Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Airport Board - 09/13/2006 o f I MEETING NIINUTES CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD MUSEUM OF SCIENCE& HISTORY—WATERGARDEN ROOM U 1900 N. CHAPARRAL CORPUS CHRISTI,TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL SEPTEMBER 13th,2006,3:30 P.M. AIRPORT BOARD MEMBERS Jerry Kane, Chairman _Don Feferman,Member Frank"Rocco"Montesano,Vice-Chair William Dodge,Member J.C. Ayala,Member _Jesse Olivares,Member _Glenn E. Lyons,Member _Jay Wise,Member _Sylvia Whitmore,Member _ Sam Susser,Member _Ed Hicks, Sr.,Advisory Member AIRPORT STAFF Dave Hamrick,Director of Aviation Mario Tapia,Finance & Administrative Manager Adelle Ives,Management Assistant Ray Rodriguez,Facilities Manager Ralph Zapata,Engineer Amy Gazin,Public Relations/Marketing Coord. Call to Order The meeting of the Airport Board was called to order by Vice-Chair Montesano at 3:43 p.m. A quorum was not present. II. Approval of the minutes for the August 23rd, Special-called meeting of the Airport Board. Since a quorum was not present, the approval of the minutes for the August 23rd Airport Board meeting was tabled. III. Presentation and public meeting on the Corpus Christi International Airport Master Plan update which provides direction for near-term and long-term airport development based on the community's vision for financially realistic plans to meet regional aviation and economic needs. The presentation of the Corpus Christi International Airport Master Plan was begun by Mr. Barbara Michael of Parson Brinkerhoff(PB),consultant. PB stuffy PGAL staff(Barbara Michael, L.J. Vincik, Michael Hellmann&Bob Arthur)and the Airport Board and staff were introduced. (Jesse Olivares arrived at 3:43 p.m. c& Glenn Lyons arrived at 3:47 p.m. A quorum was now present.) Ms. Michael began by stating the topics of discussion regarding the Airport's Master Plan update to cover development, forecast, activity levels, airport alternatives and financial planning. She also gave a brief overview of the development process of the Airport's Master plan. r Corpus Christi International Airport Board Agenda September 13, 2006 Page 2 of 8 At this point,Ms.Michael turned the presentation over to Mr.Michael Hellmann for the forecast portion of the briefing. He began by stating that the first thing that was done was to create a passenger forecast as activity is the driving force of the Master Plan. The forecast that was in place prior to the development of the Master Plan was three years old and outdated. This forecast was done from 1994 to 2003. Activity had declined due to local short distance travelers driving to San Antonio or Houston,security issues and the price of tickets. The projected activity in the initial forecast was outdated and the Airport has moved beyond that data He added that since 2003, the Airport has seen a steady increase in passenger activity. For August 2006,passenger activity at the Airport has increased 2.7%. He continued by stated that planning was based on Planning Activity Levels(PAL)which are triggers that are set for passengers,cargo and airport operations. Once the levels are met,planning for projects to resolve impending problems should be started. The projects planned are for aggressive growth beyond the forecast. Ms. Michael continued by stating that the major project recommendations were on the airfield. The short-term requirement of an extension to 9,000' was recommended for the 13/31 runway. The long-term requirement is to extend the 17;35 runway to 7,500'. This would achieve having two runways that are capable of handling the future increase in airport activity. She continued by stated that several factors were considered during the alternative analysis. The factors considered were operational factors(including airfield), cost factors,construction costs, environmental factors, along with the cost of land acquisition and the possibility of having to relocate the road. She stated she would briefly cover all the alternatives considered in order to achieve the 9,000'runway. Vice-Chair Montesano questioned Ms.Michael on the driving force on having a 9,000'runway. Ms. Michael deferred the question to Mr. Bob Arthur who responded that several factors were involved in deciding on a 9,000' runway.The factors involved in making this determination were based on the type of aircraft that is expected to be used and weather conditions at sea-level.Ms.Michael interjected it was based on 737 cargo aircraft. Mr. Arthur added that it was determined based on today's aircraft but they also considered the future aircraft to be used. He also stated that cargo aircraft requirements were used in determining the runway length. He added that some regional jets also require a longer runway. Vice-Chair Montesano also questioned if the cost was linear. Mr. Arthur responded that cost was determined on a linear basis. He added that once the runway is constructed,more detailed analysis would be done to verify the actual length required. Board member Susser questioned whether the land needed for the 9,000' extension was already owned by the Airport or would it need to be acquired. Mr.Bob responded the actual runway extension is located on Airport property,but the land for the runway protection zones would need to be acquired. Ms. Michael continued with the descriptions of the alternatives. She began by stating that Alternative A called for a 1,862 foot extension on the north end of runway 13;but, in order to add the extension, the threshold for runway 31 would need to relocate 370 feet of threshold. Corpus Christi International Airport Board Agenda September 13,2006 Page 3 of 8 Alternative B is the 1,492 foot extension at the north end of runway 13 leaving the threshold of Runway 31 as it exists today. She added that this was the alternative that was in the recommended plan. Board member Lyons questioned whether this would stay within Airport properties. Ms. Michael responded that approximately 24 acres would need to be acquired for this alternative's runway protection zone. She continued with Alternative C which extends runway 31 by 1,492 feet;but, as the two ends of the runways are too close together, it has cost and safety issues. She added that this alternative was rejected. She also mentioned that this was not the optimal layout and that parallel runways arc much more optimal. Mr.Arthur added that a problem with this alternative is the incoming 3411 approach slope because of Cabaniss airspace causing difficult maneuvering and requiring additional property acquisition. Ms.Michael stated that this alternative was also rejected. Board member Whitmore questioned whether the type of aircraft used for the Master Plan's projections was typically used for this purpose. Mr. Arthur stated that the cargo aircraft used in the development of this Master Plan is the most common and he expects it to be used at this Airport. Ms.Michael continued by describing the long range alternatives beginning with Alternative D, the widely spaced parallel. in this alternative, the existing runway was not extended and a new 9,000 foot runway will be constructed to meet the projected needs of the airport. This is very costly as it requires the acquisition of a great deal of additional lands. Based on an analysis study, the needs of the 20-year planning period could be met without this long range runway at this point. It is being shown in the planning documents as a beyond-the-planning period option. It i s simply to demonstrate that a parallel runway with a 4,300 foot separation based on FAA criteria can be achieved in order to have simultaneous, independent operation. Ms. Michael also explained Alternative E which is the extension of the smaller runway 17135 by 519 feet. This alternative was eliminated because if does not meet the basic needs of achieving a runway length of 7,500 feet. She continued with Alternative F which shows an extension of runway 35 to get to the 7,500 foot length on the south end as in Alternative E. Board member Susser questioned if whether the Airport was attempting to achieve a total of 9,000 feet in one runway or two 7,500 foot runways. He stated that this alternative did not address the problem. Ms.Michael responded he was correct in his assumption. She added this alternative did not meet the Airport's needs of one 9,000 foot runway and one 7,500 foot runway in order to keep the Airport operational should either runway need to be closed for repairs or maintenance. Vice-chair Montesano questioned Director Hamrick on whether RT's could land on a 7,500 foot runway and not require baggage to be unloaded. Director Hamrick responded that RT's could handle a 7,500 foot runway and added that baggage weight was an issue with the runway at 6,000 feet. Ms. Michael continued by stating that the recommended airfield alternative was the extension of runway 13 by 1,492 feet and the extension of runway 35 of 1,419 feet. This would achieve 9,000 feet on the main runway and 7,500 feet on the secondary runway, Corpus Christi International Airport Board Agenda September 13,2006 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Michael began discussing the portion of the Master Plan dealing with the Terminal. She stated that the new terminal was built before the severe safety requirements from TSA and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to baggage. She recommended that in-line screening be added to the Airport's security. She explained this type of screening is taken out of the lobby and done behind the airline's counters. She continued by stating this project be done as soon as possible. Another recommendation was to have an additional screening line opened. At present, there is only one screening and at times it gets backed up which indicates the need for an additional screening line. Ms.Michael began her presentation of the Planning Activity Levels (PAL). She stated that PAL 1 starts at the 426,000 passenger activity level. She added there were additional items beyond what had already been mentioned which need to be addressed at that level; Additional rental car counters, two additional baggage claim devices, and a meet/greet area. She continued by adding that with PAL 2 and 3 there were additional gates,additional concessions and counter space for the airlines. The only thing outside of the terminal would be to lengthen the curb in front of the terminal building. In her analysis, it was observed that short-term parking is adequate through the planning period. However,in the long-tens parking,in PAL 2 and 3, additional space is required through the 20-year planning period. The vehicle curb lengthening would also be needed in the long-term. Continuing on with the Cargo segment of the presentation,Ms. Michael reported it was anticipated that cargo would increase at the airport requiring an estimated 393540 feet of building space as well as associated apron areas for a cargo facility. Ms. Michael continued with discussion of support facilities such as the Airport's ARFF station. At present,the doors for this facility are too narrow to accommodate newer model fire trucks. She considered this to be a high-priority project and recommended this be done now. In terms of fuel storage at the Airport, there is adequate capacity until the Airport reaches PAL 3. For General Aviation,two spaces are reserved within the Master Plan for corporate hangars. Also being recommended, are helipads for each apron, Ms.Michael continued with the non-aviation, Commercial/Industrial Development segment of the presentation. She reported that currently there are four parcels of land that would be great for potential development. Ms.Michael referred to the Master Plan Executive Summary report,pages 5 &6, given to all attending this meeting. She stated that Parcel A is the currently the Corpus Christi International Business Park. Parcel B, along Hwy 44, at the east entrance of the Airport, could potentially be used for a hotel,restaurant or convenience store. Parcel C,which is next to the runway protection zone,could be used fnr light industrial or commercial park. Parcel D, right next to the runway,would be an ideal location for a cargo facility. At this point,Ms. Michael turned the meeting over to Mr. Arthur who would be speaking on the financial aspect of the Master Plan. Mr.Arthur began by referring to the pie chart on Page 9 of the Executive Summary which indicated that all the projects for the Master Plan are a total cost of$74.7 million over the 20 year plan. He reported that the majority of the projects were airfield related and would be funded by the federal government at 95%of the cost. He added that at a total cost of$74.7 million, the FAA would be funding$64 million or 86%of the cost. The Airport would be required to put in 5%or$5 million over several years or when the activity level is triggered. He continued by o ,v' Corpus Christi International Airport Board Agenda September 13,2006 Page S of 8 reporting that there are five additional projects that are eligible for private funding such as a fuel farm. This project could be funded by an FBO or fuel supplier. Additional concession areas within the terminal could be built-out by a concessionaire. Additional general aviation hangars could be built by a corporation. The cargo building could be built either with a lease or it could be corporate built, such as DHL or FedEx. He stated that there approximately$6 million of potential,private development funds in with the Airport. Board member Lyons questioned whether these funds were today's dollars or did these costs have an adjusted value over 20 years. Mr.Arthur responded that these costs were based on today's dollars because it is unknown when the demand for these projects will peak. Board member Lyons commented that in actually,the Airport would need to fund$10 million rather than$4.6. Mr. Arthur responded that revenues at the Airport would increase so it should be the same relative dollars. Ms. Michael continued by stating that the next step in finalizing the Master Plan was to send out the Airport Layout Plan (ALP)to the FAA for review. She added that this was in the process of being done. At that point,the Planning Commission will approve the Master Plan document which has already been sent to the FAA for their acceptance. The FAA will accept the document but it is up to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. At that point, the FAA will approve the ALP. She concluded by stating that the Master Plan is a vision for the future of the Airport. She also added the plan has some very flexible implementation strategies built-in to accommodate the Airport's rate of growth. Board member Dodge questioned Mr. Arthur on the basis of his assumption of significant growth of cargo carriers at the Airport. Mr.Arthur began his response by stating that passenger growth is expected and the terminal is designed for this growth. At this point in time, the Airport is very limited in cargo facilities. As planners, it is suggested that in the future,there will be direct cargo service to the US hubs, especially during peak seasons such as Christmas time. Current facilities are being strained and cargo development is a vision of what can happen at this Airport. Board member Dodge asked if this cargo development is based on his understanding of the strategic plans of the mentioned cargo carriers. Mr. Arthur stated he has spoken with the cargo carriers and has some idea of their fixture plans, but, in the meantime, space should be reserved in order to secure development of cargo facilities. The cargo facilities would be built once the triggers arc reached. He added that this was a vision of what the Airport would be in 20 years. Board member Susser voiced his concern over the Airport being restricted by this Master Plan in the event that projects do not work out as in the plan. Ms. Michael responded to Board member Susser that the ALP is an evolving process. She added that the ALP is updated as projects are done at which time another ALP will be submitted for approval. Mr. Arthur stated two reasons why the Board's approval of the Master Plan is not contractually binding. He explained that the first reason is that in 5 years another Master Plan will be done. He added that this Master Plan was built upon a previous Master Plan. The second reason is that whenever a project is begun,a detailed study is conducted before construction begins. This will alter the Master Plan in some way. r Corpw Christi International Airport Board Agenda September 13,2006 Page 6 of 8 Director Hamrick inter]ected that the FAA approves funding for updating the Master Plan every 5 years. In the meantime,once this Master Plan is approved and the FAA considers it outside of the forecasting numbers and the ALP as a guideline is approved by City Council and the Planning Commission, should someone want to build a non-cargo facility on property,it would be taken to the Board for a recommendation,the Planning Commission for recommendation for amending the Master Plan and then it goes to City Council for approval of amending the Master Plan. He felt these steps were in place to amend the Master Plan within the five year period. Board member Susser asked Director Hamrick what the next step would be to implement this Master Plan. Director Hamrick responded that some of the triggering factors, such as the enplanement numbers, have been sent to the FAA. He felt that it would be best to have the Board reflect on this presentation and put it on the next Airport Board agenda for approval by the Board. Ms. Michael added that the FAA is in the process of reviewing the ALP for approval. Director Hamrick stated that once the Board approves the Master Plan, either as is or with revisions,it goes to the Planning Commission and then to City Council for approval. Board member Lyons questioned why it was necessary to have this process in place. Mr.Arthur responded that the FAA requests a plan in place to move forward with successful Airport growth. Board member Lyons questioned why so much time is needed to be spent on such a detailed plan that could ultimately be changed. Board member Susser felt that so much time was spent on the Master Plan in order to bring it to the public's attention. Vice-chair Montesano stated that the plan was not that comprehensive and detailed,but planned for effective future growth. Mr.Arthur responded his organization has done the air space study for the runway, and the key issue is to control the area on the ground that would impede any future improvements to the runway. The Master Plan would take into account future development of the runway along with air space approach for the improved runway. Ms. Michael also added that the Board could guide anyone interested in development on Airport property. This gives an organized manner to the Airport's development. Board member Susscr questioned whether the acquisition of land for this development was included in the costs presented in this presentation. Mr. Arthur responded affirmatively. Board member Wise stated that since Alternative D is beyond the 20-year option and the plan is being submitted to the FAA,has the air space for the runway been reserved. Ms. Michael stated that it is up to the discretion of the FAA to conduct an air space study that far in advance. She is hoping that the FAA will conduct the air space study and reserve the air space. At this point in the meeting,Vice-chair Montesano opened the floor for public comments. Mr. Ralph Coffey voiced his concerns regarding the cargo area with respect to security issues. He felt that any future cargo development should be far away from the terminal. Vice-chair Montesano questioned whether the Department of Homeland Security was taken into consideration in this Plan. Mr. Arthur responded negatively. Director Hamrick stated that both locations for cargo in the far northwest area of Airport property are quite a distance from the terminal building. 1 Corpus Christi International Airport Board Agenda September 13,2006 Page 7 of 8 As there were no further questions, Vice-chair Montesano closed the Master Plan discussion and public comment. (As there was now a quorum, Vice-chair Montesano called,for action on the approval of the,4ugust Board meeting minutes) Approval of the minutes for the August 23x, Special-called meeting of the Airport Board. Board member Susser stated that a correction needed to be made on page 7,paragraph B, changing the wording from"Houston Love Field"to"Dallas Love Field". Board member Dodge moved to approve the minutes of the August Board meeting as corrected. Board member Wise seconded and the motion passed. IV. Board Business Vice-chair Montesano asked Director Hamrick if there were any issues that needed to be discussed by the Board. Director Hamrick stated that a special-called Board meeting may need to be called. He would inform the Board if needed. Board member Susser questioned how the 55%leakage to San Antonio was determined. Director Hamrick stated that he had acquired this information from a consultant who pulled the data from all ticket sales using Corpus Christi zip codes. Board member Susser questioned if there was a more accurate way to demonstrate to the airlines that air service development would be beneficial. Vice- chair Montesano stated that from the airlines standpoint,they have no incentive to stop leakage because passengers still fly their airline whether it is here or in San Antonio or Austin. Director Hamrick reported that he is actively working on a potential, direct west coast connection to Las Vegas, Salt Lake City,Austin and Monterey,Mexico. Board member Dodge questioned what cost was involved in the development of the Master Plan. Director Hamrick responded that is was aggregate of$600,000. He added that what was presented was a summary of the detailed Master Plan. Board member Susser questioned what was the cost involved that the Airport had to pay. Director Hamrick stated that the Airport incurred 5% of the cost. He also added that the Airport's portion is funded by Passenger Facility Charges. V. Board Absences Vice-chair Montesano called for a motion to excuse Board member Feferman and Chair Kane. Board member Susser moved and Board member Dodge seconded. The motion passed. Corpus Christi International Airport Board Ageaida September 13,2006 Page 8 of 8 VI. Adjournment As there was no further business,Vice-chair Montesano called for a motion to adjourn. Board member Sesser moved to adjourn. Board member Dodge seconded and the motion carried. The meeting and public hearing was adjourned at 4:43 p.m.