Alva Review-Courier -

The Alva Airport Commission meeting Tuesday was dominated by discussions on building security and the turf runway. The only vote taken was to approve the minutes of the September meeting.

Airport Manager Greg Robison reported the sale of 2,939.10 gallons of 100LL gas with 2,442.2 of that sold at the pump. Sales totaled $12,149.69. The airport sold 1,025 gallons of Jet-A fuel, all from the pump, for $3,485.00. With the addition of some oil sales, total sales for September were $15,681.27.

Robison provided an email on the turf runway from Toby Baker, P.E. with CEC Corporation, the airport’s engineering firm. Baker said the first cone marker must be 290 feet from 18-36, the main runway, and 240 feet from the worked ground on the west, bringing the total length of the turf runway to about 1,360 feet. “This is significantly less than what I believe the board thought was available,” said Baker. He said the runway could be submitted to the FAA for publishing (so pilots will be aware of its existence), and more length can be added later if desired.

Paul Kinzie said, “I would think we should go ahead and get it published.” Robison added that the designation of the runway is 9-27 instead of 8-26 as previously expected.

Robison said he talked with Dick Caruthers of Cherokee about running a packer over the turf runway to smooth it out. The price will be $125 per hour. With the 170 ft. wide by 1900 ft. long area, Caruthers thinks it could be done in a day. “He’s not guaranteeing it, but he thinks it will help,” said Robison. However, Caruthers said he’s never done a runway before. His experience is with oilfield work.

Commission Chairman Dale Logsdon said, “I think it’s smooth enough the way it is.”

Terry Turner said, “I drove down it with a pickup and I think it’s too rough.” He said local pilot Bruce Papon has landed his plane on it and “says the same thing.”

“I think we should do everything we can to make it as good as possible,” added Turner. “At $125 an hour and a day, we’re talking $1200 approximately. It’s not like we’re bankrupt.”

“I’ve landed on it,” said Logsdon. “I thought it was smooth. I was surprised how smooth it was. I found on my runway down south at my farm, it’s considerably rougher feeling in a vehicle than it is in an airplane. I’m not sure why that is.”

“I guess it depends on your definition of roughness,” said Turner. “In my opinion if it’s rough in a vehicle, it’s going to be rough in an airplane.”

“It’s smoother than our old grass trip was,” said Logsdon.

Robison said he was willing to do whatever the board members wanted. “I would like a consensus from the board on it.”

Logsdon said since the item wasn’t on the agenda, no vote could be taken.

“Procedurally that’s not an amount the board has to approve, but if there’s not a consensus, I would say it’s not an amount maybe we should spend,” said Kelly Parker. Since he’s not a pilot, Parker didn’t have an opinion on the smoothness of the runway. He said his concern was safety.

Kinzie said he was concerned about having work done on the runway because last time, when the runway was sprigged, it ended up rougher than before.

Parker said, “How about we get it on the agenda, and we take action, and we can quit talking about it at every meeting.” Logsdon agreed saying, however, the matter could end up tabled.

AWOS Security

Robison said he recently received a manual for the AWOS (automated weather observing system) which provides automated weather reports for the airport. According to the manual, the building should be locked up to protect the AWOS. “The way this terminal is constructed, it’s not possible to just lock the office,” he said. “I would like to see us get the glass enclosure up there on the counter.” He considers this a priority. Logsdon pointed out security was the next item on the agenda.

Airport Terminal Security

Robison provided the commission members with three different estimates or quotes on security measures they had discussed. Two were only for enclosing the office with glass. The third included changes to a door. The first two were for $2,400 and $2,100.

Robison said the $2,400 estimate from Jeff Black was for a solid glass enclosure along the counter leaving approximately one foot open at the top for air circulation. It would use a “kind of shower door track” on the inside of the counter. He favored this one because he thought the work would be done in a timely manner.

The $2,100 estimate from Earl Harvey was for a similar installation but had less detail. Robison said he thought the track would be wider.

Parker said the board needed to have some reason to choose the higher bid over the lower bid.

“I’m not against doing it,” said Kinzie. “But for me there’s not enough information to make sure it’s done the way you’d like to see it done.”

Parker looked over the third combined proposal by Mark Reed and said it could be even less for just the glass installation. The labor portion was not broken down into different parts of the project so it was hard to tell. He asked Robison if he could go back to each of the three and ask for a quote on 72 inch by 48 inch glass trimmed out and installed.

“We just need to compare apples to apples,” said Kinzie. He asked that the quotes include an estimate of the number of days needed to complete the work.

Parker went a bit further, asking that quotes include “how quick can they start. How quick can they get it done once they start?”

Robison said with the glass enclosure, the office can be locked up. “My big thing is the office,” he said. He said the security for the door was already in place.

“That’s going to be a lot more cost effective than changing the doors out,” said Parker.