The Board Meet­ing of the Pana­ma City-Bay Coun­ty Air­port and Indus­tri­al Dis­trict was called to order at 9:00 a.m., August 23, 2017 by Chair­man Mathis.

The Invo­ca­tion was giv­en by Mr. Carey Scott.

The Pledge of Alle­giance was led by Chair­man Mathis.

The Exec­u­tive Sec­re­tary called the roll and indi­cat­ed that all Board Mem­bers were present.


Mr. Park­er McClel­lan pre­sent­ed and reviewed the Activ­i­ty Report. Ms. Dar­lene Nel­son pre­sent­ed and reviewed the Finan­cial Report. 

Con­sent Agenda:

  1. Board Meet­ing Min­utes – July 192017
    1. This item pro­vides for Board approval of the July 19, 2017 Board Meet­ing Minutes.
  2. Repub­lic Park­ing Bonus
    1. This item pro­vides for Board approval of an incen­tive bonus for Repub­lic Park­ing for the peri­od from June 2016 through May 2017.
  3. Cap­i­tal Pur­chase – Dry Pipe Fire Sprin­kler Replacement
    1. This item pro­vides for the accep­tance of a bid from Sea­go Fire Pro­tec­tion for replace­ment of por­tions of the Dry Pipe Fire Sprin­kler Sys­tem locat­ed with­in the canopy (sof­fit) along the pas­sen­ger drop-off/pick­up areas at the Air­port Ter­mi­nal Building.
  4. Cap­i­tal Pur­chase – SCBA Tanks for Fire Department
    1. This item is for the first-year pur­chase of a five (5)-year sched­ule to replace ARFF Self- Con­tained Breath­ing Appa­ra­tus and SCBA Bottles.
  5. Air Traf­fic Con­trol Tow­er Sun­shade Purchase 
    1. This item pro­vides for Board approval for the pur­chase of 24 replace­ment sun­shades for the Air Traf­fic Con­trol Tow­er (ATCT) at the Airport.
  6. Sub-Lease – Matt Mar­shall & Amy Mar­shall to Coastal Avi­a­tion Group
    1. This item pro­vides for Board approval of a Sub-Lease of Hangar 3 between Matt and Amy Mar­shall and Coastal Avi­a­tion Group.

Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the Con­sent Agen­da as sub­mit­ted. Mr. McDon­ald sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed unanimously.

Busi­ness Items:

  1. Ground Trans­porta­tion Rules & Regulations

This item pro­vides for rec­om­mend­ed changes to the Airport’s ground trans­porta­tion con­tracts and the Air­port Ground Trans­porta­tion Rules and Reg­u­la­tions based on the sub­stan­tial impact of Trans­porta­tion Net­work Com­pa­nies (TNC) at the Airport.

Mr. McClel­lan pre­sent­ed the Board with data that includ­ed the actu­al pick-up num­bers show­ing the impact that TNCs are hav­ing on ground trans­porta­tion com­pa­nies, includ­ing Sun­shine Shut­tle, at ECP. Mr. McClel­lan indi­cat­ed that the impact of TNCs will con­tin­ue to be mon­i­tored. It was also men­tioned that improve­ments have been made to the TNC wait­ing area on John­ny Reaver Road that include trash recep­ta­cles, ash­trays and new lighting.

Upon open­ing of the air­port, two types of ground trans­porta­tion agree­ments for shut­tles and taxis were devel­oped. The Queue Con­tract” allows for per­mit­ted taxis and shut­tles to stage at the com­mer­cial curb or enter the pre-arranged pick up area. The oth­er agree­ment, Pre-Arranged Only”, allows for pre-arranged pick­ups only.

The Fees asso­ci­at­ed with the ground trans­porta­tion con­tracts are sum­ma­rized below: 

Queue Con­tract” — 

  • $225 per month per company
  • $50 per vehi­cle per year – inspec­tion fee
  • $25 per dri­ver per year – Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion media

Pre- Arranged Only” — 

  • $10 per pick up
  • $50 per vehi­cle per year – inspec­tion fee
  • $25 per dri­ver per year – Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion media

In March 2017, the Trans­porta­tion Net­work Com­pa­nies began oper­at­ing in Bay Coun­ty and at the Air­port. The Air­port nego­ti­at­ed with the TNC’s, specif­i­cal­ly Uber and Lyft, to reach an Agree­ment of how they would oper­ate and a fee of $2.50 each for pick-ups at the Air­port was deter­mined. The Air­port receives a month­ly state­ment and fund trans­fer from the TNCs.

Since March, 2017, the TNCs have aver­aged 1,300 trips per month at the Air­port, with a peak num­ber of near­ly 1,600 in July. This has had an impact on the ground trans­porta­tion indus­try as a whole. At the April 2017 Board Meet­ing, it was deter­mined an eval­u­a­tion was need­ed to bet­ter under­stand impacts on Ground Trans­porta­tion at ECP and to ensure that Ground Trans­porta­tion Ser­vices were avail­able to the pas­sen­gers uti­liz­ing the Airport.

In a Staff Study, based on input from the ground trans­porta­tion com­pa­nies and inter­nal review of activ­i­ty on the curb, it was esti­mat­ed that the impact has been approx­i­mate­ly 40% to shuttles.

There was an esti­mat­ed aver­age of 26 trips per day, or an aver­age of one trip per com­pa­ny per day per month. The impacts can also be seen with the num­ber of com­pa­nies either leav­ing, or con­sid­er­ing leav­ing, the mar­ket or indus­try as the pop­u­lar­i­ty of TNCs con­tin­ues to increase.

There­fore, based on the esti­mat­ed 40% reduc­tion in activ­i­ty, it is rec­om­mend­ed that the fees for all ground trans­porta­tion com­pa­nies be reduced. In addi­tion, it is rec­om­mend­ed the auto insur­ance require­ment be $300,000 Com­bined Lim­it Lia­bil­i­ty, and the $300,000 Gen­er­al Lia­bil­i­ty Insur­ance Pol­i­cy, inspec­tion fee and ID fee for each dri­ver for one year be elim­i­nat­ed. It is impor­tant to note that even though elim­i­nat­ing the inspec­tion fee is rec­om­mend­ed, inspec­tions will continue.

The pro­posed fee struc­ture is below:

  • Queue Con­tract” — $135/​month
  • Pre-Arranged Only” — $6/​pickup
  • Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Media – re-issue $25

Addi­tion­al­ly, based on the request of the indus­try at the April 2017 Author­i­ty Meet­ing, a cred­it for the dif­fer­ence in month­ly fees for April – August, 2017 will be giv­en to each com­pa­ny that is in good stand­ing with the Air­port as of the August 23, 2017 Board meeting.

The impact to the FY2017 Oper­at­ing Bud­get is esti­mat­ed to be less than $12,000, which includes monies received from the Trans­porta­tion Net­work Companies.

Ms. Sims made a motion to approve the rec­om­men­da­tion to reduce ground trans­porta­tion fees by 40% for all com­pa­nies pro­vid­ing ground trans­porta­tion ser­vices at ECP and to autho­rize staff to make the appro­pri­ate changes in the Ground Trans­porta­tion Rules and Reg­u­la­tions. Mr. Tusa sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed unanimously.

2. Sun­shine Shut­tle Amend­ment – Rec­om­men­da­tions based on the impacts of the Trans­porta­tion Net­work Com­pa­nies (TNC)

This item pro­vides for rec­om­mend­ed changes to the Airport’s ground trans­porta­tion con­tracts and the Air­port Ground Trans­porta­tion Rules and Reg­u­la­tions based on the sub­stan­tial impact of Trans­porta­tion Net­work Com­pa­nies (TNC) at the airport.

In 2013, the Air­port entered into an Agree­ment with Sun­shine Shut­tle to pro­vide a pre­mi­um ground trans­porta­tion ser­vice with a kiosk in the ter­mi­nal build­ing, pre­ferred curb­side park­ing loca­tion, top spot on our Ground Trans­porta­tion page on the Air­port web site as well as sev­er­al oth­er ben­e­fits not offered to oth­er Ground Trans­porta­tion providers. Sun­shine Shut­tle is required to have a vari­ety of vehi­cles in their fleet to pro­vide dif­fer­ent types of ground trans­porta­tion ser­vices, as need­ed. Present­ly, Sun­shine Shut­tle pays the Air­port $1,500 per month.

The study of the impact of TNCs on ground trans­porta­tion also deter­mined that there was also a reduc­tion in activ­i­ty for Sun­shine Shut­tle. The fees for Sun­shine Shut­tle are also rec­om­mend­ed to be reduced 40%. The new pro­posed fee would be $900/​month.

Addi­tion­al­ly, a cred­it for the dif­fer­ence in month­ly fees for April – August, 2017 will be cred­it­ed to each com­pa­ny that is in good stand­ing with the Air­port as of the August 23, 2017, includ­ing Sun­shine Shuttle.

The impact to the FY2017 Oper­at­ing Bud­get is esti­mat­ed to be less than $3,500, which includes monies received from the Trans­porta­tion Net­work Companies.

Mr. John Finch, own­er of Sun­shine Shut­tle, spoke to the Board and relayed that he feels like his com­pa­ny pro­vides ser­vice to cus­tomers that the Queue” and Pre-Arranged” con­tract dri­vers do not. He asked that the rent be reduced to $700 per month and, due to the expense of staff to oper­ate the kiosk of $100,000 per year, there be a reduc­tion of the hours of the kiosk and/​or the option to have it staffed by dri­vers after hours. Mr. Finch believes that busi­ness for Sun­shine Shut­tle has decreased since the TNCs have arrived and as peo­ple bypass the kiosk to go to the queued ground trans­porta­tion on the curb.

Dis­cus­sion ensued between the Board and Mr. Finch to try to reach a compromise.

Mr. McDon­ald made a motion to approve the rec­om­men­da­tion to reduce fees for Sun­shine Shut­tle by 40% to $900 per month and to autho­rize staff to make the appro­pri­ate changes and to amend the Sun­shine Con­tract to reflect fee reduc­tion and oth­er changes. Mr. Nel­son sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed 5 to 2 with Ms. Sims and Mr. Scott oppos­ing.

3. Employ­ee Health Insur­ance and Oth­er Benefits

This item pro­vides for Board approval of con­tract­ing with Pub­lic Risk Man­age­ment to pro­vide employ­ee health, life, short-term dis­abil­i­ty, den­tal and vision insurances.

Mr. McClel­lan began the pre­sen­ta­tion, stat­ing that the Dis­trict has his­tor­i­cal­ly used the City of Pana­ma City’s ben­e­fit plan. How­ev­er, the Dis­trict was informed that the rates of the City’s plan are antic­i­pat­ed to increase at least 20%; which ulti­mate­ly this gets passed on to the air­lines as a cost of oper­at­ing at ECP. At a meet­ing with the City, Staff was informed fam­i­ly plans would be increas­ing 44%, cost­ing the Air­port $120k, plus the poten­tial to pay an addi­tion­al $50,000 to the self-insur­ance pool. Keep­ing costs and the employee’s best inter­ests in mind, the PRM (Pub­lic Risk Man­age­ment) con­sor­tium was investigated.

Ms. Nel­son con­tin­ued explain­ing to the Board that by chang­ing to PRM the Dis­trict could change the way the employee’s insur­ance needs are cov­ered and still save ECP and the employ­ees mon­ey while hav­ing low­er deductibles and bet­ter coverage.

Cur­rent­ly, the Dis­trict pro­vides its employ­ees with employ­ee health, life, short-term dis­abil­i­ty and den­tal insur­ance through an agree­ment with the City of Pana­ma City.

Because of the sig­nif­i­cant increase in the pre­mi­ums, with Fam­i­ly cov­er­age rates increas­ing 44%, and the fact that tim­ing con­sid­er­a­tions were nec­es­sary, the Dis­trict solicit­ed rate quo­ta­tions from Pub­lic Risk Man­age­ment, a con­sor­tium of local governments.

Flori­da Statute §112.08 is the statu­to­ry basis that allows local gov­ern­ment units to pro­vide and pay out of its funds group insur­ance for its offi­cers, employ­ees and depen­dents. The last sen­tence of §112.08(2)(a) states: Each local gov­ern­ment unit may self-insure any plan for health, acci­dent, and hos­pi­tal­iza­tion cov­er­age or enter into a risk man­age­ment con­sor­tium to pro­vide such cov­er­age, sub­ject to approval based on actu­ar­i­al sound­ness by the Office of Insur­ance Reg­u­la­tion; and each shall con­tract with an insur­ance com­pa­ny or pro­fes­sion­al admin­is­tra­tor qual­i­fied and approved by the office to admin­is­ter such plan.”

The Pub­lic Risk Man­age­ment of Flori­da Health Trust (PRM Health Trust) is a risk man­age­ment con­sor­tium formed under §112.08(2)(a). Any local gov­ern­ment unit that joins the Health Trust signs an Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Coop­er­a­tive Agree­ment and becomes a vot­ing mem­ber of the consortium/​PRM Health Trust. The deci­sion to join a risk man­age­ment con­sor­tium is not a deci­sion that must be dri­ven by or sub­ject to the pub­lic pur­chas­ing rules under Flori­da Statutes §287 et seq.

As required by §112.08(2)(a) and (b), the PRM Health Trust sub­mits and obtains approval for actu­ar­i­al sound­ness through an actu­ary. In addi­tion, as required by §112.08(2)(a), the PRM Health Trust con­tracts with a pro­fes­sion­al admin­is­tra­tor (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Flori­da, Inc.) which is qual­i­fied by the Office of Insur­ance Reg­u­la­tion to admin­is­ter the PRM Health Trust.

PRM Health Trust sub­mit­ted sev­er­al options for cov­er­age to the Dis­trict. The BlueOp­tions Plan #03359” most close­ly mir­rors the cov­er­age cur­rent­ly in effect, but reflects low­er deductibles and copay­ments than the City’s new Buy Up Plan”. Based on the Dis­trict fund­ing 90% of Employ­ee only pre­mi­um cost and 80% of the cost of any pre­mi­um above that of the Employ­ee only pre­mi­um cost, the fol­low­ing is the month­ly cost of coverage:

BlueOp­tions #03359

Employ­ee Share

Employ­er Share

Month­ly Total


$ 52.12

$ 469.13

$ 521.25

Employ­ee + Children

$ 135.53

$ 802.73

$ 938.26

Employ­ee + Spouse

$ 151.16

$ 865.29

$ 1,016.45


$ 234.56

$ 1,198.89

$ 1,433.45

Oth­er PRM Health Trust cov­er­age rates: 

  • Life — $0.458/$1,000
  • Short Term Dis­abil­i­ty — $.27/$10 week­ly benefit
  • Den­tal — $28.34/month Employ­ee (also offers Ortho­don­tial and twice the annu­al max­i­mum benefit)
  • Vision — $5.24/month Employ­ee – paid 100% by employee

The pre­mi­ums quot­ed for employ­ee health, life, short-term dis­abil­i­ty, and den­tal insur­ances result in a total sav­ings to the Dis­trict of an esti­mat­ed $95,000 for the FY 2018 bud­get year. His­tor­i­cal­ly, PRM aver­age annu­al increas­es have been approx­i­mate­ly 5%, with any increas­es deter­mined in part by the his­tor­i­cal claims expe­ri­ence of the con­sor­tium as a whole and in part by the indi­vid­ual local government’s claims experience.

The bud­get for FY 2018 for the employ­ee insur­ance plans will be $600,834 with the City of Pana­ma City vs. $505,748 with PRM Health Trust.

There are cur­rent­ly 51 local gov­ern­men­tal mem­bers in the PRM Health Trust con­sor­tium, which includes 6,720 employ­ees. The trust was found­ed in 1987 and has a mem­ber reten­tion rate of 97%.

There is no effect on FY 2017 Bud­get, fund­ing will be pro­vid­ed in the FY 2018 Budget.

Mr. Scott made a motion to approve con­tract­ing with PRM Health Trust to secure employ­ee health, life, short-term dis­abil­i­ty, den­tal and vision insur­ances and autho­riza­tion for the Exec­u­tive Direc­tor or his designee to exe­cute any nec­es­sary doc­u­ments. Ms. Sims sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed unan­i­mous­ly.

4. Air­field Light­ing Con­trol Sys­tem Equip­ment Pur­chase – Eaton Corporation

This item pro­vides for Board approval for the pur­chase of air­port air­field light­ing con­trol and mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem 1‑second trans­fer equipment.

Mr. Richard McConnell was avail­able to answer the Board’s ques­tions con­cern­ing the pur­chase. The FAA is upgrad­ing the approach­es into the Air­port and their reg­u­la­tions require one sec­ond or less trans­fers. Cur­rent­ly, gen­er­a­tor pow­er is uti­lized and takes about nine or ten sec­onds to pow­er up, there­fore, the new equip­ment is need­ed to sup­port that upgrade. There are sev­en to ten flights a year that are affect­ed by fog­gy con­di­tions at ECP and the new trans­fer will help achieve bet­ter min­i­mums and approach­es in those poor weath­er conditions.

The Air­port owns a com­put­er­ized sys­tem that con­trols and mon­i­tors the air­field light­ing sys­tem in accor­dance with FAA reg­u­la­tions and guide­lines. In sup­port of a cur­rent Fed­er­al Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion project to upgrade ECP’s instru­ment approach to a Spe­cial Autho­riza­tion Cat­e­go­ry II (SA CAT II) to bet­ter accom­mo­date inclement weath­er oper­a­tions, cer­tain elec­tri­cal equip­ment capa­bil­i­ties must be pro­vid­ed by the Air­port Oper­a­tor to main­tain air­field light­ing when com­mer­cial pow­er is not avail­able or has failed. This pur­chase is to acquire and install the elec­tri­cal light­ing switch equip­ment that will meet the FAA’s 1‑second Trans­fer require­ment for SA CAT II approach­es. The result of this capa­bil­i­ty will be that if com­mer­cial pow­er to the air­port light­ing sys­tem fails dur­ing SA CAT II flight oper­a­tions, emer­gency stand­by pow­er will be engaged with­in 1‑second, thus effec­tive­ly elim­i­nat­ing the dis­rup­tion of air­field lighting.

This item is includ­ed in the Airport’s 2017 FAA AIP Grant request at a reim­burse­ment ratio of 9010. This project was com­pet­i­tive­ly bid in accor­dance with FAA grant require­ments. A sin­gle bid was received in an amount not to exceed $210,531.76 and deter­mined to be respon­sive. The Airport’s por­tion of $21,053.18 will be from Air­port Oper­at­ing and Cap­i­tal Improve­ment Bud­get funds.

Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the pur­chase of the 1‑second pow­er trans­fer sys­tem from Eaton Cor­po­ra­tion in an amount not to exceed $210,531.76, with 90% being eli­gi­ble for reim­burse­ment through an FAA AIP grant as well as autho­riza­tion for the Exec­u­tive Direc­tor to exe­cute the nec­es­sary doc­u­ments. Mr. Nel­son sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed unan­i­mous­ly.

5. Accept FAA Grant

This item pro­vides for Board accep­tance of an FAA Grant for use of Enti­tle­ment Funds that pro­vides fund­ing for sev­er­al projects to be com­plet­ed at the airport.

This FAA Grant Offer rep­re­sents the Airport’s 2017 request for enti­tle­ment funds under the FAA Air­port Improve­ment Pro­gram. Six work items are includ­ed on this grant request, which Mr.

McClel­lan explained:

  1. Improve Ter­mi­nal Build­ing – Pur­chase a new load­ing bridge for South­west at Gate 3.
  2. Mit­i­ga­tion Site Devel­op­ment (Phase 1 of 8) – 9,600 acres south of the Air­port. Because of the suc­cess­ful and accel­er­at­ed mit­i­ga­tion, the FAA has agreed to extend their par­tic­i­pa­tion of the con­struc­tion on the mit­i­ga­tion sites.
  3. Secu­ri­ty Enhance­ments – Replace­ment of the Access Con­trol Sys­tem, prox­im­i­ty cards and a vari­ety of equipment
  4. Secu­ri­ty Exit Lane Infra­struc­ture Improve­ments – the FAA will pay for the tech­nol­o­gy and will begin in Sep­tem­ber or Octo­ber 2017.
  5. Reha­bil­i­tate Exist­ing Ter­mi­nal Apron (Design Only) – There has been a shift in the sleep­er slab between the asphalt and con­crete behind Gate 3. This design por­tion will be for the entire apron around the terminal.
  6. 1‑Second Emer­gency Pow­er Trans­fer System

Total costs for the six project items are $3,303,644 and are reim­bursable under this FAA Grant at a 9010 ratio for eli­gi­ble items, amount­ing to the grant agree­ment amount of $2,715,208. Suf­fi­cient funds are pro­vid­ed for in the Airport’s Oper­at­ing Bud­get as indi­cat­ed below.

  1. Board­ing Bridges — $708,215 (Includ­ed in FY18 budget)
  2. Mit­i­ga­tion — $464,886 (Includ­ed in FY18 budget)
  3. Secu­ri­ty Enhance­ments- $356,500 (Includ­ed in FY18 budget)
  4. Exit Lane Improve­ments –$502,110 (Includ­ed in FY18 budget)
  5. Ter­mi­nal Apron Reha­bil­i­ta­tion Design – $61,400 (Includ­ed in FY18 budget)
  6. 1‑Second Trans­fer — $210,533 (Includ­ed in FY18 budget)
Mr. Scott made a motion for the Board to accept the FAA Grant Offer dat­ed August 16, 2017 for var­i­ous air­port improve­ment project items out­lined above and to autho­rize the Board Chair­man or his designee to exe­cute the nec­es­sary doc­u­men­ta­tion with the FAA, fol­low­ing sat­is­fac­to­ry legal review. Ms. Sims sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed unan­i­mous­ly.

6. Air Traf­fic Con­trol Tow­er Mois­ture Remediation

This item pro­vides for Board approval for the emer­gency pur­chase of water dam­age reme­di­a­tion ser­vices for the Air Traf­fic Con­trol Tow­er at the Airport.

Recent­ly, dur­ing a peri­od­ic Staff inspec­tion of the Air Traf­fic Con­trol Tow­er, it was noticed that, what appeared to be, water dam­age was present in some areas. Based on the extent of the dam­age, it was deter­mined an envi­ron­men­tal con­sul­ta­tion was war­rant­ed. Staff con­tact­ed Ken Siders, with Cap­stone Envi­ron­men­tal, and an inspec­tion was per­formed, which includ­ed visu­al inspec­tions and oth­er test­ing method­olo­gies used in water dam­age issues. The inves­ti­ga­tion revealed water dam­age sig­nif­i­cant enough to require reme­di­a­tion and iden­ti­fied reme­di­a­tion protocols.

Mr. McClel­lan briefly dis­cussed the dam­age, stat­ing that it was due to a design issue with the HVAC sys­tem. Mechan­i­cal adjust­ments have been made to the sys­tem to cor­rect the issue and pre­vent fur­ther dam­age and it will con­tin­ue to be mon­i­tored. Min­i­mal impact to the Tow­er is expected.

Due to the crit­i­cal­i­ty of the facil­i­ty on air­port oper­a­tions, and in the inter­est of an expe­dit­ed res­o­lu­tion to the dam­age, quo­ta­tions were solicit­ed out­side nor­mal pur­chas­ing pol­i­cy. The reme­di­a­tion is sep­a­rat­ed into three (3) tasks; (A) clean-up/tear-out and reme­di­a­tion, (B) mechan­i­cal reme­di­a­tion (HVAC) and © build-back. We have received four inde­pen­dent (4) quotes for tasks A and B, as described in the Cap­stone Envi­ron­men­tal report. The quotes are as fol­lows for tasks A and B, task C will be deter­mined upon com­ple­tion of the reme­di­a­tion efforts.

Task A and B

  • Day Star Clean­ing, Inc. — $72,009.45
  • Dis­as­ter Response Team (DRT) — $111,472.51 Ready Restora­tion Pros — $77,320.75
  • ServPro of Bay Coun­ty — $66,519.81

Task C

  • Based on ini­tial find­ings iden­ti­fied in the report, the build-back is esti­mat­ed to be less than $20,000.


  • 20% of Task A and B — $12,969.15

The quotes have been reviewed by Cap­stone Envi­ron­men­tal for con­for­mance with reme­di­a­tion pro­to­cols. The work will be com­plet­ed with min­i­mal, if any, dis­rup­tion of tow­er oper­a­tions. Addi­tion­al­ly, Cap­stone Envi­ron­men­tal will serve as the Sub­ject Mat­ter Expert and pro­vide over­sight to the project to ensure suc­cess­ful reme­di­a­tion efforts.

This is an un-bud­get­ed safe­ty pur­chase. Suf­fi­cient funds are avail­able in FY17 Oper­at­ing bud­get to accom­plish Task A and B. The Airport’s insur­ance car­ri­er has been con­tact­ed with a claim for the reme­di­a­tion work.

Mr. Scott made a motion to approve the pur­chase from ServPro of Bay Coun­ty in the amount of $66,519.81 and to autho­rize the Chair­man or designee to approve the fees asso­ci­at­ed with Task C and autho­rize the Exec­u­tive Direc­tor to uti­lize the Con­tin­gency Funds as nec­es­sary as well as exe­cute the nec­es­sary doc­u­ments. Mr. McDon­ald sec­ond­ed the motion. The vote was tak­en and the motion passed unan­i­mous­ly.

Moore Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Group:

Ms. Katie Spill­man pre­sent­ed a slide show to the Board of MCG’s per­for­mance and high­lights for July 2017. She informed the Board that over­all dig­i­tal traf­fic is up approx­i­mate­ly ten per­cent year over year, with much of the inter­est being in the ECP Home Page and the Flight Tracker.

The newslet­ter has great engage­ment and is cur­rent­ly being received by over 600 peo­ple and count­ing. The month­ly newslet­ter email is being opened mul­ti­ple times and for­ward­ed to oth­ers by sub­scribers. Peo­ple are opt­ed in to receiv­ing the newslet­ter when they enter the sweep­stakes for the month­ly lug­gage draw­ings. Post­ing the pho­to of the first lug­gage win­ner on Face­book has helped to dri­ve entries into the sweep­stakes. August’s ECP perk was a give­away for a pair of tick­ets to the Gulf Coast Jam. The run­time for the give­away was short, but num­bers showed good inter­est at over 800 entries. Pan­do­ra adver­tis­ing is doing well with a goal impres­sion of 1.1 mil­lion peo­ple and 94% of the traf­fic to the web­site through the mobile dis­play is new to the ECP website.

Ms. Spill­man let the Board know that on August 24, 2017 TSA would be pro­vid­ing a behind-the- scenes look to local media.

As a last point, Ms. Spill­man said that the Insta­gram mar­ket­ing strat­e­gy is cur­rent­ly a work in progress.

Exec­u­tive Direc­tor Report:

Mr. McClel­lan fol­lowed up on a ques­tion from the last Board meet­ing about a TSA pro­gram for known trav­el­ers” by say­ing that ECP is not large enough at this time to imple­ment it, but will con­tin­ue to mon­i­tor it.

Mr. McClel­lan pre­sent­ed the region­al CPE (Cost Per Enplaned Pas­sen­ger) num­bers to the Board and the num­bers show that ECP is in line with region­al competitors.

Mr. McClel­lan informed the Board that the road con­struc­tion on the way to the ter­mi­nal has been com­plet­ed and that there is an appeal to FEMA for the fund­ing of part of the project.

Mr. McClel­lan advised the Board that fol­low­ing a recent site vis­it, ECP is the first choice for a com­pa­ny inter­est­ed in bring­ing new busi­ness to the area. He also said the Pom­pano Project con­tin­ues to move for­ward and the Blue Star Project is like­ly to be slowed down for about a year.

Mr. McClel­lan report­ed that the By-Laws have been reviewed by Chair­man Math­is and Ms. Sims and final touch­es are being applied. The By-Laws will be dis­cussed at the upcom­ing Bud­get Work­shop and the work­books for the Bud­get are antic­i­pat­ed to go out in the fol­low­ing week.

Pub­lic Comments:

There were no pub­lic comments.


The meet­ing was adjourned at approx­i­mate­ly 10:30 a.m.

Tal­isa Price, Exec­u­tive Sec­re­tary Russ Math­is, Chairman