IAHA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING

November 21, 2011

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the EAA Hangar. The President noted that a quorum was present. Those members were: Herb Jolliff, Dave Martin, Craig Cowles, Rena Peck, Alan Wright and Gary Van Horn. Also attending was Eleanor Cowles. John Horn and Kelly Wilson were unable to attend and Robert English had called in shortly before the meeting and was delayed in Salem. Gary will take notes and draft minutes in Robert’s absence.

Before getting into the Taxiway maintenance discussion, Gary asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of the October meeting as posted on the website. He noted that he had provided Robert with some clarifying language regarding the State Access Fee to make sure the process was clear. Dave moved approval and Rena seconded. The October minutes were unanimously approved by voice vote.

We also received a letter from Garrett Hemann Robertson, P.C. – our attorneys who most recently represented us in the 2009 Access Agreement negotiations with the State. The letter outlined that we had no legal services pending. It further stated that unless they heard from us their file will be deleted in 10 years. Gary explained that this appeared to be a routine record maintenance process notice and asked permission to contact George Jennings to confirm that their ongoing counsel may be needed in the future even though there were no actions pending at this time. The consensus was that the contact should be made and the attorney so informed.

We had also received a letter/invoice from Wells Fargo Insurance Services for continuation of our Directors and Offices Insurance Policy in the Amount of $1,365.00. There was some discussion of the “$200.00 service fee” but it was the consensus that the insurance should be continued and the letter was given to Rena for payment.

The purpose of this meeting was to address Taxiway Maintenance issues related to the bid received by Craig from Valley Custom Seal Coating of Albany, Oregon. There were a number of questions following the October meeting’s discussions of this item and additional information was needed. Craig has requested BoD approval for at least doing the crack sealing portion of the proposal yet this year.

• Regarding crack filling and last year’s work performed by Langliers, Craig stated that he was unimpressed with their work process regarding the routing and the lack of adequate supervision during the routing process which caused him to require the workers to be more complete in their work by taking a second pass around the Airpark. He stated that Valley Custom possessed a $50,000 machine that would force sealant, (the same elastic material as was used last year by Langliers) into the cracks and then level the surface to eliminate bumps. In response to Dave and also the question John had sent in regarding routing of the Craig said they do not use routing to open the cracks up because of the way the machine works using pressure to force the material into the opening. Craig also said that the routing process had not worked too well, in his view.

• In response to John’s written question regarding the 4,867 lineal feet of cracks to be sealed: “…how much of this is new cracks that have not been sealed before and how much is a redo of cracks sealed last year that have failed?” Craig stated that he did not have that information – that the measurement was based on the contractor having measured the openings with a wheel to arrive at the number of feet needing to be sealed.

• In response to Rena’s question regarding warranty provided, Craig stated that they would come back if anything needed fixing but recognized there was nothing in writing specifically covering the issue. Discussion followed regarding the desire to have something more specific and the consensus was that something in the order of 18 months would be preferred.

• Alan and Herb expressed concern about the stages in the process and whether or not doing crack sealing before doing the grinding of the surfaces that needed it done would be a good idea. Craig stated that there would only be grinding of the surface in limited areas. Following a lot of discussion it was the consensus that grinding should take place before crack sealing in the areas that would be ground down.

• Alan asked about the lateness of the season and whether or not it would be better to wait until dry weather next summer (July or August?) when the cracks were normally at their widest. This was also a question forwarded by John. In the discussion that followed there was consensus that the summer was a better time for the work to be accomplished and that the Board should have a say in when the Contractor would be doing the work.

• Rena elaborated on her earlier email regarding funds being tied up in CD’s by clarifying that one CD was due to mature in January and another was maturing in April. The consensus from the following discussion was that renewing the CD’s at maturity in 2012 should not occur until we were sure what we needed in funding was available.

Following each of the issues summarized above, there was further discussion. That discussion included the issue of actually having a contract and what it would take in terms of a deposit to guarantee the prices as outlined by Valley Custom Seal Coating which totaled $32,784.00.

In summary of that discussion, Dave proposed the following motion with Herb seconding:

Motion is for approval of a total authorized expenditure in the amount of $35,000.00 to provide for acceptance of the bid for Taxiway Maintenance during 2012 based on the bid submitted by Valley Custom Seal Coating. Further, a contract is required to include 1) language that states the IAHA Board will have final approval of the dates during which Maintenance is to be performed; 2) that the cracks sealed are to be guaranteed to remained sealed for a period of at least 18 months; and that 3) the prices in the bid are guaranteed until the work is completed (with allowances possible for material cost increases if documented by the contractor). Craig is to work with the contractor to put these measures in writing.

Further, a deposit of up to $3,000.00 is approved to secure the contract and pricing, should this be required by the contractor.

The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote.

There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

-- Gary Van Horn