Sonico employee asks POML to gather facts

The POML states "they are acting on public safety concerns" when attempting to justify kicking Sonico out of Bldg. 408. The structural defects that exist in 408 have been there for 15 years, probably longer, but the fact remains the POML has known about these defects for 15 years, yet there was never a concern for public safety until now?

If public safety is such a concern to the POML and is their position behind why Sonico needs to vacate, then why didn't the POML work with Sonico when we offered a 30 year lease on the former JAL Hangar? Which, by the way, was vacant and without a prospective tenant. If the POML wanted to make repairs to 408 why didn't they take the opportunity to lease Sonico the JAL Hangar? After all, this would have provided Sonico with a suitable facility to conduct and grow our business while at the same time would leave 408 vacant so repairs could be performed. Ask the POML why they spent over 4 million dollars of your money, or what they refer to as "FREE MONEY", on the JAL Hangar to make improvements in an effort to attract a tenant (ATS) from the west side that does exactly what Sonico does. Sonico didn't ask for any improvements to the JAL Hangar when we offered a 30 year lease. Way to go POML! You're really doing your part to promote and grow local business! Have you read your mission statement lately?

All 60-year-old structures such as 408 have defects, but International Building Codes do not require repairs to these defects unless imminent collapse of the structure exists, which it doesn't. I ask the POML Commissioners to make a decision on 408 based on facts and reasonableness rather than hearsay.

Matt Davis

Moses Lake