Mr. Jack L. Ryals, Vice Chairman Councilmember John Thomas, Member ACTION ITEMS

Transcription

1 MELBOURNE AIRPORT AUTHORITY MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of July 16, 2014 OF THE MELBOURNE AIRPORT AUTHORITY 8:30 A.M. IN THE MELBOURNE INT L AIRPORT BOARD ROOM At which were present Excused Absences Mr. William C. Potter, Chairman Mayor Kathy Meehan, Member Councilmember Molly Tasker, Member Mr. Scott Mikuen, Member Mr. Michael Fischer, Member Mr. Don Nohrr, Airport Attorney Mr. Richard Ennis, Executive Director of Aviation Mr. Rick Cloutier, Deputy Director of Aviation Dr. Jack Schluckebier, Director of Land Development Ms. Pat Howlett, Executive Assistant to the Executive Director Mr. Jack L. Ryals, Vice Chairman Councilmember John Thomas, Member Pledge of Allegiance ACTION ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Special Meeting of June 10, 2014 and the regular meeting of June 18, 2014 in the Melbourne International Airport Board Room Mr. Michael Fischer moved for approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of June 10, 2014, seconded by Councilmember Molly Tasker and the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of June 18, 2014 in the Melbourne International Airport Board Room Councilmember Molly Tasker moved for approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of June 18, 2014 and the motion passed unanimously. ITEM NO. A-1 Recommendation for Approval of the Revised Thirty-Fourth Amendment with Airport Engineering Company (AEC) for a Master Plan Update This project is to contract with AEC to perform a Master Plan Update. Due to the complexity of FAA requirements for a Master Plan Update Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Woolpert, C&S Companies and Smith Surveying will be sub-consultants on this project and will increase the original Amendment by $157,228.

2 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 2 July 16, 2014 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND FEES Environmental Science Associates (ESA) - Labor $ 628,700 Environmental Science Associates (ESA) - Expense/Non- Labor 38,950 Woolpert and C&S Companies - Airspace Analysis/AGIS Survey 181,525 Smith Surveying - Boundary Survey/Exhibit A Property Map 43,760 Airport Engineering Company - Management, Review and Technical Support 89,293 TOTAL $ 982,228 FUNDING FAA Grant $ 742,500 FDOT Joint Participation Agreement 41,250 Melbourne Airport Authority 198,478 TOTAL $ 982,228 The cost of the Master Plan Update is significantly higher than previous updates because of new FAA requirements for an Airports Geographical Information System (AGIS), an electronic Airport Layout Plan (ALP), and a title search for all MLB property including all easements back to the 1940s. The FAA requires the Airport to conduct an independent cost estimate for projects of this magnitude prior to approval of the project. MLB will request $141,505 from the FAA that is 90 percent of the $157,228 budget increase. Staff recommends approval of the revised Thirty-Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Engineering Services Agreement with Airport Engineering Co., Inc., to perform a Master Plan update of $982,228, subject to FAA approval, authorization for the Executive Director to increase the existing budget by $157,228 to $982,228 and execute said Amendment on behalf of the Authority. Executive Director Ennis explained that at the end of the project, you can put in for the overage if there is money available. It will probably be next fiscal year.

3 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 3 July 16, 2014 Chairman Potter said that there is a substantial part of the scope of services that is entitled stakeholder coordination, which talks about getting public input from the various users of the Airport. He has been concerned that we haven t had a lot of input. Mr. Potter asked how we can ensure the users of the Airport, the people who have an interest in the economic future of the Airport, are more involved in that update process. Speaker: Brian Pendleton, Airport Engineering Company Mr. Pendleton said this master plan update will be done primarily by Environmental Science Associates. Mike Arnold is in charge of it and is the same person who is currently handling the noise study. This is a completely different team than anyone who has done a master plan update at this Airport in the past. As Rick Cloutier and Richard Ennis can attest, Mike Arnold and his crew have done an excellent job of public outreach and coordination with the noise study and they will do the same thing with the master plan update. This is going to be a very interactive process in which there will be public, special meetings and presentations to the Board and others. It will be a very well-coordinated process. Chairman Potter asked if he was convinced that we will get that kind of public input? Mr. Pendleton said it is built into the process. The entire scope of work is directed by the FAA. The cost is so much higher than previous master plan updates because the FAA has requested additional elements to be included in the master plan update such as the AGIS survey, which is the basis for doing an electronic ALP in the future, and the complete rework of the property boundary survey including title searches. One of the main things that the FAA requires is public participation during the master plan process. Deputy Director Rick Cloutier said during the noise study, we found that when you do public meetings, you really don t get a lot of attendance. So what we did with our noise study this year, is we brought the meetings to the public. We met with West Melbourne and the Citizens Advisory Council of the Transportation Planning Organization and brought the presentation to them so that we could get the stakeholders from all of the surrounding communities. As you know, when you have noise and complaints about planes, it s not just in Melbourne. It may be in Indialantic or Indian Harbour Beach. We get comments from as far as South Palm Bay all the way up to Viera asking about the Airport. So we plan on

4 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 4 July 16, 2014 doing that kind of thing so that we do get public outreach. That is very important to the FAA and they will not approve our master plan without it. Chairman Potter said part of the scope of services includes a NAVAID coordination. Will this eliminate, so far as we can predict, the kind of problem that we have with the VOR? Deputy Director Cloutier said the short answer is no. The master plan would not have reduced that conflict. This is something that specifically the FAA put in but there would have been no way to predict the conflict that we had with the VOR. Chairman Potter said it seems to him that doing a master plan and part of it is NAVAID coordination, what are they coordinating with if they re not predicting future development. If they are not telling you how future development can occur without conflicting with the NAVAIDs. Deputy Director Cloutier said in the NAVAIDs they are looking at the compatibility of the property surrounding the Airport, but not on the Airport itself although they do look at where the future may grow. They can t predict whether it s a 747 hangar in a certain area that is going to cause a problem, it s not going to be that specific. Mr. Cloutier said he had the same conversation with the FAA when they wanted to do this NAVAID coordination. Chairman Potter stated so now you have a master plan that includes coordination with NAVAIDs, but it doesn t tell you how future development can occur without conflicting with those. That doesn t make sense. Deputy Director Cloutier said the master plan update will talk about it generally and it will talk about, for instance, whether or not the north runway becomes either a non-precision or precision runway. That changes some of the elements of the airspace. Chairman Potter commented that when a potential tenant comes in and talks with Jack, what does he have to allow him to proceed with that tenant with confidence that their needs don t conflict with the NAVAIDs? Deputy Director Cloutier said we do a preliminary airspace analysis when somebody comes in when we know what their project is going to be. Many times when these projects come in, they are generalities and

5 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 5 July 16, 2014 they don t even know what size of office building or hangar they will be building. We do know where we can put it generally and which areas we want to save for general aviation or for commercial operations and that kind of thing, but to predict what we went through with the VOR would not have happened with any master plan. Executive Director Ennis added that another example is the fact that we ve had development over by the FIT area and you have a line of sight issue with the tower so Brian has done calculations in the past, if you put a building up this high, then you can be this far away from the tower or this close to the tower. Each project has to be individually looked at and you just can t cover all bases because new things come out of the box. The master plan tries to lay out where our future development is going, whether we re going to say we ll put t-hangars on this part of land or we re going to put buildings, something higher over here. Then you try to work from it from that point. He said Brian Pendleton could attest that each project that comes in, if we think there s some marginal problem, then we have Brian do a preliminary study on it. Mr. Pendleton said our biggest problem is that proposed developments are usually in a constant state of change until we re at the last minute to get them submitted to the FAA. We want to submit airspace studies as quickly as we can but it s hard to do when the building keeps moving around in the planning stage. As soon as the design is nailed down, we submit the airspace information to the FAA, but by then, the developer is ready to start construction, which is frustrating because the FAA review process takes about three months. However, the biggest problem impeding airport development has been the VOR and we are getting that solved. We just found out yesterday how tall the new VOR will be. It will be 51 feet above grade so it will be only about four feet shorter than the big one off the side of I-95 at Ft. Lauderdale International Airport. To summarize, we can estimate the general direction of future development in the master plan, but the actual locations and dimensions of structures will not be known until the facility is actually under design. There is no substitute for getting the design of a particular project crystalized to the point that we can submit the airspace documentation to the FAA, three months in advance of needing FAA s permission to construct. However, project schedules rarely allow this much time, which creates a lot of conflict. Mr. Scott Mikuen said he appreciates the line of questioning because back to the VOR, we spent millions and his recollection is that last meeting that Rick mentioned there was a portion of the Airport where we had a high degree of confidence that we could develop consistent with our current expectations. Maybe Brian is overstating it, but it sounds like we can t rely on that at all to go out to potential Project Magellans

6 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 6 July 16, 2014 without having a significant risk that we just don t know or can t predict the outcome. We should be doing some planning. Let s presume on this side we can construct a four story building of approximate size. He presumes you could make it smaller and avoid the problems but are we doing that type of planning to say let s focus on this portion or these 50 acres for a larger building that could accommodate another Project Magellan or something similar. If not, he shares the concerns. Deputy Director Cloutier said Mr. Mikuen is correct. It depends upon where it is. For example, they are working on the parking lot for Magellan right now. We submitted the airspace study for the latest building, 229. We did pre-coordinate that with the FAA to get permission to go ahead with that building. Project Magellan has a high confidence that all the buildings they want there could be built, because there are other buildings closer to the airfield that are taller, so there is a shadowing effect. But even though we know it is a smaller building, it will still have to go through that three month FAA review process. Mr. Mikuen said that at least we could have an idea when we go out to potential tenants. It s not like we don t have an idea of whether it will be approved or not, we just can t guarantee it. Councilmember Molly Tasker asked if there were CAD programs where you could project in threedimension the whole area of the Airport and surrounding the Airport. What happens if you put this size building, or that size building? It seems like we could have a three-dimensional projection of almost anything we might imagine. Mr. Pendleton said it is easy to determine whether a building of a particular height and location will penetrate the controlling airspace surfaces. That can easily be calculated using CAD. You can also determine whether it interferes with control tower line of sight or runway visibility zones, which are defined by hard geometry. That is no problem. Where it gets tricky is in determining how the building affects NAVAID signals. The VOR and the localizer come to mind. If you look at a plan of the Airport you will see that Grumman SITF building that was constructed in 1985 is rotated 45 degrees. The Northrop Grumman hangar building that was constructed in 1994 was rotated 14 degrees. The reason those buildings were rotated is because the FAA objected to the originally-planned building orientation that was parallel to the runway, because the building could reflect the localizer signal out into the runway approach. We never would have guessed that this would be an issue, but the FAA NAVAID specialists in Atlanta came to that conclusion. That was something that we did not expect and could not predict. As another example, someone might propose to build a building

7 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 7 July 16, 2014 somewhere and the FAA might claim it would block the ASR radar. There are no published standards to definitely determine whether structures will interfere with NAVAids. Councilmember Tasker commented that it seems to her that there should be computer programs available to help. Mr. Pendleton said if such programs exist, it is not something that we have access to. The problem is that the FAA specifically states that including buildings or other structures in the master plan does not constitute coordinating them for airspace approval. Unless we actually propose to construct those buildings and submit them as an airspace study, FAA does not evaluate them in that level of detail and approve them for construction. To try to deal with this problem, last year, we submitted detailed airspace information for about 14 buildings at estimated locations. Once we submit the airspace information to the FAA and say we re actually planning to construct these buildings, the FAA will evaluate them, but if we just show them on a master plan, the FAA won t go through this detailed evaluation. Councilmember Tasker agreed that kind of specifics cannot be in a master plan, but our capability to project quickly using CAD and computer programs, that should be in our master plan. Mr. Pendleton said with respect to imaginary airspace surfaces, lines of sight and other things where the FAA gives us definite parameters, we can do that. Deputy Director Cloutier said that is part of the reason to do the AGIS survey so that those predictions can be done quicker and electronically through CAD-like files. Mr. Scott Mikuen moved for approval of the revised Thirty-Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Engineering Services Agreement with Airport Engineering Co., Inc., to perform a Master Plan update of $982,228, subject to FAA approval, authorization for the Executive Director to increase the existing budget by $157,228 to $982,228 and execute said Amendment on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Mayor Kathy Meehan and the motion passed unanimously.

8 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 8 July 16, 2014 ITEM NO. A-2 Recommendation for Approval of the Thirty-Fifth Amendment with Airport Engineering Company (AEC) for the Design, Permitting, and Bidding of the Widening of Taxiway K from Taxiway M to Taxiway C This project is to contract with AEC to perform design, permitting, and bidding services to widen taxiway K from taxiway M to taxiway C. Increasing from 40 feet to 50 feet will accommodate taxiway design Group 3 and 4 aircraft on this part of taxiway K. Taxiway K east of taxiway C has previously been increased to 50 feet. This project also includes adjusting the placement of guidance signs at each affected taxiway intersection and relocating edge lighting, predominately on the south side of the taxiway. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND FEES Smith surveying & Mapping - Topo Survey $ 9,100 Universal Engineering - Sub-surface Investigation 3,800 Airport Engineering Company - Design and Permitting 39,000 Airport Engineering Company - Bidding Phase 2,000 Airport Engineering Company - Reimbursable Expenses 300 TOTAL $ 54,200 FUNDING FAA Grant $ 48,780 FDOT Joint Participation Agreement 2,710 Melbourne Airport Authority 2,710 TOTAL $ 54,200

9 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 9 July 16, 2014 Th Thee FAA has requested sponsors to separate the design portion of projects from the construction portion in separate fiscal years. The construction portion of this project will occur in the next fiscal year. Staff recommends approval of the revised Thirty-Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Engineering Services Agreement with Airport Engineering Co., Inc., of $54,200 to perform design, permitting and bidding services for the widening of taxiway K from taxiway M to taxiway C, subject to FAA approval, approval to establish a budget of $54,200 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute said Amendment and establish project budget on behalf of the Authority. Executive Director Ennis commented that it is just part of the plan of progress of the Airport and it is funded by AIP funding. The widening will allow the use of that taxiway for larger aircraft. Mayor Kathy Meehan moved for approval of the revised Thirty-Fifth Amendment to the Consulting Engineering Services Agreement with Airport Engineering Co., Inc., of $54,200 to perform design, permitting and bidding services for the widening of taxiway K from taxiway M to taxiway C, subject to FAA approval, approval to establish a budget of $54,200 and authorization for the Executive Director

10 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 10 July 16, 2014 to execute said Amendment and establish project budget on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Councilmember Molly Tasker and the motion passed unanimously. ITEM NO. A-3 Recommendation for Approval of the Second Amendment to Lease with Parkland Education LC This Amendment is for the expansion of Keiser College. The salient points of the Amendment are as follows: Acreage: Keiser will be leasing an additional acres. It will also be using 1.4 acres on a temporary basis for parking, however; Keiser can elect to add that on a permanent basis after the temporary term of three years. The current main campus parcel is acres. Base Rent: Base rent for the current and expansion parcels is 10 percent of the appraised value of $200,000 per acre. The 10 percent rate is contingent upon Keiser operating an Aviation Program, providing periodic documentation of the program, and student participation in the program. If Keiser fails to offer an Aviation Program, the rent will be readjusted to 12 percent of the appraised value. Term: Base term of 30 years with four five-year renewal options. Main Campus parcel: $125, per year. Expansion Parcel: $97, per year. The rent for the Expansion Parcel will commence upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or 24 months from the execution date of the Amendment. Parking parcel: $17, per year. If this parcel is added permanently the rent will be adjusted to the current rental rate of the other two parcels. Rent adjustment: CPI adjustment of not less than 10 percent or more than 25 percent each five-year period. This conversion from the old Albertson contract language from the 1970s brings this contract into compliance and parity with other commercial leaseholds at the Airport. Keiser is responsible for all repairs, utilities, taxes, and insurance. As a part of this amendment the Airport will incur approximately $25,000 in demolition costs related to the razing of the old Barnhill s structure.

11 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 11 July 16, 2014 Staff recommends approval of the Second Amendment with Parkland Education LC and authorization for the Executive Director to execute said Amendment on behalf of the Authority. Dr. Jack Schluckebier said staff has decided to remove the Kaiser item from the agenda. We typically asked them for their signature indicating their complete agreement and we thought we had that last week. Late last week, they asked for additional land, so staff needs to work with them a little longer. Consequently, this item was not discussed or acted upon. ITEM NO. A-4 Recommendation to Award Bid for the Northern Outfall Ditch to KCF Site Development, LLC On July 8, 2014 the Airport received bids from three qualified companies for the construction of the Northern Outfall Ditch located at the northwest corner of the Embraer Engineering and Technology Center (Project Redline) site and connecting to the City s drainage canal south of Ixora Park subdivision. This site improvement along with environmental permitting, surveying, utility improvements, and engineering fees was previously approved and budgeted for $130,000 as the Airport commitment to Project Redline. The project is estimated to be completed on or before September 30, Below is a schedule of the bids ranked in order by price:

12 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 12 July 16, 2014 Rank Company Total Bid Amount 1 KCF Site Development, LLC, Melbourne, FL $83, Jobear Contracting, Inc., Palm bay, FL $97, Florida Site Contracting, Vero Beach, FL $128, Staff and the Airport's consulting engineers have determined that KCF Site Development, LLC is the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and is capable of completing the scope of work specified for the bid amount of $83, The total cost of this project is estimated to be: Project Costs Amount Construction $ 83,348 Engineering and Design 9,184 Survey 3,380 Stormwater Permit 250 Ditch Permit 124 Tortoise Relocation 2,400 Re-Use Extension 15,434 Contingency 15,880 TOTAL $ 130,000 Staff recommends award of bid for the construction of the Northern Outfall Ditch to KCF Site Development, LLC, the lowest qualified bidder, in the amount of $83,347.92, and authorization for the Executive Director to execute said contract on behalf of the Authority.

13 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 13 July 16, 2014 Chairman Potter asked what is the $15,000 for a Re-use extension? Deputy Director Cloutier answered the City re-use irrigation water that the City recycles from the sewer plant. It was part of the infrastructure we agreed to with Project Redline, which is the Embraer Engineering and Technology Center. Councilmember Molly Tasker moved to approve award of bid for the construction of the Northern Outfall Ditch to KCF Site Development, LLC, the lowest qualified bidder, in the amount of $83,347.92, and authorization for the Executive Director to execute said contract on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Mayor Kathy Meehan and the motion passed unanimously. ITEM NO. A-5 Recommendation for Approval of the Change Order #3 to the Cargo Facility and Hangar with W&J Construction The majority of this change order is for the cost to the contractor for the installation and future removal of cancellation wires on the building to mitigate the effect the building has on the VOR signal. A small portion of this change is for the addition of metal plates at the columns that penetrate the ceiling of the interior offices and shops. Change Order #3 General Conditions (W&J) $ 1,650 PEMB Re-design & Material (A&S) 11,386 VOR Cancellation Frame (Space Coast Steel) 19,656 VOR Cancellation system Installation (Brevard Constructors) 129,000 VOR Cancellation System Removal (Brevard Constructors) 45,000 Install added material for PEMB support (Brevard Constructors) 24,000 Steel Cover Plates for column openings (GEM Industries Not related to VOR) 7,098 Sub Total Additional Costs 237,790 Sales Tax/Payroll Tax and Insurance 1,757 General Liability Insurance (1.25%) 2,994 Bond, Hurricane Surcharge, Builder s Risk Insurance 5,829 Overhead (5%) 12, ,789

14 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 14 July 16, 2014 Profit (5%) 13,039 Total $ 273,828 Contract Amount Original Contract Sum $ 7,697,905 Previous Change Orders 473,150 Direct Purchase Reduction (2,838,771) Change Order #3 - $266,730 allocated to the VOR project budget 273,828 Total Costs $ 5,606,112 The cost to date of the $3,500,000 VOR installation is: VOR Upgrade Cost Summary FAA Agreement #1 $ 46,250 FAA Agreement #2 40,921 FAA Agreement #3 1,020,623 Airport Engineering Co. 247,100 BRPH Engineering 36,100 W & J Construction 84,835 United - Generator Rental 1,023 Cancellation Wire Costs-Agenda A-5 266,730 KCF Site Development 35,904 Total Costs to Date $ 1,779,487 Staff recommends approval of Change Order #3 for W & J Construction Inc., for $273,828 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #3 on behalf of the Authority. Executive Director Ennis commented that it is with W & J construction because they will be performing the construction improvements but it is part of the VOR budget. Mr. Mike Fischer moved for approval of Change Order #3 for W & J Construction Inc., for $273,828 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #3 on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Councilmember Molly Tasker and the motion passed unanimously.

15 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 15 July 16, 2014 ITEM NO. A-6 Recommendation for Approval of KCF Site Development Change Order #1, FAA Bid Schedule 1, to the Cargo Apron and Taxiway S & K Improvements The purpose of this Change Order #1 is to formally incorporate the previously-approved Work Authorizations WA-1 through WA-5 to Bid Schedule 1 (FAA Participation) into the contract, and to decrease the quantities of unit-price items that were replaced by WA-1 through WA-5. General quantity adjustments will be made in the final change order. Change Order #1, Bid Schedule #1 (FAA) Unanticipated high ground water $ 5,129 Speed Dowels' for future expansion, at Owner request 746 FAA edge lighting redesign 8,494 Reduction of 11 elevated edge lights (11,530) FPL underground primary conduit modifications 4,282 Sign changes due to Taxiway 'H' no longer maintained 5,922 Deletion of L for relocation of UTD Sign (2,164) Sub Total Additional Costs $ 10,880 Contract Amount Original Contract Sum $ 2,378,125 Change Order #1 10,880 Total Costs $ 2,389,004 Staff recommends approval of Change Order #1 for KCF site development for $10,880 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 on behalf of the Authority. Deputy Director Cloutier said these are just some of the typical changes that we do get on these types of projects. With the quantity adjustment, there was some due to asking for additional speed dowels on the cargo apron just so that when it goes to the last phase everything would be coordinated. We did have some high water situations because the project was delayed a little bit, creating some more dewatering that was required. Chairman Potter stated that the brief says the quantity adjustments will be made in the final change order. Do we anticipate any quantity adjustments that will cause us to exceed the budget?

16 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 16 July 16, 2014 Deputy Director Cloutier answered not at this time. Speaker: Brian Pendleton, Airport Engineering Company Mr. Pendleton offered that we came out a little bit low on the asphalt quantity so we are good there. The concrete quantity and all the drainage pipes are exactly as planned so if there are any adjustments, they would be very minor. The big items came out good. Mr. Mike Fischer commented these are all changes in scope of services primarily from the original set of drawings or are they unforeseen conditions? When he looks through these work orders he sees some difference in their pricing for substantially the same work. Mobilization on one item is one dollar amount, and on another work order, it is a different amount. There is six days of rain, do we have rain days built in the original contract and has this exceeded that? Do we have someone overseeing this? $2,500 per day for a rainy day? Is someone looking at that and saying the costs are fair? We have a lot of work orders and want to make sure that someone is overseeing them. Deputy Director Cloutier explained that we do have a full time RPR, hired through AEC, an engineer named Robert Rob. The mobilization depends upon what phase, for instance, they have to have a milling machine out for an extra day because they got a big washout at the end of the day. That s a little bit more expensive than if they can t lay some pipe down and they have to send the crew home for half a day, etc. That s why you see some of that and it s one contract, but two different bid schedules. We get economies of scale, for instance, the FDOT part may not charge that dollar amount because they are already out working on the FAA portion. Mr. Fischer asked if there was a critical path scheduled and submitted. And is that critical path being affected by the delays which then would trigger authorization for additional mobilization. But if the critical path is not being affected, then your costs are not being affected.

17 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 17 July 16, 2014 Deputy Director Cloutier said the issue with the delay is not the critical path of the apron, it is actually the critical path of the hangar. The apron and hangar are right next to each other and there is some concrete that can t be poured between the aerospace building and the hangar building because there is some underground work W & J has to do. So until they can get their part in, the other guys can t get their part in. Mr. Fischer said he just wanted to make sure that there is somebody looking at this. When you add it up, it is a substantial amount of money. Mr. Pendleton, in order to amplify what Mr. Cloutier said, stated these additional mobilizations and that $2,500 a day for rain has to do with the fact that KCF, if the apron had proceeded according to the original schedule, they would have already built that strip of concrete paving between the hangar and the aerospace building. Now they are being delayed to do it until October and it s in a valley area, where it receives all the water coming off half of the aerospace roof. So if it rains at all, it s going to shut them down for the whole day. That s the issue. If they could have done it by now, everything would have been done. These costs would not have been incurred. But now they are being pushed to do it in a time when they might get rained out all day. A similar situation occurs where the sealing of the joints on the apron. They ve got all the joints sealed except for the ones right in front of the hangar which W & J can t vacate and give to them because they re using it as a staging area. These are simply to compensate KCF for the losses of having to work around the hangar schedule. Mr. Fischer stated that we don t know the extent of these delays. Mr. Pendleton said that is why it is estimated. Mr. Fischer asked we may spend it or we may not spend it? Mr. Pendleton answered, yes. The $2,500 per day is estimated.

18 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 18 July 16, 2014 Mr. Fischer commented we have already spent it for six days at $2,500 per day. Mr. Pendleton answered, no, we have not spent anything. That six days of $2,500 per day is purely an estimate to establish a basis of payment. When they finally get authorized to go, Mr. Pendleton said he is hoping there will be no rain days. We have not incurred the $2,500 per day yet. Mr. Fischer said we can also expect a delay charge from W & J. Mr. Pendleton said he can t attest to W & J because he isn t in charge of that contract, but his understanding is the Airport is already paying some delay charges. Deputy Director Cloutier said it was included in the last change order at the June meeting. Councilmember Molly Tasker moved for approval of Change Order #1 for KCF site development for $10,880 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Mr. Scott Mikuen and the motion passed unanimously. ITEM NO. A-7 Recommendation for Approval of KCF Site Development Change Order #1, FDOT/EDA, Bid Schedule 2, to the Cargo Apron The purpose of this Change Order #1 is to formally incorporate the previously-approved Work Authorizations WA-1 through WA-4 and WA-6 through WA-9 to Bid Schedule 2 (FDOT/EDA) into the contract, and to decrease the quantities of unit-price items that were replaced by WA-1 through WA-4 and WA-6 through WA-9. General quantity adjustments will be made in the final change order. Change Order #1, Bid Schedule #2 (FDOT/EDA) Dewatering by wellpointing to allow removal of existing storm drain $ 2,538 Speed Dowels' for future expansion, at Owner request 3,961 Rework transition areas 6,040 New light pole with emergency stop for fuel facility 8,991

19 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 19 July 16, 2014 Eleven (11) protective bollards 8,374 Reimburse KFC for City Permit fee for fuel tank relocation 495 Upgrade gate light to LED 3,045 Additional installation of conduit & fiber for gate control for new gate 7,343 Change gate controls to photoelectric eye, credit for deleting loop & pedestals 279 Sub Total Additional Costs $ 41,066 Limerock base (12,807) Concrete pavement (90,092) Two safety loops with loop detectors (1,050) Pole mounted area light at new gate (1,375) Reduction in bond premium (1.5%) (1,580) Total Adjustments to quantities and extended amounts $ (106,905) Net Savings $ (65,839) Contract Amount Original Contract Sum $ 3,028,724 Change Order #1 (65,839) Total Costs $ 2,962,885 Staff recommends approval of Change Order #1 for KCF site development for savings of $65,839 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 on behalf of the Authority. Councilmember Molly Tasker moved for approval of Change Order #1 for KCF site development for savings of $65,839 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Mayor Kathy Meehan and the motion passed unanimously.

20 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 20 July 16, 2014 ITEM NO. A-8 Recommendation for Approval of KCF Site Development Change Order #2, FDOT/EDA Bid Schedule 2, to the Cargo Apron Contractor for Additional Costs Due to Delay of the Hangar Building Associated with the VOR The purpose of Change Order #2 is to formally incorporate work authorizations WA-5 and WA-10 to Bid Schedule 2 (FDOT/EDA participation) into the contract. Change Order 2, Bid Schedule #2 (FDOT/EDA) Additional work due to Hangar delay, fixed cost $ 20,679 Additional work due to Hangar delay, estimated if rain delay 15,225 Completion of saw cutting and sealing of the cargo apron pavement 3,803 Sub Total Additional Costs $ 39,708 Contract Amount Original Contract Sum $ 3,028,724 Change Order #1 (Item A-7) (65,839) Change order #2 39,708 Total Costs $ 3,002,593 Staff recommends approval of Change Order #2 for KCF site development for $39,708 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #2 on behalf of the Authority. Mr. Scott Mikuen moved for approval of Change Order #2 for KCF site development for $39,708 and authorization for the Executive Director to execute Change Order #2 on behalf of the Authority, seconded by Councilmember Molly Tasker and the motion passed unanimously. ITEM NO. A-9 Recommendation to Approve Resolution No providing for Operating and Capital Budget Adjustments The Executive Director s Memorandum detailing the operating and capital budget adjustments and Resolution No is included with this package.

21 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 21 July 16, 2014 Staff recommends approval of Resolution No amending Resolution 7-13, to provide for operating and capital budget adjustments and authorization to be signed by the Chairman and attested by the Executive Director. Mayor Kathy Meehan moved for approval of Resolution No amending Resolution 7-13, to provide for operating and capital budget adjustments and authorization to be signed by the Chairman and attested by the Executive Director, seconded by Mr. Scott Mikuen and the motion passed unanimously. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM NO. I-1 Magellan Project Update The Airport has received $3,397,700 prepaid rent on behalf of Northrop Grumman Corporation for the leasehold of approximately 21 acres for the first phase of the project. ITEM NO. I-2 Parking System A replacement for the parking equipment and related parking system was included in the preliminary budget for fiscal year Because certain parts are no longer being manufactured and because of the condition of the parking equipment staff will recommend, in the first quarter of fiscal year , that the replacement be budgeted in the fiscal year. A parking rate increase is budgeted in fiscal year and is estimated to yield an additional $135,000 in revenue; this is over 50 percent of the $250,000 estimated cost of the equipment and software. A lease purchase option will be considered to mitigate the cash flow impact. Executive Director Ennis informed the Board that we need to move forward with this. Chairman Potter said he was skeptical of a lease option when you consider the return we re getting on our investments. He encouraged a very good analysis before we do a lease-purchase just to make the cash flow look good. ITEM NO. I-3 Terminal Apron and Cargo Apron Commercial Activity Permit Staff has a preliminary process that has been reviewed by the Airport attorney and is ready for public comments. Staff will have the final plan to the Authority for the August meeting.

22 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 22 July 16, 2014 Mr. Scott Mikuen said there was an insurance issue with this about four or five months ago. We have said the insurance requirements will be as per schedule which was not included but was subject to change by the Airport at any time at its discretion. That was part of the issue we had at one point and he just wants to make sure it is fully vetted and considered as part of the process for this. Deputy Director Rick Cloutier said the insurance has been considered and we do have a schedule, but that is not to say that the insurance requirements will never change Mr. Mikuen said he agrees with that but to do it, there should be reasonable grounds to change it and it shouldn t be discretionary in the sense of different applications to different individuals. It should be consistent with different classes of companies or functions or services provided. That s where his concern is. Deputy Director Cloutier said the schedule is broken down that way so if you provide fueling to commercial and cargo aircraft different insurance rates would apply if you are a mechanic or if you just provide ground handling that could be a separate rate. Mr. Mikuen asked if the schedule is compatible with what other airports are requiring for similar services. Deputy Director Cloutier said the schedule that was developed by the insurance carrier went through several other airports around the southeast and around the country with a similar size and similar services. Speaker: Bill Baer, Baer Air, 150 South Apollo, Melbourne, FL Mr. Baer said Mr. Mikuen brings up the salient point is why he is here today. He has not seen any of this with the insurance. This is something that he found on page 96 and 97 of the agenda for this meeting. He recalls that at the November 2013 meeting, there was an attempt to change the minimum standards of the rules and regulations of the Airport. That was voted down, 6-1. The stakeholders were going to have an opportunity to participate in any process that is developed for this. He has spoken with the other FBOs and currently it appears that none of the fuel providers had any input in this other than ASIG. He did not know this item was coming before the Board and he would like to be involved with it. He also mentioned that Todd

23 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 23 July 16, 2014 Anderson with Sheltair offered his services and input and desires to be involved. For the newer board members, he wanted to provide a little history. From the August 2013 Board meeting the minutes have some documentation that explains what happened after we received the fueling contract with DLA. The November 2013 meeting also has some good reference points. What he is faced with right now is that he has to come off his property because they share the fuel farm. He looks at the general conditions that were put out and it says the Airport does not rent or loan equipment or personnel. A few items down, it says ground handling services for passenger operations require a handicapped lift device. Does that means that we will have to have a handicapped device or will one be available to them to rent from the Airport Authority from time to time? Another example is two 5,000 gallons fuel trucks. Mr. Baer said he has three trucks, one is 5,000 gallons, and two are 3,000 gallon trucks. The average load is less than 1,000 gallons. The smaller the truck is generally a better truck in those situations. He prefers to use the 3,000 gallon trucks on his ramp area and also around the aircraft. He would rather not go through each item separately, but would like to see if there is some direction he could get to reach out to the stakeholders, Atlantic Jet, FIT, Baer Air and ASIG so they can all get together and discuss this. His final item is an exchange that went between his line manager and ASIG. ASIG manages the fuel farm for the Airport Authority, which is an awkward situation for Baer Air. On July 7, the read, Please do not top off any trucks until you have received load of jet. You are in the hole for 2334 gallons. Then the next morning, Al Adams said it looks like you guys pulled fuel last night. You are now 3924 gallons in the hole. Do not pull any fuel; you need to get two loads in to make up for the fuel you used that is not yours and to have some to sell. Unfortunately, the Airport is on the hook for this fuel to replace a customer s inventory. You need to monitor your inventory and do not pull when you do not have any. It is a very bad business practice. Rick Cloutier was copied on this. Then the response came from Al Adams saying he found the load but it was placed under the wrong account. We will fix that. It was picked up as a Vitol load. Further, he said, you are good to go, sorry about the mix-up. Mr. Baer explained this type of exchange is what they have to deal with right now and it is continuing to go on with his relationship and he asked the Board to give some direction to the Authority staff to please work with the stakeholders so things can be resolved privately. Councilmember Molly Tasker asked about the general conditions listed. Are these strict or is there a procedure where a documented exception can be requested and granted?

24 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 24 July 16, 2014 Executive Director Ennis said he didn t think Mr. Baer was aware that this was just a development inhouse at this point. We had legal look at it and we will be going out for comment to the stakeholders. This is just a preliminary checklist. Councilmember Tasker asked will there be some procedure included whereby exception can be made. Director Ennis said that would be a good recommendation. We will come back to the Board and that is where changes could be added or removed. Chairman Potter strongly suggests, that in addition to written comments, after receiving the written comments, that you then have a personal meeting with the stakeholders. Often times, s are not a good way to communicate and resolve concerns. It deserves more than simply written comments. Deputy Director Cloutier said his intention was to have a meeting with all the stakeholders together because sometimes when somebody has one thought and you get all that brain trust together, you can learn from each other. ITEM NO. I-4 Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) Goals The Airport ACDBE goals through fiscal year 2016 are: Car Rental Concessions 0.9% Non Car Rental Concessions 0.0% Ms. Mary Garretson, Airport Concessions Manager, addressed the Board and said we have a consultant who has been working with the Airport for a number of years and this is for our concession DBE (ACDBE) goals. They are professionals, they actually develop the criteria for the goals. In other cases, you would see the non-car rental ACDBE goal as a significant goal. Because we run our parking concession and our food service concession, we don t have those concessions, so the only concessions that we have are our shuttle service and our advertising and that is why you see a 0 goal. There is no significant change in the car rental ACDBE goal. The car rental concession goal is consistent with what we ve had over the last five years. ITEM NO. I-5 Construction Projects Update

25 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 25 July 16, 2014 Deputy Director Rick Cloutier updated the Board on current projects. ITEM NO. I-6 Land Development Report Land development activity: Current Active Prospects 8 Leases Pending 2 Lease Renewals Pending 3 Site Visits 3 Dr. Jack Schluckebier updated the Board on land development activity, including some new ideas. Dr. Schluckebier noted the potential for bus service between the Airport and alternate points along the route to Port Canaveral cruises, so that with airline service development, there is a huge potential of people embarking and disembarking the cruises. We are much closer than Orlando. That is a 20,000 to 30,000 market of people coming here per week and the idea of having a cruise to airport connection makes a lot of sense. Staff has met with the Deputy County Manager as well as the director of the bus service. We have a new route schedule to begin in the fall of 2014 for three times per week which would be round trip. Hopefully in the next 60 days it will begin on a trial basis. He gave the credit to Executive Director Ennis and said it was his idea and a good way to develop some added Airport market share. Second, because he knew that he had an impending retirement, and because one of the many hats he has been wearing is airline service development, Director Ennis asked Dr. Schluckebier to spend more of his time on that kind of activity. So in the last four months, Dr. Schluckebier has met with Delta, Silver, Southwest, City Link Air and American/US Airlines. All of them do take time for additional development, some expressed more interest than others. We do expect both with the existing legacy carriers with the American s expansion and US Air/American merger that we will see some modified service from them. He emphasized extremely minor incremental change would be likely, nothing major. They have services and products that are profitable and they do not wish to upset their apple carts. We re hopeful in both of those cases, but ongoing contact is needed.

26 Melbourne Airport Authority Minutes Page 26 July 16, 2014 SPECIAL PRESENTATION Pam Gillespie, representing Congressman Bill Posey Ms. Gillespie read a salute to Richard Ennis career that Congressman Posey gave on the House Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. A copy of that speech is attached. Executive Director Ennis thanked Ms. Gillespie and mentioned what a great friend of the Airport Congressman Posey has been. He has always taken the time to meet with Airport staff and give his support for Airport projects. Chairman Bill Potter Chairman Bill Potter expressed the appreciation of the Board to Richard for his service. He said there are many ways to measure the value of one s service to an organization, but there are two that are particularly important. First is whether the individual puts their own interest first or the interest of the organization. In the case of Richard Ennis, there is no doubt that since he arrived at this Airport, he has always put the interests of this Airport and the community ahead of his personal interest. As Pam Gillespie mentioned, he was in the Air Force and in the military they call this service above self. Richard really personifies service above self. If you look back over his career, Mr. Potter said he has never known him to ask for anything for himself. He has never asked for a salary increase or benefit for himself; he has asked that for others, but not for himself. When he first arrived, Mr. Potter thought maybe his enthusiasm for the Airport was due to his being happy to get out of City Hall. But he determined that it was a lot more than that. He is absolutely dedicated to this organization. A good leader always puts the interest of his organization and the people he is leading as his highest priority. Another measure of one s value is whether the organization is better off under his leadership than it was when he took command. In the case of Richard Ennis, the status of the Airport has been immeasurably enhanced during his tenure. When he assumed leadership

27