Mark / Nancy, Attached are two documents from Garver detailing our CIP program from FY10 through FY14, as discussed in our meeting with TX-DOT (Daniel Benson, Harry Lorton, and Ed Oshinski). Several items are worth noting. ñ Construction for the runway lighting and signage plus the lateral RSA grading and drainage improvements have been moved into FY10, with the runway overlay project. The consensus was that construction would most likely commence in April 2011. Current thinking is to (1) pre-qualify bidders for the runway work to ensure we get someone who is capable and experienced in this type of work, and (2) bid the entire project as one package, which will get the interest of some bigger firms. I will also note that the estimated project cost ($11.21 Million) for all of these improvements is less than what was originally anticipated ($12.69 Million) for the runway overlay project by itself. We are getting more work for less money. ñ TX-DOT (and evidently FAA as well) have raised a concern with Garver doing the EMAS feasibility study. EMAS design and construction oversight – should the project be approved / funded – is already in Garver’s scope of work. Therefore, there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest in allowing Garver to conduct the EMAS feasibility study. What TX-DOT suggested is that we go through another consultant selection process to get someone else to conduct the EMAS feasibility study. The alternative is to allow Garver to proceed with the feasibility study, at the cost of taking the EMAS design / construction oversight away from them. Since the EMAS design and construction is the bigger project, I think Garver would rather have that … but at present, it is not a certainty that the EMAS will be approved and funded. My recommendation here is to go with another consultant selection process to do the EMAS feasibility study, and I think it would be reasonable to insist on a company having some experience with EMAS. ñ TX-DOT indicated support for our Access Control project for FY11, but they would like for us to provide a more detailed scope (which we will do within 2 weeks). We will start by inventorying our perimeter fence and gates, then identify gates for card reader / key pad access controls (our main vehicle gates), then identify locations for cameras. The gate inventory will include TTF and on-airport tenant-controlled gates; eventually, we will have a photo inventory of gates linked to an aerial image, with a listing of gates / doors by type and responsible party. I specifically asked Daniel Benson whether I needed to send a formal Letter of Intent (LOI) for this and subsequent projects, but he said my prior e-mails would suffice. ñ Daniel lumped reconstruction of the fuel farm apron and the east end of Twy Quebec – the parts we did not have enough money to complete – in with the reconstruction of Twy Alpha, with design in FY11 (for both) and construction in FY12. Frank McIllwain questioned the logic of putting the two items together as a single project, since the fuel farm area will be reconstructed in concrete and Alpha (presumably) would be reconstructed / overlaid with asphalt (so there would be no cost savings benefit in bidding them together). At that point, Ed Oshinski suggested that perhaps Alpha needs to be reconstructed in concrete (which I think is not a bad idea at all) … so the design / PER phase for Twy Alpha will include consideration of both asphalt and concrete. The more I think about it, the better I like the idea of concrete for Twy Alpha: it certainly looks feasible, and it would likely last longer and be easier to maintain. ñ For FY13, our project would be reconstruction of the western 800 feet of Twy Tango; I only hope Tango holds together for three more years. I explained our idea to relocate/realign the east half of Tango (to parallel to Toll Tunnel) and redevelop that area. Everyone present seemed to agree that makes good sense. ñ Also in FY13 is a Master Plan Update. I’m not certain TX-DOT is prepared (yet) to commit the level of funding that I expect this will require: we will need to have GIS-compatible surveys and an electronic Airport Layout Plan (“e-ALP”) come out of this, but Daniel suggested that maybe we could do without updating the obstruction survey. “NextGen” air traffic control will require GIS-type data for just about everything, including obstructions, so I don’t see how we could NOT do a new obstruction survey, but I did not see any benefit in pushing that issue just now. ñ Taxiways Uniform and Victor drainage improvements have been pushed back to FY14; the other projects are clearly higher priority. I think the meeting with TX-DOT went quite well. As noted in a previous e-mail, they are giving us just about everything we ask for in our CIP. Our CIP is ambitious already (as it needs to be!) and if we tried to do more we would be very hard pressed to generate the matching funds (not to mention keeping up with the workload). Our five-year (FY10-FY14) CIP total stands at $31.3 Million as currently proposed and with the exception of EMAS, I would say TX-DOT is completely on board with that. With respect to the EMAS, I think we can – and will – make that case. Regards, Joel Joel Jenkinson Director, Addison Airport main: (972) 392-4850 fax: (972) 788-9334 ________________________________ From: McIllwain, Frank O. [mailto:FOMcIllwain@GarverUSA.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:48 PM To: Jenkinson, Joel Cc: joe.mcanally@addisonairport.net; McAnally, Mitchell, R Subject: ADS - Updated CIP Joel: We have updated the CIP worksheet and exhibit to reflect the comments from TxDOT during our meeting yesterday. The updated CIP worksheet and exhibit are attached. Frank McIllwain, PE Senior Project Manager Aviation Team Leader Office: 972-377-7480 Ext: 222 Mobile: 214-250-3967 E-mail: FOMcIllwain@GarverUSA.com