HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-12 Airport Commission SummaryKENAI AIRPORT COMMITTEE
Thursday, Oanua~y 12, 1984
Kenai City Hall
Raymond Measles, Chairman
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
Dick Odgers of G~izzly Aide,aft has accepted membership on
the Committee
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of 3anua~'y 5, 1984
5. OLD BUSINESS
a ·
b ·
Meeting with FAA Representative
Review of Meeting with City Engineers
6. NEW BUSINESS
a®
P~epa~ation of Documents fo~ Council
(Depending Upon Results of 5a & 5b)
7. COMMITTEE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
8. ADOOURNMENT
Please B~ing This Packet With You To The Meeting
KENAI AIRPORT COMMITTEE, REGULAR MEETING,
OANUARY 12, 1984 - 7:00 PM
KENAI CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
COUNCILMAN RAY MEASLES PRESIDING
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL
P~esent: Ray Measles, Phil Ames, Bob Bielefeld,
Oe~y SibIey, Dick Odge~s
Absent: Aian 3ones, Bud Lofstedt
Bob Oleson,
2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda was approved as submitted.
PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES, 3an. 5, 1984
Minutes were approved as submitted.
5 OLD BUSINESS
5-8
Meeting with FAA Representative
Committee Member Sibley spoke. He had met wi.th Enginee~
LaShot, Public Works Di~ecto~ Kornelis, Committee Membe~
3ones and others regarding a p~oblem with elevation. He
d~ew up a 2nd p~oposal. With 5 ft. of di~t dug, that is
250,000 yds. pe~ ft. of depth. It is a million dollars
cheape~ to the south. Public Works Di~ecto~ Kornelis had
mentioned the~e would be a p~oblem with DEC, in swamplands
we need a permit. The 2nd proposal to the engineer was
},250 ft. of ~unway, 100 ft. of existing basin. The lots,
taxiway and roadway a~e the same. The ski a~ea is longe~,
2,750 ft. long. It is just g~ading only. The cost is
cheaper at 200 ft. wide. At 200 ft. wide, the total is
}70,000 cu. yds., at 150 ft. it is }0},000 cu. yds. The
total cost would be $}00,000 to $400,000. The 2nd plan is
mo~e economical and feasible f~o~ wetlands, but it is close~
to }rd, 4th & Birch. M~. Sibiey suggested a decision be
postponed tiiI the Feb. 1 'Councii meeting.
3im Perhan, Airports Div., Anchorage office, FAA. He wanted
to explain the FAA position, FAA concerns and how best to
work to implement this. Airports Div. of FAA is in favo~ of
the float plane basin and have been for many yea~s. They
perceive it as a significant deficiency of the airport. The
Maste~ R lan was accomplished and did depict the float plane
basin was needed. FAA finds this an acceptable p~oposal.
FAA feels if the facility was constructed, within 2 years
the City could be looking at a significant number of planes
KENAI AIRPORT COMMITTEE
Regula~ Meeting, 3anua~y 12,
P age 2
1984
the~e, in the neighborhood of 100 aircraft. This is not a
confirmed figure, just an estimate. They recognize all
parts of FAA are not in agreement. There would also be a
significant number of transient aircraft because it would be
a new place to come. The p~imary concern of FAA is, because
of environmental restraints and the amount of readily
available land, the best way to implement this would be to
maintain the area strictly for float or ski planes. That
is, separate from wheeled aircraft. They admit there is a
need to take aircraft off floats to wheels to take them to
the airport, there could be a small access area. There is a
deficiency in terms of single engine, general aviation a~ea
to tie down. If nothing is changed in that regard and we
arbitrarily make this a float plane basin, the major general
aviation area will have over 200 aircraft there. FAA
concern is, is that the right place to plan fo~ all wheel
based single engine aircraft? Till the growth factor is
quelled or framed (sic) he did not know if the community
will want that many planes there. Float and wheel plane
operators with conversions are something else. FAA
perceives a p~oblem fo~ wheel- based aircraft. He did not
know if the airport wants them. FAA stance is, they don't
know if that is the place to put them. There was a general
discussion on parking of aircraft. Mr. Rerhan explained,
FAA is involved with the airport, and their concurrence is
requi~ed. Committee Member Ames noted, FAA is questioning
if it will snowball on us. He can understand why they would
be concerned regarding air traffic near the airport, but not
where they park. They have an area they have used as a
float plane parking a~ea. He had not heard of wheel planes
on one side. But we are talking about float planes and ski
planes. If it came to the place where there was no place
left, but he did not see that for at least 5 years. Mr.
Rerhan said because of the land t~ansfer here, the airport
and lands were transferred from FAA to the City for an
airport. The law says FAA must approve re-sale of the land.
Subsequent to doing that, ties to the community by
utilization of federal funds say all development must be
approved by FAA. The~e is a procedure that must be followed
whethe~ this is done with City funds or federal funds. M~.
Ames said we need a ditch done with planting. He could do
that this Spring. There would be a place to tie float
planes, never mind the wheel planes. Mr. Sibley asked if
FAA was here to approve the size or concept. If it ran into
wetlands and was held up, would FAA help us? The committee
is t~ying to eliminate problems but they have 8 to 10
factors they are trying to please. Mr. Re~han said he felt
the~e was a misunderstanding that the committee thought they
would get approval from FAA this date. His intent was to
provide input to their decision-making process prior to FAA
AIRPORT COMMITTEE
3AN. 12, 1984
P age 3
receiving ~he p~oposal. Ali agree on ~he need, ~here is a
probiem in ~he physics of pu~ing i~ ~oge~her and in
communication and semantics. When each person says fIoa~
pIane basin, i~ is different. There is a probIem ~ha~ mus~
be addressed, ~he area nex~ ~o ~he fIoa~ piane basin mus~
have a 5 year deIay. Is i~ reaiis~ic ~o assume i~ wiii be
avaiIabIe ~o dig ~o ex~end ~he wa~e~way or ~o fiiI?
CounciIman Measies asked, if ~ha~ Iand is no~ avaiIabIe,
wouid ~ha~ p~eciude ~he a~ea from becoming a generaI
aviation area? The Iand ~hey have avaiiabie wouId be
Iimi~ed outside of ~he fIoa~ pianes, so ~his wouid no~ be a
fuIi scaie opera~ion? Mr. Rerhan ~epIied he did no~
perceive i~ ~ha~ way a~ ~his ~ime. Mr. Sibiey said ~hey are
~ying ~o make a workabIe pIan. If peopie see ~he need over
~here, i~ wiIi evoive ~here no ma~er wha~ ~he ruIes are.
We are crea~ing a probIem when we design where ~hey wiiI go.
He can envision ~ha~ if i~ is a dir~ s~rip, ~undra ~ires do
no~ Iike ~o iand ~here. Mos~ smaiI pianes do no~ iike ~o
caIi ~he ~ower ~o move a smaII distance. No ma~er wha~
ruies are made, ~hey wiIi be broken. On ~he o~he~ side FAA
wiiI no~ con,roi ~hem, ~ha~ is no~ in ~he ~ower's area. We
have $1/2 miiIion ~ha~ ~he City is wiiiing ~o invest, ~e
have spend many hours devising a pian. How iong shouid ~he
runway be? Mr. Rerhan asked, wha~ pIanes wiii use i~? M~.
Sibiey repIied, any fIoa~ piane. I~ ~akes 2,400 f~. ~o
ciear a 50 f~. obs~acIe. There is no obs~acIe ~he way ~his
is pIanned. The committee jus~ wan~ed a generaI idea of how
iong, how deep, access, e~c. Is ~his ~o be generai aviation
or no~? They came up wi~h a pIan for a dir~ graveI s~rip.
He can understand why FAA is concerned abou~ iiabiii~y, bu~
how do you ge~ fIoa~ pianes, wheeI pianes and ski pIanes in
~he same piace? Mr. Rerhan no~ed ~he committee is iooking
fo~ ~echnical inpu~ f~om FAA ~o a poin~ where i~ would be
acceptable ~o ~hem. This would be a work session, not a
formal meeting.
MOTION:
Committee Membe~ Sibley moved, seconded by Committee Membe~
Odge~s, adjourn to a work session.
Motion passed by unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE WENT INTO WORK SESSION FOR I HOUR, 45 MINUTES.
A~RPORT
3AN. 12,
P age 4
COMMITTEE
1984
MOTION:
Committee Membe~ Sibley moved, seconded by Committee Membe~
Odge~s, to designate the west side float plane ski strip
a~ea a soft field aide,aft a~ea.
Motion passed unanimousiy by ~oll call vote.
MOTION:
Committee Member Sibley moved, seconded by Committee Member
Bielefeld, to submit this final proposal as amended for 200
ft. wide or 100 ft. wide runway, and },250 ft. long or },750
ft. long runway.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6-8
·
P~eparation of Documents
of 5a & 5b)
for Council
(Depending Upon Results
Councilman Measles said the committee will meet with
engineering firms and will submit to Council Feb. 1. They
will have more meetings. Public Works Directo~ Kornelis
said this will be a rough d~aft of what they will do. They
will have a cost figure. On Oan. 26 the~e will be proposals
from Wince, Co,the11 & B~yson and Mike Tauriainen, the
committee can ~eview them at that time. Mr. Kornelis said
he would t~y to get the p~oposals to the committee members
on Oan. 24 so they can look at them before the meeting. He
added, he would send a letter to Wince, Co~thell & Bryson
and Mike Tau~iainen Jan. 1~ o~ Jan. 16 ~egarding the
amendments to the proposals.
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
7-8
Committee Member Sibley. Regarding the p~esentation to
Council. A~e we talking about presenting the plan, or
should we go into justifying the need on the othe~ side?
Councilman Measles replied, at this point, we should present
just the general concept. Public Works Direeto~ Ko~nelis
added, when the engineers come back with costs, that is the
time to discuss need. Mr. Sibley noted we should have
~eplies f~om FAA, environmental concerns, etc. by that time.
He asked if the engineers p~ovide input from FAA, EPA, the
Corps. of Engineers, etc. M~. Kornelis replied yes. M~.
B~yson added, it would just be an estimate now. The study
would p~ovide that. Mr. Kornelis said when the enginee~ is
provided the contract, he will go to the Corps. M~.
AIRPORT
3AN, 12~
P age 5
COMMITTEE
1984
Tauriainen noted the Corps. will not make a commitment
till next Spring when they can look at it. Mr. Kornelis said
if it is wetlands they will have to apply for a permit as
soon as possible. Mr. Bryson we will need an environmental
assessment anyhow. Councilman Measles explai'ned, the
proposa! will have 2 things:
- estimate on cost
- engineer's proposal fo~
design work
M~. Kornelis added, on the 24th,
receive in the p~oposals:
the committee members will
- how they will
- costs involved
- schedule
approach
After the award,
will have:
there will be a study.
After that they
- engineering design
- engineering inspection
- construction
- contingency
- land acquisition
- cost of runway
- cost of limited access road
After that,
to Council.
the committee will meet to decide how to present
Mr. Tauriainen noted in Mr. Kornelis' letter, he referred to
"all" ramifications, he asked that it be changed to "some."
Mr. Kornelis agreed to the change.
7-b
Committee Member Sibley. In reviewing the proposal. He
asked that it include taking dirt to be utilized as limited
access. It would be used as overburden on the other side.
Mr. Kornelis agreed that would be addressed during the
study.
AIRPORT
3AN. 12,
P age 6
COMMITTEE
1984
AD3OURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
NEXT MEETING: 2an. 26, 198z~ at 7:00 PM.
3anet Whelan
City Clerk