HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-2003 Airport Commission Meeting Minutes MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THURSDAY,AUGUST 14,2003—5:45 P.M.
IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Robnett,Baron Thrower,Alan Ellis,Randy Hartwig, Rick
Mascari
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Ellis called the meeting to order at 5:51 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
There was a page missing from the minutes. O'Neil recommended that the Commission defer
approval until the next meeting and he will make certain all the pages are in the packet. Mascari
said that he also wanted it stated in the minutes that the money spent on the office in Building D
did not have to be paid back. Mascari also wanted it noted that the change to the July agenda was
done at the direction of Chairperson Ellis.Ellis said the July and August minutes would be
included with the September meeting information packet.
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES:
Mascari said he would like to defer payment of the bills until after the discussion about the ABS
consultant report. O'Neil said the invoice to ABS has been paid. He said that he has discussed
this with the Commission on several occasions that they are not necessarily pre-approving
payments. If something has been budgeted for and the product has been delivered, O'Neil said he
pays the invoice. The list of expenditures reviewed at the meetings is a"heads-up"to the
Commission on ongoing projects and maintenance. Mascari asked about getting weather on the
internet instead of Meteorlogix. O'Neil said the Commission had discussed this in the past and
decided to stay with Meteorlogix. Mascari made a motion to pay the bills,except for
Meteorlogix. Thrower seconded the motion.The motion passed 5 -0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION—ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
Ron Duffe, from Jet Air,reminded the Commission about the open house on August 24. He said
on August 28,Jet Air was hosting a business P.M and the Commission was invited. September 3
the Civil Air Patrol was hosting a cookout picnic and the Commission was invited. Dulek
reminded the Commission of the State$2.99 gift restriction.
PUBLIC HEARING—HANGAR#31
Ellis opened the public hearing at 6:00 p.m. There were no comments. Ellis closed the public
hearing at 6:01 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
O'Neil said that if this were to be a regular agenda item,he would routinely review minutes from
the previous month and provide a list of follow-up issues.
1
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Aviation Commerce Park(ACP)Tracy Overton,from Iowa Realty, said that his report was
in the monthly packet. He said he has received an inquiry from a company from the east
coast that wanted to locate in Iowa City. He hoped the company would be in Iowa City next
week to look at properties. They need about five acres. He will update the Commission
when information becomes available.
He said an offer was made on Lot#1. He said it was so low of an offer that it did not go
anywhere.
Overton said he spoke with someone from Airport Property Specialists about a joint
marketing effort. He said that they wanted to see the ABS report before thinking about any
project at Iowa City.
Overton mentioned the Commission might be interested in placing an ad in the Chamber's
news letter. He said the newsletter goes out to most of the businesses in the Iowa City area.
Overton said that in response to questions at an earlier Commission meeting,he had prepared
a report on approximate expenditures by Iowa Realty for advertising the ACP. He said it is
difficult to have exact numbers because the ACP is advertised with their other commercial
properties. He said some of the numbers are quantifiable and some are just the price of doing
business. Robnett asked about the budget for signage? Overton said this was for the brokers
signs,not the permanent signs for the development.
O'Neil said he thought the best place for the sign would be on the north side of the road,at
the east entrance to Ruppert Road. The most visible area would be on DOT right-of—way.
He said he met with officials from the local DOT office and was not given much
encouragement for getting permission to place a permanent sign on the right-of—way. Ellis
said there was money in the budget for an entrance sign.
Thrower asked if the marketing expenditure report circulated by Overton was up to date?
Overton said he thought the costs were current. Thrower asked Overton how much of the
typical broker fee is attributed to office costs? Overton said he did not know the exact
breakdown of the fee. He said some goes to the broker,some to office costs and some to
other brokers that may be involved. Overton said Iowa Realty was never given a specified
amount of money by the Commission to use towards marketing. He said he estimated up
front that this assignment would cost Iowa Realty an additional$ 5000.00 more than a
normal commercial listing.
Thrower asked what a typical cost would be for a property such as this? Overton said he
could not tell Thrower exactly what those numbers are. Overton said he did not discuss a
typical number for this project. He said he expected using their typical marketing strategies.
Overton said he could visit with the president of Iowa Realty and see if he could come up
with some typical marketing costs. Mascari asked Overton what the average percentage of
cost would be for advertising a piece of property. Overton said he does not know that
number. He said the company on a whole assumes some of those costs and he has not had
an occasion to know that particular cost. Overton said he did not know if there is a clear
correlation between the expected broker fees and the cost of advertising the property.
2
b. Hangar#31 lease—Ellis said he would like to use the lease that was reviewed by the City
Attorney's office. Mascari asked if the tenant has had an opportunity to review the changes
suggested by the City Attorney? O'Neil said the lease the Commission held the public
hearing on was the one discussed at the July Commission meeting. No changes have been
incorporated since the last meeting. O'Neil said changes could be incorporated without
having another public hearing.
Mascari said he thought the changes were so minor that he did not think they would be
significant to the tenant. Mascari said he would make a motion for a resolution to accept the
lease, as amended with the changes from the City Attorney's office.Hartwig seconded the
motion. Ellis said there were a couple of policy issues,such as a three-year lease instead of a
five-year lease. Mascari said the rent has been adjusted to allow for increases over the five-
year period. The motion passed 4—1,with Ellis voting no.
c. Davis development—water detention easement O'Neil said he met today with Joe Trnka
and someone from the Corps of Engineers to discuss what possible impact the proposed
development might have on the runway extension project. Dave Larsen,representing the
developer,was also present at the meeting. Dulek said that if the developer wanted a
permanent easement, it would have to be granted by the City Council. The Commission
could grant a temporary easement.
Larsen presented information to the Commission. He said the Corps would not be involved
in the construction of the storm water detention basin. He said they would be involved when
it came to wetland mitigation. Mascari asked if Larsen needed a permanent easement. Larry
Schnittjer,from MMS Consultants,said the grading easement could be temporary,but the
final easement would be permanent.
Larsen said he thought their design would have no effect on the Airport's project and may
also be a benefit. Mascari asked why would they want to reroute the creek to their property?
Schnittjer said it would help with the water detention.
Mascari asked Blum, from H.R.Green,how the proposal by Dane/Davis would affect the
runway extension project? Blum said that he would not know until they reviewed the plan to
see how it would fit with the Airport Master plan. Mascari explained to Larsen that the
Commission has been discussing Willow Creek for the last couple of meetings and have
been working on how the creek will work into the runway design.
Blum said they are working on a design for Willow Creek as it relates to the Environmental
Assessment. Schnittjer asked if the creek would change on the south side of the Airport?
Blum said it has not been determined whether the creek will remain in the same place and be
put in a culvert or whether it would be routed around the Obstacle Free Area, as shown on
the current ALP.
Mascari asked O'Neil what his opinion was of Larsen's proposal? O'Neil said he would not
recommend approval of anything on Willow Creek until the Commission had their plan
submitted and approved by the Corps and the FAA. Larsen said he thought that they could
provide assurances that their project would not impact the runway project.
O'Neil said he had concerns about phase II of the developer's design,which would mitigate
wetlands on the Davis property and move it closer to the Airport. Larsen said it would be a
dry-bottom wetlands. He said this would have not impact on the Airport. Mascari asked
3
how you could have a dry-bottom detention area if you rerouted Willow Creek through the
detention area?
Blum said the real issue is that the Commission does not know how the area will be designed
to accommodate the runway project. Thrower said that H.R. Green is currently working on
preliminary design of the project in conjunction with the EA. They have not reviewed the
Dane/Davis proposal and no plan for Willow Creek has been submitted to the FAA. He said
the Commission is not an expert on this and will rely on whomever does the runway design
for advice on this project.
O'Neil said that when a design for Willow Creek is submitted to the Corps,the DNR, etc., it
would take at least 60 days for review. He said it would be somewhere between 2 to 6
months to receive approval.
Larsen said he thought the Commission will be having issues with moving dirt for their
runway project and he hoped they could work together down the road.
Ellis said he is reading that the consensus of the Commission is that they could not make a
decision on this issue with the information they have available to them now.
d. Obstruction mitigation project-Mike Donnelly,from Stanley Engineering, said a final
report will be completed by Monday and given to O'Neil for distribution to the Commission.
He said included in the report would be costs for mitigation and a schedule for mitigation.
He said code requirements have been considered. The University has been contacted about
the lighting on their power plant stacks and the requirements resulting from the air space
study for the new flagpole on top of the Old Capital dome.
Thrower asked Donnelly if the development directly north of the Airport had any impact as
far as obstructions were concerned? Donnelly said he didn't think it did. O'Neil said the
apartment building developers were required to have an airspace study done. He said the
Building Department does a good job of monitoring projects near the airport and they require
an airspace study be completed before a building permit is issued.
e. Environmental Assessment project—Joe Trnka,from H.R.Green, said he sent additional
information to the FAA and thinks he has answered everyone's comments. He said he met
with O'Neil and someone from the Corps today and will address comments in the EA that
will assist in the design of the culvert for the runway project. He said a permit would be
required from the Corps to relocate or put Willow Creek in a culvert. The FAA has to sign
off on the EA.
O'Neil said he left a message for Mark Schenkelberg,the FAA Environmental Planner,to
get some idea of how soon the EA would be completed. Schenkelberg will be back in the
office on Tuesday of next week.
g. United hangar disposition—Ellis suggested that since H.R.Green is working on the United
hangar as it relates to the EA,the Commission could discuss this agenda item next. Blum
said that in order to give a more detailed analysis of the building,the Commission would
need to revise the Green contract.
4
Mascari asked O'Neil if he had received any response from the Historic Preservation
Commission? O'Neil said he sent a memo to the HP Commission staff planner, inviting
them to the Commission meeting to discuss the hangar. He did not receive any response.
Mascari asked O'Neil if the Council had been approached about funding to do the historic
recording of the building? This would be required whether the building is torn down or
moved. O'Neil said that at the last Commission meeting,he had explained that in order to
get reimbursed from the FAA for those funds,the Commission would need to advertise the
project and go through the FAA consultant selection project. O'Neil said he has advertised
for a consulting engineering firm to conduct the runway project. Obstruction mitigation,
including disposition of the United hangar,will be included in that project. The RFQ's are
due on September 2.
Mascari said it is his opinion that the Commission will have to tear the building down. He
said the FAA would pay 90% of the cost to tear it down. He said the Commission does not
have the money to move and rehab the building. Mascari said he thinks the Commission
should send a letter to the Council and inform them of the consensus of the Commission to
tear down the building. O'Neil said he would draft a letter for the Commission's review.
h. Building H—underground fuel tank- O'Neil said this issue was discussed at the last
meeting. It was prompted by the fact that the cathodic protection test failed and it would
cost between$ 6000 and$ 8000 to correct the problem. O'Neil said there is an annual line
leak detection test that costs$500 and a cleanup insurance premium of$500.
Thrower asked if the tank could be filled with sand and closed in place? O'Neil said he
contacted the DNR and discussed this. O'Neil said that current clean-up insurance would
still be required even if the tank was temporarily closed.
Dennis Gordon,the tenant, said he still expects the tank to be part of his leasehold.
Mascari asked O'Neil how much it would cost to make the tank operational. O'Neil said it
would be about$6500 for the cathodic protection and$ 1000 for the insurance and line
monitoring. Mascari said the hangar is worth more money with the use of the tank. The
tenant can buy fuel at wholesale and save money.
O'Neil said the tenant before Gordon was paying a premium for the building because they
had two aircraft that used Jet A fuel and they saved money by buying their own fuel.
Mascari said he thought the Commission should get a second opinion on the cathodic
protection. O'Neil said the test passed easily three years ago and he was surprised that it did
not pass this time. The cathodic protection test is only required every three years.
Ellis said that the Commission has contractual obligations to Gordon Aircraft. Thrower said
that there were some unexpected costs with maintaining the tank,especially because the
cathodic protection test failed. Gordon said all of the costs of maintaining the tank were
discussed when the Commission took over maintenance costs of the tank. Thrower asked
Gordon if he has a value associated with the tank and if he wanted to keep the tank
operational? Gordon said the tank was part of his lease and he wanted to keep the tank
operational. Gordon said the person doing the cathodic protection seemed to be having a lot
of problems when he was doing the testing. Gordon did not think he knew how to test the
tank.
5
Ellis suggested having the cathodic protection retested. O'Neil said he would schedule a test
with another company. If the second test fails,he will also get a cost proposal from the
second company to correct the problem.
i. T-hangar leases—The T-hangar leases expire at the end of September. Because Mascari
and Hartwig have t-hangars,they did not participate in the discussion. Ellis and Robnett
were the subcommittee that reviewed the lease. The Commission discussed several minor
changes. It was decided that there should be a distinction between a damage deposit and a
security deposit. It will be the tenant's responsibility to have a current certificate of
insurance on file. Robnett made a motion to accept the revised hangar lease. Thrower
seconded the motion and it passed 3—0,with Mascari and Hartwig abstaining. The
Commission decided to wait on the discussion of rates until the report is received from ABS.
Ellis suggested a 20%increase in the rent or a comparable amount. Thrower asked why the
rent is being increased? Ellis said that the Airport needs the money. Thrower asked if the
FAA has any say about a surcharge on the fuel? O'Neil said it is a local decision and it
would be something to coordinate with the FBO. Thrower said he would like to see trying to
increase fuel sales and increase flowage fees instead of a hangar rent increase.
O'Neil said he would review the language of the FBO lease to see if the FBO is paying the
flowage fee or if he is just collecting it for the Commission. Robnett said maybe both
options,rent increase and flowage fee,should be looked at. Thrower said he would like to
use the flowage fee because those pilots not based here but that use the airport should help
pay for it.
f. Strategic planning—subcommittee—Ellis said he contacted ABS to discuss a letter the
Commission received from a company that does privatization services of airports. He
wanted ABS to know about this in case they got questions about privatization. He said he
also reminded ABS that information was due to the Commission and Council before the
meeting on August 18. He was told that ABS didn't know if they would be done on time.
He was told that Michael Hodges was working on the power point presentation for the
meeting and Randy Bisgard was working on the executive summary. They did not want
information available to the public before they had time to explain their findings.
Ellis talked to the City Clerk and was told that the deadline was 9:00 a.m.Thursday morning.
As soon as it gets to the Clerk, it is considered a public document. A confidential document
was sent to the City Clerk. It was not sent to the Commission or the Airport Manager. It
was only an executive summary. The Mayor Pro Tem said that was not acceptable and that
the Council was expecting a full draft report. She said because the Council did not have the
information needed,the meeting would have to be rescheduled. It was to be rescheduled to
September 8'".
Thrower said he was concerned that no document was sent to the Commission. Mascari said
the Commission had directed ABS to consider O'Neil as the contact and he would be
responsible for distributing the information to the Commission and Council. Robnett said
the Council received the information and they would likely ask the Commission for their
opinion. If ABS didn't send it to the Manager, it would be difficult for him to get it to the
Commission.
Mascari asked what the time frame was for receiving the initial report. O'Neil said the
report was due 90 days from the Notice to Proceed. O'Neil said he sent the Notice to
6
Proceed on April 1. Mascari said the only thing received was an executive summary.
Robnett said she was expecting more than a summary report.
Ellis said he reviewed the contract and ABS said was supposed to present a draft report at the
end of the 90 days. He said the executive summary was a response to the Council for
something in writing before the presentation.
O'Neil said he has made it very clear to ABS that at least a week before the next scheduled
meeting, an electronic copy of the MI draft report was due. Second,the Airport Manager
was to be the contact person to distribute the information to the Council and Commission.
The new deadline for the information is September 2. O'Neil said he contacted Michael
Hodges personally and explained whom to contact,what was expected, and when it was due.
The new schedule for meeting with the Council is on September 8th
.
Mascari recommended changing the Commission meeting to September 4 from September
11 so the Commission would have time to discuss the report before the Council meets.
Mascari said he wanted to emphasize that the Airport Manager to is to be the contact person
j. Agenda procedures and by-laws-Mascari said he would like to see a change in how things
can be put on the agenda. Mascari said he reviewed the minutes from a year ago and he
thought that the intent for agenda items was to have an item placed on the agenda by the
Manager,two Commission members or the chairperson. He said that has not been the way it
has been implemented so he would like to change the by-laws to allow two Commission
members, or the chairperson or the Airport Manager to place items on the agenda. He said
recurring agenda items are not to be changed. He said he feels that the way things are listed
on the agenda is the way he prepares for a meeting.
Mascari said the Airport is run by the Commission and the chairperson works for the
Commission. Ellis said Mascari was not happy with the agenda and kept bringing up an item
that had been voted on in the past. Ellis said that because Mascari did not like the outcome
of the vote,he continued to bring up the issue. Ellis said he changed the agenda to keep
Mascari from embarrassing the consultant and the Commission.
Robnett said she thought the motion she had made in the past was as Mascari explained it.
She said that there was a question of who was to be able to put items on the agenda. Ellis
said the proper way to change the by-laws would be to review the entire by-laws and see if
there were changes to be made. The last time there was a total review was 1991. Robnett
said the policy could be changed with Rules of Order or through Policies and Procedures.
Ellis asked who would define what agenda items are recurring? Mascari said this should be
left to the discression of the Airport Manager. O'Neil said the Commission should make
sure that they do not develop a policy that is in conflict with their by-laws. Mascari said that
he would like to make a motion to revise the by-laws to allow two Commission members, or
the chairperson or the Airport Manager to place items on the agenda. Recurring agenda
items will not be modified. Thrower seconded the motion. Ellis said that if the Commission
were concerned about process, he would remind them of when he wanted to develop a policy
for the bulletin board in the Flight Service Room. It was on the agenda, it was voted down,
and he did not bring it up again.
Dulek reminded the Commission that there was a motion on the floor. She said Mascari
needed to amend his motion to define recurring agenda items. Mascari said he would like to
7
amend his motion to include that the Airport Manager would determine what qualified as a
recurring item. The motion passed 4— 1,with Ellis voting no.
Thrower said he had another issue for this agenda item.He said he would like to make a
motion to amend the by-laws to make it possible to remove an officer of the Commission.
He said that was a defect in the by-laws. Thrower circulated an amendment to the by-laws.
His motion included several situations that would warrant removal from office. Mascari
seconded the motion. O'Neil asked if it would be appropriate to review the entire by-laws,
as was suggested earlier? Thrower said he thought the by-laws should be reviewed at some
time,but he would like to move forward with his motion. He thought it was an important
issue. Thrower said this was to remove someone from office,not from the Commission.
The Commission members are Council appointments.
There was some discussion on the actual language to be added. Dulek made some
suggestions and Thrower said he would amend his motion to reflect Dulek's suggestions. He
will send O'Neil a copy of the exact language if the motion passes. Ellis called for the vote
on the motion. The motion passed 3—0,with Ellis voting no and Robnett abstaining.
CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT:
Ellis said he heard the Commission loud and clear and that was the end of his report.
COMMISSION MEMBERS'REPORTS:
Thrower said the video of the June aviation day has began airing on the government channel and
he will distribute a copy of the tape to the Commission. He would like the Commission to review
it and provide feedback.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
O'Neil said the Commission had asked him to let them know when significant money would need
to be spent on the NDB. O'Neil said that time was now. He said the other option was to
decommission the unit. He said he would need a$500 part just to see what else would need to be
fixed. The consensus of the Commission was to see what was needed to decommission the NDB.
O'Neil reminded the Commission of the open house and breakfast on August 24. There will be a
temporary tower. O'Neil suggested the Commission might want to volunteer working on the
serving line for a short time and meet with the people attending the open house.
There is a change in the way unemployment is charged in the budget. It will be charged to
individual departments.
The State Aviation Conference will be in Des Moines on October 16th and 17th.
The Deaf Pilots Association has selected a different city to hold their 2005 convention. They
may be interested in Iowa City for 2006. They did not want to provide the insurance coverage the
Airport requested.
O'Neil reminded the Commission of the meeting with the Council on September 81
.
8
O'Neil said he is meeting with Todd Madison,the FAA planner for the State of Iowa,on August
I9d'. O'Neil said he is trying to get two FAA grants in the next fiscal year.
The RFQ's for the Runway 07/25 project are due on September 2nd. O'Neil said he contacted
several companies that have expressed interest.
The lease for hangar#32 expires in September. This will be on the agenda for the September
meeting. He said the tenant is interested in leasing the hangar again.
SET NEXT MEETING:
The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for September 4,2003,at 5:45 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meetin_was . it ed at 9:45 p.m.
i
'41,11,163,
n • - Chairperson
9