MBS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION
The meeting was held in the Skyroom
Present Absent & Excused Staff Other
T. Lippert Tony Lascari,
Brian K. Elder Debbie Meisel Dale Brown, TSA
Eugene F. Gwizdala Bill Alderson, SkyWest Airlines
Wilmer Jones-Ham Guests Donna Davis, Hertz
Hollis H. McKeag Robert Peckham Paulette Jahr, Avis
Bill Ropposch , Peckham Angela Osmond, TSA
Doug McFerren, IDS Gary Ancinec, MBS ATCT
Paul Stachowiak, IDS
DECEMBER 2005 WARRANT AND CASH & INVESTMENT SUMMARY: Mr. Earley made a motion to approve the Warrant Registers for the December Payroll Account Check Numbers 82045-82104 and the December Operations and Maintenance Check Numbers 36215-36315; and the December Cash and Investment Summary. Ms. Jones-Ham seconded the motion and the Board unanimously approved it.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
AUDIT SCOPE LETTER: Mr. Nagel presented a letter that outlines the scope of services for the upcoming audit. Mr. Beson made motion to receive the audit scope letter from Andrews, Hooper and Pavlik. Mr. McKeag seconded the motion unanimously carried.
AIRPORT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING VEHICLE: Mr. Nagel stated that the Airport Commission approved the five-year plan at the October meeting. The purchase of an airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) truck is scheduled for 2006. The next step in that process is the development of bid documents.
Mr. Nagel received a contract proposal from Peckham Engineering to oversee the bidding process. This includes research, preparing the bid documents, accepting and reviewing bids and providing a recommendation to award. The airport has used Peckham in the past for the procurement of equipment and the process has gone well.
The cost for this contract is $6,679.00 and is eligible under the project. Ms. Jones-Ham made a motion to approve the contract with Peckham Engineering for the ARFF vehicle procurement process and authorization for the Chairman to sign. Mr. Elder seconded and the Board unanimously passed the motion.
TERMINAL STUDY PRESENTATION: Mr. Nagel reported that the Terminal Study is complete and has been distributed to the Commissioners. The Operations Committee has met twice with the Terminal Study Team to review the study. Mr. Nagel thanked Peckham Engineering and IDS for the great job and detailed report which certainly met the expectations.
Mr. Nagel continued that in 2000 the Commission approved a new Master Plan Update process and in 2003 it was approved. At that time it was evaluated to relocate the front wall of the terminal building out to the curb, relocate the airline ticket counters, and move TSA to behind the ticket counters. However, the wall was found to be a load bearing wall, causing the cost to be more than estimated and an inconvenience to the passengers. In 2004 the Board approved the Terminal Study and work began in May to evaluate the existing building, prepare a cost estimate for renovation, and prepare preliminary cost estimates for a new building. The study accomplished all of these goals. Mr. Nagel introduced Bob Peckham from Peckham Engineering to lead the discussion with the Terminal Study Team.
Mr. Peckham stated that the purpose of the meeting is to give an overview of the study and invite the Board to ask any questions. Mr. Peckham introduced Paul Stachowiak and Doug McFerren of IDS. They proceeded to summarize the study. Mr. McFerren explained that several meetings took place to gather data and documentation of the original building and various additions over the years. Meetings took place with Consumers Energy, TSA, and Honeywell Controls to help with the information for the study. The systems and equipment had to have their age identified, structure and last service, and what their life span is likely to be. Then it was categorized into immediate replacement, or likely to fail in a short time frame, or able to serve for a longer time. The deficiencies that the building has are common in 40+ year old buildings. Some are compliance issues that are grandfathered and acceptable in older buildings until such time as a major renovation takes place. Then all issues must be brought to code.
Mr. Stachowiak explained that as things are replaced and upgraded by renovating it begins to snow ball for other updates. In review of the deficiencies and upgrading, a major terminal renovation of the heating and air conditioning units would effect power interruptions and a reasonable level of service for the customers would need to be kept. Renovation would result in constructing additional building area on the two sides to create temporary ticket and baggage area so the middle area could be taken down all at once. Renovation with a steady cash flow could take a minimum of two to three years and with a cash flow problem could take longer. This gives the passengers less than desirable service. The Master Plan calls for four airline counters, two baggage claim operations and entry area that has room for passengers to move through a queue system. Renovation will provide an infrastructure that is set for the next 40-50 years that you can build from. Even with the renovation it still is a building that is less than ideal to expand the hold areas should passenger traffic require it. Total cost to completely renovate is approximately $31.2 million. The drawings presented are preliminary to give an idea of a potential solution and hardships for the traveling public as they make their way through temporary structures.
Mr. Stachowiak stated that the next step in the study was to give an alternative solution. The team went back to the Master Plan to see what recommendation was made to build a new terminal. IDS used 65,000 square feet for size. They explained the cost difference of construction when building with or without ongoing passenger traffic. They also included a line item for demolition of the current building. Mr. Stachowiak stated to keep in mind that a benefit of a new building is that if cash flow is interrupted, operations remain at the current building. There would be ongoing investment in the current facility to some of the older equipment until the move can be made. Passengers will not be walking through construction zones if building is off site.
Mr. Peckham explained the funding. Estimated cost for renovation would be Federal AIP share $5,000,000, Federal Discretionary $15,500,000, State share $610,000, Local $6,200,000, and PFC $3,600,000. Mr. Peckham stated the problem with renovation is maintaining traffic and after renovation it is still a 50 year old structure that has been updated code wise but space wise it still does fit the current needs. It will also cost more to operate than a new facility.
Mr. Peckham further explained if a new facility was built the total cost is estimated at $31.3 million with AIP funding at $5,600,000, discretionary at $12,800,000, State at $1,200,000, Local at $8,000,000 and PFC at $3,500,000. Local funds are increased because there would be new parking lots and they are not eligible for State or Federal funding.
Some of the items that were discussed were that MBS is the
last major airport not renovated in the state, that the passenger terminal is
the first and last thing that people see when they come to the area, and that
there would be no local tax payer expense.
Mr. Nagel again thanked the Terminal Study Team for all their work. He continued that the Operations Committee
Dr. Distler, Chairman of the Operations Committee stated that when the committee met they started open minded to the options. However, it didn’t take long to realize that the “do nothing” approach was not an option. He also stated that it is extremely attractive to look at a new terminal building but it is important that the next step be taken is to have the new terminal building study before the final decision is made. That was the recommendation of the committee. He also was very happy to see so much support from the Commission and that it was so well received.
Mr. Gwizdala asked for a roll call vote. Mr. Beson, yes; Dr. Distler, yes; Mr. Earley, yes; Mr. Elder, yes; Mr. Gwizdala, yes; Ms. Jones-Ham, yes; Mr. McKeag, yes; and Mr. Tomion, yes. The motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
Mr. Nagel reported that Dow Chemical set up a meeting with top
management from Northwest to discuss the level of service Dow needed to be
successful in the long-term. Dow invited
the City of
Northwest was very receptive to the message that all three parties are working closely together. Usually Northwest sees one or two of these entities and not all three. Northwest is committed to their Heartland strategy involving airports such as MBS. They strongly believe the program will assist as they emerge from bankruptcy. No promises were made however Northwest did agree to revisit the service level and fares from MBS and strive to be competitive. Those who attended think this is the start of a new relationship between Northwest and MBS and look forward to working with them in the future. Mr. Nagel stated that Mr. Biltz asked that these comments be passed along in his absence.
Mr. Riesinger reported on the ice storm that hit on Tuesday morning. Approximately 85 ton of urea and sand was put down on the airfield and salt was used on the land side. Urea is a deicer fertilizer this is used because salt is not allowed on the airfield. The airport was kept open at all times under safe condition. Mr. Riesinger complimented the Maintenance Department on a good job. He also thanked the airlines and tower for their coordination.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: Next regular meeting is scheduled for
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mr. Beson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. McKeag seconded and the Board unanimously passed the motion. The meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
Hollis H. McKeag, Secretary