Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAirport.Minutes.09-12-1991SPECIAL AIRPORT BOARD MEE77NG �- Thursday, September 12, 1991 Those present: Board Members: Staff: Jerry McClanahan, Chairman J. Ronald Fischer John T. Seesing Kevin T. MCMeel Truman Cole Gayle Conrad Bill Walker Jim Bowman Guests: Steve Nesler Greg Branum Alan Maki Lloyd Smith Jay Eastlick The special meeting of the Airport Board was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman McClanahan. Jerry McClanahan entertained a motion that the Board move into executive session to discuss land acquisition. Jim Bowman so moved and Bill Walker seconded the motion. However, it was not approved as it was determined that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether the terminal building renovation should proceed as planned or if the project should be put on hold. Chairman McClanahan then gave the floor to Truman Cole for comments. Mr. Cole defined the purpose of the Airport Board as follows: (1) to study and recognize all phases of airport operation; and (2) to consider judgment of all matters and make recommendations to the City Council as to what their studies disclose. He feels there have been two mistakes that have been made in the operation of the airport. One was the purchase of the Farquhar hanger, which was rushed into and is now in need of extensive repair. The second was the construction of the t -hangars, which he feels came 20 years too late. Mr. Cole stated that in order to avoid any future mistakes, the Board needs to study the effect of renovation of the terminal building to service what will be a nonexistent airline and nonexistent passengers. According to a source, the EAS subsidy will also be nonexistent by the 1992 election, in which case TWE has indicated it will pull out as the only air carrier. Mr. Cole said the following are two examples that lead toward the notion that maybe renovation of the terminal is not the right thing to do. The first is the idea of the Houck Field House. Instead of renovating the field house, it was decided to build the Show Me Center. When it was built, the only activity scheduled was the SEMO basketball games. Now the schedule is constantly full of activities. The second example is the construction of I55. Highway 61 could have been renovated to handle the traffic between Memphis and St. Louis. However, I55 was built as a main \. - 2 - thoroughfare, and if it wouldn't have been built, we would never have known what we missed. Mr. Cole stated that he feels the terminal renovation is an ill- considered (sic) move. We need to back up, decide what direction we are going, do more studies, and implement a new concept for the airport. The terminal is not good for a warehouse or an office building. He gave an example of Newark, New Jersey, where there is an airport, port authority, railroad, bus service, highway and a turnpike. This has caused it to be a booming area because they handle mostly freight. Here in Cape the people won't come before the freight does. Mr. Cole made a motion that the renovation of the terminal building be put on hold until an in depth study is made and plans devised that would appear to bring momentum to the airport that we would like to see. The motion was seconded by Alan Maki. The Board then proceeded to discuss the above motion. Alan Maki stated that he was hesitant to proceed with renovation because the money would be locked into a facility that is not expandable and will prevent a new approach to operation. A heavier emphasis needs to be put on freight. He used an example of a gentleman in Bellingham, Washington, that had a small grass strip runway. It was located between Seattle and Vancouver, being `�► approximately an hour from each. He built a terminal and started his service by bringing in freight business. Federal Express was the first to come in, then UPS, then United and then came the passengers. If renovation is the only choice, go ahead with it. However, if a new approach is implemented, why not go all the way and get a new terminal. A commitment could be taken to the people and businesses indicating that a terminal would be built that thy want if they will come to the airport. He also indicated that the funding information that we have needs to be discussed. He also asked what the Board's mission statement was, and questioned whether the Board should be formulating goals to suggest to the City Council or was the Council formulating goals to which the Board is suggesting approaches to reach those goals. He requested a little more direction from staff and Council about what the Board's role is. Mr. Fischer indicated to the Board that the airport can only accumulate three years of grant funds. The $418,000 grant from FAA is part of the $900,000 three year accumulation, which has been allocated for terminal renovation. We have a $100,000 energy grant to cover parts of the mechanical problems and the City's portion is available in the bank through bonds that were sold. He explained that if a new terminal was built, $1,800,000 would have to come from local funds from a bond issue approved by the people. The rest would have to come from FAA funds in the amount of $3,221,000, which would be discretionary funds. - 3 - Greg Branum explained to the board that as a primary airport the opportunity for use of discretionary funds is not there. The current entitlement funds, which is the $418,000, can be used only for terminal expansion, renovation, addition, or a new terminal. In addition, the enplanement figures which determine whether the airport will receive the entitlement runs one year behind. So on October 1 the airport will qualify for its entitlement funds based on last years enplanement figures of 10,000. Mr. Fischer explained that if the terminal renovation is put on hold, $13,000 of the funds will be lost. In addition, if the 10,000 enplanement goal for the year is not met, the airport will lose its primary designation. Alan Maki questioned if the airport loses its primary designation and goes into using discretionary funds, are there any discretionary funds available. Greg Branum explained that there is a maximum of $200,000 of discretionary funds available per applicant. However no funds as yet have been used for terminal renovation. Too many requests have been made for basic necessities of runways, aprons and others airport repairs. However, this is a pilot program which is in its third and last year. Within 60 to 90 days after October 1 all the funds will already be allocated. However, we will not know until December 31 whether the airport has hit its 10,000 enplanement goal. Bill Walker addressed his concerns to the Board. He was not certain of the objectives the City wants to achieve with the airport. You can look at it as an investment or can salvage it, let it service what it can, and it will eventually disappear. He feels the Council and staff need to indicate to the Board where they want the airport to be in the future and what they want it to do. Mr. Fischer explained that the Council, in the past, has approved every recommendation that the Board has made and that more general revenue funds have been spent on the airport than ever before. This is a general indication that the City looks at the airport as a high priority and that the Council looks to the Board for recommendations. In any case, a decision on the current grant must be made by October 1. He told the Board that they can either go with the current renovation or proceed to a new terminal building which would be based on federal funding and a bond issue. In reference to the Show -Me -Center analogy, Mr. Fischer, noted that since it was built there has been more concern about having a convention center near the services such as hotels and restaurants. He questioned whether a new isolated location for the terminal would be better than the present location near the FBO and general aviation. He understood that it is hard to invest money in the airport when there are low enplanements, but the airport is the front door to the City. He will support either option. 4 - Bill Walker explained that Federal Express had put off their plans to build an airplane engine maintenance operation in Memphis. Somebody from the City should contact them to indicate the City's interest in getting them here. After more discussion by the Board, Mr. Fischer stated that he believed if the airport had sufficient airline service, the passengers would come. With the 90 day notice given by TWE, now is the time to get another hub and airline service into the airport. Alan Maki supported the fact that if the airport can get air freight, passengers will start to come in, other businesses will come in, and this will lead to profit for the airport. He would rather wait a year, get a sharp marketing plan, get some new people and businesses in here, and not let go of the renovation. Chairman McClanahan then called the motion to vote. Alan Maki and Truman Cole voted in favor of the motion. Jerry McClanahan, Jim Bowman, Steve Nesler, and S.T. Seesing voted against the motion with Bill Walker abstaining. Therefore, the motion to put the renovation of the terminal building on hold was defeated. Mr. Fischer stated that there will be a generalized proposal for the Council on Monday, September 16, on the direction it feels `. the staff should be directed to go and then in turn Mark Seesing will have that information for the Airport Board at its next meeting for its input. He also stated that Lone Star out of Texas is still very interested in servicing Cape Girardeau. Jerry McClanahan indicated that Mark was working with an outfit in Gary, Indiana, that is also interested in servicing the airport. There being no further business, the Airport Board meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,� Cx� Gayle Conrad