Pittsfield Municipal Airport Commission
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
7:00 pm
Commission Members
Present: Chris Farrell, Gloria Bouillon, Tom Sakshaug, Ned Kirchner, Gail Molari,
Chris Pederson (Chairman)
Not Present: David Keator
Proceedings:
•
Meeting called to order at 6:05 pm
•
Audio Recordings – for the purpose of minutes.
•
Roll Call Taken – Quorum present
Public Comment Period: Kathleen Quinn 2 Charisma Drive, a pilot and member of
South Mountain Flying Club. They have always used this property for seminars, and
she is requesting use for 50 people. She recently toured the building with Brian and
was surprised at the changes in the lobby and that the space will no longer be adequate
for their seminar. Additionally, she is concerned that the meeting minutes have not been
posted to the website since last July. Also, the meetings are posted very close to the
meeting time, making it hard to ascertain when meetings will be taking place.
In watching the PCTV coverage of the Airport Study Fees, she has begun doing
research and brought the landing fee structure from Westfield Airport and feels that
Pittsfield Municipal Airport is not consistent with others. She also has issues with the
fuel fees here. We are thirty-five cents more per gallon than their closest neighbor in
Columbia County. She has reached out to Pete Marchetti and John Krol, who are very
responsive, but she wanted to make her opinions known, and would like to know if the
lobby can be reconfigured to accommodate their group. Chris Pederson offered to
speak to her after the meeting to discuss her concerns.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: Chris confirmed that all members had received the
meeting minutes from the February, 2017 meeting via email. Tom voted to accept,
Chris F. seconded, so moved, favored, and passed.
Welcome Gloria Bouillon New Airport Manager: Chris introduced Gloria, and
stated that she started on Monday with a long day ending with the Airport Study
Group meeting Monday evening after a full day of work.
Airport Study Group Report: Tom distributed the documents (a narrative
and recommendations) resulting in revamping the narrative. Gloria was
very helpful in getting him some numbers he could use. He requests that
all members review it one more time before he presents it to the City
Council at the 2nd meeting in March or early April. He will want a few
people there as backup in case there are any questions. Chris reviewed
one of the documents Tom referred to, which covers airport expenses and
substantial information for 2016. He mentioned that Tom went through all
the long-term debt that is on file with the city, employee benefits, and
added all of that together, which showed that in 2016, we turned a profit of
approximately $25,000. It is not spendable as it is offset by tax money we
don’t get our hands on. Tom said it was a bit of a surprise to him when he
was gathering information. Chris added that 2017 should be about the
same. Tom said that in 2017 the City will not need to contribute as much
money to the airport. Gail said that the problem that they’ve always faced
is that the general fund money is not easy to track. Tom said part of his
recommendation would be to separate this money into its own fund.
Chris mentioned that there are still no landing fees for single engine
aircraft. Aircraft that is based here, in their discussions with the FAA,
they’re getting away from anyone who is not treated equally. What they’re
looking towards is equal treatment of anyone who uses the airport whether
they are based here or not based here. Brian agreed with this
assessment. Chris added that no matter where the aircraft is based, they
still cost the airport the same in airport maintenance issues. Gloria
reiterated that the wording is designed to be non-discriminatory.
Status Update:
Beacon Project: Jim McLaughlin and Dave from Stantec were present.
They went to the last meeting of the Lenox Conservation Commission, and asked
them to close the hearing. They are working on a finding of fact. They have 14
days, which ends tomorrow, to answer. Chris asked if they have a right to appeal
to DEP if they disagree with the decision of Lenox Conservation. It is believed
that they do.
Runway 8/26 and 14/32 Reconstruction: They’re getting close to put it
out to bid. They’ve submitted preliminary plans. Based on discussions, they
would go with the two-phase option. Several comments from FAA, that they’ve
responded to are having an impact on the budget and the taxiway reconstructed
to the new configuration. The state has floated the idea that they may be willing
to pick up the City’s 5% share of the additional cost. They met with Gloria earlier,
and they’re looking at releasing the documents on March 22nd with a bid opening
date of April 21st. During that time, they’d hold a pre-bid meeting at the airport
where they could ask questions and tour the site. Stantec will analyze the bids
for accuracy, then make a recommendation to the City, then submit grant
applications to the FAA by the May 1st deadline. In the past, it has taken 2 – 3
months before the FAA makes the grant offer. There is a bit of concern that this
could push the project into a period of bad weather. They would suggest that
they put into the bid documents that it would be a 2018 project. This would mean
that the winning bid contractor will do the work in the spring of next year instead
of pushing to get it done before winter. Jim feels that this will avoid rushing the
project. Chris F. agrees, but wondered why we haven’t decided to pursue the
master plan, which is now over a decade old, before taking on such a large
project that may or may not fit into the master plan. Chris P relayed that he
frequently attends to meetings in Boston, where they have removed the master
plan, in favor of addressing safety concerns first. Jim agreed that in the past 2-3
years, there have not been a lot of master plans going on, because the FAA is
concentrating on safety. He does see that it is coming back into the program for
2018. Gail said, to put it into perspective, they wanted us to build this building
without having a master plan. Chris F. said that if we see the Master Plan
coming around in the future, should we delay this project until then. Jim said
they would not agree to that. It would be viewed very negatively. Gloria said it is
not changing the geometry of the airport. This is just maintaining the runway.
Chris F. is just concerned that the projects we’re doing now, may not be aligned
with the future Master Plan and that time and money will be wasted.
Dave referred to the ALP (Airport Layout Plan) map showing where runway 14/32
is being shortened on both ends in order to be in compliance for safety areas on
the runway. One of the questions was raised was can we leave that pavement at
the end of the runway because once it’s removed, it’s going to be difficult to get
that runway back in the future from an environmental standpoint. Chris F. said
this dovetails with his question about the Master Plan. Dave said that 14/32 right
now, based on the swale does not comply with current standards. The criteria for
safety areas is that all runways are in compliance. They’re looking at it that no
matter what you do, you must have your safety areas out there. They don’t have
a problem leaving pavement on 32, but they won’t pay for maintenance there.
Chris asked how different would the costs be. Dave said that it’s a difference of
32 inches of different material. On the 32 end, because that’s within the safety
area limits, it needs to comply. They can leave as much of the pavement area as
possible and they would mark the area left with chevrons. Chris said that if
you’re going to overrun in a safety area, you’d rather it be pavement. The FAA
will not maintain it, so the airport would be responsible of crack sealing, patching
and repair. Dave cautioned that an abandoned pavement would deteriorate
quicker than pavement in use. Chris P said that any way he looks at that, the
proximity of the swamp will never turn back into runway. We are landlocked
there. Chris F said that to acknowledge that we’re going to narrow and shorten a
runway may not be the best plan. Ned said that one end is going to have to bring
in fill anyway, so we’re only talking about one end. He asked what grade work is
needed at that end. Jim said very little, about 3”. Jim said from his prospective,
based on the restrictions about the pond and road, it will not be likely to be
lengthened. Brian said the asphalt there is already fifty years old and is going to
be further degraded if they ever agree to pave there. Jim said we’d need to
remark the chevron every 3 years and crack sealing every 3 – 5 years. Ned
asked what happens if it begins to regrade. Dave said they talked about a pea
gravel and FAA said no. Chris asked if they do pave safety areas. Dave said
typically there are paved areas, but they are only areas that were previously
paved. The state is very clear they will not maintain it. Chris said if everyone is
comfortable that every solution has been vetted, then he would not want to stand
in the way. Gloria said that having loose aggregate is a hazard. Chris asked if it
reduces the cost of the project if we leave it. Dave said there will be some
savings. Brian asked about the runway end lights. Dave said they will still go
across. Tom said his concern is the cost of maintenance of 150’ by 75’ surface.
Jim said that FAA said Primecoat (under the asphalt but over the gravel) is not
required. Ned asked if there were other similar line items that could cut costs.
Jim said there’s a new FAA eligible sealant that helps to maintain it, that they will
pay for, but it’s a $3,000 - $4,000 item. They are trying to find other items they
could reduce costs but there is not a lot that can be taken out of the project.
Dave said that taking some of the material on taxiway A, but they discovered
there is a lot of ledge there, which would be expensive. Instead, they’d go
behind the hangar where there are some future Lyon development plans. Brian
is going to find out how much material is available there before hitting ledge.
Chris asked if the control panel can be relocated. Dave said it could, depending
on where they would move it to. Brian said it is in a leased area, where they
have to interrupt them in order to access it. Dave said if you can give them an
idea of where it would be moved to. Jim said that the cheapest plan would be to
leave it where it is. Brian said that the reason for the sealant is to add
preservation for the asphalt, and every primary surface acts all the same for
purposes of snow removal. Chris F asked what the industry experience is with
the sealant. Jim said he has no experience with it. Brian said that he has used it
and it is very helpful for the longevity of the surface. Jim said that the FAA has
vetted it, so he’s confident it is a good product. He’d like to make it an added bid
item so that if they have to get the cost down, this would be one item they could
take out. Dave said that there is a difference in price in applying it to grooved
surface vs. smooth surface. Chris asked what the dollar value of the product is.
Dave said that the non-grooved area would cost $110,000 and the grooved
runway 8/26 would be about $390,000. Chris said although it’s a significant
amount, you pay now or you pay later. Jim said the trouble will come in with the
city share amount. Chris said it comes out to about a $25,000 cost to the city,
which they’ll save in maintenance. Ned asked if it would make sense to have this
discussion with the mayor so she’s not blindsided by this. Chris said it would.
Jim said the worst-case scenario is that if the project comes in over, you need to
know what you’re going to do. Gail asked if we could do the sealing portion at a
later date. Jim said we could. Chris F asked what the value difference is in
putting it on new pavement vs. 3-year-old pavement. Dave said it is best to put it
on the new pavement, but it would still preserve 2 – 3-year-old pavement. He
also said that all the cable should be in conduit underground, for the lights. FAA
won’t contribute for that, so they are looking at the contractor doing the 18,000
feet of ineligible with the City paying that portion. Chris said they should put it in
as an extra item. Gail said it’s always hard to get people to understand the need
to spend now to save later. Jim said that they would probably make that the
lowest priority ABI. Dave said one area of savings is to reduce the typical 4” of
topsoil down to 3” in flat areas. That would save about $80,000. He suggested
that if there is anything we can do without, he recommends taking it out.
However, he cautioned about going under budget. Chris F. asked if we’ll be in
good stead or would we be over. Dave said it’s going to be tight. Contractors
may give good bid prices to lock in the project for next spring, but not knowing
what pavement prices will be at that time, they may overestimate the cost. Gloria
asked if there is about a 3% escalation cost. Jim said they’re not allowed any
escalation. Ned asked how the bids in other area have gone. Jim said they’re
usually the third high bidder. Ned just wanted to know what their bid estimates
are in comparison to contractors. Dave said it varies, but it’s their best opinion.
Jim said that Chris is leaning toward a two-phase project. David did reach out to
Lyon and they agreed that the two-phase was the best option for them. Tom said
they’re all in agreement. Gloria said they will send out notices to emergency
services to convey the construction plan and what portions of the airport would
be operational. Jim also relayed that the state has the funds for the fence and
gate repair, but our bids expired in September. Jim asked the contractor if he
could extend the bid, but he couldn’t. He contacted him again, and he’s
reviewing his bid to see if he can hold the original bid and do the work in April. If
he can’t, we’ll have to rebid it. Chris F asked if it’s possible to put a clause if the
project is not complete by a specific date. Jim said it is typically $1,200 per day.
He’s willing to talk to the FAA about that, and Colleen downtown.
Solar Update:
Chris was in contact with Beth Greenblatt and the state has changed their
programs. They’ve kept the SRec 2 for 2017, and will be adding the new
process in 2018. She has just received financial information from all the bidders.
There is a review committee of Gloria, Tom, Chris P, and Brian, who will look at
who meets the criteria, who is qualified, etc. Then they will be invited to come in
and do a presentation, then the state will finalize it.
Manager’s Report:
FY 17 Budget: Chris asked if anyone has any questions. Members
present received copies, but no questions from the group. Brian said that these
maintenance expenses were unforeseen, and they’re working with City Solicitor
to get fence repaired where the cars went through them. They also had a failed
garage door which cost over $700. Light parts needing to be ordered come to
$1,300. Luckily, we’re on the tail end of winter, so he hopes there won’t be
additional snow removal, so they can transfer that money to other items needed.
FY 17 Revenues: Brian relayed we’re about $113,000 +/- in revenue.
Operations Report: Brian touched base with MA DOT about the security
camera upgrade, which is 100% paid for. Chris said they had cameras placed,
but nothing towards building or entrance. Brian is following up with them.
FY 2018 Budget: Chris said the budget was due two weeks ago, but they asked
to delay it until Gloria got here. He sent out a preliminary budget a week ago,
and he reviewed it with Gloria. Gloria said they added the approved Assistant
Manager Title. Chris F asked if the job description needed to be changed as well
and Chris said they are working on it in personnel. Airport Manager, is Gloria’s
position. Airport Inspector is Sean’s position, which is reduced to $34,000.
Scheduled Overtime request at $20,000, Matt Kerwood and the Mayor want it to
be a line item within each department. Chris explained the needs for overtime in
the past, such as when Brian was here alone, and the Wings, Wheels, and
Warbirds event. The budget was submitted yesterday, but we still have time to
change it. Chris P feels it is reasonable in that they removed janitorial and
equipment and merged them into maintenance. The overall increase is $71,000.
Adjournment:
Motion made by Chris F to adjourn, seconded by Ned, so moved, favored, and passed.
Motions Pittsfield Municipal Airport Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
1. Motion was made by Tom to accept the January meeting
minutes. Seconded by Chris F., so moved, favored, and
passed.
2. Chris F. made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ned, so
moved, favored, and passed.