SMITH FIELD USERS’ MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2006
SMITH FIELD AIRPORT
5:30 p.m.
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE: Tim O’Donnell, SMD Supervisor -FWACAA
DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS: Ben Hoffman, Jack Arnold, Keith Byer, David DeWald, Craig Brown
CALL TO ORDER:
Tim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ITEMS DISCUSSED:
Update on Rules & Regs and Minimum Standards: Ordinances were introduced at the November 20, 2006 Board meeting. There will be a Public Hearing and Board vote on both ordinances at the next Board meeting on December 18, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. Two people publicly responded.
Snow and Ice: Complete and Online. Only plowing 5 feet from hangar. No plowing onto ramp/taxiway access roads/entrances. Start moving snow within 2 hours of snow event. Cook Road Hangars – No plowing solution yet. If anyone has any suggestions or input, please contact the Airport Supervisor.
Ivy Tech Facility: Power Plant 3-7 years; permanent A&P on North side of airport eventually.
Groundbreaking ceremony, Tuesday, December 5th @ 3 p.m.
We hope to have the shell of the building erected in April (delivered in February).
For anyone interested in participating in the Powerplant program, please John Walter: 480-4287 Jwalter@ivytech.edu. The curriculum is still being developed and we do not know how the classes will be offered. We do know that classes will not be held on weekends except for makeups.
AWOS: Categorical Exclusion complete. Parkview will help with the cost. 90 day install period/90 day FAA approval period. 6-18 month discrete frequency period due to FCC processes.
SMD Advisory Committee: There are eight people on the committee: Tim O’Donnell – Projects Ben Hoffman/Russ McCurdy – Events David DeWald – SMD Organizations Brad Hartz – Community/Neighborhood Karen Allina – Airport Vision Bob Schmeltz – Safety and Security Bill Decker -Historical
Airport Procedures: No driving on Runways and TWY A. Movement Areas – Both Runways and TWY A.
AOA-Airport Operations Area. Anything inside fence lines.
99’s Windrose Project: SMD not priority due to other Airports’ demand and SMD’s many projects, but we are working with the 99’s to have one done at SMD.
SFAS Agreement: Steve signed a MOU; we hope to have completed the negotiations by the end of the year. Draft agreement currently being reviewed by Fort Wayne Allen-County Airport Authority employees.
SMD Website: Tim is in control of the website and it has been updated. Three new pages of historical photos, etc.
Ben Hoffman: Started May 1, 2006 avg. 60-70 hrs/month; added 660 DC 120-150 hrs/month. Three-four planned addition of full part-time instructor.
SFAS Updates: Flying Club in the works.
A&P still needed.
Fuel sales -average.
2004 introduced hangars lost in plans…budget for 2007 includes 12 new hangars, but has not yet been approved by the Airport Authority. SFAS is also planning 50 new t-hangars over the next 5 years, if Airport Authority approves.
General Discussion:
Mechanic: Hopefully we will have full time mechanic in the future.
Self-service fueling: If we have any control of it, Tim said he could see the Airport Authority doing it. The answer is we have it budgeted for 2007, but we don’t know if it will go; it depends on how the agreement is worked out.
Thanks: Tim thanked Ben for all he has done.
Tim commented that Dan Reed has done an excellent job and made it better from the time he came in and the time he left. Tim said he keeps in touch with Dan. Dan is excited that he was able to make SMD and the FBO better and to have been able to turn it over to someone else to make it better. Tim again thanked Ben; he is doing an excellent job with the flight training program and is very responsive. He is a get it done type of guy and is a real asset.
T-hangar development – Tim said we are entertaining proposals at this time; we have not selected anybody to develop T-hangars, or any other hangars. We have some people who are interested in development. They will have an opportunity to talk to the group and talk to folks on an individual basis to see what the interest is. A lot of people talk about the need for T-hangars. That is what people need to know about, whether it will be private development or whether the Authority will do the development.
Jack Arnold – SMD Task Force (PRESENTATION): Tim introduced Jack and explained that Jack has been involved in the SMD Task Force for a number of years. Tim said Jack is going to give a presentation about T-hangar development.
Jack said he would like to give the group some information about the nuts and bolts, talk about T-Hangars, the numbers and what it will take.
Jack said he ran the numbers pretty tight; the reality is this will provide a wonderful opportunity to house the airplanes at SMD.
Jack said he put down specifics: What will be provided with a new T-Hangar, there are several different manufactures and he has spoken with a few of the. The Fort Wayne Allen-County Airport Authority would like to see all metal construction. With the concept of all metal construction and a new building, cost is going to be a major factor.
Jack said he put the numbers together and he is not looking for a yes or no answer. We have been talking about building facilities at SMD for several years. Everyone knows a part of the issue is the ALP and how it is going to work.
What would a new T-Hangar building do? He said we have two options. The Fort Wayne Allen-County Airport Authority would build the hangars and rent them or private funding. Jack said he has talked with the staff at the Authority and Jack said it seems like we all understood the goal and how to move forward. It seems like the airport has a lot of money, but in reality is the money there to make this thing happen? How is that going to equate to the user? Is the user going to say it is a lot cheaper because the Authority built it and paid for it with tax dollars or will it look a little different if the hangars are privately funded?
Jack said there are three T-Hangar buildings at Huntington Airport. Jack said he can’t do it as economically as he can out there because we are talking about a new, all metal building. If it is privately funded, would the Airport Authority maintain it? If we could talk about allowing the Airport Authority to see SMD as somewhat self supporting and the best it can be. That will help the Airport Authority, although the Authority of late has been wonderful of late in helping to financially fund SMD.
A privately funded T-Hangar building will do is to allow the airport and the community to get away from the thought process that the Airport Authority is putting money into this to build a new build this, in reality it would be privately constructed and funded.
There are several different types of construction and Jack described same. There are several models and they are similar. The different doors were discussed. Jack said he is not presenting the perfect building; there are a lot of different options. Jack said he is trying to put some numbers together. Jack said Steve Hatch and he are great friends and they could partner in this regard. We need to identify what kind of interest is here and put down some numbers.
Jack said if he is going to pursue it; he would talk about lease requirements. He could probably get the lease rate at approximately $225 a month. To do that he said he would have to have a long term lease. He would like to say 15 years, but that may not be realistic; he could probably do a 10 year lease. People come and go and so a transferable lease would be protective for him. The lease penalty would be a little less than $10K, with that he would want $5K right up front before he built the building. That would help protect him as an investor in building the hangar. The lease terms also have to satisfy SMD lease specifications to be at the airport. The lessor would maintain the building, structure, insures the structure; pays the land lease which is positive cash flow to the airport, with lease payments to the Authority.
There has been discussion about a public restroom and that would be an option. Jack said he will take questions. This is just an inquiry to get thoughts.
Keith Byer said most of the smaller airports have pole barn type hangars instead of T-Hangars and he wondered if there is a reason they are all steel. Jack said usually the T-Hangar gets as many airplanes with the least amount of property. Why all of the steel instead of a pole barn? Jack said he has one of his hangars at Huntington Airport and they said they can’t do a wood frame building due to insurance concerns. Jack said he is trying to look at the best of the best. Jack said he isn’t saying every T-Hangar at SMD will go this way. Every airport has a lot of different type of users. The reality is if there is an interest, we are trying to look at it. Tim said it is not set in stone, but it is what the Authority prefers. It has more durability. We feel that steel construction will last longer and better serve the airport over a long period of time. Our goal is for the future of SMD.
David DeWald asked about the size of the hangar. Jack said it will be a standard size of 42 or
44. Most of these T-Hangar buildings come in packages. Jack said there is an opportunity, if someone had an interest, to add on to the hangars if additional space is needed. The basic T-Hangar unit allows the most airplanes in the least amount of space.
Jack said he is flexible as far as different type of hangars. It would have to satisfy what the needs of the Airport Authority.
Craig Brown said one of the issues we have now is water and drainage. Hopefully that will be addressed. Jack said the people in Angola made a mistake in this regard. He said there are different ways to approach the hangar itself as far as the apron. You can concrete up to the hangar door; whatever it is we will need good drainage. Jack talked about OSHA’s requirements a little bit.
David DeWald asked if someone leases one of the hangars for 20 years, what will the tenant be able to do in the hangar. Jack said it could be insulated, gas furnaces; there are a lot different options, such as additional lighting and electricity. Jack said a lot of people who look at putting in a gas furnace decide not to. There are a lot of different options.
Jack said it is exciting at SMD. Tim thanked Jack for his time.
Tim said the Airport Authority has considered the storm water issues. We are currently developing restrictive covenants. Storm water is something that the Authority will address in order avoid issues that have happened over the years. Craig Brown asked about correcting the existing problems. Tim said, yes, we would like to do that. Tim said that is on the slate for 2006…a Storm Water Master Plan. Tim said the cost of the IVY Tech opportunity stopped that for a bit…we know it is a problem and the first opportunity we have, we will address it. What we really need to determine is the long term life of some of the hangars at SMD. We are looking at tearing some of them down. We are not at that point yet. If we are looking at tearing down a T-Hangar then it doesn’t make sense to the Authority or to the taxpayers to spend money on storm water issues if the hangar is going to be torn down.
Tim said restrooms will be discussed with any developer. If there is going to be development at SMD the Authority is interested in taking on the cost of the restrooms. That basically came out of the Advisory Committee. The committee concurred that restrooms are needed, especially on Friday night movie night. That is something the Authority is interested in correcting.
Tim said as far as the Authority is concerned, whatever improvements are made inside those hangars, will be up to whomever owns/develops the hangars…as long as it meets building codes. Tim said he wants to make sure everyone is aware of that. People will not be running wires to the hangars like what is happening now.
David DeWald said along those lines, what is the Authority willing to do as far as length of leases. David said he believes there is formula. Tim said it is a formula he and Rebecca came up with. They took several recent developments at comparable airports and looked at the cost of the development compared to the length of the lease and we came up with “X”. We are looking at applying “X” to any development at SMD, with room for negotiation. Tim said that is not answering David’s question because it will depend on what value the development will bring. Tim said he is not talking about indirect value; he is talking about how much money is being invested and how that will compare with the length of the lease. The Airport Authority is flexible at this point; that is all Tim said he can say. We aren’t saying all leases will be 20 or 50 years. It will depend on each development and what each person proposes and the value it will bring to the airport. We want to make it so that it is attractive for developers so that they can cover their costs, but the Authority will still see some benefits from the facility. Tim asked if there were any other comments.
Craig Brown asked about status of the ALP. What will it take to get it where we want it? Tim said staff got the ALP back from Aerofinity about 3 or 4 weeks ago. Tim said he has reviewed it and so far Tory and Sheryl and Tim have had one meeting to review it. Because of folk’s suggestions, Tim said there may be some changes. Tim said we want to submit an ALP that will be the best plans for the airport. Tim said the Authority wants to make sure it is good for the users of today and tomorrow. We have identified some opportunities that may benefit the airport. That is not a clear answer; Tim said he knows he is dancing …it is ongoing and it is getting a lot of attention and consideration. Craig Brown said he would like a date. Tim said he would like a date too, but the Airport Authority does not have the answer. Craig Brown said ALP is holding up a lot of things. Tim said we are getting cooperation from the FAA that allows us to do developments without the ALP. With that said, we are taking that opportunity to still do projects, for example, the Ivy Tech School, the AWOS…we are doing these things without at ALP. The FAA knows we are working to develop the best possible ALP.
David DeWald asked Tim to give him five items for which we can move forward…what are the positive things that came out of that ALP plan that Tim reviewed? Tim said he does not know that there is anything that says we can move on something. What we are looking at is…David says things seem to be on “wait-hold” maybe things that Tim cannot talk about. Tim said it is what can we technically do? What is possible for us to do? That is the hold up…it isn’t political. He said he can’t talk about exactly what we are doing. But the basis of the ALP is still the same. We are looking at the same sort of layout, looking at different possibilities. Just because we are looking at it does not mean we are going to propose anything different, we may use the original ALP. The Task Force was crucial in developing that. If we make any change, they will have to agree on it. They will have a say on it. The board will need to approve it. Right now, Tim said we are not doing anything other than asking questions.
David said he was just curious because it sounds like even though we have approval for the AWOS…Tim said he and John, his summer Intern, went out there for the AWOS installation and located it themselves and we ran it through a consultant, not Aerofinity. The consultant said it met all requirements and we filed a 7460 with the FAA and they came back and said it was good to go. We don’t need an ALP for that. We don’t need an ALP for development now that we have our 405 Survey. Because we have the 405 Survey, the FAA has information for which they can base their information.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
g:\wpdocs\board\committee meetings\smith field\smith field users meeting\smd users meeting\smdusers112906l.doc |