Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/7/2005 - Special March 7, 2005 277 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 March 7, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, Room 159, Roanoke, Virginia, for the purpose of a joint meeting with the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (CITY OF ROANOKE) Mayor Harris welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that Roanoke City Council was reconvening as of 12:10 p.m. and that all members were present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor C. Nelson Harris, Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; James Grigsby, Fire-EMS Chief; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (COUNTY OF ROANOKE) Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at 12:11 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph McNamara, Michael A. Wray MEMBER ABSENT: Supervisor Joseph B. “Butch” Church March 7, 2005 278 STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer; Richard E. Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION) Chair James M. Turner, Jr., called the meeting to order for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission at 12:12 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James M. Turner, Jr., Vice-Chair Jane Milliron, Commission Members J. Granger MacFarlane, Claude N. Smith, Arthur M. Whittaker, Sr. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacqueline L. Shuck, General Manager; Amanda DeHaven, Marketing and Communications Coordinator; Dan Neel, Director of Administration and Finance; Cathy Pendleton, Secretary; Efren Gonzalez, Deputy Executive Director; Roger Bohm, Network Administrator; Mark Williams, Attorney for the Commission IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Council Member Dowe. Lunch was served from 12:12 p.m. until 12:30 p.m. IN RE: COUNTY AND CITY AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT Mayor Harris advised that the agenda deals primarily with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission but there was one non-Airport item which relates to the County and City automatic aid agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) operations. He advised that this is a very positive development for both March 7, 2005 279 jurisdictions and called upon Roanoke City Fire Chief Jim Grisgby and Roanoke County Chief Richard Burch for their comments. Chief Grigsby noted that the automatic aid agreement would benefit both the City and the County because there would be a predetermined response to an incident initiated through the 9-1-1 system of the jurisdiction in which the incident is occurring without being specifically requested, thereby getting a quick response from the closest station. He stated that after reviewing the recorded data, there would be an even split of reciprocity, and he feels this agreement will be another success. Chief Burch commented that regional cooperation has a proven track record, giving examples of the regional Fire/EMS training center which was started in 1998 and the Clearbrook co-staff operations, and stated that this effort would be another example. Chairman Altizer stated that jurisdictional boundaries should not jeopardize response time to save lives; citizens who are in a life threatening situation would not care whether the rescue personnel are volunteers from Roanoke City or Roanoke County. Their main objective is to tend to their loved ones or anyone in need which is what this agreement accomplishes. In the Mount Pleasant area where the rescue squad is located, and with Garden City and parts of Roanoke City being on the border line, the response time will be less than having to wait for a rescue unit to come from Jamison Avenue. He believes that the regional automatic aid agreement will benefit this area and north County, and that the citizens expect this type of cooperation March 7, 2005 280 from elected officials. He advised that the automatic aid agreement is now before the County Board for discussion. Supervisor Flora commented that this was a win-win situation for the City and County, and commended Chiefs Grisby and Burch for their efforts. He noted that the experimental project at Clearbrook has been incredibly successful, and that this effort is a natural progression of that project. He believes there are more opportunities to come to embellish on what has been accomplished. He stated that today’s world is very political, but this is one thing that has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and that it is incredibly refreshing to be a part of something that is not politically pressing. He stated that he would like to move approval of the agreement. Supervisor Wray stated he also had experience in the Clearbrook situation; he was part of it when it began; it has been a good relationship with the community and the City; and he concurred with the remarks of Chairman Altizer that people do not care who provides assistance, they want someone as quickly as possible when they make an emergency phone call. He commended the leaders in the community for taking the steps to make these efforts work and expressed appreciation to Chiefs Grisby and Burch for their efforts. Chairman Altizer stated that Supervisor Flora had moved approval of the automatic aid agreement, and asked the Clerk to call the roll. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer March 7, 2005 281 NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church R-030705-1 and A-030705-1.a RESOLUTION 030705-1 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE FOR FIRE AND RESCUE AUTOMATIC AID IN THE HOLLINS AND MOUNT PLEASANT AREAS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, §§ 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.9, of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, authorizes local governments to cooperate in the furnishing of fire and emergency medical response and related rescue issues; and WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke have demonstrated a pattern of successful cooperation through the joint operation of the Fire and Rescue Training Center and in the co-staffing arrangement of the County’s Clearbrook station; and WHEREAS, the City and the County have determined that their regional cooperation efforts can be expanded to provide automatic aid for fire and rescue services in each jurisdiction, specifically in the Hollins and Mount Pleasant areas of the County and the North Williamson Road and Garden City areas of the City, by automatically dispatching the closest fire or rescue equipment to an E-911 call, regardless of the location; and WHEREAS, this cooperative concept of automatic aid to both County and City will improve public safety and service to its citizens by improving response times on both fire and rescue calls in the targeted areas and eliminating the occurrence of emergency equipment actually passing other fire stations on route to an emergency response. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board hereby approves the Fire and Rescue Automatic Aid Agreement to provide these services in the Hollins and Mount Pleasant areas of Roanoke County and the North Williamson Road and Garden City areas of Roanoke City, in substantially the form as attached to this resolution, and authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute this Agreement on behalf of Roanoke County, upon a form as approved by the County Attorney. 2. That the County and the City agree to develop and adopt operational, communication, dispatch, safety and medical protocols that meet professional standards for the effective implementation of this Agreement. All operational March 7, 2005 282 protocols are to be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Fire Chiefs of the County and the City. 3. That the services performed and expenditures made under this Agreement shall be deemed to be for legitimate public and governmental purposes and all immunities from liability enjoyed by the County and its fire/emergency medical services and resource personnel within its boundaries shall extend to its personnel wherever located during their participation under this Agreement. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church Mayor Harris asked if there were any members of Council who wished to make comments at this time. There being none, Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Roanoke City’s resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with Roanoke County for Fire and Rescue Automatic Aid in Station 11 and Station 13 service areas of the City of Roanoke. The motion was second by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Harris, Fitzpatrick, Cutler, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff NAYS: None Mayor Harris advised that this is a very positive development in the mutual ability of the City and County to provide reduced response times. There are already good working examples which have benefited both jurisdictions and the same will occur with this agreement. March 7, 2005 283 Supervisor Flora advised Chairman Altizer that he wanted to clarify that his motion approved the agreement and related funding for the additional positions. In response to Chairman Altizer’s inquiry if a second motion was necessary, Mr. Mahoney responded that he understood Supervisor Flora’s motion to include both items. Mayor Harris expressed appreciation to the respective staffs for their hard work on a matter that serves both jurisdictions. IN RE: ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT PRESENTATION Mayor Harris stated that, as a result of monthly meetings with the Chairman of the County Board, Mr. Hodge and Ms. Burcham, and since there are now a number of regional authorities and commissions such as the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and Virginia Western Water Authority, it was decided that it would be mutually beneficial for the City Council and County Board to meet with the particular regional boards and commissions, and the meeting with the Airport Commission was scheduled for today. Chairman Turner expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the County Board and City Council, and introduced the members serving on the Airport Commission. He also introduced the staff members who were present. Chairman Turner gave an overview of the history of the formation of the Roanoke Regional Airport, stating that in the early 1980’s, there was a desire in the valley to construct a new terminal. He advised that it was decided that this would be a regional operation. In 1986, the General Assembly passed legislation that set up the March 7, 2005 284 Airport Commission as an independent governmental body in the Commonwealth. He advised that in 1987, the City of Roanoke transferred the Airport property to the Commission, and the County pledged $2.6 million dollars to the Commission which they paid over a 10-year period. The City of Salem donated $1 million toward the construction of the new terminal. One of the first things the Airport Commission did was to issue bonds for construction of the new terminal and support facilities, and the grand opening took place in 1989. He stated that at the time the Commission was created, the City of Salem did not want a seat on the Commission so the legislation authorized five commissioners, three to be appointed by City Council and two by the County Board of Supervisors, which were then either members of the Board of Supervisors or employees of the City of Roanoke. There was an understanding that eventually it would be a citizens’ committee. He further stated that with the appointment of Jane Milliron in the late 1990’s, it became a citizens’ committee, and they serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors and City Council. The Commission is pleased to have the input and advice that is given from time to time, and especially today as all three entities are meeting together. He noted that most people view the Airport as a commercial flying service, but the Airport is more than that; it is one of the bigger businesses in the valley and is very capably managed by the excellent staff under the direction of the Executive Director, Jacqueline Shuck. He advised that the Commission asked Ms. Shuck to make a presentation on the airport and he introduced her at this time. March 7, 2005 285 IN RE: PRESENTATION BY JACQUELINE L. SHUCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT Ms. Shuck advised that she was asked to put together a presentation realizing that some of the officials present were not on the Council or the Board during the Airport’s entire history, and they wanted to take this opportunity to provide additional information. A.Background and facilities : (1) Airfield and Terminal: Ms. Shuck advised that the Airport consists of 800 acres and that new airports are never based on less than 2,000 acres. The Airport is hemmed in by roads and the mall and as a result, any time that they want to build something new, they have to tear something down first. The terminal was built in 1989 and has 96,000 square feet. They have six gates with four jet bridges and 1,882 total available parking places. (2) Employees: Ms. Shuck advised that the Commission employs or contracts 76 persons to keep the facility safe, clean and financially secure which include: (1) 10 Roanoke City firefighters who provide aircraft rescue and fire fighting services; (2) 35 security, law enforcement, safety and operations personnel; (3) 27 facilities and airfield maintenance personnel; (4) 16 finance and administration personnel and (5) 1 legal personnel. March 7, 2005 286 (3) Other Airport Businesses: Ms. Shuck advised that the Airport serves as home to 30 companies and agencies which provide services to the public or aviation users, and nearly 1,000 persons are employed or based at the Airport. (4) Economic Impact: Ms. Shuck advised that according to the 2004 Virginia Airport System Economic Impact Study, the Airport provides a direct economic impact of $347,709,000 and an indirect economic impact from Airport dependent businesses in the community of $285,283,000. Using $596 as the average visitor spending per trip, they calculated that the impact of the total air carrier passenger visitor spending was $79,806,000. This is very close to three quarters of a billion dollars in terms of economic impact of the Airport. B. Funding: (1) Operating Budget: Ms. Shuck advised that the Airport does not have any taxing authority and the sources of revenue for their $70 million budget is broken down as: (1) 31% - passenger airlines; (2) 26% - parking; (3) 19% - terminal tenants and concessions (4) 4% - general aviation; (5) 7% - cargo carriers; (6) 7% - non- operating revenue; and (7) 6% - other. Since 1998, the Commission’s Capital Program has virtually rebuilt the airfield. She referred to an aerial view of the Airport which shows the projects completed or to be completed in 2005 and those planned for the future. (2) Capital Projects and Revenue Sources : Ms. Shuck advised that the Commission has been very successful in competing for federal discretionary Airport March 7, 2005 287 funds and since 1998, they have received $14.5 million of federal entitlement funding and $46.8 million of discretionary funding. These funds were derived from 10% ticket tax imposed on airline passengers. Over the past years, they have either received $2.2 million or $1.6 million entitlement funds from the federal government but they have to compete with other airports for the discretionary funding. Nearly $60 million of improvements have been constructed at no direct cost to the airlines CAirport Aviation Sectors: . (1) General Aviation: Ms. Shuck advised that the Airport serves three distinct aviation sectors as follows: (1) General Aviation which includes private, corporate and fixed base operators; (2) Cargo; and (3) Passenger Carrier and Air Service. As of January 2005, the Airport is home to 125 general aviation aircraft, 91 single engine aircraft, 19 multi-engine piston aircraft, 9 multi-engine turbo prop aircraft, and 6 business jet aircraft. The general aviation area currently consists of 12 hangars and one general aviation terminal. Ms Shuck advised that new general aviation hangars are being built and a 14 unit T-hangar was fully leased before the certificate of occupancy was issued in September 2004. In February 2005, the Commission, working through the Virginia Resource Authority, issued $1.4 million in bonds to fund an 18,000 square foot storage hangar capable of storing larger corporate jet aircraft. Millions of dollars are being invested to rehabilitate and upgrade the general aviation area infrastructure. Redevelopment of the north side of the general aviation area began in 2001 with a $2.3 March 7, 2005 288 million project to upgrade utilities, drainage and paved surfaces. Building sites have been created for up to four hangars. The second phase of redevelopment begins in spring at the cost of $2 million. All paved surfaces should be rehabilitated by 2006 or 2007. (2) Cargo and Large Aircraft Maintenance: Ms. Shuck advised that the three major cargo carriers which operate at the Airport include: (1) Airborne Express - 10 flights per week (DC-9 aircraft), 2,411,068 pounds of air freight in 2004; (2) Federal Express – 10 flights per week (Boeing 727 aircraft), 13,406,155 pounds of air freight in 2004; and (3) UPS – 18 flights per week (Boeing 757 aircraft), 9,739,945 pounds of air freight in 2004. After experiencing the same decreases in air freight that started to occur nationally in 2000, activity at the Airport has been gradually increasing. In addition to national cargo carriers, the Airport accommodates the needs of many small haulers. Falling somewhat outside of the three sectors is a maintenance facility for larger aircraft currently operated by Piedmont Airlines. In 2000, the Commission invested over $800,000 to rehabilitate a 49,296 square foot maintenance hangar built in the 1960’s. Piedmont Airlines maintains DeHavilland Dash 8 turbo prop aircraft, mostly at night, and employs 65 mechanics (3) Passenger Carriers and Air Service: Ms. Shuck advised that the Commission tracks the air traveling habits of persons living within its primary area of approximately 570,000 and secondary air service area of 350,000 people. The regional affiliates of four airlines operating at the Airport provide service through eight major March 7, 2005 289 hubs as follows: (1) US Airways Express: Charlotte – 8 flights, 4 jets, 4 turbo prop, 387 seats; New York LaGuardia – 3 flights, all turbo prop, 111 seats; Philadelphia – 4 flights, all turbo prop, 274 seats; (2) Northwest Airlink: Detroit – 4 flights, 2 jet, 2 turbo prop, 166 seats; (3) United Express: Chicago – 3 flights, all jets, 150 seats; (4) Washington, Dulles – 1 jet, 3 turbo prop, 299 seats; (5) Delta Connection: Atlanta – 5 flights, all jets, 250 seats; and Cincinnati – 4 flights, all jets, 200 seats. All of the planes have more than 33 seats and there are no 19 seat airplanes. Following the events of September 11, 2001, airline seats available for Roanoke passengers decreased by 25% and Ms. Shuck advised that she did not know if it would ever return to the level that existed prior to 2001. Ms. Shuck advised that while total departures and landings for military and commercial air carriers have remained fairly constant, general aviation operations continue to decrease. Despite a significant decrease in airline seats, the Airport’s average load factor for all flights has not increased dramatically. After three straight years of declining passengers following September 1, 2001, passenger numbers started to rebound in 2004. The airlines would like an 80-85% load factor of passengers, but this creates a very crowded and uncomfortable situation for passengers. Currently, the load factor is about 56%, which is not bad for a small community. There was a three year decrease of passengers after September 11, 2001, but there has been a 6% increase in 2004 and hopefully this trend will continue. March 7, 2005 290 Ms. Shuck advised that since its inception, the Commission has conducted passenger surveys which indicate that Roanoke City and Roanoke County residents, business travelers and guests comprise over 50% of the Airport’s passengers. While business passengers make up approximately 57% of Roanoke’s passengers, the following five companies are frequently identified as the employer or destination: (1) Virginia Tech (15 passengers per day); (2) General Electric (10 passengers per day); (3) Norfolk Southern (8 passengers per day); (4) Mead Westvaco (4 passengers per day); and (5) Advance Auto (3 passengers per day). Ms. Shuck advised that an average fare is computed by adding all of the fares during the year and dividing by the number of people. She referred to the information on the chart showing the ten year average domestic one way fare trend in 1994 dollars and advised that since 1997 when AirTran started operations, Greensboro’s average one way fare has been lower than those in Roanoke, Lynchburg and Charlotte. During a 12 month period from July 2003 through June 2004, approximately 32% of the passengers in Roanoke’s primary service area flew out of other airports. She advised that some people use other airports because of the price, kind and size of aircraft, and seat availability. The airline industry lost billions of dollars in 2004 and there is not a much brighter picture for 2005. Only three air carriers have made money with Southwest Airlines making $313 million which was about half of what they anticipated. The airline industry profit loss is due primarily to fuel prices and recent March 7, 2005 291 news suggests fuel prices will only get worse. Low airfare rates have also been a contributing factor. Ms. Shuck advised that although United is in bankruptcy and Delta is in danger of the same, a significant issue facing the Roanoke Airport is what will occur if US Airways liquidates. In 2004, US Airways Express provided 42% of all seats. It carried 249,500 total passengers or 40% of all Roanoke passengers. Using a reasonable load factor of 70%, the other carriers had a total of 89,500 available seats in 2004. That leaves a deficit of 160,000 seats if US Airways liquidates and no new service is added. Additional service by Delta and United would help tremendously. An analysis of US Airways’ passenger destinations and compatible route structures offered by other air carriers has been performed. They have identified United and Delta as the two primary carriers that could provide replacement service and met with both to have them consider providing replacement service as they prepare their contingency plans. Roanoke has a very small passenger base but does support the airline industry very well. Three additional flights to Atlanta on Delta Connection and four to Dulles on United Express would be very beneficial. To illustrate the gap that would be left by US Airways’ withdrawal, Ms. Shuck displayed charts showing US Airways’ share of domestic enplanements for airports in Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina as well as all of the airports served in the United States. All of these airports will be competing with Roanoke for replacement services. This is where the fact that Roanoke has been a strong supporter of air service and not in a situation where fares are March 7, 2005 292 undercut should prove beneficial. This is a big gap and there is not an airline which can fill the gap quickly and the question is how long it will take. Ms. Shuck advised that in order to increase Roanoke’s attractiveness to incumbent and new carriers, the Commission has been working to reduce Airport and Airport-related costs. In July 2005, the landing fee is expected to drop by 18 cents per thousand pounds of landed weight which will reduce the cost passed along to the airlines and create some savings for the carrier. In 2002, the Commission adopted an airline incentive program for new or improved air service which includes waiving land fees and rents with modest marketing money. They are considering hiring in-house employees who would create an “Airline Station” to save money. The Commission continues to seek low fare service with their initial target being AirTran, which is not going into the smaller market areas. Independence Air was a logical choice but they are not doing well financially. They continue to encourage additional service by legacy carriers such as Continental or American which currently operate out of the Airport. They are also working with the incumbent carriers, United and Delta, to increase and improve air service. D. Other areas and issues : Ms. Shuck advised that the Commission is anticipating improvements to the 16 year old terminal facility. They would like to replace the roof before it is necessary, expand the security checkpoint to two lanes, place the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) behind the baggage domes if possible, and improve the restrooms. They are very excited about the possibility of working with March 7, 2005 293 Roanoke City and retailers to realign the entrance into the Airport and set up a better traffic flow at Towne Square Boulevard and Aviation Drive. They have purchased property across from the cemetery on Airport Road for a future parking or rental car lot. They are also working with the City to purchase Fire Station No. 10, and the City may then build a new fire station closer to the residents. Ms. Shuck advised five years ago they were successful in getting the 24- hour tower re-opened and now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) because their funding is being decreased, wants to target the Roanoke tower and 46 other towers to reduce operations from midnight to 5:00 a.m. Roanoke has the only 24-hour tower in Southwest Virginia. Safety is a primary concern and a secondary issue is that the Commission will be unable to develop the land when the terminal is removed because of the visibility issues if the tower is not operated 24-hours. She stated that this situation is political and the solution is going to be political. Ms. Shuck advised that they have been working for several years on relocating the FAA radar because of the interference caused by the shadowing of the mountains and traffic on I-81. They have searched for a more suitable location for the radar and the site exists behind the Kroger Store at Towne Square and is already owned by the Commission. Another advantage of this site is that it is out of the way and the land could be developed. She is concerned about a funding cut for navigational aids and systems being proposed next year and stated that hopefully this will not stop the project. March 7, 2005 294 Ms. Shuck advised that the noise compatibility program will be concluded in 2006. The following two programs are currently underway: Aviation Easement Acquisition Program and Purchase Assurance Program. There are 175 eligible homeowners who are impacted and the Commission has been trying to purchase abrogation, which is the right to fly above an individual’s property and make noise. They are not required to do this but can offer it because of funding available from the federal government. They are not having a large response to the programs and participation in either program is voluntary. The Purchase Assurance Program will end on April 8, 2005 and the Easement Acquisition Program will end February 3, 2006. Ms. Shuck advised that the Commission has completed or has underway 70% of the projects specified in the 1998 Master Plan update and work on the new master plan will begin this year. IN RE: COMMENTS BY CITY COUNCIL, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND AIRPORT COMMISSION Mr. Turner advised that the presentation was an overview of what is involved in the Airport operation. He advised that they also have custom services available to the Airport from Dublin and there has been some thought of changing the name of the Airport to the Roanoke International Airport. He requested comments and questions. Council Member Dowe commented that he was very curious about how the FAA chose the first site for the radar given the fact that the mountains were there March 7, 2005 295 before they chose the current site, and if there are some shadowing or possible distractions with the traffic on I-81, there seems to be the same possibility closer to the shopping district. He stated that he would be interested in seeing a comparison of the trend of flights per day for Norfolk Southern, Blacksburg and GE flights between the present, 20 years ago, and 5 to 10 years in the future. He would also like to see an age demographic study for that same period. He inquired why there is no air service to Richmond since there is air service to Dulles Airport in Washington. He advised that there has been a lot of increased interest and synergy around rail service and inquired how it would affect the Airport. If answers can not be provided today, they can be faxed to him. Mr. Turner related that the Commission would respond back to Council Member Dowe on the answers to his questions. Council Member Cutler stated that Council had been talking this morning about storm water management and asked Ms. Shuck if the Commission was restrained or if there are federal or state directions on how the Commission handles storm water management and whether this was part of the land use plan regarding the quality of the runoff. For example, would the water that washes off the runway or just the silt from the soil need to be monitored to reach a certain water quality. Ms. Shuck stated that the Commission is subject to state law and that the main problem is de-icing fluid. She reported that fortunately the de-icing fluid used today is of better quality, but they are required to do their best to keep it out of the storm March 7, 2005 296 water. Where they have detentions, they plug them during the winter so the de-icing fluid will evaporate instead of going out through the system. She believes that while there will be additional requirements in the future for testing, they already comply with many requirements for water detention and the Airport builds their own infrastructure to handle this. She noted that salt is no longer used because it is too corrosive for the aircrafts. She stated there are water separators for routine problems but handling the de-icing fluid is harder because it occurs when there is freezing rain. Council Member Fitzpatrick thanked Ms. Shuck for her presentation and work and advised that those with an economic development background understand how crucial an airport is and that it is a lifeline to many things. He noted that this area has made good progress during his lifetime and because there are more rules and regulations than three years ago, he thinks it is important to continue a dialogue to keep the Council and Board informed as to how they could help the Airport continue to progress. He also noted he would like to see the name of the Airport changed and advised that Harrisonburg International’s name was chosen because they had one flight from Canada a day. He stated that a lot of people present remember the days of Piedmont Airlines, and because the Airport was the hub, individuals in our area were accustomed to good service on quality airplanes. This is not possible anymore but what the Airport is doing with regional jets is a great improvement over the past, and he hopes that the Commission will continue to do all it can and keep the Council and Board informed. March 7, 2005 297 Council Member McDaniel stated that she found the presentation very helpful, and questioned if there was something the City and County could do to help with the 24-hour tower reduction issue. Ms. Shuck responded that it would be very helpful if there a resolution of support was sent to the two senators and Congressman Goodlatte, as well as the FAA Administrator, since they are the officials who can influence the issue. Council Member Cutler stated he would like for the City to approve a resolution of support, and Council Member Fitzpatrick stated that he so moved, and expressed the hope that the County Board would also approve a resolution of support. Supervisor McNamara stated he would like to know if Ms. Shuck knew what matrix would be determining US Airways’ ultimate success and where they were relative to that matrix. Ms. Shuck stated she was quite surprised that they made it through January and that their unions have really tried. She reported that GE, which leases the aircraft, keeps bailing them out and that they just grounded another six 737 aircraft because some believe they do not want to do the full overhauls. She does not really know where they are or what it will do to the Airport if they do not survive and she hopes that they will survive. In addition, she stated the airline has many employees who live in the area and she would not like to see them without jobs. She advised that in an industry that is already losing money, it is not good for a company to already be in bankruptcy. March 7, 2005 298 Supervisor McNamara questioned whether it would be more likely that US Airways would discontinue any non-profitable units. Ms. Shuck related that she doubted this would occur because US Airways took all of the units into bankruptcy. Council Member Wishneff commended the Commission for positioning itself for the next carrier by reducing fees, not passing any capital costs onto the airlines, and creating the potential for an air station. He stated that he observed from the presentation that only a few airlines are making money, and wondered whether there was any discussion at the federal level to assist them. Ms. Shuck stated that it is her understanding that the federal government stepped forward after September 11 by reducing loans and now has the attitude of letting the free market determine what happens to the air carriers. She further stated that she does not think the federal government has realized what the impact would be on the eastern United States if the area loses U.S. Airways and that she had not heard anything about the federal government assisting the airline industry, nor had she heard anything from local legislators regarding possible committee hearings. Council Member Wishneff stated that some people had recently asked him about handicap boarding assistance for disabled individuals, and he asked whether there were Commission or airline staff available to provide assistance from the curb to the Airport. Ms. Shuck replied that the Commission runs a shuttle to the parking lot that has a lift to assist persons in a wheelchair; there are contract employees such as skycaps available to assist individuals; and when the airlines are made aware, they will March 7, 2005 299 go to the curb and assist individuals into the terminal. She advised that the Airport has no staff assigned to help handicapped individuals but sometimes Commission officers assist individuals when they see that someone is having a problem. Mr. Turner noted that there are community volunteers who come to the Airport on weekends and other occasions and provide assistance whenever possible. Council Member Wishneff requested that the Commission look into this issue because of the comments he had received from citizens. Chairman Wray inquired, due to the continuous battle of US Airways, how long it would take another carrier to replace or bring the service level back up, and how many flights per day would the Airport need in order to attract a low fare carrier. Ms. Shuck responded that the low fare carrier issue is primarily trying to identify a low fare carrier that goes through this part of the country and has the right size aircraft because if they are flying aircraft with 175 seats and want 6 to 8 flights a day, we do not have the population to support that. She advised that the Commission looked for low fare carriers that provided the right route structure with the right size aircraft, and that initially AirTran, even though they have 125 seat aircraft with three flights per day, would have been fine. She advised that Independence Air, flying regional jets with 50 seats, wanted six flights per day, 350 seats to a single city, and then going on to other small cities and there was some problem with their original route structure. Independence Air is now going cross country so they would be a much better fit for Roanoke today than six months ago; however, they have given up so many of their regional jets, we would be March 7, 2005 300 competing with other cities for those regional jets. Ms. Shuck further stated that what was needed today is to match the same routes of full fare carriers with low fare carriers going to a majority of the same cities. She noted that AirTran would fit our needs as it goes to Atlanta and Florida which are large markets for our area. She stated that Delta was asked for three flights a day on regional jets, United was asked for four, and it would not have been difficult for them to provide the flights. The problem was that Charlotte would lose 90% of their business and Charlotte is a much larger new air service than our area. The Commission has targeted two airlines that have a full operation here but the hard part is that everyone is asking for the same thing. It could be resolved in a couple of months to two years, but no one knows at this point because information is not being shared. Chairman Altizer stated that when there is a bankruptcy or closing of a company, that information generally gets out before it happens. He questioned if US Airways were to decide to shut down, when would the Commission know that fact. Ms. Shuck stated she would know the day they did it. Chairman Altizer asked what the likelihood was of doing something relatively quick. Ms. Shuck advised that they have provided the analysis to Delta and United already and she knows that both airlines are putting together contingency plans. However, United has less flexibility than Delta because they are still in bankruptcy and will not be out until this fall. She feels that for a while it will be a difficult situation across the eastern United States and that no matter where people may drive to, they will not be able to find a flight. March 7, 2005 301 Chairman Altizer inquired about the impact to the Airport if, in the worst case scenario, no carrier comes in and US Airways shuts down. Ms. Shuck stated she did not think that would happen and that there are a few airlines that would come. She advised that they are encouraging Continental to come into the area to have another airline option. Council Member Dowe stated that while he realized this was not a public hearing, there are approximately ten to fifteen citizens present who would like to direct some questions to the Commission. He requested that some of the Commission members stay after the end of the joint meeting if possible to meet with the citizens. Council Member Wishneff asked if there would be a plan B, C or D for the Commission to secure charter planes for the area. Ms. Shuck stated that chartered planes would probably be plan C, but plan B is to try and secure United and Delta to come here. The problem with a charter airplane is that it would only get passengers to a single city, and the entire east coast will be experiencing the same problems as Roanoke. If you could identify a particular city and had enough demand, they could look at the possibility of chartering airplanes. Supervisor Flora commented that their interest, from a governing body point of view, is trying to attract a low fare carrier into the area. The fact that we have been unable to attract a low fare carrier means that Roanoke provides a fairly profitable market for air carriers and we might be more likely to attract a replacement air carrier than the low fare carriers which may be actually losing money. However, this does not March 7, 2005 302 mean that the Commission should not look for low fare carriers because if US Airways does not come out of bankruptcy, they will be probably be dismantled and replaced by another airline. Mayor Harris stated that this was a point well made. Ms. Burcham stated she would like to end on a positive note and advised that some of the staff present had the opportunity of going overseas last fall traveling to the Sister Cities. She advised that when the renovation of the Airport interior takes place, they will have the opportunity to place the seven Sister City flags in the Airport. She advised that the City would like to encourage future visits between Roanoke Valley citizens and the Sister Cities and felt it would be a great opportunity to focus on adding international to the Airport’s name. Mayor Harris expressed appreciation to his colleagues from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Airport Commission. He thanked Ms. Shuck for a very thorough presentation. He stated that he would ask the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution in support of the need for the 24-hour tower operation. He expressed his hope that the County would do likewise and support the Commission. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer expressed appreciation to those attending the meeting and expressed appreciation to Ms. Shuck for her presentation. He adjourned the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting at 12:51 p.m. to the March 8, 2005, regularly scheduled Board meeting at 3:00 p.m. March 7, 2005 303 Mr. Turner stated that the Commission serves at the discretion of the Council and Board and thanked them for that privilege. He advised that any questions or suggestions would be welcome. He adjourned the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission meeting at 12:51 p.m. Mayor Harris declared the Roanoke City Council meeting to be in recess at 12:51 p.m., to be reconvened at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~.~ Brenda J. H Iton Deputy Clerk to the Board Ih~ '};t. ~ Michael W. Altizer' Chairman March 7, 2005 304 This page intentionally left blank