HomeMy WebLinkAboutAirport.Minutes.12-04-1990AIRPORT BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, December 4, 1990
Cape Girardeau Municipal Airport
Those Present:
Board Members:
Jerry McClanahan, Chairman
James Bowman, Secretary
Truman R. Cole, Jr.
J. T. Seesing
Alan Maki
Bill Walker
Guests:
Staff:
Douglas K. Leslie
Kevin T. McMeel
Al Stoverink
Mark Seesing
Gayle Conrad
Harold Belzer, Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc.
Steven Waymire, Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc.
Tom Holshouser, Holshouser & Associates
The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairman
McClanahan.
Bill Walker moved, seconded by J.T. Seesing, that the minutes
of the November 7, 1990, meeting be approved as mailed. The Board
unanimously approved.
Mark Seesing reviewed the enplanement figures with the Board
and predicted that there would be no problem in reaching the 10,000
enplanement requirement by the end of the year. He stated that TWE
and the military flights were having a good month so far. It was
suggested that the advertising be improved on and that possibly TWE
needs to get involved in advertising.
Mark Seesing reported on the status of the T -Hanger
construction project. The bid will be awarded to Weinland
Corporation of Canton, Ohio, for $162,200. This bid included
concrete floors, electric bi-fold doors, and insulation. The bid
will be presented to the City Council for approval on Wednesday,
December 5, 1990.
Steve Waymire reported on the status of the T -hanger taxiway
spurs project. The rock and compaction had been put down, but then
it rained. They will be unable to get back to it until early
spring. Reli is to deliver the paint; however, the signs are on
back order. The rock should be put in by the end of the week so
that the t -hangers will be able to be used.
Mark Seesing reviewed with the Board the 1991-92 Airport
Improvement Program Conference which was held on November 16 in
Kansas City, Missouri. The conference reviewed how and where the
money is being allocated for the A.I.P programs. He also stated
that the FAA was setting up a block grant program whereby $20
`... million would be granted to certain states for airport
improvements. Bill Walker suggested that the airport get involved
in land banking so it can purchase the land now that it needs for
future growth and development.
Mark Seesing reported on the status of the air traffic control
tower contract. FAA indicated that the contract is in the
technical review stage and possibly could have something to us by
December 15 for award on January 1, 1991. Doug Leslie indicated
that we had sent a letter to FAA, which is attached, recommending
that the bids be rejected and that FAA continue with the contract
with the City. Letters were also sent to Congressman Emerson,
Senator Bond, Senator Danforth, and the Department of Labor in an
attempt to keep the contract. Bill Walker pointed out that the
City had included in its bid a cost of living increase; however,
this was not included in the other bids. Therefore, the bids were
not on the same basis for comparison. Alan Maki moved, seconded by
Truman Cole, that Bill Walker review the bids and prepare a cash
flow analysis and other necessary tabulations to further emphasize
the City's position as stated in the letter to Sharon Calabro dated
November 5, 1990, to be presented to the Board at the next meeting.
The Board unanimously approved.
Tom Holshouser of Holshouser and Associates presented to the
Board an Airport Terminal Buildina Design Evaluation report, which
is attached. He explained Plans A, B, and C, and stated that the
`�. figures for each design did not include the cost of the asbestos
removal, which will have to be dealt with no matter which design is
chosen. Al Stoverink suggested that Plan A. renovation of the old
terminal building, be the choice of the Board. He stated that by
choosing Plan B something would still have to be done with the old
terminal building to make it marketable for a new tenant. He also
stated that Plan C was not a consideration unless a bond issue was
approved. This and other funding sources could take several months
or years.
After much discussion Truman Cole moved, seconded by Jim
Bowman, that a minimal amount of work be done on the present
terminal building and use it for the foreseeable future with the
idea in mind to raise money to build a new terminal at a site
removed from the present terminal building. There was further
discussion as to what "minimal amount of work" referred to. Al
Stoverink presented a required expenditure schedule for the airport
improvement projects as follows: by 1/15/91, $99,000; by 7/15/91,
$445,500 total; by 1/15/92, $742,500 total; by 7/15/92, $990,000
total. J. T. Seesing then called for question to close the
discussion. The Board voted on the motion, and it was defeated due
to a tie vote.
Chairman McClanahan suggested that since it was a tie vote
that a new motion be entertained adopting Plan A with the idea in
- 3 -
mind to raise money to build a new terminal at a site removed from
the present terminal building. He also pointed out that it was up
to the Board whether or not to include the purchase of land for the
new terminal buildina when accepting Plan A. Jim Bowman moved that
Plan A be adopted but to keep the land acquisition separate. The
motion died due to lack of second.
Bill Walker moved, seconded by J.T. Seesing, to proceed with
Plan A as submitted by Holshouser and Associates dated December 4,
1990, and to acquire the 114 acres identified as the Kohen Tract
immediately northwest of the current terminal building. The Board
discussed whether or not Plan A is the most feasible plan to
follow. The Board voted on the motion, and it was approved with
Alan Maki abstaining.
Truman Cole moved that if the City Council does not adopt the
above motion as presented as a plan to be executed, then the Board
withdraw their recommendation. The motion died due to lack of a
second.
Jerry McClanahan presented the resignation of Paul Brinkopf
from the Airport Board and suggested to the Board members that they
consider who would be best to replace Mr. Brinkopf. Al Stoverink
stated that if the Board did know of anyone who would be interested
that they apply at City Hall.
It was decided to table to the next meeting the matter of
naming the streets at the airport.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:25
Sincerely,
Jim Bowman,
Secretary
JB:gc
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING DESIGN EVALUATION
CAPE GIRARDEAU MUNICIPAL AMPORT DECENNDIER A 1990
O
TERMINALNtw
TERMINALTEfAL
raw TFAMuaAI.
DEBMAMON
FiF340VA'fION
NORTH OF TOWEfi
AT NEW BfiE
I BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COSTS
1948,899
1960,000
5960,000
7 SIIE PREPARATION (EARTHWORK)
(2000
0,0
3 PARKING LOT, DRIVES 6 LIGHTING
118,000
1123,000
I,
4 APRON, TAXIWAYS & LICKING
1134,400
11,404,000
5 ROADS & BOX CULVERT
1196 000
0 SAN TARY SEWER k PUMP STATION
1150 000
♦22,000
7 CLf.0 TR If:AL SERVICE LINES
1140 OOU
6 WAI ER SERVICE LINES
Y $
$75,000
(4,894,000
1
9 NATURAL GAS MAINS
r
f42,000
m
10 LAND AQUI SITZ ONS 140A. ® $1,500)
160,000
11 RELOCATE TVIX2 FACILITY
1.
N
j70,000
12 ARCHITECTURAL BASIC SERVICES
(78.000
107,000
=67,000
anJ REIMBURSADLES
CITY FAA
CITY FAA
13 ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICESti
:16,000
i 135,000
FOR AIRPORT SITE WORK
14 CONSiRUCfION INSPECTION B TCS fI NC
=5D,U00
350,DDD
1170,00U
SERVICES REQUIRED BY FAA
TOTALS
S1,076,899
$1,267,400
$4.0 M
3 5 M
3.0 M
2.5 M
2.0 M
1.5 M
1.0 M
0.5 M
0
FUNDING SOURCES
• 1900,000 MA%. 3 YEAR ENTITLEMENT
I,
e
Y $
(4,894,000
I,
e
Y $
m
b
1
r
N
m
CITY FAA
CITY FAA
CITY
FAA
o
1
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING DESIGN EVALUATION
CAPE GIRARDEAU MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 12-3-90
A
RENOVATION
& ADDITION
EXISTING
TERMINAL
BUILDING
NEW
TERMINAL
BUILDING
NORTH OF
TOWER
C
NEW
TERMINAL
BUILDING
ADVANTAGES
1. No utility extension
expenses.
2. No parking lot
expansion required.
3. No apron expansion
required.
4. Close proximity to
the FBO operations
for use of services.
5. Apparent best site
when original termina
was built.
1. Allows uninterrupted
continuation of
services.
2. Property is readily
developable and is
City owned.
3. Maintains convenient
service location for
FBO, including Car
Rental & Restaurant.
4. Complete design
freedom within budget
restraints.
1. Space for future
expansion.
2. Separation of general
aviation & commercial
aviation for security
3. Allows uninterrupted
continuation of
services.
DISADVANTAGES
1. Difficulty to renovate
with tenants inplace.
2. Lack of expansion space.
3. Lack of ceiling cavity.
4. Restricts design
options.
1. Slightly further
distance from FBO than
Alternate A.
2. Requires some expansion
of parking & apron
areas.
3. Limited building
expansion space.
4. Visibility of FBO
activity reduced.
1. Property acquisition
needed.
2. Site work increased.
3. Lack of accessibility
of general aviation to
restaurant & car rental
agencies.
4. Extension of all
utilities necessary.
5. New access road
required.
6. Parking lot, apron and
taxiway construction
required.
7. TVOR navigation station
would have to be
relocated.
8. Lack of visibility from
Interstate 55.
9. Would assume FAA funding
for a number of years in
the future.
Holsho(user & Associates
219 N. CLARK AVENUE
O
RHIECIURE CONSULTING • PLANNING I'
14W ACCAPE GIRARDEAU, MO. 63701
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
July 26, 1990 Rev. 11-30-90)
Pruject: Airport Terminal Building Renovation Study for
Cape Girardeau Municipal Airport
Architect's Project No. 8922
A. BUILDING RENOVATION COSTS
1.0 General Requirements (Bonds,Super.)= $ 24,725
2.0 Site Work (Paving & Demolition)
_ $
15,560
3.0 Concrete Work
= $
2,300
4.0 Masonry
= $
1,680
5.0 Metals
= $
21,225
6.0 Wood & Plastics
(Carpentry)
_ $
11,931
7.0 Moisture -Thermal
Control
= $
199,565
8.0 Doors, Windows &
Glass
= $
152,683
9.0 Finishes
= $
111,109
10.0 Specialties
= $
15,383
11.0 Equipment
= $
86,250
12.0 Furnishings
= $
6,463
SUBTOTAL
=
648,874
B. BUILDING ADDITION COSTS:
`► 899 SF x $75/SF
= $
67,425
C. MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL
COSTS:
15.0 Mechanical -HVAC=
$104,000
Plumbing =
$ 26,000
16.0 Electrical =
$ 52,000
SUBTOTAL
182,000
= $
182,000
SUBTOTAL
= T
898,299
D. CANOPY:
1,265 SF x $40/SF
= $
50,600
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
= $
948,899 =$ 948,899
E. DESIGN COSTS
1.0 Architectural Services = $ 76,000
2.0 Reimbursables (Printing Cost & etc)= $ 2,000
3.0 Full -Time Inspection & Test Service= $ 25,000
103,000 = $ 103,000
GRAND TOTAL = $1,051,899
Average Cost Per SF = $948,899 - 12,959 SF = $73.22/SF
.` Renovation Costs = $830,874 - 12,060 SF = $68.90/SF
(314) 334-6422
Holshouser & Associatesi'
ARCIIIIECTURL CONSULTING • PLANNING
BUDGET COST ESTIMATE
November 30, 1990
PROJECT: A New Airport Terminal Building for
Cape Girardeau Municipal Airport
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Project NO. 8922 (13,000 SF, One Story)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS:
1.0 General Requirements
2.0 Site Work
3.0 Concrete Work
5.0 Metals (Structural Steel)
6.0 Wood & Plastics
7.0 Moisture -Thermal Control
8.0 Doors, Windows & Glass
9.0 Finishes
10.0 Specialties
11.0 Equipment(Kitchen & Lounge)
12.0 Furnishings (Blinds)
14.0 Conveying (Luggage Carousel)
15.0 Mechanical: HVAC ($7.30/SF)
Plumbing ($5/SF)
16.0 Electrical ($5.79/SF)
Fire & Security Systems
Building Total
219 N. CLARK AVENUE
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO. 63701
$ 28,000
$ 80,000
_ $ 68,000
$ 96,000
_ $ 19,000
_ $ 69,000
$ 88,000
$ 155,000
$ 19,000
$ 50,000
_ $ 8,000
$ 25,000
_ $ 95,000
_ $ 65,000
5 75,000
_ $ 20,000
960,000 = $ 960,000
Architect's Basic Services = $ 65,000
Reimbursable Expenses = $ 2,000
Fulltime Inspection & Test Service = $ 25,000
= 92,000 = $ 92,000
TOTAL = $1,052,000
$960,000 r 13,000 SF = $73.85/SF
1314) 334-6422
PROJECT: AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
FUNDING
SOURCES
CAPE GIRARDEAU MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
-
DESIGN A
TOTAL
COSTS
FAA
(75%)
LOCAL
(25%)
AREA USE
%
PUBLIC SPACES
42
$ 377,286
$ 282,965
$ 94,321
AIRLINE/BAGGAGE
11
98,813
-----
98,321
RESTAURANT/LOUNGE
22
197,626
-----
197,626
FAA & WEATHER STATION
11
98,813
74,110
24,703
CAR RENTALS & GIFT SHOP
8
71,864
-----
71,864
UTILITY & SERVICES
6
53,897
40,423
13,474
SUBTOTAL
100
898,299
397,498
500,801
CANOPY
--
50,600
37,950
12,650
CONSTRUCTION TOTALS
948,899
435,448
513,451
DESIGN COSTS
128,000
96,000
32,000
TOTALS
1,076,899
531,448
545,451
49%
51%
DESIGN B
AMOUNT
%
FAA
%
LOCAL
1
960,000
49
470,400
51
7
489,600
3
18,000
90
16,200
10
1,800
4
134,400
90
120,960
10
13,440
5-9
22,000
90
19,800
10
2,200
12
67,000
75
50,250
25
16,750
14
50,000
75
37,500
25
12,500
13
16 000
90
14 400
10
1 600
TOTALS
1,267,400
1 58%
729,510
426
537,890
DESIGN C
AMOUNT
%
FAA
%
LOCAL
1
$ 960,000
49
$
470,400
51
$
489,600
2-11
3,462,000
90
31115.800
10
346,200
12
67,000
75
50,250
25
16,750
13/14
405,000
90
364 500
10
40 500
I-TTTL-S
$4,894,000
82%
4,000,950
18%
893,050
r.
AIP PRIORITY SYSTEM (For Development Projects)
U11 "s &V
The basic purpose of the priority system is to carry out the desires of
Congress as expressed in Section 502, Declaration of Policy, of the Airport
and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. Briefly summarized, those points are:
1. Safe operation of the airport and airway system.
2. Adequate capacity to meet needs of interstate commerce, postal
service and the national defense.
3. Adequate facilities, including Navaids, airport development and
reliever facilities for commercial service points.
4. Provide safety facilities,with highest priority to commercial
service, including approach guidance, lighting, runway surface
treatment and radar.
5. Fostering fair competition, providing for essential transportation
and preventing unjust discriminatory practices.
Grim!{Kdt4{�I�l
�.. 1. System uses combination of numbers and letters. The smaller the
number, the higher the priority.
2. Final priority number is determined by adding numbers established
for type development and purpose of development; unless the purpose
comes under the "Special Program" purpose category in which case
only the number for type of development is used. The number for
type development varies with airport category.
3. letters are determined by:
a. The classification and characteristics of the airport (e.g.,
scheduled air carrier/enplaned passengers; general aviation/
based aircraft/itinerant operations).
b. Type of development. The letter obtained from type of develop-
ment is used only for computer tracking and doesn't affect the
priority of rating.
C. The priority of a project may be raised or lowered by adding
an "R" or an "L" at the end of the priority number, but justi-
fication for doing so must be documented. Factors which might
make it appropriate to do this include timing and need for
the project, sponsor performance on previous projects, etc.
t�
3
TYPE DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES
A. Special Programs - Items needed to meet safety and security require-
ments set by rules, Regs., or Congress, plus other special safety
items (e.g., Hazard removal, grooving, CFR equipment).
B. Reconstruction - Development needed to restore or preserve facili-
ties on the airfield side.
C. Standards - Development needed to meet FAA design standards.
D. Upgrade - Development needed to accommodate more critical aircraft.
E. Capacity - Development to increase capacity of an existing airport.
F. New Airport Capacity - Construction of a new air carrier or reliever
airport in a Metro area.
G. New Community Airport - Any new airport which will be the sole air-
port in the community.
PURPOSE CATEGORIES
1. Primary Runway - Any work associated with primary runway or taxiway,
including acquisition of land or obstruction removal in primary
runway approach area.
2. Secondary Runway; Aprons - Any work associated with secondary runways
or taxiways, including land acquisition or obstruction removal in
approach areas, plus any Apron.
3. Fundamental Configuration - Land needed for other than runways
and approaches, including land within 75Ldn, plus rotating beacons,
segmented circles, wind cones, etc.
4. Electronic NAVAIDS, Snow Removal Equipment, and CFR Maintenance
Building - Includes AWOS, VASI, REILS.
5. Primary Access Roads, Terminal Buildings, and Land within 65 Ldn.
6. Storage Buildings - for snow removal equipment.
7. Other - Includes service roads, secondary access roads, fencing,
etc.
EXAMPLES (Refer to attached Table I)
1. Overlay Runway 9/27 at Kansas City International Airport.
Airport category -----W
Development category ---B2
Purpose category -----------2
Final Priority --------B4
2. Construct new runway to replace substandard primary runway at
Charles City, IA
Airport category ---------Y
Development category -----C4
Purpose category ----1
Final priority-------CSY
3. Groove Runway 13/31 at Cedar Rapids, IA
Airport category -----%
Development — Al -
Purpose category -- —(not used for special program item.)
Final priority ----AIX
AIP PRIORITY SYSTEM (For Planning Projects)
GENERAL
The final priority consists of a single number obtained from TABLE II
(copy attached) which is self-explanatory.
EXAMPLES
1. Update Burlington, IA Master Plan.
Enter column for "Commercial Service other than Primary" then move
down column to "Periodic update of plans." Appropriate priority
is a 4.
2. Initial Noise Compatibility Study for Lambert Field, St. Louis
Enter column for "Primary in large/medium hub and its relievers,"
then move down to "Initial study for existing airport or study
for new Airport."
Appropriate priority is 1.
v.
Order 9100.39A
AIRPORT TYPE. AND CODE
10/24/99
ADD-ON FACTORS Mo Addb IOaon for SPECIAL PROGRAMS):
H m Primary la.rriling ausrace and u'.Wad uviway, appavche
Of : A,." secondary finding xn4w and anocieu6 oaiway, appor.hea
A _ Fundamenul configuration or for noir, compatibility in DNL 75 dB
+4 . CM maintenance facdiner, ciccwnic nay.ida, AWOS, snow removal,juiprnent and mow a
removal equipma nonge buildings
+5 =Primary ..o, ad,, noise c.,wilethy (DNL 65-14 dB}, Iereand buil wall
+6 c Sn.,v abmivelehemical smrage buildings
+7 = Other (,ach u service meds, sacnMary saes roads, noire w Wibiliry projects a,uide DNL 65 dB, fencing, de.)
Figure 3—i. Prlorlty System Malrla for Airport Development, Nolse CompallbUlty Development, Master Planning, and
Rohm Compatibility Planning
STATE OR REGION! REGIONIMEIRO PLAN FOR REGIONNETRO PLAN FOR
ARBA TYPE MF,TROPOLITfuN PLAN AREA WITki PRIMARY AREA WITHOUT PRIMARY
I
FOR AREA WITH PRIMARY AIRPORT r}UTS7Ofs LARGE AIRPORT
AIRPORT IN LARGE HUB HUB
SYSTEM PLAN
-Initial Plan 1 1 t 3
-Continuous Planning 2 ( 3 4
Supplemental grant for ongoing ^_ 2 2
Study
P399 24
Figure 3-2. Priority System Matrix for System Planning
Chap 3
Primary in Large
Primary Outride
Commercial
Nuncanmercid
or Medium Hub a
LaMeM.diom thus
Sake Odrcr thm
Lus than 20
and id Relieve. or
and its PWievcrt or
Primary or
eased Anc aft
Nrncanmerciel
Noncommercial
Noncommercial
or Rev 0m
100 or more ba,el
50+ Buell Aircraft
20+ Bued Aioxa t
8000 hinennt
Aircraft ar 40,000
m 20-40,000«
8—MbD0
('rntionr
or Mom Itinerant
Iinerna
f inert.
Operant.,
Operations
Opendom
PLANNING CATEGORIES, MASTER
PLAN, NOISE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
-Initial study for existing airport
1
2
3
4
-Study for new airport
1
2
3
4
-Complete/continue phased projects
1
2
3
1 1 3
-Periodic update
2
3
4
4
-Supplemental grant for ongoing study
2
2
2
2
DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES
A. Special PGMS
I
I
I
I
B. Reconstruction
2
2 I
3
7
C. Standards
2
3 `
4
4
D. Upgrade
3
4
5
10
F. Capacity
3
4
5
12
F. New Airport Capacity
3
5
7
12
G. New Airport Community
5
6
7
12
ADD-ON FACTORS Mo Addb IOaon for SPECIAL PROGRAMS):
H m Primary la.rriling ausrace and u'.Wad uviway, appavche
Of : A,." secondary finding xn4w and anocieu6 oaiway, appor.hea
A _ Fundamenul configuration or for noir, compatibility in DNL 75 dB
+4 . CM maintenance facdiner, ciccwnic nay.ida, AWOS, snow removal,juiprnent and mow a
removal equipma nonge buildings
+5 =Primary ..o, ad,, noise c.,wilethy (DNL 65-14 dB}, Iereand buil wall
+6 c Sn.,v abmivelehemical smrage buildings
+7 = Other (,ach u service meds, sacnMary saes roads, noire w Wibiliry projects a,uide DNL 65 dB, fencing, de.)
Figure 3—i. Prlorlty System Malrla for Airport Development, Nolse CompallbUlty Development, Master Planning, and
Rohm Compatibility Planning
STATE OR REGION! REGIONIMEIRO PLAN FOR REGIONNETRO PLAN FOR
ARBA TYPE MF,TROPOLITfuN PLAN AREA WITki PRIMARY AREA WITHOUT PRIMARY
I
FOR AREA WITH PRIMARY AIRPORT r}UTS7Ofs LARGE AIRPORT
AIRPORT IN LARGE HUB HUB
SYSTEM PLAN
-Initial Plan 1 1 t 3
-Continuous Planning 2 ( 3 4
Supplemental grant for ongoing ^_ 2 2
Study
P399 24
Figure 3-2. Priority System Matrix for System Planning
Chap 3
„` AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATES
The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) needs to be kept current. A current FAA
approved ALP is a prerequisite for issuance of a grant for airport
development. Any sponsor who has received a grant for airport development is
obligated by an assurance in that grant to "keep the ALP up-to-date at all
times.” Following are some general guidelines with which to evaluate the
currency of the ALP.
It may be helpful to first review what an ALP is. By definition, the
ALP is a plan for an airport showing boundaries and proposed additions to all
areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for airport purposes, the location
and nature of existing and proposed airport facilities and structures, and the
location an the airport of existing and proposed non -aviation areas and
improvements thereon.
ALP's become "out-of-date" when they do not adequately provide for
future needs, conform with current airport design standards, accurately
reflect existing features, or reflect airport and critical land use changes
which may affect the navigable airspace or the ability of the airport to
expand. An ALP that has not been "updated" for several years is usually
deficient in all four respects. When the FAA advises that an ALP needs to be
"updated" it simply means that the plan for airport development needs to be
reviewed for currency in all areas and changed as necessary. In actual
practice, the updating may be accomplished by revising the origin'_
reproducible drawings or by preparing an all new set of drawings. The
decision on which method to use lies with the sponsor and obviously is
Influenced by such things as ability to find the original reproducible
drawings and the quality of same. A consulting firm with airport planning
experience can normally be relied upon for proper counsel in this regard, but
if in doubt, sponsors may also contact FAA for advice. The updated ALP needs
FAA approval prior to the issuance of the grant.
It is also important to realize that the physical completion of an
airport development project will normally trigger the need to update the ALP
for the purpose of reflecting work accomplished under the grant. This updated
ALP needs FAA approval prior to final payment. Therefore, many projects will
require an ALP update both before grant issuance and after project completion.
The cost of updating the ALP is an eligible project cost and should be
included in the grant application. Also, the engineering contract for the
development in the project should include provisions for the ALP update or it
can be accomplished under a separate contract.
Submittal of the updated ALP for approval and any questions should he
addressed to the Airport Planning Engineer responsible for your State. The
Airport Planning Engineers are Mrs. Joyce Harrison, (816) 426-6805, for Kansas
and Nebraska; Mr. Alan Wimpey, (816) 426-6622, for Iowa and Omaha, Lincoln,
and Grand Island, Nebraska; and Mr. Tom Coates, (816) 426-6623, for Missouri.
L�