Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutAAC Minutes 1998 05/06AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 6, 1998 The Airport Advisory Committee meeting was called to order int he Toothman-Orton conference room on the second floor of McCall Air Taxi's building at 12:00 noon. Persons present were Rick Fereday, Tom Tucker, Mike Anderson, Merrill Saleen, Charles Sundby, Kevin Bissell, Jim Fronk, Brian Olson, Marilyn Arp, Mike Dorris, and Gene Heikkola. The first item of business was the adoption of minutes from the April 8 and April 22 meetings. While the conversations that occurred during those meetings was recorded as they transpired, Merrill Saleen and Charles Sundby both felt that it should be recorded that those conversations contained some erroneous statements. Mr. Sundby had made some editorial corrections to the drafts, which were incorporated in the final copies, but felt he should point out in addition that the comments regarding Gem County's experience of 1988 were only his understanding of the situation, that since it was not a T-O project he could not speak for the accuracy of the figures, and that if the City needed more definitive data, we should do more research. Merrill's comments centered on Mike Dorris' allegation that he Forest Service was avoiding fuel flowage fees with "through the fence" fueling operations. He stated that while the Forest Service does like to separated helicopter operations from air tankers in the interest of alleviating congestion on the ramp, thereby enhancing safety, however, it does indeed pay the fuel flowage fee to the City. Mr. Saleen's second point was in regard to Ms. Arp's suggestion of conflict of interest at the April 22nd meeting. He stated that his job is to represent the Forest Service, and since that is his duty, it cannot be regarded as a conflict of interest. Tom Tucker moved, Mike Anderson seconded that the meeting minutes be adopted, and the vote passed. 1. AIP-06 Construction: Mr. Sundby reported that the pre -construction meeting will follow this meeting at 2 p.m., that Roberson Construction is eager to start construction, and has FAXed a schedule to T-O that complies with the required completion date. (Note: In the pre -construction meeting, the addition of bike path work was acknowledged to have an impact on the schedule, which will be allowed for with an amended completion date.) The proposed start date is May 11, which will allow the contractor to begin subbase ans base -course work and still permit bringing the matter of altering the crown in order to permit a bike path to be included and be brought before the City Council on May 14. Mr. Sundby reported three options: 1) Bike Path lanes on the south side only, which in reality is not an option at all because of the runway Object Free Area. 2) Bike Path lanes on the north side only - this also is a problem because of additional grading and property needed, or the alternative of steeper grading and a retaining wall which would be required. 3) Bike Path lanes on both sides (paved 5ft shoulders) - the best option, just need to submit a change order to FAA. He reported that changing the grading on the outside of the curves would run in the neighborhood of $4,000.00, the paving would be upwards of $20,000.00, for a total of approximately $30,000.00 when the additional surveying and staking is taken into account. Some discussion then ensued between Brian Olsen and Mr. Sundby about how to go about getting the work included in the grant. Mr. Sundby stated that the best advice he could give was that the City should consider doing it as if it was not grant -eligible, but in the event that the project is completed under budget, there was some argument for including it and FAA may be receptive considering that there is in place now a City Ordinance (which did not exist at the time of original design) that says if the road was being designed today, the bike lane would have to be included. He advised that we submit the change order as if it was grant -eligible and see what FAA does with it. Mike Anderson then stated that it would be very unwise to build a road with a "normal crown" which results in an "off camber" grade on the outside of the curve in country where snow and ice is a definite problem anyway, so leveling the outside of the curves was the sensible thing to do whether there was a bike lane or not. Rick Fereday said he'd like to see a separate bike path and some discussion of a pathway through the woods from Floyd Street to the old railroad right-of-way ensued. The discussion ended when Brian Olsen reminded everyone that including the path in this project would mean that potentially the City would only be liable for 10% of the cost. At that point Mr. Sundby pointed out that the FAA may still be cautious about all of this because there is so much of the project left to complete. As far as Schedules B, C, and D are concerned, we should be getting a detailed schedule of operations prior to the preconstruction conference with Seubert Excavators which is scheduled for May 14th. In any event, the contract requires that the GA apron be completed by June 30th. Alternate access to the FBOs will be maintained throughout the project with either Kevin or Troy monitoring and supervising. Mr. Sundby stated that construction on Schedule B may not start until June first per a Seubert request as Western Paving's (subcontractor) milling machine is tied up doing work for Roberson Construction on Sched. A until then. Schedules C and D should pose no grievous burden on airport operations since other taxiways will be open. - --- Mike Anderson moved, and Tom Tucker seconded that we ask the City Council to approve a change order to include the grading and paving for bike lanes on both sides of the relocated Deinhard Lane. Brian Olsen then offered to forward the City Standards to T-O for inclusion in the application to FAA. The motion was voted on and passed. - --- Tom Tucker then moved, and Mike Anderson seconded that we advise the Transportation Committee that we are in favor of the alternate bike route discussed. This motion also passed. Since the City Manager had to leave for another meeting, Mike Anderson brought up the subject of the April 19, 1998 letter Brian wrote to T-O regarding the issue of identifying and verifying project funds. Mike's points were that the funds had been identified by the previous City Manager, that the cost to the City was lower than initial estimates, that T-O had coordinated with the previous City Manager and Airport Manager, and what more could we expect them to do? As they were discussing joint responsibility, Mr. Sundby reminded us that we report to City Council on budget matters, that he had written a letter (7/21/97) to Dale Points on that subject, and that the State had increased its share from $61,575 to $82,000 total. In addition, he had kept the City informed all through the process, which spanned over two budget cycles with figures changing from May, 1996 to Sept 4, 1997. Rick then spurred the conversation on to new business, at which point, Tom Tucker brought up the subject of the next AIP (07) - the runway light project. His thrust was that lighting projects enjoy a high -priority with FAA, but ours would only run a couple hundred thousand, which would be a "small" project to them, and proposed the idea of including taxiways for the hangar expansion area, which are a low -priority item. If the taxiway project was submitted separately, it might not be approved. Rick Fereday observed that the City needed to start prioritizing money in its yearly budget for pavement maintenance. Some discussion followed, but eventually turned to other subjects. Mike Anderson then explained for Ms. Arp's benefit what had transpired when we took the idea of an increased County Airport Tax Levy to the County Commissioners meeting April 27th. We still need to meet with the Cascade and Donnelly airport managers, as well as the Cascade City Council before reporting back to the County Commissioners, but the groundwork has been laid, we just don't know where we fall as to the 3% limit and how much our share will be. Mr. Sundby then brought up the point that there is a "technical glitch" in our system, which is the fact that our Airport Master Plan has not yet been adopted by the City Council, that we are presently not in the FAA's 5-year plan because we don't have a Capital Improvement Plan in their records. He also reminded us that Dave Rickerson, of TSI had sent a letter to Cayla Morgan regarding the issue of economic development dated Sept 17, 1996 and passed out copies of the letter. (Note: While the last paragraph does include the phrase "necessity to provide basic public and aviation infrastructure for development", the thrust of the letter regards escalating land costs and the proposal to "privatize" airport expansion by allowing the present owner to retain ownership of land required for expansion which may explain Ms. Morgan's objection - phone call to Ms. Morgan the next day verified that while the FAA does encourage aviation -related business expansion and revenues returned directly to the airport, it is not an issue that is addressed in the Master Plan, and that the basis for her objection was indeed the proposal to "privatize" expansion, which would favor one individual over another). ---- Mike Anderson then moved, and Merrill Saleen seconded that we submit the Airport Master Plan to City Council for approval. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sundby then brought up the subject of the "Continuing Services Agreement", which the City Manager had proposed canceling in his April 19 letter to the Airport Advisory Committee. He explained that Bud Schmidt had initiated this agreement in 1989 to have a consultant available when he needed to have questions regarding the airport answered. In reality, T-O barely covers its costs as it is and it needs to be revisited because the fees haven't changed since 1991. The subject of administrative fees for checking registration records and sending letters to collect delinquent parking fees followed. The Airport Manager explained that while it was not worth the effort to follow-up for a one-night fee of $2.00 he had been fairly successful in following -up on significant delinquencies with about an 80% response rate to letters sent and wanted the Committee's reaction to the idea of charging a fee to recover some of the expense for time involved. ---- Merrill Saleen moved, and Tom Tucker seconded that the Airport Advisory Committee approve a $5.00 administrative fee for delinquent parking fees provided that we also provide notification that a fee will be assessed. Rick Fereday suggested that the way to do that might be to have cards printed to be included on the rubber band with the parking fee envelope. Rick then tabled any new business with the concurrence of the members and invited open discussion, at which point Mr. Sundby brought up the subject of Reimbursement Request #3 (AIP-06) and how Roberson Construction had been waiting over 90 days for his money. A delay of 60 days is programmed into the process to allow time to get the reimbursement request submitted and the City to get it's money before issuing checks to the contractor, but since the request was submitted to the City Manager Feb. 1 lth and had not been forwarded to FAA yet, the contractor had every right to pursue the inclusion of interest in his payment. Rick proposed the idea that a "tickler" file be initiated to follow-up on these requests. Merrill Saleen and Tom Tucker asked that we include the budget on our agenda for the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. Submitted by: Gene Heikkola, Airport Manager Approved by: XI Rick Fereday, hair THE CITY OF MCCALL AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTE WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1998 The Airport Advisory Committee will hold a regular meeting at 12:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 1, 1998 at the offices of Toothman-Orton Engineering, located at 300 Deinhard Lane (Hangar 103), McCall, Idaho. The following items are scheduled for discussion: AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. MINUTES of April and 22, 1998. III. OLD BUSINESS: A. ALP-06 Construction Schedule IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. Fuel Flowage Fee B. Administrative fee - Parking fee collection. V. ADJOURNMENT