HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-03 Minutesmg
•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT BOARD MEETING
August 3, 2000
MEMBERS ATTENDING: Rick McKinney, Don Lyall, Frank Burggraf, and Charles Wallace
MEMBERS ABSENT: Truman Smith
STAFF ATTENDING: Alett Little, Dale Frederick, Brenda Moss, Tonya Posey, and
Janet Johns
OTHER ATTENDING: Ken Schossow-Wings Avionics, Inc.; Barry West -Tenant; Cyrus
Young -Alderman; Rob Smith -Arkansas Democrat Gazette; Frank
P. Sperandeo, III -Tenant; John Kalagias-Arkansas Air Museum;
Terry Lawson -Fayetteville Fire Department; Mickey Jackson -Chief,
Fayetteville Fire Department; Dan Coody-Citizen; Debrah Coody-
Citizen; Charles Caldwell -Tenant; Matt Wagner -Northwest
Arkansas Times; Charlie Allison -The Morning News, John P. Ross -
Ross Executive Aviation, Inc.; and Terry Collier -Tenant.
McKINNEY:
ITEM #1: Call to Order
I will call to order the July 6th meeting of the Airport Board.
ITEM #2: Minutes of the July 6th meeting.
McKINNEY: We need to approve the July 6CI' minutes. Do we have any corrections,
alterations or deletions?
WALLACE:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
BURGGRAF:
McKINNEY:
I have only one suggestion. There is a paragraph down toward the last that
speaks to the invitation to the Aldermen. This was in reference to the
retreat session that followed our meeting. We should probably have
something in there that addresses the results of that. We were discussing
the Airport Board's authority and that evolved into a discussion wherein
we invited the Alderman and there is nothing in the Minutes to reflect that.
There is one addition. 1 would entertain a motion.
I move passage.
Second.
Second by Frank. All in favor.
1
• ALL. Aye.
McKINNEY: That motion carries.
ITEM #3: Old Business
•
•
a. Re-establishment of 3/4 mile minimums on Localizer 16.
McKINNEY: Alett, will you address this?
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
Yes. You and Doc Wallace made a trip in the last week of June and spoke
with several people including Dean Alexander and Don Harris. Don Harris
is in Fort Worth and Dean Alexander is in Oklahoma City. I have spoken
with them since then. My last contact was with Dean on July 25. The
information that they do have in Oklahoma City about the obstructions that
we have in our approach was not the most up to date information. I had
transmitted the study that you all had commissioned from Garver and he
has that now. He tells me that he is putting that into his NFDC program. I
do not know what an NFDC program is but I do know that it is a modeling
program which is three dimensional that will tell them where the
obstructions are. I believe the work that you have already paid for from
Garver is very similar to this so I think that their work is not going to be
extensive. I did try to contact him this week and found that he is on
vacation all this week. So, I have nothing further other than I talked to him
last week and he does have the correct information now. He is putting that
into a modeling format and I will commit to you to get in touch with him
upon his return and give you a letter report.
As I recall, Doc, they have continual use of the modeling program and they
sequence in and process, so we are in line for the modeling. That's the best
thing to say. Once they run the model, he should be able to give us a pretty
good idea of what waivers we might need to come back with.
b. Recommendation of Lease Agreement with Wings Air for
terminal space.
c. Recommendation of Lease Agreement with Wings Air for
ground lease.
The bottom line on this one is that we have reached agreement. The staff
does recommend approval of this lease. There have been some changes
since your agenda packets were distributed. Those changes were on page
two, paragraph 3B1, we added:
2
•
• "...as known to Lessee or any defaults that are not otherwise in the process
of being resolved in the manner provided in this agreement."
•
•
The second change is on page two, paragraph 3133. The original wording
was, "a recommendation of renewal has been made by the Airport Board
after completion of a perform review." The addition is:
"...made in accordance with the performance standards set forth in
paragraph five of this agreement."
Those two additions have been added since you last saw the lease
agreement. What I have given you in memo form is the staff
recommendation and request for your recommendation to the City Council.
Just to make you aware, we have worked pretty fast and fiirious and we
have worked really well together. We have worked with two separate
attorneys and if you remember the other lease and it's volume, this lease is
much cleaner and more straight forward. We understand this a whole lot
better. There are three areas that Mr. Schossow still has some concerns
about. I would like to address those. One is that he is concerned over
access to where the fueling facility will be. He does not want his
ingress/egress blocked for his customers. We have agreed that he can paint
or otherwise mark the area in front of the self serve facility saying,
"Do Not Block". I have agreed to give him a Letter of Commitment that
says he can do that. The next issue is our process to get to the City
Council. This requires the person applying for the lease to execute the
lease before it goes forward. The Council wants a complete packet as does
this Board. We realize that he has to apply to the Planning office, he has
insurance issues, and he must also finalize his agreement with Air BP. If all
of those items are not completed by the time we get before the City
Council, we will add a paragraph saymg the lease will be contingent upon
these things being approved and agreements being signed. The third thing
which is very minor is the description of the area and I believe that we have
significantly improved the exhibit that you have If you will turn to the
exhibit which follows the lease. We have an area which is triangular in
shape. In the lease description on page one, we only used the two largest
dimensions to describe the area and then added a reference to Exhibit A.
Exhibit A is the description and drawing attached to the back of the lease.
If there is confusion, we can clarify that. I spoke to the City Attorney and
they were fairly unconcerned because of the phrase, "as more particularly
described by Exhibit A." We have worked well together I think this is a
good lease. I'm ready to go forward with it.
SCHOSSOW: The only other thing that I would like to address is we have withdrawn our
3
•
McKINNEY:
SCHOSSOW:
McKINNEY:
SCHOSSOW:
McKINNEY:
SCHOSSOW:
McKINNEY:
SCHOSSOW:
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
•
intention to put a counter and office in the terminal. The reason for that is
this has taken a lot of time to work through this and get to this point. We
are looking at probably another 30 days for the Council's approval. We
still have to work through the Planning Department process. We need
approval from the State Fire Marshall. Once we do all that, it's going to
take approximately six weeks to be up and running with the self serve fuel
facility. We won't be able to capture the business from the football crowd.
What we're intending on doing is coming back sometime next year with
terminal lease. That helps our debt service and makes a full service
operation a financial feasibility.
Ken, why don't you define that for us? What do you mean by full service?
That's for the 100 low lead and full service that we asked for originally.
The fuel truck?
The fuel truck, servicing, manned operation, fuel and oil and everything
that is required for a fuel and oil sales FBO.
Have you seen a copy of the letter Chuck sent?
Yes, I have.
Do you have any type of retort to that?
My position is as 1 have said before, we are providing avionics as well as
maintenance in our existing business. If the current FBO wishes to put in
an operation just like this, there is nothing to prevent them from doing that.
I see this as fair competition. If they want to do that, I would say they
need to get this Board's approval granting them the right to do it. This is
an opportunity for the airport which they do not have now. This will be a
24 hour operation and someone can pull up and swipe their card and fuel
their aircraft instead of flying over Fayetteville when they need fuel during
peak hours and late at night. We will post all of our numbers and if there is
a problem, they just have to call.
Alett, are there any ties in this lease for the full service aspect?
No. This is only for self serve fuel.
Ken, what assurances can you give us that this will happen?
•
•
SCHOSSOW:
McKINNEY:
SCHOSSOW:
LYALL:
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
BURGGRAF:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
We have every intention to make that happen to the extent that we have
added maintenance to our avionics shop. We are now adding a self serve
fuel facility. I would submit to you that we are one of the only businesses
on the field that is growing right now. If the market is there and proves to
be feasible, that is our business plan. I won't give you a 100% guarantee
that this will happen. We want to see it happen. This process took a lot of
time. We lost our market to spring board into operation. I look at this like
a cotton farmer and the crop is gone for this year
Do you intend to advertise this in a manner where pilots are aware of this
service?
BP has an extensive marketing program. We are planning to get in
publications. I don't have all the information on that yet. We have to
acquire a lease before we sign an agreement with BP. They are very
aggressive in marketing. Dale and Alett have met with BP's representative
and they can attest to that.
I understand the changes to the Above Ground Fueling Facility. What
about the other lease?
That one has been removed from the agenda.
That's the one he wants to defer until next year
So, action today is on one lease for a fueling facility.
That is correct.
I would make the stipulation that this lease be sent forward with the
response letter from SCS per their request.
Unfortunately, Chuck couldn't be here today.
I'm in favor of it. I think it is important particularly to be hand in glove
with our staff to be sure that we understand at this point and I assume from
Chuck's letter that SCS group may take issue with this at some point
further on. My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, is that first of
all, Wings has met all of our Minimum Standards.
We have a specific section in our Minimum Standards that addresses
fueling services.
WALLACE: Basically, they have jumped through all our hoops and met all that criteria.
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
BURGGRAF:
McK1NNEY:
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
•
They have yet to acquire their insurance but they are aware of that
requirement.
The second piece is that should Fayetteville Air Service (SCS) desire to
offer the same service, they are free to do so.
Or anyone else.
It is not our role to keep someone from going into business on the Airport
so long as they meet our standards.
Since we are federally funded through grants, we cannot deny service to
people who want to put businesses on the Airport.
Those two points are very important to me. He has met the standards and
this is not unfair competition.
Dale, if you'll help me remember, a couple of years ago, we discussed a
similar type self fueling station with Mark Cordine being placed on the east
side. I know he contacted Phillips to inquire into buying a used station and
they opted not to do that after they ran a survey about who might
tentatively use it or use it in the future. They've had this opportunity to
put a self fueling station in before and they declined to it.
I move recommendation that we forward this to the City Council with
our approval.
Why are we sending the letter?
Was that a request that Chuck made?
Typically, I forward this type of response to the City Council. I forward
letters from citizens and I don't think this letter is outside procedure. The
Council will want that kind of background before the meeting. It helps
them get the full picture and be prepared to respond to that person if they
make an appearance and it certainly helps them be aware of issues even
more than the summary of the Minutes. It helps with the decision making
process.
Charles made a motion. Is that a second?
LYALL:
McKINNEY:
ALL:
McKINNEY:
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
JACKSON:
Second.
Any questions or discussion? All those in favor.
Aye.
That carries. Thank you very much.
ITEM #4: New Business
a. Presentation by Fayetteville Fire Department for a training
school on airport property.
Chief Jackson, this relates back to a prior conversation that we have had.
We have the Minutes from June 3, 1999 and October 7, 1999.
1 want to brief but I need to cover all the bases. I'll begin with a quick
history of our service here. The old fire station that we used to operate
from was built in 1964 by the City as Fire Station #3. It operated as a City
Fire Station throughout its entire life time. In 1986, we removed the
engine company from out of there and they came downtown but it was
continually operated as an ARFF station. Back then it was called the CFR
station but it was Fayetteville Fire Station #3. That continued until the new
fire station was built over here. Planning for that began in 1995 or 1996
and we began to work with the FAA trying to get a new facility built
because this one was totally inadequate. There was barely room for a two
man crew and we were getting a new ARFF truck. We had an '86 model
ARFF truck and when we put both trucks in the bay, the southern bay
which is smaller, didn't allow for walking space. We contended that we
needed a new facility and that project was approved and the station was
built. It greatly improved the situation for us. Traditionally, there were
two people on duty at Station #3 but we decided to add a third person and
put an engine company back in service to cover the south end of town.
That was not workable because the engine company was not busy enough
to warrant the cost of its operation. During this time, the Airport was
going through changes. When the last commercial airline left, it was not
necessary under FAA regulations for us to man the ARFF station all the
time. We talked to the FAA and they wanted to maintain it as a station
with ARFF services and we thought we were the best agency to render
those services. It wasn't feasible economically for us to keep our people
here so we decided to form a special operations team and call it the ARFF
Team. Organizationally, it is very similar to our HazMat Team and our
7
Tactical Rescue Team. We invited people who had worked at the Airport
before and were certified as ARFF firefighters to volunteer and become
members of that team. Twelve of them did and we made them team
members. Their pay was not increased but they had an opportunity for
increased overtime because most ARFF work is on that basis. That was
the only thing in it for them other than their interest in ARFF and exercising
their expertise and experience and the training they had had and
maintaining that training. We know that we have to keep their skills sharp
so the training program for that team will be ongoing with regard to
operations here. Through all of this, Fire Station #3 was under our
operations and there was not any question about that. When we moved
out of it, we had been using it for doing quite a bit of training because it
has a real, nice classroom it. It's very comfortable and it's away from the
hubbub of things going on at our other stations and it makes a nice training
facility. We have been planning for several years to build a training center
for the Fire Department just as a matter of what goes with the growth of
our City and the fact that we've reached the size and stage where we need
to do that. We've looked at other locations but this one works so well that
we decided it was our ideal location to continue with our plans to build our
training center and in fact we have dubbed this Phase One because it fit in
so well with what we wanted to do. We have secured in the Capital
Improvements Programs funding to develop Phase Two in 2004. We have
in mind plans to do additional phases when funding is available. By
accident, we learned that the Airport was entertaining a potential client to
occupy Station #3. They had discussed making that building available to
them. Initially, when I heard that, I got defensive because I thought
somebody else was giving away our fire station. The fact is that maybe we
were assuming too much. This is an Airport facility. It's on the Airport's
property and it's under control of Airport management. I don't have any
particular argument with that once we saw the picture in the proper focus.
However, as the ARFF provider for the Airport and as a user of the fire
station, we want to maintain our occupancy rights over there. We got into
this thing before there's any major problem. We've worked with Alett
from the beginning and we feel now is the time to begin to get all of this
worked out and see what kind ofcommitments there might be to our future
and using the fire station over there. That's how we ended up on your
agenda today. I guess our plea to you is that we would like to have either
today or at point in the near future a commitment from the Airport Board
that we would indeed be the Fire Departments' ARFF station and our
training facility in perpetuity. We have no objection to sharing that facility
with another agency especially if it would be another agency that would
have some fire protection related business. In doing that, we would like to
retain quite a bit of say about not who might occupy it but under what
McKINNEY:
circumstances and how much of it they would occupy and what they would
use it for and how that might or might not interfere with our plans to
continue to develop it into a training center. One fairly new piece of
information that we have turned up in the last couple days which will have
to have some consideration is that due to the fact the FAA funded the
facility they hold a lot of conditions about its use. They have told us
straight out that it has to continue to be used as an ARFF station. That's
pretty much common sense and Alett would be agreeable to that. It will fit
in with our plans. We've never had any plan other than for us to continue
to operate that as an ARFF station which is a part of our Fire Department
and the training facility will be an add on facility to this being our ARFF
station. We have an almost new ARFF truck over there that is one of the
finest ones in this part of the state and we have every plan to continue to
operate that. Our ARFF team is maintaining their capabilities. We are
getting ready for an annual in house recert class for them. We had assumed
all along that we would be the agency doing that. The training center issue
looms bigger for us because we need some direction about whether we can
continue with our plans to do that as we have before or do we need to
begin to look for alternative locations to do that. The big negative about
that is we would have to go back and try to fund Phase One and start all
over again.
I don't see necessarily a reason for you to look for a new home for your
training center. We have obviously made some verbal commitments here
through our prior Minutes about the intent of entertaining land use for a
facility to be built as a training center. I would like to make a suggestion
about training.
WALLACE: What sort of training will you be doing and what activities occur with that
training?
JACKSON:
•
We have used it for Fire Department personnel in the past. Terry Lawson
is our training officer. I put him in charge of that facility. We don't mind
other agencies using it as long as it is coordinated by Terry and he
approves it ahead of time so we know what they're going to do and they
know their responsibilities including keeping it clean and keeping it up.
That is not a problem. It has been used by the Fayetteville Fire
Department, the Fayetteville Police Department. Central EMS has used it.
The State Forestry people have used it for a training program. Arkansas
Tech University at Russellville has used it. That's according to the plan
and we would continue to do that. As far as the Fayetteville Fire
Department is concerned, the training center would have a drill tower and a
burn building. Eventually, it would give us the capability to do confined
space rescue training and things like that. It would be a comprehensive
training facility but it would be developed in phases. Our next phase in
2004 would be the drill tower and the burn building and if the funds are
available, we need to develop a facility to do agility tests for entry level
personnel and applications. We do that now at Central Fire Station and it's
totally inadequate plus we're going to have to change that agility test
program. There will be a national standard in the near future that we will
have to meet. This location is ideal because there's no space downtown.
BURGGRAF: Do you train for aircraft fire and rescue?
JACKSON: Definitely. Right now Central EMS is using the facility for their
certification.
BURGGRAF: Does that generate income?
JACKSON:
McKINNEY:
LAWSON:
McKINNEY:
•
All the Fire Departments in Washington County are eligible to be
participants in that class. We have classes over here sometimes that we
invite the county fire departments to. Certainly we are not going into
competition with the State Fire Academy's facility at Lincoln although it
has been slow in getting operational. We work with them all the time.
Fire, Police, and EMT's. I'm glad to see them over there. We miss the full
time fire service but we understand the lack of demand for it right now.
Are you mandated to have an annual or biannual drill at the Airport? I
know in one situation, during gear up there was a lot of lack of
communication between the pilots and the tower and the tower and the
Fire Department. Would you consider doing an annual crash/rescue
training more than just in the classroom?
That is a part of the recert program but it is difficult to drill because we're
not stationed here anymore. Communication between our dispatch and the
tower and pilots is difficult. We do anticipate being on the field and using
the truck and looking through aircraft. 1 don't know if a drill like we used
to do would be beneficial simply because we're not down here. We will be
responding from another station.
You used to work with larger aircraft with 30 or more passengers. We
appreciate your absorbing that in the budget. That is greatly appreciated.
Now since we've reconfigured to smaller aircraft, hopefully we can work
with your personnel on duty and call them down here for a small aircraft
incident or crash so they can be more familiar with a small aircraft and how
to extract people out of them as well. They're not going to have a big
10
LAWSON:
JACKSON:
McKINNEY:
JACKSON:
McKINNEY:
JACKSON:
WALLACE:
JACKSON:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
JACKSON:
WALLACE:
LYALL:
JACKSON:
•
door to step through. Some of the small airplanes have two doors and
some only have one. I would like for them to be more familiar with smaller
aircraft. I would make my aircraft available to look at and learn the
systems like where the fuel shut off is. They're all different.
Certainly, we will do those kind of things. We've gone through the private
aircraft on this field before.
They have to maintain their ARFF training to stay on the ARFF team. We
make that part of the training program.
How many people are trained?
I have 80 firefighters and 12 of them are ARFF certified.
12 of 80 may not be on duty when someone needs to respond here. If one
is, they would have some familiarity with small aircraft.
Everyone is trained in basic operations. The ARFF team is the advance.
Just like everyone is trained in basic rescue but the Tactical Rescue Team
does confined space and high angle and low angle and all the specialized
stuff.
What do you want us to do?
Ideally, we want a commitment that we would have primary say over the
future of that facility.
The staff recommendation is to postpone this to the October meeting.
Yes.
Would it be detrimental to you if we postponed and took it up again in
October?
No.
I move that we postpone any action on this until October at which
time we will have more information to deal with.
The tower you mentioned? How do FAA requirements affect the height?
I believe Alett provided me a note saying there was a 34 foot maximum.
11
•
•
•
LITTLE:
JACKSON:
McKINNEY:
LAWSON:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
LYALL:
McKINNEY:
SPERANDEO:
JACKSON:
McKINNEY:
SPERANDEO:
I got that information from Terry.
We won't exceed the maximum.
We have a seven story control tower that is there because of a waiver. It is
closer to the safety area than this facility would be. 1 think a waiver could
be done for it because it would be enhancing the presence of firemen down
here. It would require FAA approval.
The area we're looking at is in between the current station and the sound
barrier. We're not looking at any areas where airplanes would have any
problems. It's not within the magic line. We're far enough away and it
wouldn't be that much taller than the current station.
When this comes before us in October, will these questions be answered?
I trust that they will be by that time and I believe that given that, we
actually have time to get the read from the FAA. We might not have the
approval of the FAA but we'll know their position on it and whether they
will give us a waiver or not.
1 second the motion.
This item is tabled. Are there any questions?
I'm concerned with the burning. I am for the training facility and
classroom education. Just keep in mind, the hangars are pretty close to this
"burn area" and there might be a better location on this field. I hope the
FAA addresses this.
That's a good question. The concept of "burn buildings" uses initial arrival
and initial attacks on fires that are not fully involved. A building wouldn't
last if it was fully involved We'll use hay bales and wooden pallets, place
them in the corner, set them on fire, and send in the guys after the short
flash. This gets the new firemen used to working in smoke filled areas of
intense heat. In the old days, they used to set old buildings on fire and
have flames coming out of the windows before they would attack the fire.
We don't do that anymore.
It's an intense, friendly fire. It's not hostile.
Please consider smoke that will be drifting northeast and we don't want
any complaints out of Mt. Sequoyah or anything like that. Will there be oil
12
JACKSON:
McKINNEY:
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
BURGGRAF:
involved?
Not in Phase One. Phase Three might include a pit facility and use
propane. That would be five or six maybe even eight years down the road.
They used to do that here by bulldozing a hole in the ground and pouring
diesel in it but the EPA had a problem with that. That's how they used to
do the pit test down here. We'll table this on consensus until the
October meeting.
b. Request by Charlie Caldwell for Airport Board
recommendation on payment for electrical modification of a T -
hangar.
We've been through the history on this, Charlie. t don't think we have to
necessarily go through that. Alett, will you address this from the staffs
angle for us, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Caldwell, for coming today. We have agreed
to construct a hangar which would be specially modified for a plane that
Dr. Caldwell needs to put in there. Two items were initially requested.
One was water and one was electrical and in the meantime, we decided not
to do the water and I think that is with his agreement. There are electrical
modifications that Dr. Caldwell would like to see specifically for his
hangar. Our engineers on the project did that as a special bid item so we
know that would cost in the neighborhood of$1,800. He wants a separate
meter, a disconnect box or panel, and two extra outlets. One 240 and one
120. There in lies the confusion, I believe, that by agreeing to be in hanger
"F", Dr. Caldwell felt like he was promised that the Airport would pay for
these modifications and the engineering staff was not aware of that. We
know that we have had a great relationship with Dr. Caldwell all this time.
We want to maintain that and we want to build that hangar for him so, I
made a recommendation that we credit him at the rate of 8% interest for
the money that he paid on deposit with the City and given that, it would
give us about $900. Let us pay that towards the work that would need to
be done and then let him pick up the difference. That's my
recommendation to you.
Alett, say that again? The money he's had on deposit is going to pay for
half of it and he's going to pay for half? That makes him pay the whole
thing.
LITTLE: It doesn't. We're under no obligation to give him interest. He didn't
13
•
BURGGRAF:
realize when he deposited that money in 1996 that it would take four
years. So, 1 will have to get approval in order to do this or we'll have to
take it out of our Airport funds. 1 think this is a step in the right direction
in terms of maintaining a good relationship. It doesn't make him have to
pay $1,800 out of pocket. It makes him only have to pay $900 out of
pocket. I am trying W find a middle ground for you.
As 1 recall, he has been the victim of past mistakes by our engineers and all
the rest of it that have caused this (expletive) delay. That is not his
problem and it's not his responsibility.
LITTLE: No. This is work over and above what we provide to other tenants.
BURGGRAF: We didn't ever give him what we told him we would give him.
McKINNEY: Or what he paid for.
BURGGRAF: 1-le's already paid for it and we forgave the engineers their mucking it up to
start with. I think we ought to pick up half of the cost. He's already put
half the money up. We ought to put up the other half and get the
(expletive) thing done. It's an improvement in our facility and not in his.
He's only a leaseholder.
LITTLE:
Basically, that is what I thought I had proposed. The way I arrived at this
proposal was to give him credit for the deposit on hangar before he
requested these electrical modification.
McKINNEY: He's talking about the second half of the $1,800.
LITTLE: We're under no obligation to pay interest.
BURGGRAF: We have an ethical responsibility to pay the interest. It is an escrow
account basically.
LITTLE: It's not an escrow account. It is revenue. Maybe it should have been but it
wasn't. We need to complete this project. I'm trying to help.
McKINNEY:
•
In my opinion, customer service is part of the process. The tenant is a
customer and the customer has been wronged two out of three times so far.
1 agfee with Frank. I think not having what he asked for in the end result, I
think we ought make good on the other $900 as a matter of customer
service. I think staff is feared of setting precedent on this but since we've
screwed up the other three times that's the precedent set.
14
. LITTLE: It may be that we might not modify our standard hangars to the extent that
• we set ourselves up for this kind of mistake. I need to put you on warning
that the next time someone comes with a special request, I will be very
wary.
•
•
McKINNEY:
Duly noted Alett. 1 would say that staff needs to be odtbp of it I00% next
time and that starts with maybe the engineers down through the
construction crew.
WALLACE: I would like to get past what happened and start today. Is what Alett has
proposed acceptable with Dr. Caldwell?
CALDWELL: Would l pay $900?
WALLACE: Yes.
CALDWELL: I would scale back my modifications and I'll talk to the electrical people.
WALLACE: My question is what do we need to do for you to go way feeling like you
got a fair deal?
CALDWELL: I think you should pay for the whole deal.
WALLACE: The problem is setting a precedent?
LITTLE: Our problem is it's $1,800 that comes out of our budget. We didn't
budget for it. We haven't modified our hangars for anyone else or installed
special plugs in or special meters for them. We have agreed to do this.
We're in it and we need to finish it. I'm trying to find a way to finish it. 1
felt like paying half of it was a good way to finish it.
McKINNEY: 1 have a problem paying half of it with the interest made off of his money.
That's the part I have a problem with.
BURGGRAF: Plus, he get's a 1099 out of the deal.
McKINNEY: We'll not get into that part of it.
WALLACE: I think the whole thing is messy.
BURGGRAF: If we can forgive the engineer what they did and what they cost us. 1 feel
we have an obligation to be decent with him who has been the most
patient. I move that we recommend to the Council that we
15
•
WALLACE:
BURGGRAF:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
LYALL:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
BURGGRAF:
McKINNEY:
•
appropriate half of the cost out of our Airport Funds and let him pay
the other half.
How is that different from what Alett has proposed?
She's proposing that he pay an additional sum of money and the other half
is going to be paid out of his money in interest. Really, he's paying the
whole thing.
Let me clarify. This money was not paid into an account where it drew any
interest. This money was credited to the Airport as revenue in 1996.
There isn't a place for me to go to get $900 other than the Airport budget.
I'm saying it would be fair for us to consider that he should have earned
interest in the amount of about $900 and we'll just get that out of our
Airport money. Does that help any?
Therefore, he still owes $900. How much has he paid?
$2,475 to have the hangar modified and have clear and open space.
How long ago?
1996.
That has nothing to do with electrical? That has to do with structural.
That is correct.
There is now $1,800 worth of electrical that needs to be done.
He has met with the engineers for hangars "E", "F", and "G." His will be
constructed in "F." He indicated that he would like this work done. We
bid it and found out how much it would cost.
If the Airport's budget pays $900, who pays the other $900? That is what
Frank's motion is.
Yes, that we pay half of it.
He '§aying that we pay the whole $1,800 dollars for the interest borne off of
this money if it were in an interest bearing account and plus the $900 as our
share for a total of$I,800.
16
•
•
JOHNS: All due respect, Mr. Chairman, sir, will you please have Mr. Burggraf
• restate his motion?
•
•
BURGGRAF: The motion is that Airport funds pay the $1,800. As far as precedent is
concerned, let it stand as a precedent that we want to reward our good
customers and be fair.
LYALL- Second.
McKINNEY: All those in favor?
ALL: Aye.
McKINNEY: The motion carries. Thank you. This will go to the Mayor?
LITTLE: Yes.
ITEM #5: Other Business
a. Staff Update on Marketing Program
LITTLE:
Dale is continuing his visits. He's finished with Arkansas and has moved
over to Oklahoma. I'm passing out a copy of an ad. We're not actively
advertising in the Trade -A -Plane but we felt it would be beneficial to
advertise in the Osh Kosh issue because of the volume of circulation. This
is your copy and I wanted to let you know what we had done. We'll
probably continue that each year. The next set of T -hangars we are
constructing - the advertising strategy is to use that that we used for the set
that we completed in January. It worked very well. We will use a banner
in front of the terminal. We got a very good response from that. If we
don't start getting a longer waiting list, we'll do another mail out like we
did for the other hangars. We have three people on the waiting list and
they're very serious. Pat Ross has a client that bought a plane and he needs
a place to put it. Jim Bell did the pre -sale inspection on that plane.
FREDERICK: We had a ribbon cutting yesterday at Jim Bell's. In June, I visited ten
companies in the Arkansas. (Dale presented the packet of information he is
distributing to various companies.) This is basic information about our
Airport. Hopefully, as we grow with this program and meeting with the
Bernard and Dunkelburg planners in regard to the industrial park, we will
have additional information to put in that. We're improving our brochure
and telling about what we plan to do here. We're looking at doing a mass
mailing in the region to this industry to create a call in response from
17
LITTLE:
LITTLE:
people who might be interested. In July, I've made two trips to Oklahoma.
I have had the opportunity to visit with 22 aviation related industries
around the Airport in Tulsa. I want everybody to understand, I'm not
going there and knocking on the door and asking them to move to
Fayetteville. That is not our intent. We're not doing that. We are
educating them on what we are doing here at Drake and we would like for
those people to pass the word and network within their business and inform
people that we're building a new industrial park. That is the plan. If they
want to relocate, Alett and I would certainly like to visit with them about
what we have to offer here at this Airport. That's where we're at
Through this effort, we have talked with industries in Alabama, Texas and
a company out of California who like what we're doing and we'll be
networking with those companies. I feel good about that. We're talking to
a travel agent that is seriously looking at locating here. We're making
headway and knocking on doors and telling them what we're doing.
Hopefully, as we develop the industrial park, we'll be able to fill it up with
new industry from out of state.
We've learned some important things. One thing we have learned from the
state economic development agency is if it's an out of state business that
locates at the field, there are funds available that we can tap into. If it is an
in state business then we do not have funds available. Our next objective
after Oklahoma is probably Kansas. Those are aviation hot beds. We are
in the second generation of the marketing visits. What we are learning is
that our primary point of contact is not always the one that is generating
the leads. There are four very serious people that we are working with.
They came to us from the contacts Dale made with other businesses. The
third thing we are learning is that aviation is very much word of mouth and
reputations are very easy to check. Aviation is very tight knit and we have
checked on these business and they have very good reports on their
customer service and the quality of work that they do.
b. Staff update on Land Use Program
We are working with McClelland Engineers and Bernard Dunkelburg
which is a firm out of Tulsa. We had a visit this morning. We have
worked with them on the west side in the past and they will be giving us
some criteria to use for assessing the wetlands on the east side. They are in
a data gathering phase right now. We were able to give them almost all of
the data that they needed to complete their work, with the exception of
wetlands, from the resources that we have at the City. We gave them
almost all of the information they needed to begin their planning effort.
They were very pleased to learn about our GIS system and the information
18
•
we have already accumulated. We have the 10 foot contours and that is all
that is necessary for planning purposes. We have talked to them about
areas for expansion of T -hangars and corporate hangars. We have eight
planned on the far east side of the field. We would like to expand that
number. They are particularly looking at construction of the parallel
taxiway and the best location for that. They are looking at how many acres
can be opened up for additional industrial development and also looking at
the location of the turf runway. Where it is on our current Master Plan is
in a place that is going to impact our future development and if there is a
way that we can relocate that, we would certainly like to do that. We had
a very productive meeting with them and I'm happy to report that they will
back to you with a general proposal by your meeting in October. They are
looking forward to bringing that to you.
LYALL: Are we waiting on that before Lancaster Drive?
LITTLE: No. The Lancaster Drive extension has been approved by City Council.
We have received those plans and they are at the FAA and we have
received verbal approval. We are waiting on written approval. We do
have the go ahead to proceed and we will be advertising that. It will be in
this weekend's paper. The prebid conference is scheduled for Monday,
July 14, at 10:30 a.m. and the bid opening is scheduled for Monday, July
15 at 2 p.m. The roadway will be shortened because it was headed into the
pond and we would have had a cost for fill of the pond. That was not a
major cost but it is entitlement money and we want to make it go as far as
we possibly can. We have agreed not to paint the centerline stripe. In this
city, we don't typically do that in residential areas and I feel like until we
get that industrial area opened it is not a necessity. We looked very closely
at the lighting. One of the things we are doing is putting up breakaway
lighting but we have stationary telephone poles over there and in some
cases they are right next to the breakaway lights. I'm checking on how
much more that would cost to put underground. Service is underground to
the tower then goes above ground to the pump plant then it goes back
underground. We have a very short section which I'm hoping we can get
added to the project. It's going very well. Thirty days after the bid
opening on the 21', we should be under construction.
LYALL: We don't have to put sidewalks in.
LITTLE: No. You don't have a requirement to put any money in the bank for that.
c. Staff update on Sale of Fire Truck
LITTLE: Thanks to the efforts of Mickey Jackson. They have picked up the fire
19
truck and it is on its way to Dallas.
McKINNEY: Did we get a check?
JACKSON: Purchasing has the check.
McKINNEY: It will go into the Airport budget, right?
LITTLE: Yes.
COLLIER: Do we gain any revenue from the other fire related training?
LAWSON: No.
McKINNEY: I look at that as good will type thing between departments.
COLLIER: I'm not suggesting that we should.
d. Stats update on T -hangars "F" and "G."
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
Harrison Davis Construction received the contract and they have been
given the Notice to Proceed. The building is under construction and is
expected to be delivered the first or second week of September. Two
weeks prior to the delivery of the building, the contractor will begin the
foundation preparation work so that when the building is delivered, it will
be able to be erected quickly. We asked about a completion date and we
believe it will be near the end of the year. It's coming along fairly well.
ITEM #6: Other Business
John Kalagias with the museum had to leave. On September 9, the Drake
Field Pilots Club is having a Fly In Pancake Breakfast. We will post fliers.
On September 16, the Remote Control Aircraft is having another function
here by the Museum. I saw Leon out there with his grandson last fall and
he said he loved it. It was a real good function. It's amazing what some of
these remote control aircraft models will do and the size of some of them.
Some are one-fifth scale models and they're pretty sizable, too. That starts
about eight or nine in the morning. Alett, you and Doc have been working
on a presentation for September. How is that coming?
On Tuesday of this week, I met with Marvin Hilton and reviewed the tape
with him and he has two cameramen. One is Jeff Wake. Jeff is getting
married and will be leaving on the 11'". The other is Fru Gallagher. Fru is
20
•
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
•
on vacation and won't be back until the 21'. What we have decided to do
is have Jeff film the interviews and leave them and Fru will help me edit the
tape and put the production together. What we are doing is a video like
the AOPA on the value of general aviation airports to a community. We
are going to do a sister piece of the value of Drake Field to Fayetteville.
We would like to keep it under 15 minutes but it could be more. I had
hoped that Doc would be around to do our opening on that, so we will
tape it. It's underway.
We discussed a little bit about the time set for a meeting between the
Council and the Mayor to talk about the viability of this board and to
improve communication. Have you heard any response from them? I
talked to the Mayor and he said he would be there.
Actually, the invitations have not gone out. I will get that done post haste.
You had additional information.
I have distributed to you an additional report. I did not attend the City
Council meeting on Tuesday night. I understand that in addition to the
discussion about leases of parking spaces, they talked about the Drake
Field's T -hangar leases. We have always followed the rule that anything
$20,000 or Tess could be approved by the Mayor. He was granted that
authority and we have followed that with regard to our leases on this field.
If the revenue to us is less than $20,000, we make the negotiations, we deal
with the client, we bring it to you, you make a recommendation and the
Mayor signs off on it. That is a pretty good system. When we take it to
Council, it adds three weeks to the process and sometimes that is not the
best position for us to be in. Apparently, that was a big problem. 1988
was the last time that you discussed rates on T -hangars and it went to the
City Council and they set the rates on the T -hangars. At the same time, we
developed a standard T -hangar lease. As long as we use the standard T -
hangar lease and we charge those same rates, those just required the
Mayor's signature. I believe the only reason that Airport leases were
brought up at all is that there may have been some admiration for our
system and they were trying to get the same system in place for parking. I
don't have all the details and I have addressed this report to the City
Council as well as to this Board. I felt is was important for them to know
the history of how you have done business. I don't know if Council will
feel that it is necessary for us to change this at all. I would really like to
keep this system in place.
Do we have an established method by which this Board is involved in
21
•
•
•
•
•
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
deliberations regarding rates if and when that changes?
The rates have been set by the City Council at your recommendation. If
we change rates, and I'm not under the impression that we anticipate
changing rates from our last discussion, but that would be an item which
we would bring forward for your recommendation to the City Council.
I want to be sure that we continue our process of establishing some parity
around the Airport and what I didn't understand about some of the
discussion about the City Council's process was this would not create a
circumstance in which there would be different rates for different hangars
based on whatever negotiating process might occur. I want to keep parity
among the hangars.
That is a very important point. T -hangar rates are set. That is not a
discussion item. T -hangar leases do not come to you. When someone
comes in and applies and pays money, we rent them a T -hangar. Beyond
that, other leases are negotiated separately. The parity part of that comes
in with the staff oversight and the Airport Board's recommendation to the
City Council. We don't have an established rate per square foot. I would
like for us to get to that. It would make it much simpler. We have an
established rate for ground leases. We don't have a set rate per square foot
on the corporate hangars. In the future, I think the eight corporate hangars
we are planning should be very kin to the T -hangars. There should be set
rate and when a client comes along give them all the same base rate.
With corporate hangars, there could be some irregularities which you
would have to adjust or negotiate based on circumstance to circumstance
but it would be nice if we had a basic rate from which we begin.
LITLE: I agree.
BURGGRAF: Last time in our discussion about rates, like a percentage of the
amortization costs of the facility.
WALLACE:
There are any number of fair ways to come at it. At this point, we
probably have a variety of rates beyond the rates. They are standard but
we certainly have a variety of rates and it always comes up that somehow,
someone has not been treated fairly. I would like to get a base rate then
staff would have something to stand on when they negotiate the
irregularities and additional features. It's the little pieces that seem to drive
the rate as opposed to how much space or whatever.
22
•
•
•
•
•
COLLIER:
Several meetings ago, there was the possibility of maybe allowing for a
ground lease and construction of private corporate hangars. In the
industrial park, would that be a possibility?
LITTLE: There is always the ability to have a ground lease and build your own
hangar.
COLLIER:
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
On T -hangars, if you should choose to lower rates for an incentive for new
people to come in, would that be something that would have to go before
the Council routine?
The only thing that we would not have to take to Council and I wouldn't
do it without bringing it to you first, is to have a period of time such as one
month for a signed year or two months for two years of incentive rating. If
they would take the incentive, they would commit to us for "x" amount of
time. We may not need to do that. We are receiving clients from Fort
Smith. There are three on the waiting list. Apparently, our rates are very
attractive.
I'd like all of us to be able to speak with clarity about matters that concern
the future of the Airport and one of those would have to do with really
understanding where we stand financially. I know I have said some things
over the last year based on information that turned out to be mcorrect.
Bluntly put, I was under the impression that we were generating a
$300,000 per year deficit. Then I discover that now, we are within
$12,000 if we continue our trend. At our last meeting we were at $6,000.
We're very close to breaking even. That's a long way from a $300,000
deficit. I would have represented us better and in different ways if I had
had that information. Given that, I move that the Board be provided
with a monthly or quarterly summary of the financial state of the
Airport both operating and capital. That way all of us could go out in
the world and represent the Airport clearly.
LYALL: I'll second that.
LITTLE: Quarterly is certainly doable I know that even the report that we gave you
in July was an unaudited report ending May. Steve Davis said he would
have been reluctant to release figures any earlier than that Quarterly
wouldmake our financial people more comfortable. I should tell you that
I've been cautioned several times that it is an unaudited number and it does
not include depreciation and transfers.
BURGGRAF: There is a big difference between the scale of what we were told and what
23
•
LITTLE:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
McKINNEY:
WALLACE:
LITTLE:
McKINNEY:
SPERANDEO:
LITTLE:
•
actually occurred.
I think that you are correct in that. The number that you were given is an
actual number. That is money that we don't have and we really need. The
other numbers are the depreciation numbers and transfers to cover support
from other parts of the City. I could deal better with the actual number and
then that number.
I would simply like what goes into us and what goes out. How much
money did we take in and how much did we spend? If somebody has time,
calculate the difference. Otherwise, I'll do it myself. I'd just like to know
the basic number of income and expense so that when somebody says,
"You guys are out there with a City facility that's worth millions of
dollars—you're losing thousands of dollars every month—it's a bunch of
playboy pilots sitting around out there at the City's expense" and all the
other kinds of things you hear, I can honestly say, "Not so." I could
represent us well if 1 do that.
I would like to get a little credit for getting you those numbers. I'm sorry
it has caused the controversy but the first things I did was to take a look at
that and I felt that was information which should be available to you. I
don't feel that it has been adequately represented. I want to be thanked for
taking time to get that number for you.
That was a very positive step, Alett. We appreciate it.
The transition from Dale to Alett has been very positive and I appreciate
what you're doing and the information that we're getting is excellent. Very
nice.
The next thing on my list was to thank Alett.
It helps a lot to have staff opinion ahead of time.
It puts me on the line but I felt like it was my job to give you my opinion.
Is there discussion of the motion?
The pilots appreciate the expedited way you and your staff made the signs
on the side of the building.
You provided us with an estimate and we took it to the City Traffic
Department and they made a an excellent deal. It was $15 per sign for a
24
total of $150 and we now have our hangars identified and they are
reflective at night. We were glad to do that.
McKINNEY: Is there discussion of the motion? All those in favor?
ALL: Aye.
McKINNEY: That motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
e
Don Lyall, Sec tary Date
Minutes prepared by Janet Johns
25
Fayetteville reppy�
Af�le_ 42311 A -z
F1rett
on who nares st�atl n
BY ROBERT J. SMITH talked to-the-Fayetteville;Munici=
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZEIIE
jA)aliAl6iirt-Board on Thursday af-
FAYEITEVIl TY - The Fay- ternoon.
btteville fire chief said Thursday No tkpromiSes were 'made to
that he'll gladly share space with Jackson, but AuportManager and
another tenant in a fire;station. at Economic. Development Director
the Fayetteville'Municipal Air ''Alett Little" said Jackson has
port . agreed to the Potential "stritor"con-
Still; .Mickey Jackson wants -the.: sidering Drake. Field as a location
final word on who gets the spot for its.new.office.
"We'd like to retain gqitea bit Little said that by October she
cf say-so,". Jackson said" as he See ST,T10N, Page 5B
Arkansas Democrat:i 61(bazettel.
Station ended after: commercial -
airline
• Continuedfrom'Page.1B .
could have a tcleakivorked out that
Will allow the -fire station -to° be'
iised as a firefighter training site
and as a location=for, a federal"
agency that needs th office and a
place for threeplanes. Fayetteville'
fs one of five cities; being consid-
erect bythe suitbr.Little declined.
to 'say more aboiltthe suitor.
"We think it, will be compati
tkile,'; Little said.:
The airportTiire' station, corn -
"led in 1999'is yseditiostly, as'a
ai}ilng Site Stating of the station
traffic left'the auportlast Steal;in.
favor of the. Northwest..Aricansas
Regional Airport at.Highfill asaa
commercial flight hub? tr
-'' 'Jackson remains interested in
the building. He sees the current
- building asphase oneof a;training
area 'He hopes to see itexpanded
to'include a concrete b6rn build-
ing and &four- or five -story drill
tower in 2004 --That tower: would be
east of the north southrunways:.
The U S.iDepartmentof,Trans-
portation grant paid for 90 percent
of the $720,000 building. City and
state money,coyered the
The classroom inthe;station is
used by .Fayetteville police and
firefighters, and Central Emer-
gency Medical Service'Iiolds emer-
gency medical technician certifi-
cation at the site.
"It's .away from the hubbub of
the other stations," Jackson said.
"It's an ideal location to build our
training center."
Jackson admitted he originally
was skeptical'about sharing the
station with a•tenant. -
I- got'agittlerdefensive because
someone else was wanting to sell
our building," -he said.
Little said the building would
be leased, notsold, to the potential
suitor:
Fayetteville
?'inns. Air .OK'd:: o sell aviation fuel
Competltor-protests substantiallyJower cost of operation . in. agreement
BY ROBERT I: SMITH
-' ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZERE
,A -.FAYETPEVII T.F — A Drake
Field business was given permission
on Thursday to:selhfuel,at:the airr
port over the objections of a com-
petitor.
o. KemSchossow of -Wings Air.Inc:
gained the' Fayetteville Municipal
Airport Board's approval of his;plan
to -sell fuel for airplanes. He'll pay.
$32 a,month for'space onthe'south•
end of the airport for a 5,000 -gallon,
self-service fueling tank• owned' by
Ai±BritishPetroleum.
it Schossow delayed' leasing space
inthe airport's terminal building un-
tihat least next year so he couldget
the fuel business started quickly. He
Wants the self -serve business to be in
operationwithinsix weeks to: catch
the football crowd:" During.football
season; dozens of private' airplanes
arrive`at the Fayettevilleaiiport on
Saturday mornings Icarrying people
to University of Arkansas games.
Despite objections in letter writ-
ten by Chuck Chadwick of Fayette-
ville -Air Service;thetairport's fixed -
base operator, lioard members ap-
proved thcagreement':with =Wings
Am Chadwick argued that Willis Air
was,offered a 'substantially,' lower
cost of operation because;the`agre-
ment doesn't hold' WhigSAirtip to
the same -Standard as'his company:
He wrote that the agreement isn't in
the best interest oftheairport
"Do you have anyytype'of retort to
that?" Board Chairman Rick McKin-
ney asked Schossow.
"I just see this as fair competi-
tion," Schossow said.
Board Member Charles Wallace
said.the-board sbouldn't limit com-
petition. -
.It's not our role to keep someone
f om:doing business on our airport,"
Wallace said. "He's met the standard
we'veasked hire to meet It's not un-
fair compehhon '
Fayetteville'Au °Sernce, which
pays $640 a month for use of the city's
fueling facility, has been offered:a
deal similar to Wings Au'sifitwobld
move into the terminal building as
Wings Air plans to do next year, said
Airport Manager Alett Little. Chad-
wick has rejected moving into -the
terminal building.•
Fayetteville Airport Board table.,-,
• first hief A training -center proposal
' By,MATTrWAGNER� ; .:",;
Awaiting an update==on a
prospective tenant's interest in
leasing -space inside the vacant fire
station at Drake Field, the
Fayetteville,Alrpoit Board agreed
Thursdayto table; the fire; chiefs
proposal to exphcttlyFdesignate the
building a fire trairnngc?'entert'
Fayetteville Fire Chief Mickey
Jackson informed the board he 'got a
■= See .Airport :BpardLA6
•
ti `-ANDYSHUPE Staff Photographer.[
Fire Station No 3 stands unmanned at Drake Field in Fayetteville
Thursday. -
•
•
in
rn .t"
Z1 7 n m 7. c X 7 r.r-
No� 0 p C::... .
7 w C r.w w W .3 z.
a)
w ~ , rn no n 7..-. n
M O n n
•
m 6 n a ti .� •.,. C 7 p O. CO ,. 0
•
Q -m - N
a<
=
CO.
.:z NQ
Q
0
-m n Qr -- w
• •
w y GrD " " w 7
w
w n n n w
c-n.`ct0 m m o noa
m 0 3 n
•lD .-.S -n T 7
0
T
T
q'7•.n C 7n n
r!oa 3 p
n
r;3v n' w 3rD n`K<,<
0-:0-1 sono. cr. 0-'w
CD
O 9 `G O' ° o p' Wt.< -3'
w 0'
Y O Carrt
n mb nw 4Pmi ,r - n ao
m • c o � 3< 0 w x d° o
41
to
c ▪ CL Et w (DD CYnn (3....
A.07a ( 3Ory.."i (it
n
C w! 7 'R' 9..P, n - m 6!)-(7•4,
.07a C }}U GU N n .a P. co .-:7,-:0. n
C W +.D ' - ld,C-75.18.1“, Gi
D,i far
O r. 5", -co 7 " 7 7
• ‘<-6110,•=0.24
nc..r
n w n 3 0.t ti
W ..
. r"D w 0 7 W
5.
w do y 7
d O (n Cr
c7 ro
0. n CD w d
n.
Ona ro .may (0..`y- g.
aP 7.N:7b
!nY:d w n
Op n L 7.....
..
o n n o
o 0. 0 "
2.7w0
pw<r�e `.
o w 7.
n
n ci,y: n.;.
w ( Et.rv._
w
RmE0
C. o rD �• __..
re rD
x^'w `0 �-.
rD '�...r
rD' O -
Y _ 0
o n w N M
13-N .a(0
_ n
Y xaa Oa
o
y
Pe. n-< .wg
.y 5-. 5". v 7 Y E 0-.00 ... 7. 00
0a r3D. G-.iyd. 0
n
f, Rem. c o cD w P .tr", 0" 7 O: �b
Y . ""
7 w n
n C w rD E w z- - -a-Q(1
re n o 7 to
w C^ .1 a74: a .G'". , .`r".':' C a?
aw=•w ° E?o =6.I 'w.l..<Z 0'0 O'=s
R* W r0D O w n 0q a y
N.
• Ca..- Tw w
F. - n 7' u rn n
O n
fy ' roD al C d �" 5 m Gra7' X
`
rt
O E 7 w w < n G
(? (D m v co - d d7 m .� n
W n n-
5.: w -N
GO n.•-• -'- Foch pE c E 5--m m < °:
n -0- m n o 0, 7' _O, n 7 n
m'-cr r 8".Y C m o MtO ro
Co.,:',00.9, 0yo Wga`a ,45 -`Di w
0 pOH E x w< m 9
n O n
n.d n O
�"
11,2f0•° -
'w 7 < 7.fit m'o 9
07•.• w w-0 7 -(no w r* .
Pict) - w C rD b 7' o n w um
o w n. b 7 CD
n Y
"* rn 'o n o
a'Oa .n+b 3 y 7 n < p 'O d< C• 7
C °, n< n �' E. = E r, m p W ^G. O n m G O
P D=<"< O n? 0,:g
�J
r.s fi3-w:w t 0r.. d r? c o
Ego
rt rn$3yln =n Y 7' rD i- r? lD < Q
�y w Y m d m
144;6445=14,0
'a,op. ncpo3m "5.1:�`3 nw`3'
�•np 3Cn " t7j 7w
ro.,0, Ls• OD. n `� N n 6 o n.
Oa4 ....p.d 0. 3. 0 4.2.1-.0 Y O- w -n
3 p o...S.._ n w N
3'"2' �.:-x7 o W T p' c (o " ^ S 7-p r7D
per. m.O n CD 97 Y n-gi-c d3 CJ'.0 T.n 0.
ri•rn n O `C �: n- rnt <p (o 7 0 Y 0" 0
n n O Y Y 'Y 04 n `OL
• 0- 7 7
7 d