Loading...
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