Gainesville Fl Real Estate Attorneys by lmd11395


Gainesville Fl Real Estate Attorneys document sample

More Info
                             MONTHLY MEETING
                              Meeting Highlights
                           Thursday, August 10, 2000
                 City Hall, Lower Level - Conference Room 016

Call to Order by the Chairman
Chair Mulligan called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.

Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Members present at roll call were: Patrick Bainter, Roger Brower, Mac McEachern, Jim
Gallagher, Richard Mulligan, Charles Perry, Portia Taylor, Robert Todd, and Marilyn Tubb

GACRAA Appointment
On July 24, 2000, the Gainesville City Commission reappointed Mr. Roger Brower to serve on
GACRAA. Mr. Brower’s appointment is effective August 1, 2000. This 3-year appointment
will expire July 31, 2003.

Chair Mulligan congratulated Mr. Brower on his reappointment.

Determination of a Quorum
Quorum was met.

Approval of Meeting Highlights
The Airport Authority will review and approve the meeting highlights of July 13, 2000.

Recommendation: Motion to approve meeting highlights of the July 13, 2000; and authorize
the Chair and Secretary/Treasurer to execute the document on behalf of the Airport Authority.

Dr. Taylor moved to approve the meeting highlights of July 13, 2000. Seconded by Ms. Tubb.
No discussion. Motion carried 9-0

Adoption of Agenda

Recommendation: Motion to adopt the agenda.

The Director distributed a Supplemental Agenda with two items: Nordstrom Project – Extension
of Utilities; and General Aviation Terminal and Parking Lots Renovations ~ GACRAA Project
No. 00-005.

The Director stated that Agenda item 9 is time certain and should be taken into consideration for
establishing the Agenda order.

Chair Mulligan stated Agenda Item No. 9’s time certain was 4:15 p.m. and recommended the
Supplemental Agenda items be moved to the regular Agenda as Agenda items 12a and 12b.
Mr. Brower moved to approve the Agenda, with the two Supplemental Agenda items-
Nordstrom Project – Extension of Utilities and General Aviation Terminal and Parking Lots
Renovations ~ GACRAA Project No. 00-005, moved to the regular Agenda as Agenda Items
12a & 12b, respectively. Dr. Taylor seconded. Motion carried 9-0

General Counsel Presentations
On May 21, 2000, ten (10) firms responded to GACRAA’s solicitation for legal services as
General Counsel. The Authority’s General Counsel Ad Hoc Committee reviewed all submittals.
At GACRAA’s July 13, 2000 Monthly meeting, the full Authority accepted the Committee’s
recommended “short list” of firms. The following four (4) firms have been selected to offer an
oral presentation on their submittal:
        4:15 p.m.      Allen Dell, Attorneys at Law, Tampa, FL
       4:45 p.m.       Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law, Tampa, FL
       5:15 p.m.       Clayton-Johnston, P.A., Attorneys at Law, Gainesville, FL
       5:45 p.m.       Foley & Lardner, Attorneys at Law, Orlando, FL

Recommendation: Listen to the oral presentations; take any action deemed appropriate by

The Director stated four (4) firms have been invited to offer oral presentations for legal counsel
to GACRAA. The Director also distributed a handout consisting of a scoring table to assist
GACRAA with ranking the presentations.

The Director recommended, upon completion of hearing the four (4) oral presentations, that the
full Authority rank the firms; and authorize staff to proceed with negotiations with the top-
ranked firm. The Director stated if negotiations were not successful with the top rated firm, staff
would then negotiate with the firm ranked second in line.

The Director further stated the Board would need to make a decision on the fee payment
structure for General Counsel. The Director stated the Agenda packet includes a Short List Fee
Analysis, as requested by Mr. Brower at the July 13th meeting, that provides a fee comparison
based on historical billable hours; and a Summary of fee proposals with regard to the four (4)

Discussion ensued with regard to how to rank the firms.

Mr. McEachern recommended using a majority vote verses the point system.

Mr. Hauck questioned if after the majority vote on the first-ranked firm was taken, if another
majority vote would be taken to determine the second-ranked firm, in case an agreement could
not be reached with the top-ranked firm.

Mr. McEachern stated yes. Chair Mulligan asked if that was acceptable to the rest of the Board,
which it was.

Allen, Dell, Attorneys at Law, Tampa, FL
Donald Stanley introduced associate, Benjamin Morris. Mr. Stanley stated another associate,
Stewart Eggert, was out of town and wanted to express his regrets with not being able to attend
the presentation, as he is very interested in moving forward with the Authority.

Mr. Stanley stated his firm has over 80 years aviation/airport experience, and has served as
General Counsel for the Hillsboro General Aviation Authority for over 35 years. The firm has
been involved in such projects as airside renovations negotiation & selection process; security
procedures & equipment; bond issues; a feasibility study regarding FBO's; revisions to Minimum
Standards for FBO; land acquisition; noise abatement issues; environmental issues; building of
new terminal and FBO buildings; and purchasing airport property issues.

Mr. Stanley further stated with airport law, Allen Dell has been involved with public record
issues; 1st Amendment issues; development of policies; bid processes; cargo leases; rental car
agreements; ad valorem tax issues; and litigation issues.

Mr. Stanley stated the Allen Dell firm is an active member of Airport Council International
North America (ACINA). He stated the firm has 17, going on 18, attorneys and GACRAA
would be considered an important, substantial client, getting 1st class service.

Mr. Stanley stated, if his firm were chosen, he would attend the GACRAA monthly meetings
and be personally involved in special projects. He further stated there are occasions where Allen
Dell might use outside counsel, such as bond counsel or workers compensation counsel, due to
the expertise of outside firms.

Ms. Tubb questioned if the firm has served as General Counsel to other airport Authorities, in
addition to the Tampa Authority.

Mr. Morris stated Allen, Dell has been involved with a number of other Authorities, most
recently as special counsel on behalf of Martin County regarding FBO rules and regulations

Mr. Stanley stated Allen, Dell has not been general counsel to any other Authority, but that there
has been instances where the firm has been called in as special consultants or have taken over
litigation issues.

Chair Mulligan questioned how much experience the firm has had regarding contract litigation.

Mr. Stanley stated the firm has had substantial litigation experience. He further stated that law
partner, Bert Grandoff, is a nationally recognized construction attorney, and brings substantial
knowledge regarding construction contracts and law.

Mr. Todd questioned if they would like to comment about an article he read in a local newspaper
regarding Tampa International being sued by a developer.

Mr. Stanley stated Tampa International did not violate any provisions. Everything was done
within the Sunshine Law, within public Board meetings, and FAA approved leases. He further
stated the lawsuit was a public records lawsuit only, which has since been dismissed, with

Dr. Taylor questioned how long their contract was with the Hillsboro Aviation Authority.

Mr. Stanley stated Allen Dell has a three (3) year contract with no limitation on renewals. Mr.
Morris stated the firm has had the contract since 1964.

Dr. Gallagher questioned how they handle General Aviation matters with the Hillsboro County
Aviation Authority.

Mr. Stanley stated matters are usually handled through the Director of Aviation, via three way

Mr. McEachern questioned their land acquisition experience.

Mr. Morris stated the firm has been involved in land acquisition programs with Vandenburg and
is currently working with a consultant hired by the Hillsboro Authority regarding land
acquisition in the Drew Park area at Tampa International.

Mr. McEachern stated he e-mailed the firm a question, and wondered how much GACRAA
would have been billed to research and respond to the question, if the firm had been GACRAA’s
legal counsel.

Mr. Morris stated he responded to the e-mail question and spent approximately 30 minutes time.

Mr. Brower questioned what type of safely valve would be in place to protect the Board from
possible unapproved, billable hours incurred by Authority members using up all the General
Counsel’s time.

Mr. Stanley stated communication, a strength of the firm, would be the safety valve. Mr. Stanley
further stated the language of the contract would also address that issue. He stated that if the
question were in regard to General Counsel work, then he would normally lump it in as
preparation for the Board meeting; however, if it were related to what would become a project,
then he would have discussions with the Executive Director, or whomever the communications
structure per contract establishes as contact person, to discuss the nature of the situation for
further action.

Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law, Tampa FL
George Meyer, real estate and construction attorney, distributed a handout providing pertinent
information about the firm (copy attached). Mr. Meyer introduced two partners from the

Tallahassee office: Nancy Linnan, government consulting, environmental/land use and
administrative law; and Michael Donaldson, administrative, land use and environmental law. He
stated Carlton Fields has six (6) offices; 190 attorneys; and has represented over 75 Counties.

Mr. Meyer stated Carlton Fields has worked with Southwest Regional Airport, Tallahassee
Regional Airport, and the Palm Beach Airport. He further stated the firm has economically
represented governmental bodies throughout the State and had confidence that the firm could
work within GACRAA’s budget.

Dr. Taylor asked if Carlton Field had served as General Counsel, or just represented, the airports
in various matters.

Mr. Meyer stated the firm has represented the airports in special areas, but not as General
Counsel. He further stated the firm has acted as General Counsel to other governmental

Ms. Tubb asked Mr. Meyer if he had served as General Counsel in any capacity.

Mr. Meyer stated that he had not; he has only served as Special Counsel. Ms. Linnan also stated
she had served as Special Counsel in many areas, but not as General Counsel.

Mr. McEachern asked Mr. Donaldson what experience he has had in writing legislation rules.

Mr. Donaldson stated he has written laws in the construction industry (Lucent Technologies,
Inc.); and has been involved with the 9J5 revision. Ms. Linnan further stated the Tallahassee
office is involved in a lot of legislative activity.

Mr. McEachern questioned Mr. Meyer how much time he would have charged the Authority to
respond to the e-mail question that he sent, if the firm were to serve as General Counsel.

Mr. Meyer stated he would have billed one-half hour time.

Mr. Meyer stressed that lobbying governmental contacts are a strength of Carlton Fields.

Clayton-Johnston, P.A., Attorneys at Law, Gainesville, FL
Leonard Ireland, a Board Certified Trial Lawyer, stated the Clayton-Johnston firm has been in
Gainesville since 1927, and that he has practiced law in Gainesville for over 30 years.

Mr. Ireland stated his relationship with the Airport involves litigation on behalf of the Charter
Air Center against the City of Gainesville; and then as Counsel for the Authority in a suit against
Kenn Air.

Mr. Ireland stated his firm is not a specialist in aviation. Mr. Ireland further stated he sees the
needs of the Authority as being similar to those he provides for the Florida High School
Activities Association; the University of Florida (UF); and the University Athletic Association

Mr. Ireland stated if there would be a specialized need that Clayton-Johnston could not provide,
those needs could be provided through the firm’s relationship with the Florida Law Network.
Mr. Ireland distributed a handout regarding the Florida Law Network and Holland & Knight
LLP (copies attached). He further stated there would be no duplication of charges between
Clayton-Johnston and the Florida Law Network/Holland & Knight LLP, nor would the Authority
be billed for the aviation educational process.

Mr. Ireland stressed the importance that Clayton-Johnston is a local firm that helps to support the
community; that it uses the Gainesville Airport; and has extensive litigation experience.

Mr. McEachern asked what Mr. Leonard would have charged, as General Counsel for the
Authority, to respond to the e-mail Mr. McEachern sent him.

Mr. Leonard stated he would not be able to provide an amount, as he did not record the time
involved in responding to Mr. McEachern’s e-mail as he classified it as business promotion,
which is an unbillable code. Mr. Leonard further stated that he bills according to client and
client matter.

Mr. Todd questioned Mr. Leonard if he was familiar with the Air 21 legislation before Congress.

Mr. Leonard stated Holland & Knight LLP located in Washington, DC, would be able to provide
assistance with Air 21 as they have a large lobbying group.

Chair Mulligan requested a five (5) minute break.

Mr. Brower stated he has a business relationship with the next firm, Foley & Lardner, and
questioned Mr. Hauck if there would be any concerns.

Mr. Hauck stated it may be a voting issue, but not an oral presentation issue.

Foley & Lardner
Gordon Arkin, head of the firm’s Airport Practice Group, provided a handout with background
information on Foley & Lardner (copy attached). He stated that Foley & Lardner has substantial
experience in FAA regulatory matters including airport use; airline rates and charges; passenger
facility charges; federal grant assurances; airport security; noise; and aeronautical rights. He
further stated the firm has an excellent relationship with the Airport’s District Office for GNV’s

Mr. Arkin stated Foley & Lardner has substantial experience on State law issues that affect
Airport Authorities and Public Agencies, including FDOT funding issues; DRI mitigation and
permitting issues; procurement under State and Federal regulations; selecting consultants; State
ethics; gift law reporting; and Sunshine matters.

Mr. Arkin stated Mr. McEachern had e-mailed him a question asking if this Authority ever had
to meet in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Mr. Arkin stated he learned that GNV might exercise
final land use control decision making under a delegation of authority under the City of
Gainesville, and if that were correct, in exercising the final land use authority, GACRAA would
have to meet in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Mr. Arkin stated there would be no learning curve if Foley & Lardner were to be hired as the
firm has experience in General Aviation Airports, Airport Industrial Parks, Airport Agreements,
and litigation claims. He further stated the firm oversaw construction projects and has never lost
a bid protest.

Mr. Arkin then introduced members of the Foley & Lardner team: Christi Underwood, a
specialist in construction and construction litigation; Tom Maurer, Environmental Lawyer; Walt
Spiva, Business Lawyer with a specialty in airport support; and Ruye Hawkins, MWBE member
handling airport/ground transportation matters.

Mr. Arkin stated he has established airline relationships; experience in FAA Sponsorship; PFC
and AIP experience. He further stated the handout provides a list of current and former airport
clients the firm has served.

Dr. Taylor questioned if he had served as General Counsel to any of the airports. Mr. Arkin
stated he had served as General Counsel to the Orlando International Airport for the last 20

Mr. McEachern questioned Mr. Arkin how much time he would have charged the Authority to
answer the e-mail question he sent him. Mr. Arkin stated “none,” as this was an issue he was
familiar with.

Mr. Todd questioned if Mr. Arkin would personally be attending the meetings. Mr. Arkin stated
that he would.

Mr. Todd questioned if the charges listed in the RFP, i.e. copy charges, were a negotiable fee.
Mr. Arkin stated the rates listed are nationwide rates, but he has the authority to change the rate.

Mr. Brower questioned Mr. Arkin if he were serving as General Counsel for the Board, would
Mr. Arkin advise him to vote, or not to vote, if as a member of the Board, he was doing business
with a perspective client coming before the Board.

Mr. Arkin stated he would need to ask more questions regarding the relationship. If it was a
personal relationship with the law firm, that would be more serious than a voting conflict.
However, if the business is a Corporation, and Mr. Brower was a stockholder, and the

relationship was between the Corporation and the Firm – and not a professional association, then
it would be a different story.

Mr. Brower stated he was an employee who serves a Board of Directors for a not-for-profit

Mr. Arkin stated, in his opinion, that it would at least be a voting conflict.

Mr. Hauck stated that he would have decided differently, as he did not think there was enough of
a conflict.

Mr. McEachern questioned if any of the airports were being charged ad valorem taxes. Mr.
Arkin stated Tampa is, as well as Orlando International, who is paying the taxes under protest.

The Director stated Governor Martinez, who is associated with Carlton Fields, had called to say
he had a conflict with another meeting and couldn’t attend this evenings meeting, but stated that
he looked forward to working with the Authority.

Discussion ensued with regard to ranking the firms and the firm’s fees.

Ms. Tubb stated the General Counsel Committee’s recommendation gave 60% weight to
qualifications and 40% to fees.

Dr. Gallagher ranked the firms: 1) Allen Dell; 2) Foley & Lardner; 3) Clayton-Johnston; and 4)
Carlton Fields.

Mr. McEachern ranked the firms: 1) Foley & Lardner; 2) Allen Dell; 3) Clayton-Johnston; and
4) Carlton Fields.

Ms. Tubb stated that normal General Counsel business would not require “a Lexis “ firm and felt
that the local law firm would provide adequate representation for most of the Airport’s needs.
Special interests, such as litigation, could be hired out.

Mr. Perry agreed, and wondered what Mr. Hauck’s recommendation would be.

Mr. Hauck stated his recommendation would be the same as his initial recommendation, Allen
Dell and Foley & Lardner. Mr. Hauck further stated he did not recommend Clayton-Johnston
due to their lack of airport knowledge.

Mr. Brower ranked the firms: 1) Clayton-Johnston; and 2) Allen Dell.

Dr. Gallagher moved Allen Dell as the top ranked firm to provide General Counsel services.
Mr. McEachern seconded.

Mr. Bainter stated he supported Dr. Gallagher’s motion.

Roll call was taken: Mr. Bainter, aye; Mr. Brower, nay; Mr. McEachern, aye; Dr. Gallagher,
aye; Mr. Mulligan, nay; Mr. Perry, nay; Dr. Taylor, aye; Mr. Todd, aye; and Ms. Tubb, nay.
Motion carried 5-4.

Mr. McEachern moved Foley & Lardner as the second ranked firm. Mr. Todd seconded.
Roll call was taken: Ms. Tubb, nay; Mr. Todd, aye; Dr. Taylor, nay; Mr. Perry, nay; Mr.
Mulligan, nay; Dr. Gallagher, aye; Mr. McEachern, aye; Mr. Brower, nay; Mr. Bainter, nay.
Motion fails 3-6.

Mr. Brower moved Clayton-Johnston as the second ranked firm. Ms. Tubb seconded. Roll
call was taken: Mr. McEachern, nay; Mr. Brower, aye; Mr. Bainter, aye; Dr. Gallagher, nay;
Mr. Mulligan, aye; Mr. Perry, aye; Dr. Taylor, aye; Mr. Todd, aye; and Ms. Tubb, aye.
Motion carries 7-2.

[Mr. Bainter left at 6:35 p.m.]

Citizen Input – Non-Agenda Items

  Dashwood Hicks, Gainesville pilot, stated the rotating becon, required by law to be
operational, has been out of order since July 18, 2000.

Mr. Fisher stated a unit had been ordered with an expected delivery date of August 18th.

Mr. Fisher further stated the following facts: July 5th the rotating becon went out; July 6th the
Airport’s electrician repaired it; July 7th it went out again; July 8th the electrician found a broken
plate and ordered repair parts; July 11th the part arrived and was installed; July 13th the becon
went out again but the electrician was able to make it operational; July 14th the becon became
inoperative - the electrician found the motor was burned out and the bearings were seized. The
manufacturer, Crause-Hines, stated the motor was obsolete but would check on the bearings
assembly. On July 17th a quote was received from the manufacturer for a new shaft with a
bearing assembly in it; July 19th the manufacturer called to say they found a motor; July 21st a
quote was received from Allen Enterprise for a new becon; July 22nd Taxiway Alpha went out
and it took the electrician till July 25th to repair; July 26th a quote was received from Crause-
Hinds for a new becon; August 1st a quote was received from ECS. Mr. Clerkin returned from
vacation of August 3rd and on August 4th a purchase order was faxed to ECS the purchase of a
refurbished becon with a two-year warranty.

The Director stated an upcoming Capital Project will be replacing and relocating the becon. At
that time, a new becon will be ordered as part of the Federally funded project and the refurbished
becon will be used as a backup, in the event that the new one would become inoperatative in the

Dr. Gallagher requested that the Authority should be apprised of major safety issue problems.

Mr. Fisher stated he would be happy to notify the Board regarding the facilities he controls, but
further stated the Board should be aware that many times he is not informed of critical FAA
facilities that go down.

Dr. Gallagher stated all information would be useful regarding critical issues.

   Don Dannenhoffer, City Cab driver, stated there is a 60-day experiment regarding the taxi
service. Mr. Dannenhoffer stated there is noticeable improvement; however, he stated he
personally lost a $500 fare, as a ticket agent did not follow the first in line rule, and there are still
some signs need to be corrected.

Chair Mulligan advised Mr. Dannenhoffer that this subject was a regular agenda item to be
discussed later.

Consent Agenda Items:

Baggage Claim Conveyor
The proposed project has been under consideration since the completion of the Terminal
Renovation Phase 1B project. Due to various business constraints, Stearns Airport Equipment
Company was not able to provide a quote on reconditioning our 1978 baggage conveyor until
July 12, 2000. Staff will request authorization to have the 22-year-old baggage convey
reconditioned, and to have the capital budget amended.

Recommendation: Motion to award a purchase order to Stearns Airport Equipment Company
in the amount of $29,548.03; authorize a Capital Projects budget amendment to the FY 1999-
2000 Airport budget to increase the Recondition Baggage Conveyor project funding by
$4,548.03; and authorize the Director of Aviation to execute the appropriate documents on
behalf of the Airport Authority.

Purvis Gray & Co. Contract Extension
GACRAA has retained Purvis Gray & Co. to perform external auditor services. The current
contract is for an initial three-year term, with two one-year option periods. The initial term was
completed with FY 99 audit. Staff is recommending that the GACRAA exercise the two one-
year options for the fiscal years ending September 30, 2000 and 2001.

Recommendation: Motion to approve exercising the two option periods contained in the
current contract between the parties, at an annual fee not to exceed $16,000; and authorize the
Chair and Secretary/Treasurer to execute the First Amendment to the Contract and the Audit
Engagement Letter on behalf of the Airport Authority, in substantially the same form as
submitted, subject to the approval by the Attorney for the Airport Authority.

Dr. Taylor moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Tubb seconded. Motion carried 8-0

Committee Report – Tenant Relations Committee

The Tenant Relations Committee met with Airport Taxi Owners/Operators on July 19, 2000.
Committee Chair Bainter will brief the Airport Authority on the Committee Meeting.

Recommendation: Listen to the presentation; review the Committee’s recommendations; take
any action deemed appropriate by GACRAA.

Mr. Perry stated the Committee met with the taxi drivers to discuss concerns they had. Mr. Perry
stated two issues have been corrected since the meeting: 1) relocating the number one and two
cab driver locations from the west end of the terminal to the east end; and 2) having discussions
with the airlines regarding the first in line rule.

Mr. Perry further stated GACRAA cannot dictate how the airlines spend their money, and stated
the cab companies need to help themselves by having clean cabs and drivers.
Mr. Perry recommended that the Board accept the Tenant Relations Committee’s 60-day trial
period to try to find a solution to the problems at hand.

Dr. Gallagher questioned if Minimum Standards were discussed for the cab drivers.

Mr. Todd stated there were discussions regarding other airport processes regarding cab drivers,
but that GNV is not in a position to inspect the cabs at this time.

Mr. Dannenhoffer suggested that the cab drivers be required to give passengers a business card
with their driver number and car number on it.

Chair Mulligan stated the Tenant Relations Committee should consider that when the Committee
presents its final recommendation.

Budget Review Committee
The Budget Review Committee met on August 9, 2000. Chair Brower will brief the Airport
Authority on the Committee Meeting.

Recommendation: Listen to the presentation; review the Committee’s recommendations; take
any action deemed appropriate by GACRAA.

Mr. Brower stated the Committee would present a recommendation at the next Authority
meeting regarding the proposed FY 00-01 Airport Budgets.

Mr. Brower stated the Budget Review Committee recommended the full Authority pay an annual
salary bonus to the Director of Aviation for the interest earned on his vacation liability (Referral
No. 98-20).

Dr. Taylor moved the full Authority to pay an annual salary bonus to the Director of Aviation
for the interest earned on his accrued vacation leave; to be an annual payment paid at the end
of each fiscal year. Mr. Brower seconded. Motion carried 8-0.

Former Flying Colors Site – Settlement Offer
During January 1991, the City of Gainesville and GACRAA executed a Consent Order with the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) related to fines, environmental
analysis, and installation of monitoring wells and clean up of a hazardous waste facility,
formerly operated on Airport property by Paul Woodfin d/b/a Flying Colors. Upon receipt of
“clean closure” from FDER in August 1994, the Airport sought reimbursement for the costs
incurred in completing this effort. The Circuit Court has awarded GACRAA a Final Judgment
against Paul Woodfin, d/b/a Flying Colors in the amount of $484,499.22, plus interest. Mr.
Woodfin is requesting GACRAA to consider a settlement offer to resolve the outstanding

Recommendation: Listen to the presentation; take any action deemed appropriate by

The Director stated the information in the Agenda packet provides the history leading up to the
Settlement Offer proposed by Paul Woodfin, previous owner of Flying Colors. He further stated
the Authority was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $484,499.22 plus interest;
however, to date, no action has been taken on it.

Mr. Perry stated he read the report, and could find no proof in the report that they found
contamination in the soil. The Director stated they did not find a lot of contamination in the
ground. The Director stated the engineers and scientists explained to him that Mother Nature
took care of a lot of the ground clean up.

The Director stated the State and Federal Governments came after the City of Gainesville and
GACRAA for clean up and fines when they determined Flying Colors was not complying with
the Government’s requirements.

The Director stated to resolve the issue, the Airport could either come to a “clean closure” so
that the site could be reused again, or have monitoring wells for the next 30- years, at a cost of
$15,000 - $25,000 on a routine basis. He stated a previous Authority had chosen the “clean
closure” option.

Mr. Hauck stated the inspectors determined Mr. Woodfin was a hazardous waste operator, and
looked for every applicable violation possible.

Mr. Perry suggested the Authority accept the $10,000 offer.

Mr. Brower stated he was sympathetic to the situation and also suggested the Authority accept
the $10,000, rather than incur additional attorney’s fees or have Mr. Woodfin file for bankruptcy.

Dr. Gallagher stated there was a level of irresponsibility on Mr. Woodfin’s part, as he made no
effort to try to pay this bill in the past.

Mr. Perry suggested a committee be formed to review the Flying Colors Settlement and bring an

agreeable (to both sides) recommendation back to the full Authority.
Mr. Woodfin spoke on his behalf stating that he had loved working at the Airport, and in his
opinion, the Airport and Flying Colors were victims together, as he had not done anything
underhanded and had tried to run his business the best he could. Mr. Woodfin stated he hired
Water and Air Research, who did testing and found no contamination.

Mr. Woodfin stated he would be borrowing the money to pay the settlement.

Chair Mulligan asked Mr. Woodfin if he would be willing to meet with a committee of the
Authority regarding settlement discussions.

Mr. Woodfin stated if the Settlement Offer were not accepted, he would then look into filing
bankruptcy. Mr. Woodfin stated that he has not been gainfully employed the last 12 years, is
currently a student, and as it was, he would have to borrow the money to pay the Settlement

Dr. Taylor moved to accept the $10,000 Settlement Offer, and close the case. Mr. Todd

Mr. Hauck stated the Flying Colors judgment has already been recorded. He further stated the
judgment would need to be satisfied on the public records and a release and Settlement
Agreement would need to be finalized.

Rick Howe, a life long friend of Mr. Woodfin, came forward to offer support on behalf of Mr.
Woodfin. Mr. Howe stated he would be the one loaning Mr. Woodfin the $10,000 Settlement
Offer money.

Ms. Tubb stated she supported Dr. Taylor’s motion and recommended this story be shared with
Congressional Representatives.

John Barber, Mr. Woodfin’s former banker, also came forward to show support for Mr.

Dr. Gallagher questioned why the Authority sued Mr. Woodfin.

Mr. Hauck stated Mr. Woodfin was responsible under Flying Colors’ lease, which was amended
to require that Mr. Woodfin comply with all Federal and State Regulations. Mr. Hauck further
stated the Flying Colors lease also had an indemnification clause.

Mr. Todd stated as a small business owner, he was sympathetic to Mr. Woodfin’s plight and
would have voted to forgive Mr. Woodfin entirely, but further stated a mistake was made and
something needs to be learned from it.

Chair Mulligan restated Dr. Taylor’s motion to accept Mr. Woodfin’s $10,000 Settlement
Offer. Motion carried 8-0.

Chair Mulligan stated he was concerned that a precedence was being established and was
concerned about future ramifications, but further stated he thought the Settlement Offer with
Flying Colors was the right thing to do

Nordstrom Project – Extension of Utilities
As part of the incentive package to attract Nordstrom, Inc. to the Airport Industrial Park, on
November 21, 1997, GACRAA voted to spend up to $150,000 as match funding with the City of
Gainesville for the extension of utilities to the proposed distribution facility. The current
GACRAA has this issue under review to determine if the City would consider an alternate means
to offset the obligation. The Budget Committee addressed this issue at their meeting on August
9, 2000, and it was the consensus of the Committee to recommend to GACRAA to honor the
original commitment made to the City on November 21, 1997.

Recommendation: Motion to authorize the appropriate payments to the City of Gainesville
related to GACRAA’s November 21, 1997 approved motion to partially fund the extension of
utilities to the Nordstrom project site; and authorize the Chair and Secretary/Treasurer to execute
the appropriate documents on behalf of the Airport Authority.

The Director stated in November 1997, as part of an incentive package to attract Nordstorm,
the City Manager asked the Authority, and the Authority agreed, to spend up to $150,000 as
matching funds with the City of Gainesville to extend utilities to the proposed distribution
facility. The Director stated there have been discussions among the current Authority to ask the
City to consider an alternate means to offset that obligation. The Director stated at the August
Budget Review Committee meeting, it was the consensus of the Committee to recommend that
the full Authority honor the original commitment made to the City on November 21, 1997.

Dr. Taylor moved to recommend the full Authority pay the City of Gainesville and honor the
original commitment made to the City on November 21, 1997. Ms. Tubb seconded

Dr. Taylor asked how much the bill came totaled.

Mr. Rowell, the Airport’s Fiscal Coordinator, stated the bill is $117,619, but stated that he was
not satisfied with the City’s explanation of the bill.

Chair Mulligan restated Dr. Taylor’s motion to pay the City for its (GACRAA’s) portion of the
extension of utilities to the Nordstrom project site. Motion carried 8-0

General Aviation Terminal and Parking Lots Renovations ~ GACRAA Project No. 00-005
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has now agreed to fund all four Bid
Alternates for the above project while they originally approved only the Base Bid with Bid
Alternates 1 & 4. The project was awarded to AMJ at the May meeting for (Base Bid with Bid
Alternates 1 & 4) for a total estimated cost of $757,509. The total estimated cost of the projects
(Base Bid with Bid Alternates 1, 2, 3, & 4) amounts to $821,064.

               Bid Alternate # 2 – Construct Covered Walkway to Ramp
               Bid Alternate # 3 – Provide Folding Partition in Conference Room

Recommendation: Motion to issue a “Notice of Intent To Issue A Change Order” to AMJ
Construction, Inc. (AMJ) in the Amount of $57,000 (Bid Alternates 2 & 3) with a contingency of
$5,700 for additional services if deemed necessary by the Director of Aviation.

The Director stated the FDOT has now agreed to fund all four Bid Alternates. He further stated
an option in AMJ’s contract has a provision regarding the Authority’s awarding of Bid
Alternates 2 & 3 before August 15, 2000. The Director stated, if approved, the Authority would
need to come up with the 50% match, an additional $31,350.

The Director stated if the Authority agrees to pay the 50% match, the contractor will be advised;
a Change Order will be issued to incorporate Bid Alternate # 2 & Bid Alternate # 3; and issue
two (2) Supplemental JPA’s to increase State Funding.

Ms. Tubb moved to issue a “Notice of Intent To Issue A Change Order” to AMJ
Construction, Inc. (AMJ) in the Amount of $57,000 (Bid Alternates 2 & 3) with a contingency
of $5,700 for additional services if deemed necessary by the Director of Aviation. Dr. Taylor

Mr. Van Riper stated the covered walkway to the ramp to the building is critical to combat the
hazardous weather conditions. He further stated the folding partition would serve to make the
conference room in the building more functional.

Mr. McEachern stated he did not see this as a Change Order, rather as an exercise on an option.

Dr. Taylor also stated she did not see it as a Change Order as the Bid Alternates had been
previously talked about, and would be included, if the JPA’s were received to fund them.

Chair Mulligan restated Ms. Tubb’s motion on the floor. Motion carried 8-0

Information Items

Air Service Marketing
Passenger traffic during July 2000 decreased 10.8% (-2,715 passenger trips) versus July 1999.

Year-to-date traffic is down 2.5% (-4,511 passenger trips) compared the same period in CY99.

Member Tubb distributed two handouts: Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce Member
Survey and Gainesville Regional Airport Passenger Traffic Monthly Report (copies attached).

Continental Connection – Fiscal Impact
At GACRAA’s July 13th meeting, staff was requested to determine the fiscal impact of

Gulfstream International Airlines d/b/a Continental Connection terminating service at GNV. It
is estimated that the total annual fiscal impact is $30,864.

Budget Report
Report titled Gainesville Regional Airport Statement of Operating Revenues, Expenses &
Income for the period of October 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 is included in the agenda back-
up materials.

Sales Tax on Sales of Surplus Equipment
The City of Gainesville has confirmed that the auction company that conducted the sale of
surplus equipment, did collect and directly remit to the Florida Department of Revenue, sales
taxes from sales to all non-exempt customers.

General Aviation Terminal and Parking Lot Renovations – GACRAA Project No. 00-005
The Notice to Proceed was issued to AMJ Construction, Inc. on July 31, 2000. Relocation to the
temporary general aviation terminal (office modular) will commence the week of August 7th.
Construction activities are expected to take 7 months.

Corporate Hangar Project – GACRAA Project No. 00-008
A non-mandatory pre-bid conference will be held on August 9th. Construction bids are due on
August 30, 2000 at 3:00 p.m.

The Director stated the August 23, 2000 joint City and County Commission meeting has been
cancelled by the County and will be rescheduled

Mr. McEachern stated item 13b does not reflect the loss of profit on the fuel or other intangible

Tenant Reports:        Airport Tenants Association
                       Gainesville Pilots Association

Mr. Hicks, Gainesville pilot, stated the electricity to the port-a-ports was not installed by July
14th, and further stated he was told that electricity to the last 10 hangars should be complete
within another week.

Airport Authority Input

Mr. McEachern stated the Authority might be subject to sanctions for not notifying the Appellate
Court that an agreement had been reached regarding the Hyden Litigation.

The Director stated that it was his understanding that the Authority had chosen Option 2 which
states the Authority would hear the decision before the Agreement would go into effect.

Ms. Tubb distributed an Air 21 article from a civil engineering magazine.

Dr. Gallagher stated there is competition for Air 21 and suggested further Air 21 discussions take

place at the next meeting regarding the Authority becoming more pro active.

The Director stated a decision should be made by the end of the month as to whether Air 21 will
be funded.

Mr. Van Riper stated he spoke with Ross DeWitt, University Athletic Association (UAA), and
they expect hangar construction to begin within 10 days and completion within four (4) months.

Mr. Brower asked Mr. Van Riper if the Authority has been asked to co-sponsor the Hurricane
Hunters Exposition.

Mr. Van Riper stated it has not been requested for the year 2001.

Dr. Gallagher moved the full Authority to co-sponsor the Hurricane Hunters Exposition. Ms.
Tubb seconded. Motion carried 8-0


There being no further business, Dr. Taylor moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr.
Perry. Motion carried 8-0 [Patrick Bainter left at 6:35 p.m.]

The Airport Authority meeting of August 10, 2000, adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gene P. Clerkin, Director of Aviation


______________________________                      _____________________________
Richard Mulligan, Chair                             Portia L. Taylor, Secretary/Treasurer



To top