to the outside aviation counsel, municipal-finance/TABOR counsel, title/easement counsel, or other consultants involved in reviewing the proposed through-the-fence fee framework. I believe the document may save time and expense by putting the relevant questions, history, and process issues in one place.
I also ask that the document be treated as a working issue map, not as a demand letter. Nothing in it asks the Town, AEDAB, or any resident to concede any legal or policy point. It is meant to help identify what should be confirmed, corrected, reconciled, or reviewed before the Town advances any final fee structure.
I recognize that I am only one homeowner and airport user, but I have put substantial time into trying to gather the public record, understand the competing concerns, and communicate the issues in a factual, non-emotional, and constructive way. I welcome corrections from staff, counsel, AEDAB members, Town Council, residents, or airport users. If something in the paper is factually inaccurate, I would much rather fix it now than have the Town, residents, or airport users argue about it later.
My hope is that this helps move the discussion toward a legally sound, financially justified, fairly applied, and durable solution — whether that ultimately involves a revised residential TTF fee, a phased structure, a broader airport-funding policy change, additional commercial TTF revenue, cost-side review, or some combination of those approaches.
Thank you for considering it. I am happy to answer questions, provide underlying materials where I have them, or help clarify any portion of the submission.
Respectfully,
Braun A. Mincher
2520 Cessna Drive
Erie, Colorado 80516
Office: (970) 212-7201
E-Fax: (970) 224-4999
Email: Br...@BraunMincher.com
Scheduling: Calendar Bookings
From: Braun Mincher
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 11:06 AM
To: 'stoe...@erieco.gov' <stoe...@erieco.gov>; 'Emmett Dowling' <edow...@erieco.gov>; 'kc...@erieco.gov' <kc...@erieco.gov>; 'Paul Houghtaling' <phough...@erieco.gov>; 'lma...@erieco.gov' <lma...@erieco.gov>; 'Michael Bowden' <mbo...@erieco.gov>;
'jjac...@erieco.gov' <jjac...@erieco.gov>; 'Jennifer Webb' <jw...@erieco.gov>
Cc: 'Council Mail' <cou...@erieco.gov>; Hurd, Jason <ja...@vectorair.net>
Subject: Supplemental AEDAB Issue Notes – Resident TTF Fee Recommendation (TTF Fee Proposal #2026-119)
Dear AEDAB members, Town Council members, Town staff, and related airport stakeholders,
To supplement the Chapter 7 / resident TTF white paper I circulated last night, I am attaching two additional short issue notes that may be relevant to AEDAB, Town staff, Town Council, and legal counsel as the resident TTF fee issue is reviewed.
The two supplemental notes address:
- TABOR considerations for any resident TTF fee structure; and,
- Collection/enforcement mechanisms, including whether the existing Airpark association, a new taxiway association, Town-issued permits/access agreements, tax-roll collection, or another structure could realistically collect and enforce any future fee.
I realize this is a significant amount of material, but I believe these two issues are important threshold questions. Even if a fee structure is legally and financially supportable in concept, it still needs to be reviewed for TABOR risk, collection authority, enforceability, parcel-level notice, nonpayment consequences, and FAA/Town compliance.
As with my prior submissions, I am providing these materials in my individual capacity as an Erie Air Park resident, homeowner, pilot, aircraft owner, and airport user. I am not speaking on behalf of any HOA, association, neighborhood group, or other residents.
Please treat these as good-faith issue-spotting documents, not legal opinions. To the extent the Town is engaging legal counsel or outside aviation/TABOR/municipal counsel on this issue, I respectfully suggest that these supplemental notes be provided to counsel for whatever consideration they believe appropriate.
Thank you again for your time and for your continued work on this issue.
Respectfully,
Braun Mincher
Erie Air Park Resident
Br...@BraunMincher.com
From: Braun Mincher
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 9:24 PM
To: stoe...@erieco.gov; Emmett Dowling <edow...@erieco.gov>;
kc...@erieco.gov; Paul Houghtaling <phough...@erieco.gov>;
lma...@erieco.gov; Michael Bowden <mbo...@erieco.gov>;
jjac...@erieco.gov; Jennifer Webb <jw...@erieco.gov>
Cc: Council Mail <cou...@erieco.gov>; Hurd, Jason <ja...@vectorair.net>
Subject: Resident White Paper for AEDAB – Resident TTF Fee Recommendation, Public Record, and Community Engagement (TTF Fee Proposal #2026-119)
Dear AEDAB members, Town Council members, Town staff, and related airport stakeholders,
Good evening. I am forwarding below my June 15 supplemental comments again for ease of reference, together with an additional working white paper I prepared regarding Erie Municipal Code Chapter 7, the Airport Fund ordinance, and the residential through-the-fence fee framework.
After watching the June 18 AEDAB meeting recording, I came away believing even more strongly that the resident TTF issue would benefit from a constructive, structured, and legally grounded review before any fee recommendation moves forward. The underlying issues are important, but they are also complicated. In my view, the most productive path is to clearly define the airport funding target, identify the relevant legal and FAA constraints, distinguish between different categories of residential access, and evaluate any proposed fee structure against the Town’s code, FAA grant assurances, and practical collection/enforcement realities.
The purpose of the attached working paper is to help organize several issues that appear relevant as AEDAB, Town staff, Town Council, and legal counsel evaluate any potential resident TTF fee structure. In particular, the paper looks at the relationship between Erie Municipal Code Section 2-7-1, Section 2-7-2, FAA Grant Assurance 24, residential TTF access, potential fee applicability, access categories, and the threshold question of what airport funding target the Town is actually trying to solve.
As with my prior comments, I am submitting this only in my individual capacity as an Erie Air Park resident, homeowner, pilot, and airport user. I am not speaking on behalf of any purported HOA, neighborhood group, or other residents.
I also want to be clear that the attached paper is not legal advice. It is a good-faith research and issue-spotting document based on the municipal-code text, FAA materials, the Erie Municipal Airport Master Plan, and publicly available information. To the extent the Town is engaging legal counsel or outside aviation counsel on these issues, I would respectfully suggest that my prior comments and this working paper be provided to counsel for whatever consideration they believe appropriate. My hope is that this may help identify the right questions and provide a more complete record for legal and policy review.
My goal remains the same: to help support a fair, legally sound, financially justified, FAA-compliant, and practically workable path forward. I want Erie Municipal Airport to thrive, and I believe these issues can be addressed more productively through a constructive, fact-based process involving AEDAB, Town staff, Town Council, airport users, and affected residents.
If I can be helpful as a resource, or if there are questions about any of the issues raised in my prior comments or the attached working paper, I am happy to assist.
Respectfully,
Braun A. Mincher
2520 Cessna Drive
Erie, Colorado 80516
Office: (970) 212-7201
E-Fax: (970) 224-4999
Email: Br...@BraunMincher.com
AEDAB
From: Braun Mincher
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:26 AM
To: 'cou...@erieco.gov' <cou...@erieco.gov>; 'townma...@erieco.gov' <townma...@erieco.gov>
Cc: 'dpa...@erieco.gov' <dpa...@erieco.gov>; Paul Houghtaling <phough...@erieco.gov>; 'jjac...@erieco.gov' <jjac...@erieco.gov>; 'low...@erieco.gov' <low...@erieco.gov>; 'amc...@erieco.gov' <amc...@erieco.gov>; 'Emmett Dowling' <edow...@erieco.gov>;
'kc...@erieco.gov' <kc...@erieco.gov>; 'jw...@erieco.gov' <jw...@erieco.gov>; 'lma...@erieco.gov' <lma...@erieco.gov>; Michael Bowden <mbo...@erieco.gov>
Subject: Erie Airport TTF Increased Fee Proposal #2026-119 – Request for Legal, Financial, and Procedural Clarity Before Advancement
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers & Other EAP Stakeholders,
As a property and aircraft owner within Erie Air Park, I only recently became aware that the Airport Economic Development Advisory Board discussed and advanced a proposed restructuring of through-the-fence and hangar fees at its February 12 meeting, and that the matter is being presented to Council tonight. Pursuant to the online Agenda, it appears that there will not be an opportunity to provide public comment during the special meeting this evening. Accordingly, I am submitting these comments in writing to ensure they are included in the official record prior to Council action.
I was not aware of the February 12 AEDAB meeting in advance and therefore did not have the opportunity to provide comment at that time. Given the magnitude of the proposed changes, this appears to be moving forward without sufficient opportunity for meaningful public engagement.
Because the proposal directly affects long-established access rights and materially alters both the financial obligations and the practical use rights associated with private property, meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard are not merely policy preferences — they are procedural safeguards that protect both residents and the Town.
I want to be clear at the outset: I do not oppose fair and equitable airport fees (and believe that many of my neighbors might feel the same). I support a sustainable airport and recognize that users should contribute appropriately. My concern is that several foundational issues remain unresolved before structural fee adjustments are advanced.
Given the interrelationship between enterprise accounting, FAA grant assurances, and private easement rights, this matter may benefit from either workshop-level review or independent third-party financial and legal analysis prior to ordinance introduction.
1. Financial Modeling Requires Further Transparency
Based on the presentation materials for tonight, the current reported annual net impact is approximately a $272,677 deficit, reflecting $422,969 in expenses against $150,292 in revenues. It is unclear from the materials presented whether this figure isolates recurring operating costs or incorporates capital expenditures, policy-driven transfers, or internal allocations.
For purposes of discussion, I will use that working number. However, I want to go on record as respectfully reserving the right to review and evaluate the methodology underlying that figure.
This correspondence is intended to ensure that the financial, legal, and procedural assumptions underlying this proposal are clearly articulated on the public record before any structural changes are adopted.
During the August 5, 2025 Special Meeting, the financial presentation blended:
- Operating revenues and expenditures,
- Capital expenditures,
- General Fund transfers,
- Projected contract offsets,
- And projected use of fund balance.
While municipal accounting can be complex, blended enterprise presentations do not necessarily isolate a recurring operating deficit attributable solely to through-the-fence access.
Structural fee adjustments should be based on a clearly defined cost-of-service analysis rather than a blended enterprise accounting presentation. Without a defensible cost-of-service foundation, rate adjustments risk being characterized as revenue-raising measures rather than true cost recovery. Courts and regulators consistently distinguish between legitimate cost-based user fees and impermissible revenue measures; ensuring the former classification is critical to defensibility.
Before redesigning the airport fee structure, it would be prudent to clearly distinguish:
- True recurring operating costs,
- Policy-driven General Fund transfers,
- Capital project expenditures,
- And internal overhead allocations.
The amount of any actual recurring operating deficit directly attributable to airport operations should be clearly isolated and publicly vetted before fees are materially adjusted.
2. Future Hangar Development Revenue Should Be Included
The Town is currently circulating RFPs for additional hangar development.
Those projects are reasonably expected to generate:
- Ground lease revenue,
- Rental income,
- Additional fuel flowage revenue,
- And potentially additional access-related fees.
Any long-term financial model for airport sustainability should incorporate projected future revenue streams from planned development. To exclude anticipated revenue while increasing residential fees risks overstating the burden that must be placed on existing homeowners. A complete financial model should reflect both present obligations and reasonably foreseeable revenue streams to avoid skewed burden allocation.
3. Property Taxes and Risk of Double Recovery
Erie Air Park homeowners already indirectly pay annual property taxes to the Town of Erie (which accounts for approximately 12% of the total property tax paid to Weld County).
To the extent general property tax revenues contribute to airport-related administrative, overhead, or public safety costs, layering additional access fees without clear delineation risks duplicative recovery.
If the objective is cost recovery, the Town should clearly identify:
- Which costs are enterprise-specific;
- Which costs are already supported by general revenues;
- And how the proposed fee structure avoids overlap.
Transparency in this area is essential to ensure that fees remain defensible as cost-based charges rather than impermissible duplicative assessments. Residents should not be placed in a position of subsidizing enterprise functions twice without clear statutory authority. Any rate structure that fails to account for existing tax contributions risks blurring the line between enterprise funding and de facto general taxation.
4. The 1987 Easement Remains Legally Unresolved
It appears to be the Town’s working position that the 1987 Easement is unenforceable.
However:
- No court has adjudicated the merits of that agreement.
- The prior Simmons litigation was dismissed solely on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- A highly-detailed 16-page legal memorandum prepared in 2012 by the respected Frascona law firm — commissioned by another Air Park resident — concluded that this 1987 easement remains valid and enforceable.
The existence of a substantial contrary legal opinion creates genuine legal uncertainty.
Before advancing a fee ordinance that effectively recharacterizes access rights, the Town should obtain and disclose a current formal legal opinion addressing:
- Whether the 1987 Easement remains enforceable;
- Which properties are beneficiaries;
- And whether new access charges are legally permissible under that framework.
Proceeding without resolving this conflict exposes the Town to avoidable legal risk. Where recorded property rights are implicated, ambiguity rarely resolves itself without either formal clarification or eventual judicial interpretation.
I sincerely hope this matter can be resolved collaboratively rather than adversarially, but clarity now will reduce the likelihood of future disputes. If access rights arising under recorded instruments are materially burdened, restricted, or recharacterized without definitive legal clarification, affected property owners may have little choice but to seek judicial determination.
5. FAA Compliance and Square-Foot-Based Pricing
The proposal increases annual fee and rent revenues from $141,367 to $385,129 — approximately a 172% increase.
Under FAA Grant Assurance obligations, airport fees must be:
- Reasonable;
- Not unjustly discriminatory;
- Based on legitimate operational distinctions.
If larger hangars impose demonstrably greater cost of service, that basis should be documented.
If square footage is being used as a proxy for perceived ability to pay rather than actual cost of service, that may raise nondiscrimination concerns.
Layering:
- A per-aircraft base fee,
- A per-access fee,
- And a per-square-foot hangar fee
requires clear articulation of what each component funds and how duplication is avoided.
Any rate structure that materially shifts revenue burden among user classes should be supported by documentation demonstrating consistency with FAA Grant Assurance 22. Absent such documentation, the Town risks exposure to administrative challenge under the FAA’s compliance framework, including potential Part 13 review. Such proceedings can result in findings that require corrective action or rate restructuring and can require the Town to justify its rate methodology under federal scrutiny.
Given the Advisory Board’s reference to Centennial Airport and a Part 13 complaint, careful compliance review would seem warranted.
6. Access Counts Appear Inconsistent
Based on my preliminary review of recorded plats, GIS data, and deeded easement references:
- There are approximately 128 platted residential lots in Erie Air Park.
- Approximately 93 appear to have airport access by either direct frontage or deeded easement.
Presentation materials appear to reference a lower number of affected properties (approximately 88). That discrepancy appears material to any access-based rate calculation, particularly where user counts directly drive fee allocation.
If access-based fees are being structured around user counts, those counts must be reconciled, documented, and publicly verified to ensure the integrity of the rate model. It would be advisable for the Town of Erie to engage a neutral 3rd party (e.g. title company or specialized law firm) in this process.
7. There Is No Functional HOA to Rely Upon for Notice
Erie Air Park does not have a traditional, active homeowners’ association capable of reliably disseminating information to residents.
The existing structure is fragmented and does not function as a dependable communication mechanism.
If Council intends to adopt structural fee changes affecting private property rights, enhanced direct notice should be provided to record owners to ensure adequate procedural fairness and reduce risk of later challenge.
8. Proposed Taxiway Association Raises Governance Questions
Discussion of a mandatory taxiway association raises significant governance and authority questions:
- How would the initial board be formed?
- Would directors be elected or appointed?
- What authority would the Town retain?
- Does the Town possess legal authority to compel participation? (Compelled participation may also raise questions under CCIOA and related municipal authority statutes that warrant careful review).
- Under what statutory framework would such an entity operate?
These questions should be resolved before any structure is imposed to avoid creating an entity whose authority or enforceability could later be contested. Imposing mandatory participation without a clearly defined statutory foundation would invite unnecessary legal uncertainty. Particularly where private property rights and existing easement relationships are implicated.
In general, I am supportive of creating such a taxiway association (for reasons outside the scope of this discussion), but will caution the Town that both Jason Hurd and I separately have previously tried to establish such a group without success.
9. Consider a Phased Implementation
If Council determines that fee increases are necessary, a phased implementation over several years may be more prudent than a substantial immediate increase.
A graduated approach would:
- Allow financial assumptions to be validated;
- Provide time to resolve legal questions;
- Reduce disruption;
- And promote cooperative transition rather than conflict.
Request
Before advancing any ordinance, I respectfully request that Council:
- Obtain and disclose a formal legal opinion regarding the 1987 Easement;
- Publish a clear cost-of-service analysis supporting the proposed rates;
- Incorporate projected future hangar revenue into financial modeling;
- Clarify treatment of property-tax-supported costs;
- Reconcile and publicly verify access-property counts;
- Provide enhanced direct notice to affected property owners;
- Clarify the legal authority and governance structure of any proposed taxiway association;
- Consider phased implementation.
- Review and verify the deficit calculations.
Given the magnitude of the proposed increases and the unresolved legal and financial questions outlined above, I respectfully request that Council defer introduction or advancement of any ordinance until these issues are addressed in a publicly transparent and legally documented manner.
I support a sustainable airport and fair cost allocation. I simply urge Council to proceed deliberately, transparently, and on firm legal and regulatory footing so that whatever course is ultimately adopted rests on defensible legal and financial analysis rather than avoidable controversy, regulatory exposure, or subsequent dispute.
Respectfully,
Braun A. Mincher
2520 Cessna Drive
Erie, Colorado 80516
Office: (970) 212-7201
E-Fax: (970) 224-4999
Email: Br...@BraunMincher.com