Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_AIRAB_04.28.2003 Minutes of the Meeting of the Airport Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, April 28, 2003 The Airport Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Monday , April 28, 2003. Members Present: Arnold Wieder, Don Pfiester, Howard Fomby, Jeff Gilbert, John Bader, Mark Dietz, Tim Sullivan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Travis McLain Minutes Regular Meeting 1. Call to order. Chairman Dietz called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. Consideration and Approval of Minutes of March 24, 2003, meeting. Motion by Don Pfiester and seconded by Jeff Gilbert to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2003, meeting. Motion approved 7-0. 3. Airport Manager’s Report: A. March 2003 Monthly Income and Expense Report B. Report on “after-hours” refueling Travis McLain: We had a total of 31 sales after hours; averaging a little less than 1 sale per day. Part of the month we closed at 8:00 p.m. and part at 8:30 p.m. Between closing time and 10:pm, there were 18 sales; between 10-12:a.m. there were 8 sales; and between 12-7:00 a.m. there were 5 sales. We had sales that occurred at 12:04 a.m., 1:32 a.m., 2:42 a.m., 4:30 a.m., and 5:31 a.m. This is the second full month we’ve done this. C. Report on Noise Study and Master Plan update Tom Yantis: (Assistant City Manager) Noise Study: There was a conference call today (4/28/03), between TxDOT and Coffman & Associates to talk about the direction that the City Council gave the staff. The motion and vote on March 25, 2003 was for the Council to certify the noise exposure maps subject to removal of the 2011 maps and the 55 and 60 DNL contours from the 2006 maps. They also directed us to work with the consultant to update the projections of based aircraft for 2006. We discussed all those changes today with the consultant and they are going to get started on the updates to remove the 2011 maps and any references and documentation to that. I ’m going back to the Council on May 13, 2003 to discuss what we talked about, regarding the changes and projections for 2006. Coffman gave us two estimates basically, costs to remove the 2011 maps and the 55/60 contour lines, that is about $35,000.00 additional costs; and to do the update of the projections would be a total additional costs of $78,000.00. My recommendation from Council is not to update the projections because I did not feel like we were going to get a whole lot for our money by spending that additional $43,000.00. We talked to Coffman today about what the impact of changing the projections would be on the actual contour. It was my understanding that the Council’s main concern, is the 65 DNL contour. The 2006 map extends off the airport property and that would seem to be the issue. Our 2006 projected based aircraft count was 320 in the noise study, we are at 256 today, we thought that was kind of high. We’re probably not going to hit 320 unless Don’s proposal for the southwest side of the airport materializes. So we talked to Coffman, what would happen if we backed the projection to 290, 285, what would that do to the contour? That would not do much of anything to change the contour lines, one of the reasons is because the number of operations per based aircraft is at a fixed number of 500. To change th e contour lines, it takes a doubling of operations to move the contour by 3 decibels. We calculated that if you moved the number down to 290 based aircraft you really only reduced the number of operations by less than 10%. It wasn’t going to have an appreciable effect on the contour line, now you could argue that the number of operations of based aircraft, but if you compounded those two things, you would have a bigger decrease but still not a significant decrease. So that’s what I’m going to report back to Council, do we spend that money or not. The other thing we talked about was that if we go forward and change the projections, we very likely may have to change the based year to 2003 and the forecast year to 2008 and that would require an additional review and approval by the FAA. It’s not impossible; it’s a lot of work and additional expenses. So that’s what I’m going to report back to Council. Tim Sullivan: So 2011 will be out completely? Tom Yantis: Yes, 2011 and the 55 and 60 decibel contour lines. Really the only map is the 2006 map and the lowest contour will be 65 decibel. It will still expand off the airport, north and south. Don Pfiester: That was six houses. What about changing the number of operations per based airplane? Tom Yantis: We talked about that. That’s not an exact science how they get that number. We have some benchmarks, we have the 2000 study for the tower, that predicted 81,000 per annual operations. We have good data. So we can argue that 500 is on the high side. Tim Sullivan: Is there a deadline as far as the City has to make a decision. Tom Yantis: No set deadline, but as far as TxDOT is concerned, the sooner the better, they’re ready to close out this grant. Don Pfiester: What’s the money situation, assuming they do take action? Tom Yantis: TxDOT is going to send us the bill for $35,000.00 for the consultant and updates, we have authorization from the Council to do that. Then it will be a question after the 13th whether Council wants to go forth with the other updates and forecasts. Jeff Gilbert: On the 35 is that still on a 90-10 split? Tom Yantis: No. The way the grant is written, any cost that exceeds the original contract amount, are the sponsor’s responsibility. Howard Fomby: Did you know there was a letter that came from TxDOT to Coffman and Associates in the middle of the study period that asked them to remove the extra contours and extra year? Tom Yantis: Yes, I do know about that letter. I have not confirmed this with TxDOT, but what I think they were saying, was if they were to include those, Coffman need explain what the planning purposes of including them were. In our technical advisory group, about two years ago, which included Amelia Sondgeroth, our Planning Director, Coffman did talk about what they had intended those contours for was land use planning. I don’t know if they ever responded to TxDOT’s inquiry. We will report back to you after Council decides what they plan to do. Master Plan Update: We are working to bring to the Council a project plan for the Master Plan Update also on the 13th. I’m hoping to outline to the Council what I have heard is the scope of the Master Plan Update and also recommend that they set a date for completion and distribution of an RFQ and then talk briefly about the qualifications they would like to see in the RFQ for the team of consultants that would be used to do the update. What I hope to get from Council is the direction that we can go forward with the RFQ release and they confirm the intent of the update. Also what I need to get from Council is funding, whether completely with City dollars or whether they would like to seek grant funding from TxDOT. My initial indications are they probably lean toward funding from ourse lves. I don’t expect it to be a huge expenditure because I don’t think we are going to totally redo the Master Plan, a lot of the frame work that’s been done will not have to be redone, that ’s another opportunity for us to get projections. Tim Sullivan: Have you picked a consultant? Tom Yantis: No. We’ve received some recommendations; three consultants that I am still doing research on. We’ll definitely do direct mail-ins of the RFQ to firms and put in out on the website. Mark Dietz: Are we going to be involved in the update? Tom Yantis: Absolutely. Tim Sullivan: Will there be any public meetings? Tom Yantis: I would imagine there would be, definitely. Part of that is a requirement, but it is our standard operating procedure to get public comment during the process. Once we’ve selected the consultant. I don’t anticipate it being a long process. The other thing we have to accept, is that ultimately if the Master Plan Update requires an ALP update, then that has to be approved by TxDOT and the FAA. Don Pfiester: If you don’t do an ALP then you don’t have to have the Master Plan approved? Tom Yantis: It’s probably best to have the Master Plan update approved by TxDOT and the FAA regardless of whether there’s an ALP. I anticipate that there will be an ALP update. Mark Dietz: In the past the Airport Advisory Board has been involved in the consultant selection process and provided that input to Council. I would like to see some of the members of the board on the Master Plan update if we possibly could. Tom Yantis: I will make sure to relay that to the Council on the 13th. Don Dison: (Citizen) You mentioned the ALP and there’s been a lot of information and possibly some misinformation. Do we have an approved ALP that reflects the configuration of the airport today? Tom Yantis: Yes. We do have that. I think the confusion has come with the fact that the original consultant, PBS & J submitted the ALP in 2001 to TxDOT, and it showed the previous proposed layout of the facilities. Then in 2002 Smith-Western did an update to the as-built drawing of the airport. Then the as-built was submitted to TxDOT, and TxDOT did not submit it to the FAA because there is no air space review. We had requested from David Fulton, that he send us a signed copy of the one submitted in 2002 as accepted by TxDOT. The one everyone has seen as the as-built drawing, is the official ALP. D. Report on Aviation Museum Howard Fomby: I was going to take leadership on that, but have been very busy this month. Travis McLain: Then we’ll carry that over to next month. E. Report on the “Texas Mission of Mercy” Howard Fomby: We have gotten information that the people building Scott & White ’s facility and he has getting permission for us to use that. There are safety issues at the airport, the Fire Marshal has concerns that a lot of the people coming to this event may not be mentally acute and there may be a lot of elderly, and we do not want them wandering out on the field or near aircraft. Don Pfiester: Maybe we can get the CAP involved? Howard Fomby: That’s one of the things I suggested to them. There are alternative sites, the old Gibson’s building on Williams Drive and the Walmart that’s emptying out, they are preferable because parking is there and easy access; although not preferable for showcasing the airport. Sometimes this week, I will meet with Carol Woods. Travis McLain: You said the Scott & White facility. You mean the one under construction at the airport? Howard Fomby: Yes. It is suppose to be completed in time for this event and Scott & White is willing to hold off housing the helicopter for the event. Travis McLain: Parking will be a major concern there. There is no parking. Howard Fomby: I don’t know if the airport will be the ideal place to do this. I will have more information next month. Travis McLain: I will add to this to the agenda next month. Howard Fomby: Along the lines of the mission of mercy and what this airport does. A patient from this area had a bacteria and an infection that was life -threatening. Because the helicopter was here, they were able to get the patient to Temple in 15 minutes and shipped to Temple where physicians that could treat it. The f amily advised that the hospital said if the patient had got there 30 minutes later, the patient would have died. Today the patient if fine and living. A lot of people complain about this airport and helicopters, but there is a tremendous service for having them here. F. General Information Items Travis McLain: That concludes my report. Mark Dietz: Before we moved to the action items, if anyone has signed up to speak on an item; then you need to turn in a sign-in sheet. We’ll allow you to speak to the item, please limit your comments to three minutes. 4. Consideration and possible action regarding the Airport “Fly Friendly Program.” Don Dison: The letters on the signs may still be too small. They should be large enough for pilots to see. 50% larger may not be enough. Don Pfiester: I gave you hand-outs 1) Proposed Fly Friendly update 2) second page was sent by Travis with your packet, which are the actual proposed changes. Tim, Arnold and I have met twice about this, we basically went through and revised. This is our proposal, the top portion of this is the new Fly Friendly Program that we are recommending tonight. The bottom is about the signs. Take the existing signs move them close to the run -up areas, and make new signs where the current signs are, to include, Don’s point that we may need to increase from 50% to 75%. The first thing we need to do is get everybody informed as to what the new “Fly Friendly” program is. Then the idea would be that we’re going to redo this sheet. We’ll use the same photograph basically, but we did not like the yellow, possible change it to red, highlight the schools, and then have 300 printed and sent to all the pilots at the airport. Tim Sullivan: Actually the changes from yellow to red, we ’re increasing the homeland security? Don Pfiester: Right. Tim Sullivan: Noise sensitive areas go under the red. Don Pfiester: On the Fly Friendly program are changes to include the new villages of Berry Creek, and insert word I35 on the interstate. The estimate cost for 1,000 (I believe I said 300 earlier) brochures is $300.00. Then the signs, the cost will include moving the old signs and putting in the new signs. The next thing is how to get the program out. First thing is to mail out the brochure (map with letter on the back ), the cost to mail out to 300 local pilots = $250.00. We can put it on the AWOS announcement. Travis has airport various airport directories, he will add the Fly Friendly Program. The newspaper, the prices for advertising, also an article by Clark Thurmond; T.V. news items, exposure from local T.V., it will put back on the City website; also there was a good article in the AOPA about flying in an uncontrolled airspace. Also, with the newspaper, a guide to Georgetown is coming out and maybe we can put an ad in there too, it’s a periodical publication. The pilots may know about the Fly Friendly program but the neighbors do not. One of the things we want to do here is let the neighbors know that we’re trying to do something about the noise. We considered mailing it to all the neighbors around here, but it’s cost prohibited; it turns out it will cost several thousand dollars to do that. Our estimate as to the total cost is $3,500.00; that we need to ask Council to spend. I would like your thoughts: 1) approving the new Fly Friendly program, the new suggested procedures, and/or to the signs, any changes. Mark Dietz: Why don’t we make these your motions. Approval of the Fly Friendly Program, I take that as a motion. Tim Sullivan: I second the motion. Mark Dietz: The motion is seconded. Now it’s open for discussion, anybody have any changes or thoughts on the proposed Fly Friendly program? John Sommerfield: (Citizen) First of all, by buying advertising in the newspaper, we more or less just trying to let the community know that we’ve got this program; which we’ve actually had for quite some time. Don Pfiester: That’s correct, it hadn’t been promoted for a while. Mark Dietz: My idea is that we get to that in a second. What I was trying to do was break t his into small bites, so we start with just the Fly Friendly program. In other words, the language that was proposed, assuming we get passed that without any issues, then go on to the signs, the go on to the various types of advertising, costs associated with dissemination of information. Howard Fomby: Do you have any concern about runway signs (right-hand or left- hand lanes? Don Pfiester: No, because those things change. We did not want to be that specific. We do not want to tell people what to do or how to fly their airplanes. We’re trying to be as general as possible because everybody had different techniques. Don Pfiester: Motion to approve the Fly Friendly Program. Tim Sullivan: I second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. Don Pfiester: Motion to approve the signs. Tim Sullivan; I second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. Don Pfiester: Motion to approve the promotion of the program. Tim Sullivan: I second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. 5. Discuss the Airport Master Plan Update. Don Pfiester: Motion to make certain that the Airport Advisory Board is included in the process. Resolution: Any discussion or meeting on the Master Plan or Noise Study to include notification to the Board John Bader: I second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. 6. Consideration and possible action to appoint “Airport Open House” Subcommittee members. Howard Fomby: Motion to form a Board Open House Subcommittee and appoint Jeff Gilbert as chairman, and report back to the Board in May. Jeff Gilbert: I second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. 7. Consideration and possible action to recommend that Council request FAA to change the traffic pattern on runway 29 from left hand to right hand traffic as a noise mitigation measure. Don Pfiester: Motion to research and report to Board in May. Jeff Gilbert: Second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. 8. Consideration and possible action to recommend to Council a method to provide two -way traffic on taxiway A, as a safety measure. Tim Sullivan: Motion to delete this item, due to Council prior action. Motion approved 7-0. 9. Consideration and possible action to develop an Airport Advisory Board Mission Statement. Tim Sullivan: In the Snell meetings, I had the opportunity to talk to Farley about changing the mission statement, and would the council do that. He came back and said why doesn’t the advisory board decide what it really should read and come back and make a suggestion to the council. If the council agrees, then we’ll change. At the last meeting, everyone was asked to come up with a change. In the bylaws, it says, “Purpose: The Airport Advisory Board shall from time to time make such general studies of airport construction and operation as may be useful in keeping the municipal airport efficient and adequate to the needs of the city and of the air transportation industry.” My suggestion is where “and adequate to the needs of the city,” to say “and adequate to the needs of the city and of the airport transportation industry, the board shall consider the interest of both airport users and their neighbors when it comes to future development and noise mitigation.” Then it says, “it shall make recommendations to the city council in respect to construction and expansion, improvements, maintenance in operations of such airport.” I say it should say, “in respect to improvements, maintenance and operations,” and leave out the words construction and expansion. It goes on from there to say, “it shall call to the manager’s attention any failure by personnel of the airport to carry o ut any orders or policies adopted by the city council and it shall act in an advisory capacity, work towards the general improvement of the airport and the advancement of the city as an air transportation center.” I came to, “general improvement of the airport and a good neighbor to those living around the airport,” and leave out “the advancement of the city as an air transportation center.” Don Pfiester: I believe what the real area most people have a problem is the wording, “the advancement of the city as an air transportation center.” Maybe put something about the airport being a good neighbor. John Bader: I’d like to hear from the neighbors, other than the two we have here tonight. I ’d like to talk about what the actual problems are, the only time we hear from them is before the city council, when there is an action item going on. We need more people involved in the process. Tim Sullivan: The people that are doing the complaining at city hall in front of the council have given up coming in front of the airport board because they think the airport board does not care about taking into consideration other than the promotion of this airport and its expansion. I think we need to get back to the point where we are involved and suggesting to the council, wh at they should do. Howard Fomby: I disagree. From conversations I’ve had with anti-airport people, the attitude expressed is they feel the board is irrelevant, because they can go straight to council. There is no control over any process that has to do with airport. If we look at GUS Advisory, G-Tech, Planning & Zoning, Board of Adjustments, all of those boards and commissions have specific roles and the processes have to move through them before they go to council. What ’s happened to this board is that we have lost our bridge to council. We need to find a plan that defines the long-term process and role of this board. John Sommerfield: (Citizen) I have had experience in that and a mission statement is purely that, a statement. What your lacking here is to assign responsibilities for the board. In the past, I think there have been mixed opinions on how the board should be run and what they should be doing and what their real responsibilities were to community and to the airport, and the council. Let ’s go back to the very basic wording, “advisory”, advisory to whom? It’s always been my understanding that you’re advisory to the council to which they are not particularly adapt in airport matters. Everytime you’ve had a problem, they’ve worked around you trying to be adapt in that, you need to identify your responsibilities and actions, and your deeds will do a lot better than words. Mark Dietz: These are our bylaws. Bylaws are fundamental to any entity. I do not think they are well written or have been observed by council. I believe that if we ’re going to do this and do this right, this is one of those things that we need to have people working on for a while, to come back to this committee and involve council in the process. I would like to take a r ole in this, based on my training. Our fundamental purpose is not well described. I propose we form a board subcommittee on this. The subcommittee members will be Tim Sullivan, Mark Dietz and Howard Fomby and John Bader, as an alternate. Let’s put this back on the agenda for next month. Howard Fomby: Motion to form this subcommittee. Jeff Gilbert: I second the motion. Motion approved 7-0. Report back in May. 10. Citizens Wishing to Address the Board. None. 11. Consideration and Possible Action on Agenda Items for the May 22, 2003, meeting. Mark Dietz: We need to choose a meeting date; Monday, May 26, 2003 is Memorial Day. Next meeting date is Thursday, May 22, 2003. 12. Adjourn. Tim Sullivan: I move we adjourn. Howard Fomby: Second. Motion approved 7-0. Submitted by: Travis McLain Airport Director Reviewed by: Tim Sullivan Board Secretary