Blytheville Gosnell Regional Airport Authority discusses runway improvements

The Blytheville Gosnell Regional Airport Authority (BGRAA) had a busy schedule Thursday evening as they discussed numerous pressing issues in their bi-monthly board meeting. Topics included plans for improvements to the runway lights, opening up another set of four previously un-refurbished apartments, changing the way they pay "comp time" and complaints about mold.

Blake Robinson, Professional Engineer/Project Manager/Aviation Team Leader for Garver Engineering in Little Rock, spoke to the board regarding the recently completed pavement project as well as meetings held with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seeking funding for runway light improvements at the airport.

Robinson said that the pavement project was finished in September and that a lot of work was done on the middle hundred feet of the runway or "the main wheel path when planes come and land." He added that they fixed patches and some of the deteriorated concrete, particularly on the taxiway and apron. He also said that a large check for $350,000 from the state should be coming within the next week or so.

"Barrett [Harrison, BGRAA director] and I went down and met with the FAA Southwest Region...a little over a month ago. We've done a couple of projects, the last six to eight years on the lighting. We put in a new electrical vault...moved everything close to the airfield...set the conduit and a round, concrete encased can for the light fixtures along the runway where the lights would go," Robinson said.

The original plan was to leave the runway lights where they are, but to replace them. The runway lights have been set at a width of 300-feet since before the Air Force base closed. The runway, however, is marked for 150-feet width. The desire was to leave things as they have been and ask the FAA to replace the runway lights where they are.

"Well, we applied for that and they turned us down about a year ago...what they wanted us to do is bring the lights in to the 150-foot width where the runway is marked...so we went down and met with the FAA and we started talking about moving the lights in and the FAA started asking us 'do you really need nearly 12,000 feet of runway'," Robinson added.

The FAA wanted a justification for the length of the runway if they were going to pay for the lighting. The FAA was going to require a study to be done to determine what length was actually needed. There was also talk about having to remove all the un-needed concrete.

Robinson said that he and Harrison changed their pitch.

"[We told them] If you guys pay for the cable and the infrastructure back to the electrical vault then we'll look to the state to pay for the fixtures and leave them out there and save everybody a lot of money and we get the full 12,000-foot runway to use," Robinson said.

"To move the lights in...[to] the standard 150 [feet], was an additional $1 million in cost. And we've asked several times for a modification for the standard to leave them out there and our argument has always been that we want to save the government a million dollars," Harrison added.

"So we talked to them and what Barrett and I decided was is to... lets look to the state to possibly fund 90 percent of the cost of these lights, just to leave them out there, and the FAA agreed to pay for the cable to power them. So it will be partially funded by the FAA and partly funded by the state...another thing that we're looking at doing...a couple years down the road we had some additional items we were going to look to the FAA to help us fund (new windsocks, some new pappies and distance remaining signs). Those things we had programmed a couple years down the road and since we don't have to spend the FAA money, we an slide those up and get those installed sooner rather than later with FAA money," Robinson said.

Robinson explained that with projects such as these, the FAA gives $150,000 a year which can be "banked" for up to four years before the FAA begins taking the funds back or a capital improvement project must be started. The BGRAA has been doing this since their last FAA project in 2012. Robinson's estimated financial breakdown was a grant from the FAA for $526,500 and a grant from the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics for a little over $200,000.

"Now that's two grants. The FAA funds your projects at 90 percent and then once you complete that project and close it out, you can apply to the state for the marching 10 percent. So at the end of the day, on an FAA project, you are essentially not out any money," Robinson explained.

"Are those two grants pretty much guaranteed," Judge Randy Carney asked.

"The matching portion is, from the FAA...so we're looking at, from the state, about $160,000-$170,000 just to put the fixtures in out at the 300-foot mark....where they are at [now]," Blake said.

"It seems like it would cost more to demo that runway than it would to keep it up...it sounds like we ought to do it while the money is there because its probably not always going to be there," committee chair Don Houseworth said.

The board unanimously agreed to move forward with the plans and to seek funding from the FAA and the State.

Angelia Cooper told the board that out of their 76 apartments, there are two currently unoccupied while having carpets replaced. She also said that they have seven people on the waiting list to rent an apartment.

Harrison explained that with "a pretty healthy waiting list this year" and since there are 24 apartments that have not been "brought back up" since the Air Force left 25 year ago, they decided to open up one of the unused groups of apartments and see what shape they are in. They chose the group of four apartments closest to the occupied section.

"We've been working hard for the last six to seven weeks to get estimates on everything that it will take to bring them back up (painting, flooring, new heat and air, water heaters, countertops) and its about $12,000 per unit. The last time you all took any action on the apartment rental, you gave Dawn the authority to raise the rent I think to $555. Since Angelia has been here she has been renting those same apartments for $600...we'd like to go ahead and bring those next four units up. We'd like to start immediately, but most of the work would be done next year and I will include that cost and expense in the proposed budget that I'm going to give you. But it appears to be something that would pay for itself within just a couple years," Harrison said.

"It would probably be good to see how the waiting list goes and to make sure that we don't' have vacancies, but balancing supply and demand," Houseworth said.

The board also discussed rental rates for current renters.

"Are we making any adjustments on the people that are renting from us now," board member Donald Prevallet asked, "Are we going to be raising their month also?"

"Well we have been, as their leases come up," Harrison answered.

"I don't see a downside on it. It will be additional revenue that will pay for itself in two years. And if we don't, we'll eventually have the expense of tearing them down," Carney said.

The board unanimously approved repairing the four apartments.

Harrison told the board that the Air Force has been discussing "ramping up" their use of the facility and that they are looking at doing more during the day rather than the night, unlike the past. He also said that various airplane manufacturers and automotive companies have been showing interest in using the facilities.

Harrison also said that the Labor Board contacted the BGRAA regarding how the organization was compensating its employees for "comp time."

The board unanimously voted to amend the employee handbook by removing all previous language regarding compensatory time compensation and to "make reference to the department of labor publication" outlining current law.

"Once Mr. Johnson got on the phone and contacted the government, he also decided that he should call the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and tell them that he'd been working in an environment out here that was dangerous because of mold. And as you all know the buildings out here that have been vacant for 25 years with no windows and vacant, or with no windows at all, are in terrible shape. But our employees will tell you that they are not supposed to be going in them. [They are] not allowed to go in them and no one is made to go in those to work because they just aren't buildings that we use, lease or that anyone occupies," Harrison added.

Harrison then told the board what they have done at OSHA's request.

"OSHA had us take pictures of the building that we refer to as the 'shop' (the former simulator building) and of the area that we store our stuff...that part of the building does not have mold in it...[they asked us to] write up what our rules and regs are about where people are supposed to be...and we posted a notice that someone had complained about mold... they are reviewing it and they are going to let us know if they feel the need to send somebody down here to see if what I told them was the truth or not. And based upon what I've herd from everybody else that I've talked to...there will be somebody coming to inspect," Harrison said.

Harrison also said that OSHA has made it very clear that buildings that are unoccupied, that people don't work in and that employees don't have to go in, then there is no problem.

Board member Oscar Ford, Jr. also gave the October 31 financial report to the board and it was unanimously approved.

The report gave year-to-date balances on the Aeroplex, airport and general funds. Revenues for the Aeroplex fund were $599,232.66, expenses were $506,488.37 and the balance is $92,744.29. Airport fund revenues have been $889,326.53, expenses were $1,227,61.05 and leaves a balance of -$338,286.52. The general fund received $481.93 with no expenses and a balance of $481.93. The combined All Funds total therefore is revenues of $1,489,041.12, expenses of $1,734,101.42 and a balance of -$245,060.30.

Harrison reminded the board about the check that Robinson said was coming within the week or so from the State for $350,000.

"[It] will go straight to that bottom line," Harrison added.

"Yeah, that will go straight back in. That was for expenses on the runway concrete repair," Houseworth explained.

- Source:  http://www.blythevillecourier.com