Construction Agreement For Power Line Lowering Project Signed, Aviation Board Learns
March 14, 2023 at 11:45 p.m.
By David [email protected]
CHA Deputy Project Manager in Airport Planning Robert LaFayette told the Board of Aviation Commissioners Tuesday that they do have a “finalized, notarized construction agreement” for the project, also known as the power line lowering project. CHA is the airport consultant for Warsaw.
“That is great news. However, our airport consultant monthly meeting with AEP on Tuesday, March 7 was a contentious one and it led to a leadership discussion with AEP on Friday, March 10,” LaFayette said.
Board President Jay Rigdon was in attendance for the March 10 meeting, LaFayette said.
“The derivative behind the impetus for the leadership discussion was general unhappiness with the rate at which things were getting completed on the AEP said,” LaFayette stated. “And what I mean by that, in context, is it took a little over seven months to get a construction agreement agreed upon, completed and signed. And during the monthly meeting on Tuesday, essentially what was told to us was that nobody wanted to sign it. Nobody wanted to take ownership for it. And so, that led to more discussion with a request for the leadership discussion to happen on March 10. That happened.”
LaFayette said he thought the March 10 meeting went relatively well. They were finally able to have a discussion “with folks that have decision-making authority, in my opinion, which we otherwise did not have access to mostly up to this point.”
The ball is rolling now, he said, and he thinks AEP understands the delay of the project up to this point is on AEP solely and they’re working to mitigate some of that delay.
“The delay in question is, as with most construction projects, there’s a longer lead time on materials and the material procurement was not able to happen until the construction agreement was in play,” LaFayette said.
In speaking with new leadership on the project on AEP’s side this week, he said they are working on getting the materials procured, most importantly with the pole vendor. The lead time on the poles right now sits at, from first order, about 30 weeks.
“The good news is that the pole vendor is well aware that this pole order is coming in and they already have shop space lined up for the pole order, so the goal/hope/prayer is that the lead time of 30 weeks is significantly reduced with some of the lead time that AEP has put in with the pole vendor, with the understanding that this project is upcoming,” he said.
That means that the schedule for the project has changed. Up to now, the goal has been to have the power lines in place by November 2023. If the order of the poles takes 30 weeks to be delivered from this week, LaFayette said that puts them at just over November to get materials. Construction could then start by late fall, but the poles won’t be up until spring 2024. All of that is conjecture at this point, he said, but they are waiting for an updated schedule from AEP now that the construction agreement is in place.
“Once they get through all the material procurement, they will be able to put down a concrete schedule for line closures, blackout, construction, that entire timeline. So, hopefully, we have that for you by next board meeting, but right now that’s a little bit up in the air,” LaFayette reported.
He said AEP is aware of the frustration with the project delays as that was reiterated at both the March 7 and 10 meetings. AEP also understands that the project is beholden to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and restrictions.
“We’re on a timeframe that AEP has to meet and the leadership discussion on March 10 reiterated that,” he said.
Board member Gene Zale asked if they were taking down six towers and how many were they replacing them with. LaFayette said six was correct, and they would be replaced with seven or eight.
LaFayette then reported on the runway 9-27 safety area project, saying they’re about 40% complete and the project is ongoing.
“We’re scheduled for a completed study, targeting August, pending FAA review and approval. The bulk of the runway safety area inventory and determination are complete. The alternatives are complete. What we are working on now are the cost estimates and the financial feasibility is upcoming, and then we will have a larger group discussion about which alternatives we should be targeting based on some of the feasibility that comes out of the cost estimation,” he said.
The traffic study for the safety area project is completed and will be reported to the board at its April 11 meeting.
LaFayette said they do have an in-person meeting with the FAA next Wednesday, which will be attended by Nathan Lienhart from CHA and Airport Manager Nick King. LaFayette will try to attend virtually. Most of the discussion will be around the airport forecast that was discussed at the February board meeting, which has the potential to impact the runway 9-27 phase II environmental assessment.
“There’s quite a bit of coordination and conversation on what’s the next steps, subsequent to the runway safety area and runway programming efforts. Some of that will be hashed out, discussed,” LaFayette said.
In final business, King presented the board with hangar leases that needed approved.
The board approved for hangar 6G to be sold by Charles Cole to Jack Collins for $9,000; approved a new lease for Explorer Van; approved an option to extend leases for hangars 5A and 5B, both owned by Tim Grissom; and approved Polk Equipment Group’s option to extend their lease for hangar 21C.
CHA Deputy Project Manager in Airport Planning Robert LaFayette told the Board of Aviation Commissioners Tuesday that they do have a “finalized, notarized construction agreement” for the project, also known as the power line lowering project. CHA is the airport consultant for Warsaw.
“That is great news. However, our airport consultant monthly meeting with AEP on Tuesday, March 7 was a contentious one and it led to a leadership discussion with AEP on Friday, March 10,” LaFayette said.
Board President Jay Rigdon was in attendance for the March 10 meeting, LaFayette said.
“The derivative behind the impetus for the leadership discussion was general unhappiness with the rate at which things were getting completed on the AEP said,” LaFayette stated. “And what I mean by that, in context, is it took a little over seven months to get a construction agreement agreed upon, completed and signed. And during the monthly meeting on Tuesday, essentially what was told to us was that nobody wanted to sign it. Nobody wanted to take ownership for it. And so, that led to more discussion with a request for the leadership discussion to happen on March 10. That happened.”
LaFayette said he thought the March 10 meeting went relatively well. They were finally able to have a discussion “with folks that have decision-making authority, in my opinion, which we otherwise did not have access to mostly up to this point.”
The ball is rolling now, he said, and he thinks AEP understands the delay of the project up to this point is on AEP solely and they’re working to mitigate some of that delay.
“The delay in question is, as with most construction projects, there’s a longer lead time on materials and the material procurement was not able to happen until the construction agreement was in play,” LaFayette said.
In speaking with new leadership on the project on AEP’s side this week, he said they are working on getting the materials procured, most importantly with the pole vendor. The lead time on the poles right now sits at, from first order, about 30 weeks.
“The good news is that the pole vendor is well aware that this pole order is coming in and they already have shop space lined up for the pole order, so the goal/hope/prayer is that the lead time of 30 weeks is significantly reduced with some of the lead time that AEP has put in with the pole vendor, with the understanding that this project is upcoming,” he said.
That means that the schedule for the project has changed. Up to now, the goal has been to have the power lines in place by November 2023. If the order of the poles takes 30 weeks to be delivered from this week, LaFayette said that puts them at just over November to get materials. Construction could then start by late fall, but the poles won’t be up until spring 2024. All of that is conjecture at this point, he said, but they are waiting for an updated schedule from AEP now that the construction agreement is in place.
“Once they get through all the material procurement, they will be able to put down a concrete schedule for line closures, blackout, construction, that entire timeline. So, hopefully, we have that for you by next board meeting, but right now that’s a little bit up in the air,” LaFayette reported.
He said AEP is aware of the frustration with the project delays as that was reiterated at both the March 7 and 10 meetings. AEP also understands that the project is beholden to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and restrictions.
“We’re on a timeframe that AEP has to meet and the leadership discussion on March 10 reiterated that,” he said.
Board member Gene Zale asked if they were taking down six towers and how many were they replacing them with. LaFayette said six was correct, and they would be replaced with seven or eight.
LaFayette then reported on the runway 9-27 safety area project, saying they’re about 40% complete and the project is ongoing.
“We’re scheduled for a completed study, targeting August, pending FAA review and approval. The bulk of the runway safety area inventory and determination are complete. The alternatives are complete. What we are working on now are the cost estimates and the financial feasibility is upcoming, and then we will have a larger group discussion about which alternatives we should be targeting based on some of the feasibility that comes out of the cost estimation,” he said.
The traffic study for the safety area project is completed and will be reported to the board at its April 11 meeting.
LaFayette said they do have an in-person meeting with the FAA next Wednesday, which will be attended by Nathan Lienhart from CHA and Airport Manager Nick King. LaFayette will try to attend virtually. Most of the discussion will be around the airport forecast that was discussed at the February board meeting, which has the potential to impact the runway 9-27 phase II environmental assessment.
“There’s quite a bit of coordination and conversation on what’s the next steps, subsequent to the runway safety area and runway programming efforts. Some of that will be hashed out, discussed,” LaFayette said.
In final business, King presented the board with hangar leases that needed approved.
The board approved for hangar 6G to be sold by Charles Cole to Jack Collins for $9,000; approved a new lease for Explorer Van; approved an option to extend leases for hangars 5A and 5B, both owned by Tim Grissom; and approved Polk Equipment Group’s option to extend their lease for hangar 21C.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092