Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWhole - Century Plan - Airport Plan Element June 199817326/960507i CENTURY PLAN : AIRPORT PLAN ELEMENT Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan prepared for: The City of Georgetown and TxDOT Aviation Division prepared by: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. June' 1+998 � AIRPORT PLAN WORKING GROUP Airport Advisory Board Members Rondald Parker, Chair Donald Cole Al Fittipaldi Randy Smedley Dick Sowash (from January 1997) City Council Dick Vincent (through May 1997) Members At -Large James Accuntius - Serenada Neighborhood Deborah Boone - Brangus Ranch Neighborhood Beth Jenkins - Airport Fixed Base Operators Jim Spikes - Golden Oaks Neighborhood Staff and Consultant Travis McLain, Airport Manager Clyde von Rosenberg, AICP, Chief Long Range Planner Michelle Hannah, Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division William Griffin, P.E., Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 17326/960507 INTRODUCTION Pur ose The purpose of this Century Plan element is to provide both a policy direction and a detailed description of the future workin development group the Georgetown the City Council to represent the Having been approved by a citizen g gr P to insure interests of airport users and the s r in the be t interests of plan who usetthedairport as well as community, this that decisions about the airport ar e those who are directly or indirectly affected he 1 needs and finncin c capabilities and will be implement this plan will be based p City's reflected in subsequent Annual Operating Plan Elements approved by the City Council. In January of 1996, the City Council appointed a citizen working group, designated the Airport Plan Working Group. The Airport memberoa representative of the ahrport's fixed base Airport Advisory Board, a City Council ral operators and representatives of sevQhbo hoods. dThrough residenti contract areas, e administered ed bythe Teaas Brangus Ranch and Golden Oaks nela Department of Transportation's Aviation com l lete the technical work on the master plan. consultant, Espey, Huston & Associates, was chosen p The Working Group met, alowith 0ctober of 1996tandl from Octobeer of 1997 to Division staff, from March of 1996 through February of 1998 to complete work on e a second n public hearty held for June lt24,1 998 hearing on March 16, 1998 and has scheduled Following the incorporation of the input at Grou thntendsltohp esent the draft report o the City section of the Master Plan, the Working P Council at an as yet to be determined date in the future. 17326/960507 iii (-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Century Plan Explanation of "Ends" Statements The Airport Plan is a component of the City of Georgetown's comprehensive plan, known as the Georgetown Century Plan. The Policy Plan Element of the Century Plan contains the City's Mission Statement and Ends Statements for fourteen different Policy Areas. Ends statements are expressions of the ultimate desired result for each Policy Area. The Airport Plan Ends statements contained in the following section reflect the contributions of the Airport Plan Working Group and are part of the Transportation Policy Area. Each Policy Area has one Policy End, a broad, relatively permanent, expression of the ultimate desired result as expressed by the community's values. Each of the Ends statements is numbered for reference, based on its location in the Policy Plan. The Policy End statement for the Transportation Policy Area is numbered 12.0 and is presented in the following section for reference. Focus Ends are more specific descriptions of the results desired and expressed by the Policy Ends. The Airport Plan Working Group created eleven Focus Ends, 12.6 through 12.16, which specifically describe the Georgetown Municipal Airport's role in providing transportation for the community. These Ends statements were used as guidance in preparing the detailed master plan for airport improvements. The recommendations in the Airport Master Plan are, therefore, fully consistent with the Ends statements created by the Airport Plan Working group. Each year during the development of the City's Annual Operating Plan Element, City staff will create Means Statements to describe the specific activities, in support of the Ends, which are to be carried out during that fiscal year. The recommendations in this Airport Master Plan will be used to develop Means Statements in future Annual Operating Plan elements. Ends Statements Policy End 12.0 Georgetown's transportation system provides for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, promotes the economic interests of the community, and adequately serves the needs of individuals. (Adopted by City Council - Policy Plan Element) Airport Plan Focus Ends 12.6 The Georgetown Municipal Airport is an integral part of the transportation system and business activity as well as being a good citizen of the community. 12.7 There is direct public access to the areas east and west of the Georgetown Municipal Airport runways. 12.8 Funding for the Georgetown Municipal Airport's operations and facility development reflects the needs of the community, as expressed by the Airport Master Plan and the current Annual Operating Plan Element, and is authorized on the basis of prudent fiscal policies and planning. 17326/960507, iv 12.9 The Georgetown Municipal Airport primarily serves general aviation users operating with aircraft that are designed for safe operation on a runway length no greater than 5,000 feet, which is the maximum length of the main runway (Runway 18 -36) at Georgetown Municipal Airport, as certified by the City Council on November 13, 1990. 12.10 Airport facilities are served by the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. 12.11 The Georgetown Municipal Airport has adequate infrastructure, including hangar space, terminal facilities, commercial facilities, runways, taxiways, ramps, roadways and parking areas, to meet user demand for general aviation, in accordance with the Airport Master Plan. 12.12 The City provides matching funding to support State and Federal funds for the improvement of the airport infrastructure and facilities described in the Airport Master Plan. 12.13 The City provides long -term land leases for the construction of corporate /commercial hangars and aviation related businesses, in accordance with the Airport Master Plan. 12.14 The Georgetown Municipal Airport provides for professional services, including fueling, terminal operations and a UNICOM, which are efficient, customer service oriented, and financially beneficial to the City. 12. 15 The Georgetown Municipal Airport is zoned appropriately for the uses described in the Airport Master Plan and in consideration of the surrounding land uses 12.16 Noise from airport activities affecting surrounding residential areas is controlled. As previously stated, the Master Plan was prepared using the above Focus Ends as guidance. It is, therefore, intended that the recommendations in the Master Plan be fully consistent with the stated Focus Ends. Summary of the Master Plan The document summarized in the following is an Airport Master Plan for the Georgetown Municipal Airport. This report was funded by a grant from the Texas Department Transportation (TxDOT) Aviation Division. The Master Plan considers a twenty -year planning horizon and evaluates the projected needs of the airport on the basis of a comparison of existing facilities to facilities required to meet projected aviation demand. The Plan also provides recommendations for capital improvements to meet the projected demand. Finally, the Plan examines the Airport's fiscal operations and recommendations for improvements where noted. Airport Master Plans funded with TxDOT Block Grant funds are required to follow a specific format and include various stipulated planning elements. Accordingly, the Master Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport includes the following components: Inventory of Facilities Aviation Demand Forecasts 17326/960507 • Facility Requirements • Development Overview • Environmental Analysis • Airport Plans • Financial Analysis • Public Participation Each of the components will be briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. The Master Plan was begun with an inventory of the various facilities that make up the Georgetown Municipal Airport. The primary airside facilities are two runways, 18 -36 and 11 -29, which are 5,000 feet (ft) and 4,100 ft in length, respectively. These runways are served by a taxiway system that allows full taxiway access to all runway ends. The runways are both lighted. Runway orientation provides excellent wind coverage. In addition to the runway and taxiway system, airside facilities include a large terminal area apron and aprons which support operation of the airport's various fixed base operators (FBO's). The inventory section also covers landside improvements. Following the inventory section, projections were made for future aviation demand. The demand section addresses the following parameters. • Based aircraft by type • Numbers of aircraft operations, where an operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing. Operations are further classified as either being local or itinerant. • Number of operations per based aircraft • Peaking characteristics Projections are made on a twenty -year planning horizon in five year increments for the first ten years and a final ten year period. The most critical parameter forecast is based aircraft with the projections being as follows. FORECAST BASED AIRCRAFT Year Based Aircraft 1996 (a) 133 (a) 2000 150 2005 169 2015 244 (a) Actual While the demand section concentrates on Georgetown Municipal Airport's primary role as a general aviation airport, the possibility of scheduled commercial service is acknowledged. The potential for such service depends heavily on market factors that are beyond the scope of this study to analyze. While recognizing that a potential for the institution of air carrier service may exist, the City is not actively pursuing scheduled air service. Accordingly, if a viable prospect for the provision of air carrier service should emerge, it is recommended that the City's administration 17326/960507 Vi carefully evaluate the potential benefits to the community resulting from the provision of such service versus possible costs such as the provision of terminal facilities and associated adverse impacts such as increased air traffic. In determining if cooperation with private interests to bring such service to Georgetown Municipal Airport is warranted, due consideration must also be given to the fiscal practicality of the proposal and it's consistency with the City Council's previous action regarding the limitation of the length of the primary runway (18 -36) to 5,000 feet. Following the demand projection section, the adequacy of the existing facilities, as described in the inventory section, to meet the projected aviation demand is addressed. The conclusion of this analysis was that apart from required maintenance of existing pavements, lighting systems and Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs), little airside work, except that necessary to support additional hangar development is required. The need for the refurbishment or replacement of the Terminal Building was identified. As stated above, the most acute need at Georgetown Municipal Airport is for more hangar spaces to support potential new based aircraft. In order to support the new hangar development, several additional hangar access taxiways and aprons are required. These recommended improvements form the bulk of the expenditures in the recommended capital improvement program. Additionally, a number of infrastructure improvements such as roadways and water /wastewater utilities, particularly a central sanitary sewerage system, were also identified as being needed to support the additional hangar development. Finally, as an aid to the overall development at Georgetown Municipal Airport, it is recommended that the property be rezoned from its current category of Residential, RS -1, to a new Aviation /Industrial zoning category. The development overview section reviews the alternatives for the necessary development and makes capital improvement recommendations. Capital improvement recommendations are based on a comparison of the airport's existing facilities to those facilities that are determined to be required to meet the aviation demand projections developed in the aviation demand segment of the Master Plan. In the case of Georgetown Municipal Airport, the alternatives are relatively few with the primary decision to be made being that of whether or not the community wishes to encourage additional based aircraft at Georgetown Municipal Airport and if so to what extent? The environmental analysis section examines the potentials for environmental impacts resulting from the proposed improvements with particular attention being given to existing and projected land uses in the vicinity of the airport While many facets of environmental concern were reviewed, the two most critical concerns at Georgetown Municipal Airport, as with most airports, are noise and land use. The environmental analysis did not, however, identify any significant constraints to the recommended development program. The Master Plan is documented by not only a written report but a full set of airport plans including an Airport Layout Plan, on and off airport land use plans, an airspace plan and a Terminal Area plan. These plans are provided in separate section of the Master Plan document. The Master Plan analyses are concluded with a section that examines the fiscal operations of the airport. The goal of this section is to determine if the recommended improvements will fiscally support themselves and whether the airport can financially provide the local funding necessary to support the improvement program. In the case of Georgetown Municipal Airport, it was determined that the airport is fiscally well managed and can be expected to adequately support the recommended program of improvements. 17326/960507 vii The Master Plan report includes a section that documents the public participation elements of the master planning effort. Public participation was an integral part of the entire planning process in that each of the Airport Plan Working Group meetings was publicly announced and was open to public attendance. A number of citizens attended Working Group meetings and their comments were carefully considered. Upon completion of the Master Plan itself, the draft document was made available for public review and a Public Hearing was scheduled. This hearing was held on March 16, 1998, and was attended by more than fifty persons. After a brief presentation by the Consultant and comments by the Master Plan Working Group, each person wishing to make comment on the Master Plan was given the opportunity to do so. A number of citizens addressed various concerns that were subsequently addressed by the members of the Airport Plan Working Group. The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by those attending the March 16, 1998, Public Hearing and the responses to those concerns developed by the Working Group. Issue The majority of questions and comments relative to the continued development of the airport, as reflected in the Master Plan, were concerned with noise emanating from aircraft operations, that is, taking off, landing or flying overhead. Response For purposes of this discussion, the definition of "noise" shall be as follows: unwanted sound that is undesirable because it interferes with normal speech and hearing or is annoying to an individual or group of individuals. Airport generated noise can be viewed as a system of integral parts including, but not limited to, the following: • Nature and intensity • Number and fleet mix of aircraft using the airport • Time of day • Adjacent land uses • Background or ambient noise levels in adjacent residential areas The aviation industry uses a number of different measurements to define noise. The four most widely used methodologies are as follows: t�%�:�I An A- weighted sound level that approximates the auditory sensitivity of the human ear • EPN(IB Effective perceived noise levels providing a subjective assessment of the human perception of noisiness of the aircraft • SEL Single event sound level measurement of individual aircraft takeoff, landing, or overflight 173261960507 Viii • DNL Measurements used in the Master Plan that provide the day- night, A- weighted average sound level during a 24 -hour period with a penalty applied to nighttime sound levels The DNL values are used to develop noise contours in increments of 5 dBA, with 55 DNL being insignificant and 65 DNL significant exposure. Residences located within a sustained 65 DNL are generally incompatible. However, it should be noted that the noise level created by an aircraft taking off is of a very short duration, lasting only seconds. To develop the noise impact constant DNL contours shown in the Master Plan, the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, Version 5, was employed using the airport's mixed fleet aircraft as an input, along with the measured number of 87,000 aircraft operations 1tl that occurred in 1995 at the Georgetown airport. For a more complete understanding of the noise profile methodology and development, see pages 5 -1 through 5 -12 of the Master Plan. For comparison purposes, the following tables provide information on early morning and late evening flight departures for both runways at the Georgetown airport. The data was taken from the 1995 operational measurements of the 111 mixed airport fleet based at the Georgetown airport. These departures were recorded during a one -week period in the spring and fall and a two -week period in the summer and winter. Runway 11/29 Before 7.00AYYf After 9:00 PjVf March 22 -29 3 departures, average 1 departure, average 0.3 /day 0.14 /day July 15 -29 4 departures, average 5 departures, average 0.29 /day 0.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 4 departures, average 0.57 /day January 27- February 1 departure, average 5 departures, average 10 0.07 /day 0.36 /day Runway 18/36 Before 7.00 AM After 9:00 PM March 22 -29 6 departures, average 10 departures, average 0.86 /day 1.43 /day July 15 -29 7 departures, average 89 departures, average 0.50 /day 6.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 6 departures, average 0.86 /day January 27- February 4 departures, average 8 departures, average 10 0.29 /day 0.57 /day The following list provides some normal, everyday sound level comparisons given in dBA (human ear sensitivity approximation): • Bedroom:24db • Library:35db • Living room: 40db 1 An operation is defined as a take -off or a landing 17326/960507 ix - • Conversational speech: 60db • Piston - powered singles: 65db • Business office: 65db • Business jet: 74db • Average street traffic: 85db • Heavy truck: 90db • Pneumatic drill: 100db • Rock concert: 110db • Electronic siren and threshold of pain: 140db A concern was expressed regarding the prolonged noise resulting from testing after engine repair or overhaul. In order to reduce the noise levels from such engine testing procedures, the airport conducts these tests as close to the center of the airport and as far from residences as possible. Such preventative measures greatly reduce the resulting noise. In addition, a question was raised about why Austin's air carrier airport was moving from it's current location at Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) to the new Austin - Bergstrom International Airport. Although noise complaints from the residents surrounding the airport played some part in the relocation, the main and compelling reason for the move was that RMMA is simply too small to handle the growth of Austin and the resulting increased demand for air travel. Proposed Action Plans Following is a list of proposed Action Plans that were developed in response to the issue of aircraft noise. 1 Review Current Procedures Flight procedures have been and will continue to be reviewed for methodologies to lessen the noise impact on the residential areas surrounding the airport, as well as the air space over any populated area in the Georgetown region. 2 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding In addition to published FAA guidelines, a memorandum will be developed and forwarded to all aircraft owners, fixed base operators, flight instructors, and businesses at the airport requesting that they honor, without exceeding safety boundaries, the following noise abatement guidelines to reduce the impact of airport operations on their neighbors: • Be aware of noise sensitive areas, particularly residential areas, and avoid low flights over these areas • Fly traffic patterns tight and high, keeping the airplane as close to the field as possible • In constant speed propeller aircraft, do not use high RPM settings in the pattern; prop noise from higher - performance aircraft increases drastically with high RPM settings • On takeoff, reduce to climb power as soon as it is safe to do so • Climb at liftoff at best angle -of -climb speed to airport boundary, then climb at best rate • Depart from threshold of runway, rather than intersections, for the 17326/960507 highest possible altitude when leaving the airport vicinity • Climb out straight ahead to at least 1,000 feet; turns rob an aircraft of climb ability • Maintain a minimum of 1,000 feet altitude (preferably higher) over populated areas • Avoid prolonged run -ups prior to takeoffs • Try lower power approaches and always avoid the low, higher power, dragged -in approach; use maximum safe glide slope • Minimize night takeoffs and landings if at all possible 4 The Airport management will post signs at appropriate locations urging compliance with established noise abatement procedures. The airport's management will place signs at appropriate locations throughout the airport that encourage departing and arriving aircraft pilots to voluntarily conform to established noise abatement procedures. 5 Review Additional Noise Abatement Processes to be Based on Available Funding Such processes /facilities might include the construction of berms, the planting of sound reducing vegetation or the construction of sound resistant structures. 6 Request Restricted Hours of Operation from Army Helicopters Because of state and federal funding, the airport cannot restrict the operations of Fort Hood, the National Guard, etc. in flying in and out of the Georgetown Airport. However, we can request that they restrict touch and go operations to certain hours of the day. 7 Publish the FAA Contact Number This contact number can be used by concerned citizens to report aircraft that are not observing flight safety and noise abatement regulations. 8 Address Additional Action Plans to be Proposed H Issue The second major concern relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the safety of general aviation, specifically in the areas of training, safety records, fuel storage, and hearing loss. Response The following information should provide reassurance that the safety of the people of Georgetown is of prime importance to all participants involved in every airport activity, whether on the ground or in the air. 1 Required Training The safety record of general aviation has been excellent. The training and education required to obtain a Private or Commercial License is time consuming, exacting, and rigorous, and greatly contributes to general aviation safety. In addition, FAA requirements for adhering to the "rules of the air" and enforcement of regulations to ensure air - worthiness of aircraft are essential elements that promote general aviation safety. 17326/960507 xi 2 Aviation Safety Records The following information is derived from studies of general aviation accidents based on records from 1976 through 1990. "General aviation' is a term encompassing all aviation activity except that of airlines and military flying. It includes not only business and recreational flying, but also instruction and training, air taxi, aerial application for agriculture and forestry, aerial mapping, aerial fire control, testing and demonstrations, traffic advisory, police activities, air shows, and other miscellaneous activities. Between 1976 and 1990, according to the FAA and the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) data, there were 333 general aviation Building and Residence (B &R) Accidents, or an average of fewer than 23 per year. Seventy of these accidents resulted in a fatality, either aboard the aircraft or in a building/residence on the ground, while 12 of these resulted in an injury to persons on the ground. On average, only about 10 general aviation B &R accidents per year result in a serious injury and/or death to individuals either in the aircraft or in a building/residence on the ground. Over the 15 -year period studied, only seven general aviation B &R accidents involved fatalities on the ground. On average, less than one general aviation accident a year results in a fatality or serious injury to persons in a building or residence on the ground. All in all, only nine individuals between 1976 and 1990 were killed when a general aviation aircraft crashed into the structure in which they were located. Further, between 1985 and 1990, there were absolutely no fatalities or injuries to individuals on the ground as the result of a general aviation B &R accident. To put these statistics into perspective, during 1985 alone, 7,750 pedestrians were killed by motorists, 1,100 people were killed in boating accidents, and 900 were victims of bicycle accidents. In 1984, 11,600 were killed in falls, 4,800 by fire, and 1,800 by firearms. During 1985, general aviation conducted over 44.3 million departures or almost 1.5 takeoffs for every hour flown. Using this methodology, general aviation conducted more than 500 million departures between 1976 and 1985. Considering that only 12 of these 500 million flights resulted in a serious injury or fatality to persons in buildings or residences on the ground is an impressive statistic. In other words, 99.999998% of all general flights do not result in a serious injury or fatality to individuals in a building or a residence on the ground. 3 Fuel Storage Fuel storage safety is of paramount concern to the management of the airport. For Jet A fuel, the City has a 12,000 gallon double - walled steel, fiberglass lined underground tank and, in addition, a 10,000 gallon steel underground tank for AvGas. The tanks have cathodic protection and monitor wells. The lines to the fuel dispenser are double - walled fiberglass pipes. It is safe to say that the fuel storage at the airport is as safe or safer than any of the many service stations located in the Georgetown vicinity. 17326/960507 X i i Additionally, one of the FBO's at the airport has underground fuel storage facilities that are used primarily for their own aircraft and aircraft operated by their customers. This fueling facility, as well as any others that might be constructed on the airport in the future, using either above or below ground storage tanks, are required to meet local ordinances, federal regulations and the regulations off the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The TNRCC's regulations for underground storage tanks are particularly stringent at Georgetown Municipal Airport since the airport is located in the Upper Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone. 4 Adverse Impacts on Schools There is no noise hazard from the airport that would cause the loss of hearing to children playing in the school yard. The Georgetown schools are either not in the landing and takeoff patterns or are at such a distance from the airport that the altitude of the aircraft is sufficient to mitigate any noise that would be injurious to human ears. When contacted by members of the Working Group for a comment relative to the concern that the airport adversely impacted local schools, Dr. Jim Gunn, Superintendent of the Georgetown Independent School District (GISD), responded that with the following: "The Georgetown Municipal Airport does not create any problems, noise or safety, for any school in the GISD." Proposed Action Plans No action necessary III Issue The third major concern that was discussed regarded the method for determining the number and frequency of aircraft activity at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. Response Obtaining operations data at non - towered airports is a major concern to the Georgetown airport, as well as the TxDOT aviation divisions. Accurate airport activity is valuable information for planning and development of individual airports as well as the entire Texas airport system. This data is used in identifying both present and future operational levels. The Georgetown airport was monitored for operational activity during periods representing the four seasons in 1995. Aircraft activity is estimated by sampling operations with acoustical aircraft counters, using statistical methods to calculate annual operations. This is one of the most accurate and cost effective ways of gathering reliable data. The equipment is manufactured by RENS Manufacturing Company in Oregon, and has been constantly improved since its inception in 1988. The forecast data presented in the Master Plan is based on the number of operations initiated by a mixed fleet of 111 aircraft in the 1995 TxDOT audited activities as compared to the current mixed fleet of 133 aircraft. This data is then used as a guideline to forecast the number of operations based on the increase in the numbers of aircraft using the airport. 17326/960507 Y i i i To conduct an operations count, TxDOT personnel set up the counter that is then maintained by the airport on a daily basis. The airport also maintains a daily weather report and dispensed fuel log to correlate with the recorded operations data so that annual operations can be projected using these factors. Aircraft operations vary depending on the weather and day of the week, generally increasing on the weekends with recreational flying and during the week for business flying. To capture the daily variations, samples are taken in clusters of seven to fourteen consecutive days: one week in the spring, two weeks in the summer, one week in the fall, and two weeks in the winter. This sampling technique results in the greatest accuracy for estimating annual operations. The acoustically triggered counters are self - contained and weather resistant, consisting of an electronic counter with a day and hour timer, a microphone, and a gel battery. The microphone is situated on a special stand, plugged into the counter via a 50 -foot cord and located adjacent to the midpoint of the runway length. This arrangement allows recording of the departing aircraft at full engine power. When sound activates the recorder, it records for five seconds, then shuts itself off until the next aircraft sound. The recorded sound is audibly audited by the analyst to select only the sounds of departing aircraft. Because of generally quiet landings at runway touchdown by an aircraft, the counter is not activated. To account for this operations event, the departures are doubled to represent total operations. The data analysis begins with establishing the airport's weekly operations for each of the four seasons, and from these totals, average daily operations can be calculated. Seasonal averages are expanded to total seasonal operations, and total seasonal averages are then added to obtain the estimated annual operations for the airport. The accuracy of the annual total operations is +/- 10 %. The current ratio of aircraft types is expected to remain relatively static as the number of based aircraft increases. There is no plan to encourage commercial operations at the airport. If this were to occur, the operators of such a service would be limited to small turboprops similar to the Swearingen Merlin type aircraft. Departures would probably not exceed two or three a day. A specific question was raised regarding whether the hours of operation can be limited at a municipal airport that has and will receive financial aid from the State and Federal Government. The answer to that question is no, the hours of operation cannot be limited because the airport is a public facility. Proposed Action Plans No action necessary IV Issue Another major concern that was raised relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the financial impact to the City. Response The information provided in the table below was taken from a confidential FBO Survey for Calendar Year 1997. 17326/960507 Xiv FBO Survey Information Number of Employees 72 Annual Payroll $3,036,000 Gross Sales for All Goods and Services $54,285,400 Estimated Gross Sales to Transient Sources $52,600,000 Estimated Annual Expenditures for Local Goods and Services $1,835,000 Annual State Sales Taxes $1,295,000 Annual City Sales Taxes $10,400 Annual City Property Taxes $11,700 Annual School Property Taxes $50,200 Annual County Property Taxes $10,600 With regard to adverse impacts on land values, a review of past sales and listings in the neighborhoods adjacent to the airport revealed no definable loss of value to those properties due to the airport. V Issue The next major issues discussed concerned future city service plans for the Georgetown Airport area. Response Current City services to the airport include police and fire protection, electricity, water, and garbage pickup. The airport is planning to tie into the sanitary sewage line which is located within the northern and eastern airport boundaries along and which currently serves the Sun City development. This connection will provide for the elimination of septic tanks now in use. In addition, the City has scheduled the refurbishment of Airport Road between the City limits and Lakeway Drive to be completed this fall. The history and development of the Georgetown Airport is chronologically presented in the Master Plan on pages 1 -2 through 1 -3, beginning with its inception in 1943 for use as a Navy Auxiliary Field. Also listed on page 1 -3, is a list of the current corporate airport users. A specific question was raised regarding how many airports in Texas that are similar in size to Georgetown's airport are currently expanding or are involved in new development. According to the March 1997 issue of the Aviation newsletter published by the TxDOT, the following airports similar in size to Georgetown's airport are undergoing expansion. • The Brazoria County Airport currently has plans to arrange air freight for perishable goods, market five acres of free trade zone now available at the airport, and build a recently approved new terminal. Such efforts are designed to enhance the airport's chances of gaining status as an international airport with customs services available. • The Mesquite Metro Airport has recently secured Mobil Oil's pipeline surveying, including the domiciling of their five - aircraft fleet. Plans are in the works for the 17326/960507 xv creation of an airport master plan for the airport, perhaps a new terminal, and additional hangars to attract corporate traffic to the airport. McKinney Municipal Airport has recently initiated projects for a new terminal and a lighting system that will replace the existing runway lights and install taxiway lights. Other projects include securing a new electrical vault, airport signage, the reconstruction of the FBO apron and the construction of a new apron. Future plans for the airport include an expansion from a 366 -acre to a 1000 -acre airport with multiple runways to attract more corporate and general aviation activity and, perhaps, based aircraft. Sugar Land's Hull Field has successfully attracted BFI's Flight Department as a corporate tenant. They are currently coordinating the construction of a fuel farm - storage facility on the airport. Goals for the future include fully developing the corporate hangar area to provide commercial airline service. Finally, the question of whether Georgetown's Airport could be moved to another location was also raised. The state's criteria for funding airport relocation depends on maximum capacity being reached at the existing airport location. Georgetown Municipal Airport is not currently at maximum capacity. Proposed Action Plans 1 Develop a Public Information Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport Such a plan will provide information regarding the airport to keep the citizens of Georgetown fully informed of any activity at the airport that might be of concern to their well being. 2 Additional Action Plans to be Proposed A second public hearing was held on June 24, 1998. During this public hearing additional citizens' comments were received and will be provided to the airport's management, the Airport Plan Working Group and, ultimately, to the Georgetown City Council. Conclusions The recommendations in the Master Plan are intended to provide guidance for the development of the Georgetown Municipal Airport. It is not intended that either the demand projections or the timing of the recommended improvements should restrict the airport's development within specific time frames. It is necessary, particularly in a dynamic market environment such as Georgetown faces at this time, to respond to the demands of the market. It must not, however, be overlooked that is a legitimate policy decision to elect not to foster development or to limit such development to specific levels. At this time, Georgetown Municipal Airport finds itself in the almost unique and somewhat enviable position, of being able to determine the level of based aircraft that it wants to have by virtue of the actions taken, or not taken, to develop facilities, particularly hangar space, at the airport. This opportunity is, however, time limited. The actions being taken now, such as the recent Request for Proposals for Fixed base Operator (FBO) services and the provision of the local funding to support Texas Department of Transportation Block Grant funding, will go far to 17326/960507 Xv i aiding the development of the airport. Further actions could, however, be taken if the full potential of the airport is to be met in the future. 17326/960507 xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS GEORGETOWN MASTER PLAN SECTION TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1.0 INVENTORY 1 -1 1.1 Airport Background 1 -1 1.2 Airport Users 1 -3 1.3 Airside Facilities 1 -3 1.4 Landside Facilities 1 -5 1.5 Perimeter Fencing 1 -7 1.6 Ground Access to the Airport 1 -7 1.7 Signage 1 -7 1.8 Pollution Control Facilities 1 -8 1.9 Socio- economic Information 1 -8 2.0 AVIATION DEMAND FORECAST 2 -1 2.1 General 2 -1 2.2 Background Information 2 -2 2.3 Current and Historic Based Aircraft and Aircraft 2 -2 Operations 2.4 Georgetown Municipal Airports Services Area 2 -4 2.5 Forecasting Methodologies 2 -6 2.6 Forecasts of Based Aircraft 2 -7 2.7 Fleet Mix 2 -9 2.8 Forecasts of Operations 2 -10 3.0 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 3 -1 3.1 General 3 -1 3.2 Airside Capacity 3 -1 3.3 Landside Capacity 3 -2 3.4 Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division 3 -7 Standards 3.5 New Facilities Required to Meet Aviation Demands 3 -9 and TxDOT Standards 3.6 Instrument Approaches 3 -14 17326/960507 Xviii 17326/960507 xix TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) 3.7 Airport Zoning 3 -14 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW 4-1 4.1 Airside 4 -1 4.2 Landside 4 -2 4.3 Summary 4 -3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 -1 5.1 General 5 -1 5.2 Aviation Related Noises 5 -1 5.3 General Ecology 5 -10 5.4 Wetlands 5 -17 5.5 Endangered and Threatened Species 5 -17 5.6 Cultural Resources 5 -19 6.0 AIRPORT PLANS 6 -1 7.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 7 -1 7.1 Introduction 7 -1 7.2 Economic Feasibility and Financing 7 -8 7.3 Management Analysis 7 -16 8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8 -1 8.1 Introduction 8 -1 8.2 User Surveys 8 -1 8.3 Public Hearings 8 -1 GLOSSARY APPENDIX Aircraft - Owners and Pilots Survey 17326/960507 xix TABLES GEORGETOWN MASTER PLAN NUMBER TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1 -1 Williamson County Population Projections 1 -9 1 -2 Per Capita Income 1 -9 2 -1 Based Aircraft History - 1985 -1994 2 -3 . 2 -2 Operations History - 1985 -1994 2 -3 2 -3 Forecasts of Based Aircraft (Using County Population 2 -7 Projections 2000 -2015) 2 -4 Comparison of Forecast Methodologies 2 -8 2 -5 Forecast Based Aircraft 2 -9 2 -6 Projected Fleet Mix 2 -10 2 -7 Forecast of Annual Aircraft Operations 2 -10 2 -8 Forecast Peaking Characteristics 2 -11 3 -1 Hangar Space Demand - Georgetown Municipal Airport 3 -3 3 -2 Georgetown Municipal Airport Runway Length Analysis 3 -9 3 -3 TxDOT Aviation Division Standards Compared to Airfield 3 -10 Facilities at Georgetown Municipal Airport 5 -1 Land Uses Normally Computable with Various Noise Levels 5 -3 7 -1 Georgetown Municipal Airport Stage I Near -Term Airport 7 -3 Improvements (0 to 5 years) 7 -2 Georgetown Municipal Airport Stage II Mid -Term Airport 7 -5 Improvements (6 to 10 years) 7 -3 Georgetown Municipal Airport Stage III Long-Term Airport 7 -7 Improvements (10 to 20 years) 7 -4 Summary of 20 -Year Development Costs - Georgetown 7 -1 Municipal Airport 17326/960507 xX 1.0 INVENTORY 1.1 Airport Background 1.1.1 Location Georgetown Municipal Airport (GMA) is located three miles north of the City of Georgetown, Texas, near Interstate Highway 35. Georgetown is the County Seat of Williamson County. It is 25 miles north of Austin, 186 miles south of Dallas, and 190 miles northwest of Houston. The airport occupies a 640 acre site, located on the west side of Airport Road and the north side of Lakeway Drive. Residential developments, Air Country Estates, Sanaloma Estates, Serenada Country, and Sun City Georgetown are located north and northwest of the airport. The Riata Trails and Golden Oaks tracts are located west and south of the airport. 1.1.2 General The original airfield that became GMA was constructed in 1943, under the provisions of Public Law 135, 77th Congress, Title 11 and a city council resolution dated February 9, 1942. It was used as a US Navy Auxiliary Field. The airport was also used by US Navy ROTC in part of their training program. The general configuration of the airport has remained the same. However, over the years, lighting, paving and structures have been improved. 17326/960507 1 -1 • In FY 1969 runway and taxiway resurfacing was done with a $12,500 grant from the Texas Aeronautics Commission (TAC). • The city limits were extended by annexation in 1976, to include the city -owned airport. • A severe tornado demolished hangars in 1974 and the Federal Government furnished approximately $90,000 of Federal Disaster Assistance Funds to rebuild them. • In FY 1978 a non - directional beacon (NDB) was installed with $3,420 in state funds. • An airport master plan was prepared in FY 1979 with $27,160 in FAA funds. • In FY 1980, $50,000 of TAC funds were used to pave taxiways, access roads to hangars, construction of a parking apron and installation of security fencing. • In FY 1982, a Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) system was installed on Runway 18 -36 with $40,000 in state funds. • In FY 1983 Runway 18 -36 and its associated taxiways received a seal coat and were restriped with $125,000 of state funds. • In 1987 a Terminal Area Plan was prepared using City funds. The cost of this study was $5,000. • The apron terminal area was expanded by 15,000 square yards and Clear Zone land was acquired with $649,500 in FAA funds in FY 1987. • In FY 1988, Runway 18 -36 was reconstructed and Taxiway A and C were overlaid, with $500,000 in FAA funds. • In FY 1990, using $600,000 of federal funds, the City acquired 3.24 acres in the Runway 29 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and cleared obstructions. The RPZ was previously referred to as the Clear Zone. • In FY 1991, Lakeway Drive was relocated, Runway 36 was extended by 900 -feet (ft) to the south and marked. The existing MIRL was also extended to the full length of the runway. The taxiway parallel to Runway 18 -36 was extended to match the runway length and taxiway reflectors were installed. Game resistant fencing was installed adjacent to the airfield to prevent airfield incursions by game. The total cost of the project was $1,282,000. Federal, state and local funds were used in a 90 -5 -5 ratio. • In FY 1995 Runway 11 -29 was reconstructed (75 ft wide by 4,100 ft long) and a MIRL system was installed. This same project added Runway End Identification Lights (REILs) to Runway 18 and provided for various other visual aid improvements. The total cost of the project was $622,000. It was funded with federal, state and local funds with a 90 -5 -5 ratio. • In FY 1995 the state provided an economic development grant on a 50150 basis with the City. The grant was used to construct a roadway, water line and electric utilities to serve new hangar sites. This total project cost was $139,500. 17326/960507 1 -2 r 1.2 Airport Users There are currently 133 aircraft based at the airport: 109 single engine, 12 multi- engine piston and 12 turboprops or turbojets. The airport manager has identified the following as corporate airport users: • Caterpillar Corporation • Community State Bank • Draeger Motor Corporation • Southwestern University • Sun City Georgetown • Taylor Bedding 0 Southern Union Gas • Texas Crushed Stone • Turquoise Sky Corporation • W. P. Hobby 1.3 Airside Facilities 1.3.1 Runways GMA has two runways. The primary runway, referred to as Runway 18 -36, is on a north -south heading (1801-360 °) and is 5,000 ft in length with a width of 100 ft. The other runway is on a northwest - southwest heading (110° -290 °) and is 4,100 ft long and 75 ft wide. Both runways are asphalt paved (see Figure 1 -1). 1.3.2 Taxiways Both Runway 18 -36 and 11 -29 are served by full length taxiway systems. The taxiway system serving Runway 18 -36 consists of Taxiway A which extends from the end of Runway 18 to the terminal apron where an apron edge taxilane crosses the apron to Taxiway C which extends from the southern apron edge across Runway 11 -29 to Runway 36. Runway 11 -29 is served by Taxiway B which extends from the end of Runway 11 in a course parallel to the runway to a point approximately 1,900 feet to the southeast at which point it turns to the east, crosses Runway 18 -36 and meets the west apron edge. Traffic wishing to access Runway 29 then continues along the apron edge taxilane in a southwest direction and enters Taxiway A which extends from the southwest apron edge to the end of Runway 29. A connector 17326/960507 1 -3 A? FIRE DEPARTMENT TR�AlNINGR (2 AC) CITY OWNED T-HANGARS BOX C TER WELL SOUTH t Z20 l— OUTFALL USJP9 300, 150* 0 3• EXISTING IN FEET RPZ SCALE V - 600' '0 BEACON 758' GANTT tN •\\T AVIA71ON AVIATION N 2 2 CITY CAP 50- " r OWNED AIRF D ILOTS TEXAS —1 AILCAL CHOICE VAULT 65 o GEORGETO AVIATION AVION S HANGAR A JET PARKING 71L 64• APRON rUEL 50' P. L. 50 - RMINAl FACILITY ING CONCRETE r 100' PARKING r 50' EXISTING I HAN D APRC RPZ EXI NG REIL 5 T (TYP) ol T HANGAR C-- 400• loo 40 TAXIWAY 9- 500' Poo- 50 100 200" P-1-1si. 100 .—I'D* 10o--X -50E)O'—RUNWA-Y— mm= I mt9\11 �71-1 R, A. THRESH?TLYDP) EL 759' EXj5Tff4G PAP[ 747' 1 \1 RSA LIGHTS -5ol 4 BOX 500 'n RPZ B. FL-- NON - DIRECTIONAL :ZTIONAL BEACON `" \\ so. C17P 1ps 'go 740 Boo—` 380, 2 0� TENNIS COURTS SERANADA POOL TENNIS CLUB U TREE ,GHTS 789• P CULVERT ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS AIRPORT LAYOUT 206 WILD BASIN RD. STE. 1300 - P.O. BOX 519 AUSTIN, TEXAS - 78767 - (512) 327-6840 EXHIBIT 1-1 taxiway between C and runway 18 -36 is located approximately 900 feet north of the end of Runway 36. A hangar access taxiway connects the general aviation hangars to Taxiway A. 1.3.3 Aprons In addition to aprons associated with FBO and general aviation hangars, a general aviation apron approximately 30,000 square yard (SY) in area is located between the terminal building and the taxiways. 13.4 Airfield Lighting Runway 18 -36 is lighted by a MIRL system. The lights are controlled primarily by aphotocell which activates the lights at dusk and turns them off at dawn. During the hours of darkness the intensity of the lights may be varied by radio control. Runway 11 -29 also has a MIRL but it is activated only by radio control and only during periods when the Runway 18 -36 lights are activated. The intensity of the Runway 11 -29 lights may also be varied with a radio control system. Both ends of Runway 18 -36 are equipped with REILs. All taxiways have retroreflective centerline markers. 1.3.5 Approach Aids A Non - Directional Beacon (NDB) is located at the northwest comer of the field. It transmits on frequency 332, var. 07E with the ID "GUO" in Morse Code. A Global Positioning System (GPS) overlay to the NDB Approach is also published. Runway 18 has a Pulsating Light Approach Slope Indicator (PLASI) to the left of the runway end. Runway 36 has a four -box Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) to the left of the runway end. A segmented circle and lighted windcone are located near the intersection of Runways 18 -36 and 11 -29. The PAPI radio control is activated upon demand. A clear -green rotating beacon is located between the terminal building and Airport Road. Aircraft landing at GMA may request advisories on UNICOM 123.0 Mhz. In addition there is a remote transmitter /receiver (RTRO) on the airport which provides clearance delivery from Austin's Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RNM A) Air Control Tower (ATCT). The RTRO operates on a frequency of 121.1. 1.4 Landside Facilities 1.4.1 Tiedowns The general aviation apron has 49 tiedowns, sixteen of which are rented. Additional tiedowns are available within various FBO leasehold areas. 1.4.2 Hangars The demand for hangars remains high at GMA. The waiting list for T- hangar rental currently has some 50 unfulfilled requests. There are fourteen privately owned and eight City owned free - standing hangars. The City owns five T- hangar buildings with a total capacity of 50 aircraft. 17326/960507 1 -5 1.4.3 Fuel The City owns a 12,000 gallon (gal) double - walled steel, fiberglass lined underground tank which is used for Jet A fuel. It was installed in 1991. In addition, the city owns a 10,000 gal steel underground tank used for AvGas. That tank was installed in the 1980s. The tanks have cathodic protection and monitor wells. Lines to the fuel dispenser were replaced in 1987 with double - walled fiberglass pipes. Gantt Aviation owns a 10,000 gal underground steel tank which is used for AvGas. That tank was installed in the 1980s. Two of the FBOs maintain fuel trucks for their own use. 1.4.4 Terminal Building The administration/terminal building is located at the general aviation apron. The terminal is open from 7:00 AM until dusk, seven days per week. It features a lounge with Color TV, DUATS Computer (for pilot weather briefings and flight planning), and a pilot's work room with Visual Flight Rule (VFR) wall chart and a DTN weather radar terminal. Fia 1.4.5 Weather Station An Automated Weather Observation Station (AWOS) is located adjacent to the Runway 18 partial parallel taxiway. The AWOS operates on a frequency of 132.425. 17326/960507 1 -6 1.5 Perimeter Fencin Until perimeter fencing was installed, deer encroachment was a serious safety hazard and the potential for aircraft/deer collisions was significant. Additionally, pedestrians and vehicles frequently used the Aircraft Operations Area (AOA) as a shortcut to and from residential areas adjacent to the airport thus presenting an additional potential for airfield incursions. Fencing was installed in FY 1991. An eight -foot chain link fence runs along Airport Road and other parts of the perimeter where vehicular or pedestrian traffic could be expected. Game resistant fencing was installed around the airfield area. A cattle guard spans the airport entrance. 1.6 Ground Access to the Airport From IH 35, vehicles turn west on Lakeway Drive;. then north on Airport Road and west on Terminal Drive to access the airport. Terminal Drive is a two -lane asphalt paved road which runs between Airport Road and the terminal building parking area. Service Drive runs north from Terminal Drive and connects to Stearman and Corsair which serve the general aviation and FBO hangars. Hangar Drive runs north from Terminal Drive and serves the general aviation hangars. A new roadway runs south from Terminal Drive to an area for new hangars adjacent to the general aviation apron. 1.7 Siena e Informational signs direct motorists on IH 35 to the Lakeway drive interchange. Smaller signs indicate the route to the airport. 17326/960507 1 -7 Attractively landscaped "Georgetown Municipal Airport" signs flank the entrance at Airport Road and Terminal Drive. Informational signs indicate directions to the various airport tenants. The signs are relatively small and are too close to intersections to permit smooth traffic flow. Regulatory signs advise motorists that vehicle traffic is not permitted on taxiways. It is not immediately obvious to visitors where roadways end and taxiways begin. Improved signage and pavement marking could provide clarity. 1.8 Pollution Control Facilities The primary pollution control facility at GMA is a combination water quality and detentionpond which is currently being completed. This facility will capture stormwater runoff from that part of the Terminal Area south of Terminal Drive and retain it for a period of time so that suspended solids can settle out. This facility also provides an opportunity to capture fuel spills, etc. and reduce the potential for downstream contamination. In addition to the water quality pond, a waste oil collection station is located near Hangar A. This facility provides a convenient location for the safe disposal of used oils and lubricants from the various maintenance activities located on GMA. 1.9 Socio- Economic Information 1.9.1 Population As previously stated, Williamson County is, to a great extent, the area that is served by the airport. While some county residents may utilize services at other airports, GMA serves the vast majority of the county's aviation demand. The population of Williamson County is discussed and presented in The State of Georgetown: 1995. Historic data are reported from the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Comptroller's Office, and the source of population projections is the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). are: The TWDB's population projection are divided by race /ethnicity and migration scenarios. These • Scenario 0.00 assumes immigration in and out migration are equal, resulting in growth only through natural increase. • Scenario 0.50 is the approximate average of the zero (0.00) and 1980 -1900 (1.00) Scenarios. It assumes net migration rates one -half of those in the 1980s. • Scenario 1.00 assumes a continuity in trends in the age, sex, and race /ethnicity net migration rates of the 1980s. • Scenario 0.50 projects that in the twenty year period from 1995 to the year 2015, population in Williamson County will increase by slightly less than 53 percent which yields an annual growth rate of about 2 percent. Scenario 0.0 projects a decline in population which cannot be supported by current information and trends in population growth. Scenario 1.00 projects a 144 percent population growth rate in the 1995 to 2015 17326/960507 1 -8 period on an annual rate of about 4.5 percent. Historical information on population and the three growth scenarios are shown in Table 1 -1. While the TWDB identifies Scenario 0.50 as the most likely planning 17326/960507 1 -9 TABLE 1 -1 WILLIAMSON COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS IT►R ..I ; HISTORICAL 0 j SCENARIO 0.00. E .SCENARIO 0.50 ' i SCENARIO'1.00, - fyii��fw- wT.- it•W^'s¢y✓- `w.•�w till..'jy' `'�j�+5'.f. r,[tiy=,'..'ur F9"g.��+F :ietSr.'Lt I �s� - � 'Al .. I • . it , WE — �Sr4. ��1�Q:�..d�� LLFysrypytsya9dd ' f' � L��ro��sbrRlw�� L".x -�' rr -. rt- ..ait:. �is[g 0 h r e�`���n��— /F►Y�wa.�L. 1._ , _ �y� I I • • Sources: Historical - Texas Department of Health and Texas Comptroller's Office Projections - Texas Water Development Board [1] Interpolated from 2010 and 2020 data scenario for projected population in Williamson County, both Scenario 0.50 and 1.00 will be examined in the following aviation demand analysis. 1.9.2 Per Capita Income Per capita income for Texas and each county is provided by the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. These data have been considered in the forecasting process. While they are interesting and may be useful in other contexts, they are limited for purposes of this analysis in that no forecasts of the data are available upon which to project relationships with aviation data. Additionally, the correlation between per capita income in Williamson County and based aircraft at GMA is not suitable for projection purposes. Per capita income statistics are, therefore, provided in Table 1 -2 for information only. TABLE 1 -2 PER CAPITA INCOME 17326/960507 1 -10 2.0 AVIATION DEMAND FORECAST 2.1 General Forecasts of aviation activity and the demand for various types of aviation services form the basis for the planning of capital improvements at most airports. Such forecasts provide information on the necessary configuration and strength of airfield pavements, the number of hangars required, the size of terminal facilities, the types of fuel to be provided and on virtually all other aspects of an airports physical plant. As such, the forecast of aviation demand is central to any airport master plan. Inherent to the forecasting process is the determination of the time element or rate of growth since it is crucial to know when a given type of improvements will be required. Properly formulated, the aviation demand forecast can provide "triggers" for planning, design and construction activities. The appropriate response to such triggers will insure that an airport has the type and configuration of facilities that it sustain the growth objectives of its owners. Too much, too soon and the airport becomes a financial burden. Too little, too late and potential users go to other airports with the result decline in revenues and stagnation in growth. There are many different methods for forecasting aviation demand, several of which will be discussed later in this chapter. However, whichever method is selected it must be carefully tempered with a strong knowledge of the local aviation market, a recognition of the characteristics of the airport and an understanding of the objectives of the airport's policy setting body. Without these factors, the most carefully crafted aviation demand forecast is useless and possibly even detrimental. It must also be noted that demand forecasts project conditions as they might be. Actual facility usage is generally dependent upon the actions that policy planners chose take or not take. For example, a decision not to construct hangars or to set ground lease rates at levels greater than the local market dictates can result in a given facility not achieving the full potential that a demand analysis predicts. The provision of services such as fuel and maintenance are also crucial determinants in an airport reaching or not reaching its full demand potential. Pro - active, attentive management is also very important. Without the proper combination of all of the factors discussed above, even an airport in a strong aviation market may not have the based aircraft population that might be projected on the basis of market analysis alone. As previously stated, the forecast of aviation demand forms the basis for all airport master plans since such forecasts predict the usage of the airport and, in doing so, provide the basis for planning for facilities improvements. Specifically, by estimating various indicators of aviation activity, the appropriate type of facility improvements can be planned for and implemented. Aviation demand forecasts normally begin with an analysis of existing conditions in terms of numbers of based aircraft, flight operations by the various types of aircraft using the airport, and other factors such as runway and taxiway usage and weather conditions. Generally, also included in the analysis of existing conditions, is a review of historic socioeconomic information for the community that the airport in question serves. With current and historic data forming the basis for the analysis, a number of different techniques may be used to project future demand for aviation services at the airport. These techniques generally include statistical analysis and comparison with predicted state and national trends in aviation activity. This section of the Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan provides forecasts of aviation activity including the following parameters: 173261960507 2-1 Based aircraft by type Numbers of aircraft operations, where an operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing. Operations are further classified as either being local or itinerant. Number of operations per based aircraft Peaking characteristics The projections contained herein also provide guidance for determining the timing of proposed improvements. Projections are provided for a twenty-year planning period which is divided into three segments as follows: Short Term - 1996 to 2000 Mid - Term - 2001 to 2005 Long Term - 2006 to 2015 2.2 Background Information As previously stated, forecasted activity for the airport is based on past and current levels of airport activity and on local socio- economic information. Historic and current data regarding based aircraft and operations were provided by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Aviation Division, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the City of Georgetown. Socio- economic information is provided by the City of Georgetown, the Texas Water Development Board, and the Texas Employment Commission. The forecast also reflects detailed consideration of the record setting population growth currently being experienced by Williamson County as well as current events in the local area such as the closure of Austin's Robert Nlueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) and the opening of the new Austin - Bergstrom International Airport (A -BIA), currently planned for 1999. Also to be considered is the recently raised possibility of the closure of Austin Executive Airpark (Executive). The combination of statistical analysis tempered with local knowledge and judgment insures that the resulting forecasts are both technically supportable and reflective of local conditions. 2.3 Current And Historic Based Aircraft And Aircraft Operations Comprehensive information about each airport in the United States is recorded by the FAA and state aviation agencies on FAA Airport Master Record (Form 5010 -1). Although the FAA intends for each airport to be inspected annually and an updated Airport Master Record published, an annual inspection is not performed at every airport. Airport Master Records are the primary source of airport activity data for airports without a control tower such as Georgetown. Based aircraft and operations data from Georgetown's Airport Master Records for 1985 through 1996 (the last 5010 available) were compiled and are presented in Tables 2 -1 and 2 -2. 173261960507 2 -2 TABLE 2 -1 BASED AIRCRAFT HISTORY 1985 -1994 3r Jingle nngme Y15Wn ME Multi Engine Piston TJ/TP Turbojet or Turboprop Helo Helicopter TABLE 2 -2 OPERATIONS HISTORY 1985 -1994 TYPE OF OPERATION •. •; . ;� .: •:: .;. •.1 .. .. .. 0211 LOOT. 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 GA 11 1• C a< s F s n ..,r :, �yy x ti fit« *` t' "fit LOCAL ,4 v. MEMO 56,700 56,700 46,800 131,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 128,500 -. • t` - 50,000 r. , �.. �ci• ri�.{'?`"rr .�i# i��`�'r "aW�z^�� u v" • ;. 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 28,730 SUBTOTAL 105,000 108,200 108,200 178,000 152,500 46,500 46,500 46,500y� 46,500 46,5}00 y8�5,389 yq AIR TAXI 800 800 1800 1800 1800 800 1800 1800 1873 800 800 ...... . ,,.. �. -- _. -. _.. ....r; . o--- .,.,..• ..rac- ,..+w� ,. _ : n.:- � ... +..... -.: ..+,..rw.. ter. MILITARY 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 1700 1800 3r Jingle nngme Y15Wn ME Multi Engine Piston TJ/TP Turbojet or Turboprop Helo Helicopter TABLE 2 -2 OPERATIONS HISTORY 1985 -1994 TYPE OF OPERATION YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 GA LOCAL 55,000 56,700 56,700 46,800 131,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 128,500 56,659 ITIN 50,000 51,500 51,500 31,200 121,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 28,730 SUBTOTAL 105,000 108,200 108,200 178,000 152,500 46,500 46,500 46,500y� 46,500 46,5}00 y8�5,389 yq AIR TAXI 800 800 1800 1800 1800 800 1800 1800 1873 800 800 ...... . ,,.. �. -- _. -. _.. ....r; . o--- .,.,..• ..rac- ,..+w� ,. _ : n.:- � ... +..... -.: ..+,..rw.. ter. MILITARY 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 1700 1800 700 873 TOTAL OPERATIONS 106,500 109,700 109,700 79,500 54,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 87,062 ,_;> .ea _ q. „ra. � �,,,4«�� �• "'1. •+ .tea VrbA IU62 1U62 694 :)UU 500 489 517 511 511 415 655 GA General Aviation; includes all activity except scheduled air carrier service and military operations Air Taxi On- demand, non - scheduled commercial operations which includes charter service Military Operations conducted by military aircraft Local Operations in the airport traffic pattern; to or from a practice area within 20 of the miles the airport; or practice instrument approaches at the airport Itin Itinerant operations, which are all operations not classified as Local OPBA Operations per based aircraft; general aviation aircraft only Source: FAA Airport Master Records (Form 5010 -1); Calculations by EH &A 17326/960507 2 -3 Based on information provided by the Airports management there are currently 133 based aircraft at Georgetown Municipal Airport (GMA). These aircraft are categorized as follows: Number of Aircraft Single Engine Piston 109 Multi Engine Piston 12 Turbojet or Turboprop 12 Total 133 The best information on current operations at GMA is provided by a TxDOT study which was conducted over a period from March of 1994 to February 1995. This study used acoustic recording devices to count daily operations at the airport. A total of 42 days were included in the study in four increments of approximately a week to ten days each. The sampling periods covered the range of seasonal variations in airport traffic. Based on the results of this study, a total of 87,062 annual operations were estimated to have occurred in the study year. Taking an average between the 1994 based aircraft statistic from the FAA Airport Master Record and the current aircraft population provided by the airport's management yields an estimate of 123 based aircraft during the period that the TxDOT study was conducted. The number of operations per based aircraft for the study period is calculated to be 711. It is interesting to note that, even with the 10 percent allowance for sampling error cited in the TxDOT study, the level of operational activity at GMA as estimated from TxDOT's acoustic counter study is substantially greater than that estimated in the Airport Master Records from the late 1980s and early 1990s. The greater number of total operations and operations per based aircraft is more closely comparable to those statistics from the mid -1980s period during which a previous counter study was conducted. It would seem that the latest acoustic counter study provides the most accurate information regarding operations at GMA. 2.4 Georgetown Municipal Airport's Service Area GMA service area was estimated using a technique developed by TxDOT's Aviation Division. In this methodology a 25 miles travel distance is plotted on all major roadways surrounding the airport. Where overlaps exist with the service areas of adjacent airports the overlapping area is proportioned on the basis of the classifications of the airports in question. As an example, where the service area of GMA, a general aviation airport, overlaps with that of RMMA, a primary commercial service airport, RMMA would be assigned two- thirds of the overlapping area and GMA would be assigned the remaining one - third. Such apportionment continues for all adjacent airports. Applying the above described technique to GMA yields a service area comprised of the central segment of Williamson County. This service area is illustrated in Exhibit 2 -1. 17326/960607 2-4 According to current FAA records there are 206 aircraft registered to owners with addresses in Williamson County. It is estimated that the GMA service area covers approximately 75 percent of Williamson County. Applying this factor to the total number of registered aircraft yields a total of approximately 155 aircraft. Comparing this figure to the current based aircraft population at GMA of 133, shows that GMA is claiming in excess of 85 percent of the aircraft in its market area. While the market area analysis is not rigorous and there are certainly many explanations for why a given aircraft does or does not base at GMA, this technique gives a general indication of the success of an airport in its estimated service area. In the case of GMA there is a clear indication the airport is, and has been, successful in capturing its indicated share of the market. 2.5 Forecasting Methodologies 2.5.1 Linear Regression Linear regression, one of the most commonly used statistical analysis techniques, describes and quantifies the association between two variables. In statistics, a variable is a group of data. Variables are either independent or dependent. The independent variable causes changes in or affects the dependent variable, and this effect is what is described by the linear regression. Linear regression information can be used to forecast the dependent variable. The assumption is that the historical relationship between the two variables will continue into the future. The progression of the independent variable (for example, years or a separately produced forecast of population) produces corresponding values of the dependent variable (such as based aircraft). A linear regression calculation produces a statistical value called the correlation coefficient, a number that describes how well the variables are related to each other. The correlation coefficient is expressed as a decimal less than 1 and it can be either positive or negative. The closer the coefficient is to 1 (such as 0.99), the closer the relationship between the variables. If the value is positive, the set of data would have an upward trend; a negative value would indicate a downward trend. 2.5.2 Top -Down Method Another method to predict future data is by applying a statistical characteristic, such as the rate of change, of state or national forecasts to local data. Known as the "top down" method, the separately and independently produced forecasts are assumed to have the same effect locally as regionally and nationally. The FAA annually publishes a document which analyses historical and current information and then forecasts many aspects of the aviation industry for the ensuing twelve years. The most recent of these publications is the FAA Aviation Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1995-2006• These forecasts are based on a set of assumptions, not the least of which is the outlook for moderate and sustained growth in the U.S. economy. The twelve -year economic outlook for the U.S. contained in the FAA's forecast document is indicated by a forecasted growth rate of 2.5 percent annually in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Inflation is expected to be in the moderate range over the same period, and oil and gas prices are expected to increase at a rate less than that for inflation. Global economic activity has recently been increasing and is expected to continue to do so, adding additional strength to the economy of the U.S. Nloreover, the FAA Forecasts also assume that recently enacted legislation limiting the liability of manufacturers of general aviation aircraft will begin beneficially affecting the general aviation fleet in the closing years of this century. 17326/960507 2 -6 The FAA Forecasts indicate that while there has been a dramatic decline in the manufacturing of general aviation aircraft since the late 1970s, recent years have shown an increase in the primary use of general aviation aircraft in the business and corporate categories. One of every four hours flown by general aviation aircraft in 1993 was in these categories. All of the positive factors will, to some degree, foster a growth in general aviation in the United States. In addition to the FAA forecast, the Texas Aeronautical Facilities Plan Summary prepared by the TxDOT Aviation Division provides forecasts of aviation activity for the State as a whole as well as various Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). This source predicts a moderate but steady growth over the next ten years for most indicators of aviation activity. 2.6 Forecasts of Based Aircraft 2.6.1 Linear Regression Method Applied Socio- economic information was collected and evaluated to determine its usefulness in forecasting based aircraft. The information included county historical population and per capita income data as presented in Section 1.0, Inventory. There were encouraging instances of statistical relationships between the historical sets of data and based aircraft, but population of Williamson County was the only set of data that included an independent forecast and the appropriate level of correlation. Linear regression analysis performed on data from the recent past, specifically the period 1991 to 1995, shows excellent correlation between the population of Williamson County and the number of based aircraft at GMA. The correlation coefficient between these data sets is 0.91 On the basis of this correlation coefficient it is reasonable to assume a strong dependent relationship between based aircraft at GMA and county population. The based aircraft forecast based on the linear regression analysis is shown in Table 2 -3. TABLE 2 -3 FORECASTS OF BASED AIRCRAFT (Using County Population Projections) 2000-2015 r. Population Based -: Population _fear Scenario 0.502 Aircraft�y _ Scenario 1.00 Aircraft ' 2000 187,154 135 _ ' 226,842 =? 2005 fi : 213,738 169: 287,126 -2015 271,701 244 : 433,858'44 7� "r I Assumes a continuity in trends in the age, sex, and race /ethnicity net migration rates of the 1980s. 2 Assumes net migration rates one -half of those in the 1980s. 3 Growth scenarios are defined in Section 1.9 Source: Texas Water Development Board ; Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. It must be noted, however, that when the analysis is expanded to include data from the late 1980's the correlation coefficient is significantly smaller. This is demonstrated by the fact that the based aircraft population at GMA peaked in the late 1980's while the county's population continued to show only modest annual increases. 17326/960507 2-7 2.6.2 Top -Down Method Applied As a means of comparison and as an expression of possible rates of growth of based aircraft at the airport, three top -down data sources were examined. The techniques are: • GDP The rate of growth in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, which is 2.5 percent annually, has been applied to the number of based aircraft in 1995 through each of the planning time frames. • FAA FAA Aviation Forecasts includes a forecast of active general aviation aircraft by FAA Region. The forecast for the Southwest Region indicates an essentially no- growth period from 1995 to 2000, then an increase of approximately one -half percent per year through 2006. This FAA Southwest Region forecast has been applied to the number of based aircraft in 1995 for the Georgetown forecast period. • TxDOT TxDOT's Aeronautical Facilities Plan Summary includes forecasts of based aircraft for the Austin MSA and the State as a whole. For the period 1995 to 2005 the forecasted annual growth rates for based aircraft in the Austin MSA and the State are both approximately 0.6 percent 0.6 percent which shows good correlation with the FAA projections. Table 2 -4 shows the based aircraft data using these three forecasts. TABLE 2 -4 COMPARISON OF FORECAST METHODOLOGIES :Year I Gross Domestic Product Growth 2 FAA Southwest Region Active GA Aircraft Forecast 3 TxDOT Texas Aeronautical Facilities Plan Summary Source: FAA Aviation Forecasts - Texas Aeronautical Facilities Plan Summary 1988 -1993 Fiscal Years 1995 -2006 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 2.6.3 Recommended Forecast The based aircraft forecasts resulting from the top down analysis are very modest and do not reflect the dynamic growth environment present in Georgetown. Nor do they reflect the changing local aviation market in which potentially some 360 aircraft currently based at RMMA and Executive, 260 based aircraft and 100 based aircraft, respectively, will be required to move upon closure of these facilities. The forecasts based on population projections appear to more accurately reflect the potential at GMA. As shown in Table 2 -3 using population Scenario 1.0 would result in a based aircraft population of 454 at the end of the planning period. Given any reasonable level of operations per based aircraft, the 17326/960507 2 -8 GDP-1 :EAAl` T.rDOV 2000 150 137 2005 170 136 r 141 .2015 >., 218 147 I Gross Domestic Product Growth 2 FAA Southwest Region Active GA Aircraft Forecast 3 TxDOT Texas Aeronautical Facilities Plan Summary Source: FAA Aviation Forecasts - Texas Aeronautical Facilities Plan Summary 1988 -1993 Fiscal Years 1995 -2006 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 2.6.3 Recommended Forecast The based aircraft forecasts resulting from the top down analysis are very modest and do not reflect the dynamic growth environment present in Georgetown. Nor do they reflect the changing local aviation market in which potentially some 360 aircraft currently based at RMMA and Executive, 260 based aircraft and 100 based aircraft, respectively, will be required to move upon closure of these facilities. The forecasts based on population projections appear to more accurately reflect the potential at GMA. As shown in Table 2 -3 using population Scenario 1.0 would result in a based aircraft population of 454 at the end of the planning period. Given any reasonable level of operations per based aircraft, the 17326/960507 2 -8 airport would reach its long range planning capacity of 230,000 annual operations before it reached the indicated based aircraft population. This would result in an increase in delays, a reduction in convenience of use and, probably, a decreasing trend in based aircraft. However, the forecast based on the TWDB's most likely population projection scenarios provides for a healthy rate of growth, some 3 to 4 percent annually, and a reasonable 20 year based aircraft population of 244 which would not crowd the airport's annual capacity. It is, therefore, recommended that the based aircraft projection for GMA be primarily based on the linear regression analysis using the TWDB's Scenario 0.5 for Williamson County population as the independent variable. One change is, however, recommended. It may be noted from Table 2 -3 that the number based aircraft projected for the year 2000 is 135. The use of that figure would indicate an annual growth rate of less than one -half of one percent from the current based aircraft population of 133. Such a growth rate does not seem reasonable considering the local aviation market and various private hangar projects currently in progress at GMA. Accordingly, it is recommended that the short term based projection be derived by using the current based aircraft population and the 3 percent annual growth rate. The 3 percent growth rate is the overall planning period average annual growth rate. The recommended based aircraft forecast for GMA is provided in Table 2 -5 which follows. TABLE 2 -5 FORECAST BASED AIRCRAFT Year 1996 (a) 2000 2005 2015 (a) Actual 2.7 Fleet Mix Based Aircraft 133 (a) 150 169 244 The aircraft currently based at GMA include 109 single- engine piston (reciprocating) aircraft, 12 piston twins, 11 turboprop twins, and one jet, for a total of 133 based aircraft. There has been an occasional helicopter on the field over the years. Historically, the largest category of based aircraft has been single engine, ranging from approximately 70 to 90 percent of the total. Of the multi - engine aircraft, recently there has been a change from a majority of piston twins to an approximately even split between reciprocating and turboprops. This evolution in GMA's based aircraft fleet composition has paralleled national trends, as evidenced by the emergence of a higher proportion of turboprops and the continued wide use of single engine aircraft. It can be expected that national general aviation fleet projections will apply at GMA in the future: a large contingent of based single engine aircraft, a very small part of which will be helicopters; a continued increase in the use of turboprops (which retain value and usefulness for business purposes); and a small but stable proportion of jet business aircraft as well. The turboprops and jets are indicative of population growth and a generally healthy business climate in Georgetown and Williamson County. This translates to the following estimates of fleet mix for the planning period as shown in Table 2 -6. 17326/960507 2-9 TABLE 2 -6 PROJECTED FLEET MIX YEAR SE W TP .TF.T 2000 80% 8% 7% 5% ....r+.rr_rge.a+- .,+.a � +:c+,r- •.:w,:.+.r.ar. :,,�.,.�nc+- w�*.n�..«ur :- a,s�.r +-.w- :w-..nr:✓� -. .:y:- w.�•. �.a.. -� - 2000 0 10% 10% 0 r:_•_w,..... .. ,�...ei� .� •_�^ -w .:.. .....�..u. ..�. �. '. ...ay.— ..�n.�.a�'.riN.ee:�...r wr_;w ] .��...+.IC'°... �.`s.Z.. .+HIh �o 2015 7 0o 0 1 SE - Single Engine Piston ME - Multi Engine Piston TP - Turboprop TJ - Turbojet 2.8 Forecasts Of Operations 2.8.1 Local And Itinerant Operations Forecasts The historical information for Georgetown Municipal Airport, as recorded on FAA Forms 5010 -1 and shown on Table 2 -2, include both local and itinerant operations. Total operations per based aircraft (OPBA) have been calculated for each year. Using this data the average numbers of local and itinerant operations per based aircraft were also calculated. They are: • Local - 357 OPBA, • Itinerant - 271 OPBA, and Total - 628 OPBA. Although the based aircraft did not actually conduct all of the reported operations, one way of forecasting future operations is by applying average operations per based aircraft to a projection of based aircraft. Table 2 -7 shows the results of multiplying the average OPBA for Georgetown by the recommended forecast of based aircraft for GMA. It should also be noted that the average operations per based aircraft compares reasonably closely to the 711 value for same statistic calculated from TxDOT's Acoustic Counter Survey. TABLE 2 -7 FORECAST OF ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 17326/960507 2-10 BASED LOCAL ; ITINERANT YEAR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS i OPERATIONS TOTAL 2000 150 53,550 40,650 94,200 2005 169 60,333 ; 45,799 106,132 2015 244 87,108 66,124 153,232 17326/960507 2-10 2.8.2 Other Operational Activity Historically, touch -and -go operations at Georgetown have constituted approximately 40 % of total operations due to training conducted by locally based aircraft and by aircraft from other airports in the region. However, as the level of total operations increases at Georgetown and the number of aircraft in the traffic pattern grows, training activity will tend to gravitate to other less active area airports. The proportion of touch - and -go operations will decline over time. Transient operations are those conducted at Georgetown by aircraft based elsewhere. Training operations and business flights into and out of Georgetown constitute the majority of transient operations. While some of the transient training operations may occur at other less crowded airports as the overall level of operations increase at Georgetown, attraction of business aircraft is an integral part of the airport's service to the community. It is important to recognize the fact that airport facilities should be provided to accommodate these aircraft. This usually means apron tiedown space over and above that needed by based aircraft. Operations by military aircraft are entirely transient, since there are no based military aircraft at Georgetown. Historical records indicate a constant level of military activity over the past 10 years (700 operations annually) and this is not expected to change. Similarly, air taxi activity has been at a constant level of 800 per year as reported by the FAA, and there is no reason to expect any change. Peak aircraft operations are estimated to occur on weekends due to the relatively large proportion of single engine aircraft in recreational and training use. This conclusion is supported by data from TxDOT's recent acoustic counter study which showed peak activities by larger business -type aircraft tend to occur at the beginning and end of the work week. On a national basis, the summer months are usually the most active, and the same would be expected to be true at GMA. Again this conclusion is supported by the results of TxDOT's acoustic study. GMA peaking characteristics are estimated as shown in Table 2 -8: TABLE 2 -8 FORECAST PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Peak a ea Year Month Day Average Hour 2000 9,420 314 2 .+..!�.dcs., ..:�- ,...,v :.- .� -a.,. _ - ...:..,..Ra�....LL 2005 : :..+- ..,...rs: _ -•-. - .- .:,:+- r- �- .�.:....-..«q 10, 13 -- •• _.....�,..:.., +_ .:. _ _ _ _e!..- 353 _.v..�....w -_ __ _ _ 3s�_ w�...:�. 29 � - -� � 2015 15,33 511 42 2.8.3 Scheduled Air Carrier Service The aviation demand analysis in the Master Plan has been concentrated on general aviation activity. This is entirely appropriate since this area of aviation service has been GMA's primary focus since it first began operations. However, given the distance to the new Austin - Bergstrom International Airport from the Georgetown area, it is possible that a small air carrier would offer service. It is likely that smaller aircraft would provide such service with connections being made at the new Austin airport although direct service to near markets is also possible. 17326/960507 2-11 While recognizing that a potential for the institution of air carrier service may exist, the City is not actively pursuing scheduled air service. Accordingly, if a viable prospect for the provision of air carrier service should emerge, it is recommended that the City's administration carefully evaluate the potential benefits to the community resulting from the provision of such service versus possible costs such as the provision of terminal facilities and associated adverse impacts such as increased air traffic. In determining if cooperation with private interests to bring such service to Georgetown Municipal Airport is warranted, due consideration must also be given to the fiscal practicality of the proposal and it's consistency with the City Council's previous action regarding the limitation of the length of the primary runway (18 -36) to 5,000 feet. 173261960507 2 -12 3.0 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 3.1 GENERAL This section of the Master Plan analyzes the facility requirements for GMA based on the aviation demand projected in Section 2.0, Aviation Demand Forecast, and compares those facilities needs with the existing facilities at GMA in order to determine the improvements that are necessary to meet projected aviation demand. The analysis will consider the following factors: • Airside capacity • Landside capacity • TxDOT airport design standards • New facilities required to meet aviation demands and TxDOT standards From the consideration of the above listed factors a list of new and /or redeveloped airport facilities, both airside and landside, will be developed. The list of airport improvements so derived will be prioritized by time period so that the resulting improvement program provides recommendation for the short term, 0 to 5 years, mid -term, 5 to 10 years and long term, 10 to 20 years, planning periods. 3.2 AIRSIDE CAPACITY As discussed Section 1.0, Inventory, the airfield facilities at GMA consist of two runways, 18 -36 and 11 -29, 5,000 feet (ft) and 4,100 ft in length, respectively. These runways are served by a taxiway system which permits multiple exits from the runways and access to all runway ends without the need for back - taxiing on any runway. GMA has an approach from the Austin VOR as well as NDB and GPS approaches. Minimums are 1 nautical mile (NM) and 1,400 ft for Aircraft Approach Categories A and B and 13/4 NM and 1,400 ft for Aircraft Approach Category C. The airport is not served by an instrument landing system (ILS). Airside capacity for GMA was estimated using the planning guidance provided in FAA AC 150/5060 -5, Airport Capacity and Delay. Under current airport conditions, i.e., no ILS, the airport runway capacity is calculated to be as follows: Annual Service Volume (ASV) - 121,500 operations Hourly Capacity - IFR - 45 operations Hourly Capacity - VFR - 45 operations This capacity will meet the projected requirements of GMA as shown in Section 2.0, Aviation Demand Forecasts, for the period through approximately the year 2010. By that time improvements to instrument operation procedures should permit increases in capacity sufficient to meet the estimated needs of GMA through the end of the 20 -year planning period. 17326/960507 3 -1 3.3 LANDSIDE CAPACITY Landside capacity for a general aviation airport is generally based on an evaluation of the following factors: Hangar spaces Terminal facilities Roadway access, both on and off airport This framework will be used in the following analysis to evaluate the need for landside improvements at GMA. 3.3.1 Hangars The demand for hangar spaces at GMA is extremely strong. The Airport Manager maintains a waiting list for hangar spaces which, over the past several years, has consistently shown more than 50 applicants for various size spaces. GMA currently has hangar spaces for approximately 115 aircraft or about 85 percent of the based aircraft fleet. However, many of these spaces are privately controlled and are used for aircraft maintenance, storage of transient aircraft or other purposes and are not available to the general based aircraft population. Within the past five years private interests have completed or have under construction eight hangars with space for two to three aircraft each, dependent on the size of the aircraft. During this same period the City of Georgetown has constructed three T- hangar buildings containing spaces for 26 aircraft. The City of Georgetown currently owns and leases 50 hangar spaces in seven buildings. Five of these buildings are conventional T- hangars containing spaces for 38 aircraft while two are hexagonal buildings with spaces for six aircraft each. Additionally, the City owns and leases two free standing hangars with spaces for four to eight aircraft each. A Terminal Area Plan was prepared for GMA in 1987. In this plan it was estimated that 68 percent of all single engine aircraft, 75 percent of all twin engine aircraft and all jet engine aircraft would require hangar spaces. The value of all aircraft has increased since the preparation of the Terminal Area Plan. It is, therefore, probable that the percentages of based aircraft owners in all categories, desiring hangar space has increased. In the Terminal Area Plan it was estimated that a based aircraft population of 240 would require 160 hangar spaces. This number of aircraft is approximately equal to the number of based aircraft projected for GMA, in the year 2015. Taking into account the increasing trend in the number of aircraft owners desiring hangar spaces, the following percentages, and resulting number of aircraft by category, which would use hangar space if it was available at the GMA, are estimated as follows for the Year 2015. 17326/960507 3-2 _ U Q 1F<y: Ef Z p aI U Z:.' W e J I- O .JUG I-Q O�Q y sr� Q ,S OW �UQ i c �c zV) i' _ y $ \s m QJ> O A z �Z .� o W � y 6, r FW- W > o 3� O p — w W � co zo � CD 0 Of oQ v�� m w �n W W ` o ,> a Eo �� �¢ s 10 dd O `�L d D � U Cif U Q v n� U Li QEf Z _ Q J 3 s ❑ F- LL Oo> O Q LL- ry U Of Q 7 �^ u o USE ° o 14) —o r� L II o L, z w w c .�Q ��\ � o W < D ° Z }W �Sb� 000 �T ° P, / W m 0- tD cn 0 LLJ LLJ; LLJ Z_- cn IL L < w iu) 0 < x C21 cr LLJ Lij < LLI U) LLI b Ld U-1 'o Z < wpm a 3 OO �� �; OZ LLJ L C3:: ) LLJ War, < �i, O CD� CL C; C) ==>z c -5 > O �° w = 1-10 CL r U-0 0 0 0. r � O i L) F- Ld > C, 00- EL V, CL U) vim! 3m j LJ Cr < LLI MCI: Lo MM o Lj < CL CL 0 -jx LLJ < . ..... . LU Z CD< L THRE ,,iLIGHTS TYP) 51.) :. .-•/ I..." .. . : i .., . i . 1EL �.- �7, EXISTING PAPIO 4 BOX 0 0 IJ �' i _ LI %` O PARKING Willa: 7 "4r / O J i i, O 4z -7 Q- I ma CORPORATE 3 (TYP-20) 7'30' USGS 1982 300' 150' [:] P_!j IMPROVEMENTS ASE 11 IMPROVEMtNTS r---7 PI�SE III IMPROVEMENTS 0 600' 1 �N FEET ) SCALE 1" = 300' ��``�ESFWY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. SHMNNNO & INMONNUTA CONSULTANTS 205 MLD RAMN RD, +300 - P.O. �N. IEW - 78737 - (dlp2')032970-XN6'40' AIRPORT EXHIBIT 3-3 PROPOSED WEST CORPORATE AREA DEVELOPMENT K;\PROJECTS\AIRPORTS\ 1 7326\ EXHIBITS\ EXH- BASE.DWG 7 0 I ma CORPORATE 3 (TYP-20) 7'30' USGS 1982 300' 150' [:] P_!j IMPROVEMENTS ASE 11 IMPROVEMtNTS r---7 PI�SE III IMPROVEMENTS 0 600' 1 �N FEET ) SCALE 1" = 300' ��``�ESFWY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. SHMNNNO & INMONNUTA CONSULTANTS 205 MLD RAMN RD, +300 - P.O. �N. IEW - 78737 - (dlp2')032970-XN6'40' AIRPORT EXHIBIT 3-3 PROPOSED WEST CORPORATE AREA DEVELOPMENT K;\PROJECTS\AIRPORTS\ 1 7326\ EXHIBITS\ EXH- BASE.DWG TABLE 3 -1 YEAR 2015 HANGAR SPACE DEMAND GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT This estimation indicates that GMA will require almost twice as many hangar spaces for based aircraft in the Year 2015 has currently exist on the airport. In order to meet this demand for hangar spaces, development in three areas is recommended. These are termed the North T- Hangar Area, the South Corporate Area and West Corporate Area and are shown on Exhibits 3 -1, 3 -2 and 3 -3. The specifics of hangar development in each of these areas will be discussed in Section 3.5. 3.3.2 Terminal Facilities The existing Terminal Building contains approximately 1,750 square feet (SF). The original building consisting of roughly 1,250 SF was constructed shortly after the City of Georgetown assumed the management of the airport following the end of World War II. A cinder block addition of approximately 500 SF is size was added to the building approximately twenty years ago. Within the original section of the Terminal Building is a waiting area with counter space, a small office used by the Airport Manager, a pilot briefing room, a small concession area and men's and woman's restroom facilities. The newer section of the building is used as a combination waiting area and conference room. The existing building is reasonably functional but contains some wasted space, particularly in the newer addition. It requires updating to conform to current codes, in particular those which require access by disabled persons. The building also requires improvement to permit access to the restroom areas by pilots and passengers when the main Terminal Building is not open. The original portion of the building has a certain charm and historical interest and probably should be preserved when improvements are made. The newer concrete block addition could, however, be readily replaced with more functional construction. 17326/960507 3 -3 Hangar Space Demand Based A/C % Number Single Engine 171 80 137 Multi Engine Piston 24 90 22 Turboprop 37 100 37 Turbojet 12 100 12 Total 244 85 208 This estimation indicates that GMA will require almost twice as many hangar spaces for based aircraft in the Year 2015 has currently exist on the airport. In order to meet this demand for hangar spaces, development in three areas is recommended. These are termed the North T- Hangar Area, the South Corporate Area and West Corporate Area and are shown on Exhibits 3 -1, 3 -2 and 3 -3. The specifics of hangar development in each of these areas will be discussed in Section 3.5. 3.3.2 Terminal Facilities The existing Terminal Building contains approximately 1,750 square feet (SF). The original building consisting of roughly 1,250 SF was constructed shortly after the City of Georgetown assumed the management of the airport following the end of World War II. A cinder block addition of approximately 500 SF is size was added to the building approximately twenty years ago. Within the original section of the Terminal Building is a waiting area with counter space, a small office used by the Airport Manager, a pilot briefing room, a small concession area and men's and woman's restroom facilities. The newer section of the building is used as a combination waiting area and conference room. The existing building is reasonably functional but contains some wasted space, particularly in the newer addition. It requires updating to conform to current codes, in particular those which require access by disabled persons. The building also requires improvement to permit access to the restroom areas by pilots and passengers when the main Terminal Building is not open. The original portion of the building has a certain charm and historical interest and probably should be preserved when improvements are made. The newer concrete block addition could, however, be readily replaced with more functional construction. 17326/960507 3 -3 3.3.3 Roadways On- airport roadway access at GMA is currently reasonably good. Some improvements to the roadway system will be required in order to accommodate the hangar area developments discussed above. The required roadway improvements are as follows: North T- Hangar Area - Development of this area will require the construction of a hangar area access roadway and a new airport entrance off of Airport Road. South Corporate Area - Development of this area will require the extension of an existing roadway. West Corporate Area - Development of this area will require the construction of a new roadway connecting the West Corporate Area to recently completed extension of a residential street which roughly parallels the airports western boundary. The details of each of these required roadway improvements will be discussed in Section 3.5. 3.3.4 Utilities GN1A is currently served by a central water system that, with the exception of extensions required to serve currently undeveloped areas, appears to be adequate to serve the airport's projected development. GMA's greatest utility need is for central wastewater service. All wastewater service on the airport is currently provided by individual septic systems. Since the demand for wastewater service has, to date, been relatively modest, the use of septic systems has not been a deterrent to development. However, as development activities, particularly those involving corporate aircraft, increase, the need for central wastewater service will become more pronounced. Fortunately, a major wastewater outfall line has recently been constructed across the eastern and northern boundaries of the airport. The use of this outfall line will permit central sanitary sewerage service to be provided to the eastern portion of the GMA site with addition of only an internal collection system. 3.4 Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division Standards The Aviation Division of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is required by state statue to publish an aviation facilities development program which, among other things, identifies the State's aviation facilities requirements. Such identification is made in the Texas Aeronautical Facilities Plan (TAFP). Pursuant to the development of the TAFP, the Aviation Division has developed design standards for the purpose of objectively defining and evaluating the roles that various airports play in the TAFP. GMA's role, as defined in the TAFP, is that of a Transport Airport. As a Transport Airport, the Aviation Division recommends that GMA be designed, constructed and maintained to serve airplanes in Aircraft Approach Category C and D, i.e., aircraft with approach speeds between 121 and 141 knots, Category C, and between 141 and 166 knots, Category D. The facilities recommended by the TAFP Policies and Standards for a Transport Airport are discussed in the following paragraphs. 17326/960507 3-7 3.4.1 Runway Length The TAFP recommends that runway length for a Transport Airport be calculated on the basis of guidance provided the FAA AC 150/5325 -4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. The methodology contained in AC 150/5325 -4A has been included in the FAA Airport Design Computer program. This program was run for GMA with the results as shown in Table 3 -2. This analysis shows that Runway 18 -36 at 5,000 ft in length is just slightly shorter than required to accommodate 75 percent of aircraft of 60,000 pounds or less at 60 percent load and certain aircraft greater than 60,000 pounds at a 500 mile haul length. It does, however, easily accommodate all small aircraft, those with a gross weight of 12,500 pounds or less, including those with 10 or more passenger seats. Runway 11 -29 is restricted to usage by small aircraft. At a length of 4,100 ft, Runway 11 -29 is shown to be adequate for all small aircraft with less than 10 seats. It is approximately 500 ft too short for all small aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats. 3.4.2 Runway Protection Zones, Safety Areas and Obstructions GMA currently has Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) at both ends of Runway 18 -36 and Runway 11 -29. The RPZs for Runway 18 -36 are sized for aircraft in Approach Category A and B with approach minimums not lower than one mile. The City owns the RPZ area for Runway 36, the southern approach but the outer edges of the Run 18 RPZ extend beyond the airport's boundaries. The RPZs for Runway 11 -29 are sized for small aircraft only. Both RPZs extend beyond the airport's boundaries. The Runway 11 RPZ is contained within an aviation easement. Both runways are protected by Object Free Areas (OFA). The OFA are required to be free of objects except those required for aviation purposes or the ground maneuvering of aircraft. The Runway 18 -36 is 500 ft wide centered on the runway centerline and extends 300 ft beyond each runway end. The Runway 11 -29 OFA is 250 ft in width and extends 240 ft beyond each runway end There is a minor intrusion into the OFA of 18 -36 at the north end of the runway. 3.4.3 Other Features Aviation Division standards cover various other airfield features. Table 3 -3 provides a comparison of the facilities at GIv1A with the Aviation Division's published standards for Transport Airports. A review of Table 3 -3 shows that the airside facilities at GMA meet or exceed TxDOT's standards in most categories. However, runway length is slightly less than recommended, the instrument approach minimums are slightly above those recommended and the taxiways are not lighted. Based on this evaluation no major deficiencies exist in GMA's airside facilities. The minor deficiency in runway length is not considered to be significant. Additionally, it is believed that the instrument approach minimums may improve with the advent of Global Positioning System (GPS) approaches. Finally, the lack of taxiway lighting is alleviated through the use of retroreflective markers. 17326/960507 3-8 3.5 New Facilities Required To Meet Aviation Demands And T.YDOT Standards 3.5.1 Airside Facilities 3.5.1.1 Runways No new runway, runway extensions or runway widening is recommended for GMA. The existing runway system is adequate both in terms of length, strength and capacity to serve the needs of GMA over the 20 year planning horizon associated with this study. Further, the Georgetown City Council, as part of it's Century Plan, has established a policy limiting the length of GMA's primary runway to 5,000 ft. Runway 11 -29 serves as a secondary crosswind runway at GMA. It is limited to serving small aircraft. This runway was reconstructed by a project which was completed in 1996. Accordingly, no short-term improvements are required for this runway. However, routine pavement maintenance procedures will require rehabilitation, probably in the form of seal coating, during the interim, 6 to 10 year, planning period. TABLE 3 -2 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY LENGTH A1NALYSIS Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes 95 percent of these small airplanes 100 percent of these small airplanes 4,020 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds ........ Approximately 320 feet 860 feet 2,840 feet 3,370 feet 4,510 feet 5,230 feet 7,590 feet 6,330 feet 9,750 feet 5,280 feet REFERENCE: Chapter'-) of AC 150/5325 -3A, Runway Len .-th Requirements for Airport Desion, no Changes included. 17326/960507 3 -9 TABLE 3 -3 TxDOT AVIATION DIVISION STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORT AIRPORTS COMPARED TO AIRFIELD FACILITIES AT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AVIATION DIVISION STANDARD Runway Length to Accommodate 75% of the Fleet at 60% Useful Load - 5,280 ft Runway Width - 100 ft Pavement Strength - 30,000 lbs Single Wheel Load Minimum Taxiway - Full Parallel Minimum Apron Size per AC 150/5300 -13 -360 SY per Transient Aircraft; for GMA 22,500 SY Minimum Approach - 600 ft - 1 1/2 mile, Non - Precision Straight In for Category C and D Aircraft Minimum Lighting — Medium Intensity Runway and Taxiway Lights (MIRL, MITL) with Guidance Signs Minimum Visual Approach Aids - Lighted Windcone, Rotating Beacon, Segmented Circle, PAPI - 4 and REILs on Primary Runway GMA FACILITY R/W 18 -36 Length - 5,000 ft Runway 18 -36 Width - 100 ft R/W 18 -36 Pavement Strength - 30,000 lbs Single Wheel Load R/W 18 -36 Taxiway - Full Parallel GMA's primary Terminal Area Apron - 34,500 SY Straight In to R/W 18 from Austin VOR, 615 ft - 13/4 mile for Category C aircraft R/W 18 -36 and 11 -29 have MIRL, T/Ws have Retroreflective Markers, Guidance Signs are In Place GMA has Lighted Windcone, Rotating Beacon, Segmented Circle, PAPI - 4 on R/W 36, PLASI on WW 18 and REILs on both ends of the Primary Runway. Secondary R/W not required for 95% wind coverage. Runway 18 -36 is the primary runway at GMA. It was reconstructed in 1988. While no major improvements are required for this runway, rehabilitation is called for in the short -term since the last significant improvement was the 1988 reconstruction. Asphalt runways, particularly those subject to the Texas climate, generally require rehabilitation. 3.5.1.2 Taxiways The basic taxiway system at GMA is adequate from a capacity standpoint. Taxiway A and C were overlaid in 1988 when the reconstruction of Runway 18 -36 was accomplished. Taxiways B and D were reconstructed at the same time as Runway 11 -29. Accordingly, further pavement improvements for these taxiways will be accomplished at the same time as the improvements to the associated runways. Certain taxiway improvements are required to permit access to proposed new apron areas. The new apron improvements will be discussed in 3.5.1.3, below. These proposed taxiways are described as follows: A taxiway approximately 400 ft in length and 35 ft in width is proposed to extend from Taxiway A to the proposed North T- Hangar area. Based on the layout of the existing facilities it is recommended that this taxiway be located between the Gantt Aviation and Texas Aviation lease limits, please see Exhibit 3 -1. 17326/960507 3-10 A taxiway approximately 600 ft in length and 50 ft in width is proposed to extend from Taxiway A to the proposed South Corporate Area. This taxiway is recommended to be located at the extreme south eastern end of Taxiway A, please see Exhibit 3 -2. A taxiway approximately 3,600 ft in length with a width of 35 ft is proposed to serve the West Corporate Area. Approximately 2,250 ft will be required in an initial phase to open the area up for development. The remaining 1,350 ft is projected for construction in a later phase as supported by the demand for aircraft storage facilities, please see Exhibit 3 -3. Both the taxiway from Taxiway A to the North T- Hangar area and the taxiway from Taxiway A to the South Corporate area are proposed for near -term construction since they are designed to support severely needed hangar facilities. 3.5.1.3 Aprons Three new apron facilities are proposed for development. These are: The South Corporate Area apron is projected to have an overall area of approximately 18,000 SY. This apron is designed to serve a group of free standing hangars of varying sizes. These hangars will provide storage facilities for a range of aircraft but are designed primarily for larger piston twin, turbojets and jet aircraft. The Main Terminal Area apron is to be located north of the Terminal Building in the area now occupied by the City owned Hangar A and a city owned T- hangar building. This apron will consist of approximately 7,000 SY of pavement and a short connector taxiway. The proposed West Corporate Area apron represents an expansion of GMA to it's currently underdeveloped western side. This improvement will require significant site work and substantial infrastructure improvements. It is anticipated that the development of this apron will occur in stages with the first 26,500 SY segment being constructed in the mid -term, 6 to 10 year planning period as the balance being constructed in the long-term, 10 to 20 year period. 3.5.2 Landside Facilities 3.5.2.1 Hangars As discussed previously in Section 3.3.1, the need for additional hangar spaces at GMA is acute. There is a current need for at least 20 spaces to be made available to individuals basing aircraft at GMA. This need is projected to increase steadily as the airport's based aircraft population increases. In point of fact, the based aircraft population is directly related to the availability of hangar spaces. This is particularly true in the light of the closing of Austin's Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) and the uncertainties in the status of Austin Executive Airpark (Executive). Based on projected growth in based aircraft over the next five years, at least fifteen new hangar spaces will be required. Additionally, based on the extent of the current waiting list for hangars and the previously mentioned changes in other airports in the area, there is strong reason to project that if hangars were made available within the next several years they would attract aircraft owners looking to relocate there aircraft. 17326/960507 With this strong demand in evidence, the capital improvement program for GMA should include significant new hangar construction. It is anticipated that the required construction will be funded both by private investors and the City of Georgetown. Recommended hangar construction projects are discussed in the following paragraphs. The hangar construction program recommended for GMA is centered on the three apron areas described in Section 3.5.1.3 as well as the development of the North T- Hangar Area. The North T- Hangar Area will provide space, roadway access and taxiway access for six 8 -unit T- hangar buildings. Funding for the development of this area is anticipated to be by the TxDOT Aviation Division and the City of Georgetown on a 90/10 basis, exclusive of actual hangar construction which is not eligible for TxDOT funding. Development of the South Corporate Area will provide space, apron access and taxiway access for approximately 15 new free standing buildings of approximately 6,400 to 10,000 square feet in size. It is currently anticipated that development of this area will be funded primarily by private sources, however, the initial construction of the apron and access taxiway will be funded by TxDOT Block Grant funds and the City of Georgetown on a 90/10 basis. Some sharing of infrastructure costs between the City of Georgetown and one or more private developers is a possibility. The West Corporate Area constitutes the largest undeveloped tract of the airport property. It's development will provide apron space, taxiway access and infrastructure to support approximately 20 free standing hangars approximately 6,400 to 10,000 SF in size. It is currently anticipated that the funding for this development will be provided by private sources; although participation in the construction of the taxiways and apron by TxDOT and the City of Georgetown is anticipated. The final area planned for hangar development is located adjacent to the existing Terminal Building. This area, constituting approximately 3 acres, is smaller than the other two but it's central location, roadway and taxiway access make it an excellent location for immediate corporate aviation development. The area is large enough to support three free standing hangars each a minimum of 10,000 SF in size. The City has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the private development of this area. 3.5.2.2 Terminal Building Improvements to the existing Terminal Building are recommended. The existing Terminal Building is approximately one -third smaller than recommended by TxDOT standards for a facility with as many based aircraft as GMA. Additionally, the buildings age makes many of its features, for example the restroom facilities, obsolescent. Specific features, such as a larger pilot briefing area, a conference room and a larger manager's office, are also needed. It is also likely that the age of the building will result in increasing maintenance costs. It is anticipated that improvements to the Terminal Building will be funded with assistance of the TxDOT Airport Terminal Building Program. This program requires matching participation by the Sponsor and is limited to a total project cost of $400,000. The maximum project cost for Terminal Building improvements is included in the funding program described in this report. However, it is possible that the actual cost of needed improvements might be substantially less than the program maximum. 17326/960507 ) 12 3.5.2.3 Roadways Several segments of roadway are required to provide access to the South Corporate Area, the North T -Hangar Area and the West Corporate Area. These roadway segments are described as follows: • The roadway segment providing access to the South Corporate Area will intersect Terminal Drive and continue southward along the east side of the area. It is projected that this roadway segment will be 24 -ft width and slightly more than 1,700 ft in length. • The access roadway to the North T- Hangar Area is planned to include a new airport entrance. This roadway will be located east of the proposed hangar development and extend northward and then westward around the development to tie into the existing roadway system. A width of 24 ft and a length of approximately 1,400 ft is projected. Access to the West Corporate Area development can be accomplished by a connection to Lakeway Drive along the southern airport boundary. However, to take full advantage of this area's development it is recommended that a connection be made to a residential street along the airport's western boundary. This roadway is anticipated to be 24 ft wide and a total length of slightly more than 2,500 ft. The connection to Lakeway Drive consists of some 1,000 ft and the connection to the residential street to the west consists of just over 1,500 ft. In addition to these new roadways, roadway rehabilitation projects are recommended for Terminal Drive and the roadway system serving the North Corporate Area. Neither of these existing systems is currently in really poor shape but are estimated to require extensive maintenance in the latter part of the first stage planning period or in the second five year planning period. 3.5.2.4 Utilities GMA currently has no central wastewater service. Those buildings with sanitary facilities are served by individual septic systems. The availability of a recently constructed major outfallline across the northern and eastern sides of the airport property make the provision of central wastewater service a viable option. Accordingly, the facilities improvement program includes a recommendation to provide such services to the Main Terminal Area and to other areas on the airport as funding becomes available. All of the existing airport has water service. The last addition to the water system extended a line to serve the western portion of what is now being referred to as the South Corporate Area. Water system extensions will be required to serve the remainder of the South Corporate Area and the West Corporate Area. Certain water system capacity improvements are anticipated to be required for the Main Terminal Area. 3.5.2.5 Environmental Improvements Two environmental improvements are recommended. Both deal with water quality issues. The first of these is an aircraft wash rack which will allow the collection and safe disposal of water contaminated by aircraft washing operations. Such disposal is currently required by stormwater quality regulations which specifically exclude such wash water from its permitted discharges. The second recommended feature is a sedimentation - filtration basin to receive stormwater runoff from that portion of the terminal area north of Terminal Drive. The construction of this basin is required by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) as a condition of their approval of 17326/960507 3 -13 the Terminal Area Storm Water Pollution Abatement Plan. A combined detention and water quality basin serving similar needs for the terminal area south of Terminal Drive is currently under construction. 3.5.2.6 Fencing Much of airport property is currently protected by wildlife resistant fencing. Expansion of the airport facilities to the west side of the airfield will require an extension of this fencing. In addition to the wildlife resistant fencing, improvements are required for the boundary fencing on west side of the airport. This fencing, while in place in most areas, is in poor condition and will require substantial repairs. 3.6 Instrument Approaches One of the primary needs at GMA is for improved instrument approaches with lower approach minimums. It appears that the best chance for achieving such an improvement is the emerging GPS technology. There is a GPS overlay currently in place for GMA. It is anticipated that a standalone approach will be approved following the FAA's approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) currently being prepared as a part of the Master Planning effort. This ALP will be prepared to the accuracy standards stipulated by Change 5 to AC 5300 -13, Airport Planning. The preparation and approval of an ALP to these standards is a requirement for a standalone GPS approach. It should be noted, however, that lower minimums may require the clearing of obstructions and the provision of an approach lighting system. Both of which are likely to be expensive and difficult to achieve given GMA property boundaries and the land uses surrounding the airport. 3.7 Airport Zoning While not strictly a facility issue, the subject of airport zoning impacts facility development at GMA. The current zoning is residential (RS -1) dating from the City's incorporation of the airport property. This zoning makes development on the airport subject to the associated City of Georgetown development regulations. A preferred approach would be to rezone the airport property to a more appropriate new Aviation/Industrial zoning category. This would allow the formulation of aviation related development regulations and facilitate the continued development of currently unused airport property. 17326/960507 3 -14 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW The primary purposes of this section is to review alternatives for meeting the Facility Requirements described in Section 3.0 and to describe the recommended development program. However, in the case of GMA the physical alternatives are somewhat limited. On the other hand the policy alternatives are significant. This section will discuss the alternatives associated with various airside and landside development, both physical and policy related, and conclude with a phased tabulation of the recommended improvements and their estimated costs. 4.1 Airside 4.1.1 Runways and Taxiways There are no discernible alternatives associated with the proposed airfield improvements at GMA with the exception of the null alternative, i.e., don't build, and the timing of the improvements. No major capacity related runway or taxiway improvements are proposed. The recommended construction is directed at safety related items, such as the construction of the aircraft holding pads, major maintenance in the form of runway, taxiway and apron rehabilitation and those improvements associated with providing access to new areas of development on the airport such as the North T- Hangar Area, the South Corporate Area and the West Corporate Area. 4.1.2 Aprons The primary alternative associated with the recommended construction of the South Corporate Apron and the North T- Hangar Area was that of location. It is generally beneficial to provide separation between the corporate aircraft facilities and facilities housing smaller privately owned aircraft. This results not only from the variations in aircraft performance but also from the outward image that most corporate aircraft service firms wish to portray. Accordingly, it was planned that the T- hangar development would be concentrated elsewhere. After substantial discussion within the Master Plan Working Group and the presentation of various alternatives by the Consultant, it was decided that the T- hangar development should be located on the northern end of the airport because this was the most readily developable and cost effective land on the airport. Accordingly, it was recommended that the area be developed as the so- called North T- Hangar area. This area will be served by a connector taxiway from Taxiway A. Construction of the connector taxiway will be funded primarily by TxDOT's Block Grant program. A recent issue has arisen regarding the development of the North T- Hangar Area. This issue involves inquiries by two existing leases regarding the expansion of their current leaseholds toward the east. Both of these proposed expansions would encroach into the area proposed for the North T- Hangar development. This encroachment would limit the number of T- hangars which can be built in this area. The City should carefully evaluate the revenues to be generated by the proposed lease payments from the expanded leaseholds versus the revenue to be generated by rental of the proposed T- hangars. Further, it should be determined if the proposed lease area expansions would adversely impactT.,cDOT's funding of the proposed connector taxiway in this area by virtue of a reduction in public use space. With the northern terminal area planned for T- hangar development, the south and west terminal areas are available for the future expansion of corporate aviation service facilities. Considerable interest has been expressed by private interests in the development of the southern area. Such interest has been heightened by TxDOT's recent commitment of funding to construct an access taxiway from the 17326/960507 4 -1 southeastern end of Taxiway A to the area in question. They have also agreed to fund partial construction of an apron in this area. These funding commitments should go far toward inducing private investment in other infrastructure improvements needed for the area, including site clearing, a roadway and utilities. To further aid this development, it is recommended that the City consider funding a portion of the needed infrastructure improvements on a shared cost basis with one or more private developers. Also available for corporate development is the area immediately north of the Terminal Building. This area is currently partially occupied by two City owned buildings, one a free standing hangar approximately 8,000 SF in area and the second a small T- hangar building. Both existing buildings are aged and in relatively poor repair. It is recommended that the City lease the entire area to a corporate aircraft service provider with the commitment that the lease would demolish the existing buildings and replace them with more modern facilities. The site is large enough to support three 10,000 SF hangars. Because of its proximity to the Terminal Building and the existing fuel storage facilities, this site offers considerable potential to attract a major Fixed Base Operator (FBO) who might assume operation of the Terminal Building and fueling facilities, thus substantially reducing the City's operational costs. The economics of such a course of action should be carefully evaluated. The final area of development potential is the airfield's west side. This area is capable of having relatively good airfield access. It could also be provided with ground access and utilities on a reasonably cost effective basis. It is recommended that the City target this area for private investment at such time as the more easily developed property on the east side of the airfield is built -out. However, the GMA's management should also evaluate TxDOT's potential for funding the connector taxiways and at least part of the public use apron. The City should also consider the possibility of assisting in the construction of infrastructure in order to "boot strap" the area's development, if and when, the facilities are required. 4.2 Landside 4.2.1 Terminal Building The existing Terminal Building is in need of upgrading and expansion. The primary decision to be made in this regard is whether to rehabilitate the existing building or to demolish it and build a new facility. Based on the fact that the building is well located to serve the airfield and that the original structure has substantial charm and identification with Georgetown, it is recommended that as much of the original building as possible be retained. The newer part of the building could, however, be easily demolished and replaced as necessary. Funding, or at least partial funding, for such terminal building improvements may be obtained from TxDOT under a state funded program which pays 50 percent of the cost of eligible terminal building improvement costs. The City should determine what costs are eligible prior to committing to any development program. 4.2.2 Hangars It is recommended that the City investigate the possibility of constructing T- hangars. With this recommendation in mind the development program contained herein shows the construction of six new 8- unit T- hangar buildings within the first and second stages of the Master Plan's 20 year planning horizon. 17326/960507 4 -2 Construction of T- hangars by the City would have two impacts. First, it would attract based aircraft to GMA and secondly, with appropriate lease pricing, the investment in T- hangars could provide a substantial return on the investment. The current events in the local aviation community give every sign of leading to additional based aircraft at GMA, if suitable facilities such as T- hangars are provided. From a policy standpoint, GMA's management must determine whether it wants additional based aircraft and, if so, how many. The answers to these questions should guide the City's development actions at GMA for the foreseeable future. In addition to T- hangars, based aircraft at GMA require larger free standing hangars for the storage of larger aircraft and the conduct of aviation service businesses. It is believed that private investment funding will fill this need. The City's position is such developments should be one of establishing fair and reasonable lease rates for single lots or larger areas and possibly aiding in the development process by participating in cost sharing arrangements relative to infrastructure. While it is certainly recognized that the airport is a substantial economic asset to the City of Georgetown, prudent fiscal policy dictates that private investment be allowed to respond to market forces. 4.2.3 Utilities One area of possible City funding is in the construction of utilities, in particular central sanitary sewerage system. Such a system would aid development and enhance the environment. The recent construction of a major trunk sewer along the airport's eastern and northern boundaries makes the provision of such service economically viable. 4.3 Improved Approaches While this is an issue that is critical to aircraft operations at GMA, it is one over which the Airport's management has little direct control. Accordingly, it is recommended thatGMA's management coordinate with TxDOT Aviation Division and the FAA regarding the implementation schedule for the augmented GPS and the existing physical constraints, if any, to the approval of an approach with a minimum than the current one nautical mile. 4.4 Summary The improvements recommended for GMA are shown in Tables 4 -1 through 4 -3 which show the improvement, its estimated cost, and the planning phase; near -term, zero to five years, mid -term, six to ten years, and long -term, ten to twenty years, in which implementation is recommended. 17326/960507 4 -3 TABLE 4 -1 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STAGE I NEAR -TERM AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS (0 TO 5 YEARS) 4-4 Total Unit Construction Contingencies Development Quantity llnii Edu c@15% SS4SI I. North T -Hangar Area 1. Construct Three 8 -Bay T -Hangar Units 3 EA $160,000.00 $480,000 $72,000 $552,000 2. Construct New Northeast Airport Entrance Roadway 1,400 LF $75.00 $105,000 $15,750 $120,750 3. Construct Access Taxiway to North T -Hangar Area 400 LF $575.00 $230,000 $34,500 $264,500 SUBTOTAL $815,000 $122,250 $937,250 II. South Corporate Hangar Area 1. Construct South Corporate Area Apron 12,000 SY $30.00 $360,000 $54,000 $414,000 2. Construct Access Taxiway to South Corporate Area 600 LF $450.00 $270,000 $40,500 $310,500 3. Construct Water System for South Coprorate Area 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 $15,000 $115,000 4. Construct Wastewater System for South Coprorate Area I LS $70,000.00 $70,000 $10,500 $80,500 5. Construct Roadway for South Corporate Area 1,730 LF $75.00 $129,750 $19,463 $149,213 6. Construct Corporate Hangars 5 EA $325,000.00 $1,625,000 $243,750 $1,868,750 SUBTOTAL $2,554,750 $383,213 $2,937,963 III. North Corporate Hangar Area 1. Rehabilitate Roadways, North Corporate Area 750 LF $24.00 $18,000 $2,700 $20,700 SUBTOTAL $18,000 $2,700 $20,700 IV. Main Airfield Improvements 1. Rehabilitate R/W 18 -36 55,555 SY $4.25 $236,109 $35,416 $271,525 2. Construct Aircraft Holding Aprons, R/W I8 -36 and 11 -29 6,000 SY $30.00 $180,000 $27,000 $207,000 3. Seal Coat Bituminous Apron Adjacent to Terminal 27,500 SY $I.35 $37,125 $5,569 $42,694 4. Repair and Seal Expansion Joints on Fueling Apron 8,000 LF $5.50 $44,000 $6,600 $50,600 5. Rehabilitate and Mark T/W A and C 36000 SY $3.75 $135,000 $20,250 $155,250 SUBTOTAL $632,234 $94,835 $727,069 V. Main Terminal Area 1. Rehabilitate and Expand Terminal Building 1 LS $345,000.00 $345,000 $51,750 $396,750 2. Water System Improvements 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000 $4,500 $34,500 3. Wastewater System Improvements I LS $80,000.00 580,000 $12,000 $92,000 4. Construct Corporate Apron 7,000 SY $30.00 $210,000 $31,500 $241,500 5. Construct Coporate Hangars 3 EA $325,000.00 $975,000 $146,250 $1,121,250 SUBTOTAL $1,640,000 $246,000 $1,886,000 VI. Environmental Improvements 1. Construct Aircraft Wash Rack 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 $3,750 $28.750 2. Construct North Water Quality Basin I LS $75,000.00 $75.000 $11,250 $86.250 SUBTOTAL $100,000 $15,000 $115,000 VII. Miscellaneous Improvements 1. Improve Boundary Fencing 5,600 LF $5.00 $28,000 $4,200 $32.200 SUBTOTAL $28,000 $4,200 $32,200 TOTAL $4,972,984 $745,948 $5,718,931 4-4 TABLE 4-2 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STAGE II MID -TERM AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS (6 TO 10 YEARS) Total Unit Construction Contingencies Development Quantity unit Fii= Q= @15% C= I. North T -Hangar Area 1. Construct Three 8 -Bay T -Hangar Units [l] 3 EA $160,000.00 $480,000 $72,000 $552,000 2. Rehabilitate Roadways 1,250 LF $24.00 $30,000 $4,500 $34,500 SUBTOTAL $510,000 $76,500 $586,500 II. South Corporate Hangar Area 1. Construct South Corporate Area Apron 6,000 SY $30.00 2. Construct Corporate Hangars 5 EA $325,000.00 SUBTOTAL III. North Corporate Hangar Area 1. Rehabilitate Roadways, North Corporate Area 1,250 LF $24.00 SUBTOTAL IV. West Corporate Hangar Area 1. Construct Access Taxiway to West Corporate Area 2. Construct West Corporate Area Apron 3. Site Work West Corporate Area 4: Construct Water System for West Coprorate Area 5. Construct Wastewater System for West Coprorate Area 6. Construct Access Roadway for West Coprorate Area 7. Construct Corporate Hangars 8. Extend Widlife Fencing- SUBTOTAL $180,000 $27,000 $207,000 $1,625,000 $243,750 $1,868,750 $1,805,000 $270,750 $2,075,750 $30,000 $4,500 $34,500 $30,000 $4,500 $34,500 2,250 LF $575.00 $1,293,750 $194,063 $1,487,813 26,500 SY $30.00 $795,000 $119,250 $914,250 20 AC $2,500.00 $50,000 $7,500 $57,500 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000 $19,500 $149,500 1 LS $185,000.00 $185,000 $27,750 $212,750 1,000 LF $75.00 $75,000 $11,250 $86,250 10 EA $325,000.00 $3,250,000 $487,500 $3,737,500 3,000 LF $12.00 $36,000 $5,400 $41,400 $5,778,750 $866,813 $6,645,563 V. Main Airfield Improvements 1. Rehabilitate R/W 11-29 34,500 SY 2. Rehabilitate and Mark T/W B and D 18,000 SY SUBTOTAL VI. Main Terminal Area 1. Rehabilitate Terminal Drive 1,500 LF SUBTOTAL TOTAL 4 -5 $4.25 $146,625 $21,994 $168,619 $3.75 $67,500 $10,125 $77,625 $214,125 $32,119 $246,244 $24.00 $36,000 $5,400 $41,400 $36,000 $5,400 $41,400 $7,863,875 $1,179,581 $9,043,456 TABLE 4-3 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STAGE III LONG -TERM AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS (10 TO 20 YEARS) Engineering & Total Unit Construction Contingencies Development Quantity iZnil Liu ful @15% C-= I. West Corporate Hangar Area 1. Complete West Corporate Area Taxiway System 2. Complete West Corporate Area Apron 3. Complete Site Work West Corporate Area 4. Complete Water System for West Corporate Area 5. Construct Access Roadway for West Coprorate Area 6. Construct Corporate Hangars SUBTOTAL II. Main Airfield Improvements I. Rehabilitate R/W 18 -36 2. Rehabilitate and Mark T/W A and C 3. Rehabilitate R/W 18 -36 Lighting System SUBTOTAL TOTAL 1,350 LF $575.00 $776,250 $116,438 $892,688 26,500 SY $30.00 $795,000 $119,250 $914,250 20 AC $2,500.00 $50,000 $7,500 $57,500 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000 $19,500 $149,500 1,500 LF $75.00 $112,500 $16,875 $129,375 10 EA $325,000.00 $3,250,000 $487,500 $3,737,500 $5,113,750 $767,063 $5,880,813 55,555 SY $4.25 $236,109 $35,416 $271,525 36,000 SY $3.75 $135,000 $20,250 $155,250 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000 $26,250 $201,250 $371,109 $55,666 $426,775 $5,484,859 $822,729 $6,307,588 4 -6 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5.1 General This section of the master plan report for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GMA) addresses various environmental aspects of the planning process. While not as comprehensive or as detailed as a full environmental assessment (EA), this analysis provides a basis for evaluating the environmental impacts of the master plan's proposed development program. The following topics are addressed. • Noise Impacts • General Ecology • Wetlands Impacts • Endangered and Threatened Species • Cultural Resources As with most general aviation airport projects, impacts from aircraft generated noise are of significant concern. Accordingly, this analysis includes the modeling of aircraft noise at GMA for each of the master planning periods, i.e., current, short term (2000), mid -term (2005) and long term (2015). The other areas of environmental interest were selected primarily on the basis of the greatest potential for adverse impacts from the proposed development plan. Further, according to the FAA's Airport Environmental Handbook, Order 5050.4A, no feature of the proposed development plan would, in and of itself, indicate the need for the preparation of an EA or an environmental impact statement (EIS). Order 5050.4A does, however, require the preparation of an EA if adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species, wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, property included in the National Register of Historic Places or Section 4 (f) lands, i.e., parks or recreational areas, may occur. Acquisition of prime farm lands would also trigger an EA. Since the adverse impacts on prime farm lands, 4 (f) lands or floodplains is not contemplated by the development plan, and the coastal zone provisions are not applicable, only impacts on wetlands, cultural resources and threatened and endangered species were reviewed. The following subsections discuss potential impacts in each of the areas of environmental interest cited above. The final subsection provides conclusions and recommendations relative to further environmental studies during the development process. 5.2 Aviation Related Noise The FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 5.0, was used to estimate noise impacts related to aviation activity. The INM produces a number of different noise metrics, however, the most commonly used is the Average Day -Night Sound Level (DNL). This measurement provides the average decibel level for a twenty-four hour period with the period between midnight and 7 AM weighted by a 10 decibel penalty. While other measurements of noise impacts are often used, DNL is the FAA standard for evaluating cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. Table 5 -1 shows land use compatibility with different noise levels expressed in DNL. The land use compatibility levels shown in Table 5 -1 are taken from FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020 -1 and are the basis for the assessments of aviation noise impacts shown in the following subsections. 17326/960507 5-1 TABLE 5-1 LAND USES NORMALLY COMPATIBLE WITH VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS 17326/960507 5 -2 DNL Below Over Land Uses 65 65-70 70 -75 75 -80 80 -85 85 RESIDENTIAL: Homes, apartments, group quarters, Y N' N' N N N residential hotels Mobile -home parks Y N N N N N Transient lodging Y N' N' N' N N PUBLIC USE: Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, Y 25 30 N N N auditoriums, concert halls COMMERCIAL USE: Offices, business, professional, wholesale, retail Y Y 25 30 N N MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTIONS General manufacturing and production Y Y YZ Y3 V N Agriculture and forestry Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8 Livestock farming and breeding Y Y6 Y7 N N N Mining and fishing Y Y Y Y Y Y RECREATION: Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y5 Y5 N N N Outdoor music shells and amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N N KEY TO TABLE Y (Yes) Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N (No) Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. 25, 30 or 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve Noise Level Reduction (NLR), outdoor to indoor, or 25, 30 or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. 17326/960507 5 -2 5.2.1 INM Input Following extensive discussions with the Master Plan Working Group, the input to the INM was formulated. The following is a synopsis of the INM inputs for the GMA Master Plan: • Aircraft operations in the base year were determined from TxDOT's most recent acoustic counter survey. Approximately 87,000 operations occurred in base year of 1995. • The aircraft mix from the aviation demand chapter were used in each planning period. • Various aircraft models are available in the RNM. The following aircraft models were used in the input. Single Engine Piston - Composite single engine piston - COMSEP Twin Engine Piston - Beechcraft Baron - BEC58P Turboprop - Mitsubishi MU - 2 and Swearingen Merlin, 40 percent and percent of turboprop operations, respectively Jet - Composite jet - COMJET and Cessna Citation 2 - CNA 500, 50 percent each for 1995 and 2000. CNA 500, Lear 35 and COMJET, 50 percent, 25percent and 25 percent, respectively for 2005. CNA 500 and Lear 35 for 2015, 50 percent each type • Touch and go (T &G) operations currently represent 40 percent of all airport operations however, this percentage declines to 30 percent by the year 2015. All T &G operations are conducted on Runway 18 -36 • Runway usage is split 70 percent to Runway 18 -36 and 30 percent to Runway 11 -29 except that all T &G operations and large aircraft operations are on Runway 18 -36. The actual operations split is, therefore, 83 percent to Runway 18 -36 and 17% to Runway 11 -29. • Approach flight tracks are as shown in Exhibit 5 -1. Runway 18 Track 18 -APP -0001, straight -in approach, used by all aircraft types Track 18 -APP -0002, 45° approach to the airport landing pattern, used by small aircraft only Track 18 -APP -0004, 45° approach to the airport landing pattern, used by turboprop and turbojet aircraft only Track 18 -TGO -0009, touch and go, used by only small aircraft 17326/960507 5 -3 Georgetown Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise Impacts r / 18—T n9� 36 —TOO -001a= is 1 /7, r 8— APP -0004 1S- P -0002 p �c. see r smug . ■■ am ll�.awwwrwr %' i «�,i uwwwaw■ Approach Tracks Exhibit 5 -1 E` 5 -4 ESPEY, RUSTON & ASSOMTES, HNBUPE WO a LWMNMWA MNSULTA Runway 36 Track 36 -APP -0001, straight - in approach, used by all aircraft types Track 36 -APP -0003, 45° approach to airport landing pattern, used by small aircraft only Track 36 -APP -0005, 45° approach to airport landing pattern, used by turboprop and jet aircraft only Track 36 -TGO -0010, touch and go, used by small aircraft only Runway 11 Track 11 -APP -0001, straight - in approach, used by small aircraft only Track 11 -APP -0002, 45° approach to airport landing pattern, used by small aircraft only Runway 29 Track 29 -APP -0001, straight - in approach, used by small aircraft only Track 29 -APP -0002, 45° approach to airport landing pattern, used by small aircraft only • Departure flights tracks are as shown in Exhibit 5 -2. The following usage percentages were used. All departures tracks are dispersed to cover a wider geographic area. Runway 18 Track 18 -DEP -0100, turn to the east 1 Nautical Mile (NM) from runway end, 80 percent of departures from Runway 18 Track 18 -DEP -0300, turn to the east 3/4 NM from the runway end, 10% of departures from Runway 18 Track 18 -DEP -0400, turn to the west 1 NM from runway end, 10% of departures from Runway 18 Runway 36 Track 36 -DEP -0100, turn to the west 1 NM from the runway end, 10% of departures from Runway 36 Track 36 -DEP -0200, turn to the east 1 NM from the runway end, 90% of departures from Runway 3 6 Runway 11 Track 11 -DEP -0100, turn to the north, 1 NM from the runway end, all departures from Runway 11 17326/960507 5 -5 Georgetown Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise Impacts 36— DEP —p100 , 36 D 0200 `(.ifs:^ ,�/ � ✓°'° �• '{/ ~ —DE —D 00 11— DEP -0 �•_-., � .;� \ : t;. .,�� - t.. � tai 8 —D —020 Departure Tracks Exhibit 5 -2 E �v� 5 -6 ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, "sr MMMC a LWMJVKWA CMUNY Runway 29 Track 29 -DEP -0100, turn to the south, 1 NM from the runway end, all departures from Runway 29 Engine runup operations were modeled in the designated maintenance runup area and at each runway end. Engine rnups in the maintenance area were conducted by turboprop aircraft for 10 minutes four times daily at 100% thrust. Runups at each runway end were modeled for single engine and twin engine piston aircraft at 50% power for 30 seconds prior to each departure. Runups for turboprop aircraft were modeled at 100% power for 30 seconds prior to each departure. 5.2.2 Aircraft Noise Impacts 5.2.21 General Aircraft noise impacts were modeled for the base year, 1995, the short term period, 2000, the mid - term period, 2005, and the long term period, 2015. GMA is bounded on three sides by residential areas, all of which are subjected to some level of aircraft noise. The noise exposure in each planning period is discussed in the following paragraphs. 5.2.2.2 Base Year In the base year, 1995, the areas of the 55, 65 and 75 DNL contours, Exhibit 5 -3, are as follows: DNL Area -Acres 55 915 65 192 75 0 The 65 DNL contour is confined primarily within the airport's boundaries, however, on the south a small area of the contour extends south of Lakeway Drive. On the north, the 65 DNL extends to the airport boundary on the west. The 55 DNL contour extends substantially beyond the airport's boundaries to the south. 5.2.2.3 Short Term follows: In the short term, Year 2000, the areas of the 55, 65 and 75 DNL contours, Exhibit 5 -4, are as DNL Area -Acres 55 1,894 65 358 75 58 17326/960507 5 -7 f � /j X, v40 ♦ f 4v \\ tv 10: 8] a fill i� 1995 55 -60 DNL NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY 60 -65 DNL 65 -70 FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DNL 70 -75 DNL BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL >75 DNL EXHIBIT 5 -3 1995 v0, NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS IN AUGUST 1998 © FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS AUGUST 2000 Q BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL EXHIBIT 5 -3 QD FROST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5 -8 EQ HIGH SCHOOL I vx% Q SCHOOL ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, . acumm & ramm m CONSUum Georgetown Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise Impacts �J / � � ter'— •'•l _• f v s k. l ----- 1'._ � tr r 1 LEGEND 2000 55 -60 DNL NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY 60 -65 DNL ❑ 65 -70 DNL E] 70 -75 DNL AUGUST 2000 >75 DNL © BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2000 O NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS IN AUGUST 1998 © FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS AUGUST 2000 © BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL EXHIBIT 5 -4 Q FROST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5 -9 Q HIGH SCHOOL Ek% © SCHOOL ESPEY, EUSTON & ®SSOMTES, Raerwu mrc r rfanxmM cnxeaMM The 65 and 75 DNL contours extend south of the airport boundary by approximately one mile. The 65 ! DNL contour also extends past the airport's boundary slightly to the north and more significantly to the northwest. The 75 DNL contour is, however,within the airport's boundary in this area. Residential areas to the south and north west are projected to experience average noise levels greater than recommended for such areas. 5.2.2.4 Mid -Term During the mid -term period, 2005, the areas of the 55, 65 and 75 DNL contours, Exhibit 5 -5, are as follow: DNL Area -Acres 55 2,074 65 390 75 70 The general shape of the noise contours for this period are much the same as seen in the short term period, although slightly larger. It should be noted that in this period half of the COMJET aircraft are replaced with the newer quieter Lear 35. This replacement reflects the aging of the COMJET type aircraft and their retirement from service. 5.2.2.5 Long Term During the long-term period, 2015, the areas of the 55, 65 and 75 DNL contours, Exhibit 5 -6, are as follow: DNL Area -Acres 55 1,651 65 281 75 26 It will be noted that the contour areas are actually smaller than in the previous period. This is due to the total replacement of the older COMJET with the Lear 35. Such a replacement is reasonable based on the age of the aircraft represented by the COMJET and the potential for government controls of general aviation aircraft noise. While there have been no initiatives in that direction to date, given the success of the noise control program in the air carrier industry, the assumption of a similar program applied to general aviation is not unrealistic. 5.3 General Ecology 5.3.1 Vegetation Williamson County is located at the junction of the Blackland Prairies and Cross Timbers and Prairies vegetational areas, just north -east of the Edwards Plateau (Hatch et al., 1990) (Figure 5 -7 ). Thus, the study area represents a transitional zone with representative characteristics of all three regions. 17326/960507 5 -10 Georgetown Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise Impacts LEGEND t N } 1, :1 2005 55 -60 DNL NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY 60 -65 DNL F] 65 -70 DNL 0 70 -75 DNL 'AUGUST 2000 >75 DNL 0 BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL t N } 1, :1 2005 AO NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS IN AUGUST 1998 © FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS 'AUGUST 2000 Q BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL EXHIBIT 5 -5 QD FROST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5 -11 EQ HIGH SCHOOL am Q SCHOOL ESPEY, 1101I1 & ES, 1 .01,11A axenvsum ar rnruro A ca�s�Tw Georgetown Municipal Airport Aircraft Noise Impacts i�. LEGEND i in'w _ z3.4 _ ♦ e, 3-a � f�1 2015 55 -60 DNL 0 60 -65 DNL F] 65 -70 DNL 0 70 -75 DNL AUGUST 2000 >75 DNL 0 BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL i in'w _ z3.4 _ ♦ e, 3-a � f�1 2015 O NEW "VILLAGE" ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS IN AUGUST 1998 © FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPENS AUGUST 2000 Q BENOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL EXHIBIT 5 -6 Q FROST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5 -12 Q HIGH SCHOOL Q SCHOOL ESPEY, RUSTON do ASSOCIATES lA'CIIIII n a INFB AYdM CUMT, 10 South Texas Plains Edwards Plateau Rolling Plains High Plains Trans -Pecos � /4_/� north 100 0 100 200 scale in miles Source: Hatchet al., 1990 5 -13 Characteristics of the Blackland Prairies include nearly level to rolling, well- dissected terrain. The soils of the Blackland Prairies are typically dark - colored calcareous clays interspersed with some gray acid sandy loams (Thomas, 1975). The once natural climax vegetation community of the Blackland Prairies was dominated by prairie grasses with a few species of trees scattered throughout. Dominants included little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and tall dropseed (Sporobolus asper) with minor grass species such as sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (B. hirsuta), and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) (Hatch et al., 1990). Almost all of this region has been converted to cropland and domesticated pasture, thus little remains of the original native prairie vegetation. The Cross Timbers and Prairies region is rolling to hilly, with deeply dissected landforms and rapid surface runoff. Soils are occasionally stony and slightly acid sandy or clay loams. The vegetation cover is comprised of grasslands and savannahs with dense, invasive brushlands of post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). The Edwards Plateau is characterized by shallow soils underlain by limestone and caliche on the plateau and with granite occurring within the Central Basin area. The region is a well drained, deeply dissected plain with characteristic savannah and dense juniper /oak woodlands. The once largely grassland or open savannah climax vegetation of the Edwards Plateau has had encroachment by brush and tree species. Now Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei), plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis), Texas oak (Q. buckleyi), and shin oak (Q. sinuata var. breviloba) typically dominate such sites. As suggested earlier, the study area is characteristic of a combination of all three vegetative types, but most closely resembles the Blackland Prairies. During EH &A's 15 October 1996 site visit, vegetation communities dominated by ashe juniper, live oak, cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), honey mesquite, elbow bush (Forestiera pubescens), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), desert Christmas cactus (Opuntia leptocaulis), Texas grama (Bouteloua rigidiseta), King Ranch bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides), buffalograss and side oats grama were observed. Generally, the study area consists of large, open grassy areas intermixed with areas of clumped shrubs and trees. Average tree size within the forested areas ranges from 3 to 6 inch diameter-at-breast- height (dbh). One stand of live oaks ranged from 6 to 30 inches dbh. The entire property had been cleared during the initial airport construction. 5.3.2 Wildlife The study area lies on the western edge of the Texan Biotic Province and eastern edge of the Balconian Biotic Province as described by Blair (1950) and illustrated in Exhibit 5 -8. This transitional region is recognized as a broad ecotone between the forests of the Austroriparian and Carolinian provinces of eastern Texas and Oklahoma and the grasslands of the western parts of these states. The vertebrate fauna of these two provinces is represented by a mixture of species from the Austroriparian, Tamaulipan, Chihuahuan, Kansan, Balconian, and Texan biotic provinces. 17326/960507 5-14 5 -15 5 -16 D851 ...-- 'j(997 7 Gaging eta 80 803 797 'avel UN, CIPA 1` - AIRPORT •I I x756 'con 748 X78911 .�• I �, ; J / L / / •.. 71 \ / 1111122 729 /- - V 2339 750 V / %/) _� _ _\. •. __" - i-o�`1. 1 �hopping�o\ CeAkfer Rp ��. 754� / /" 1) % Q.�Hi G1 Sch \ ,;1 ZONE 1: Areas known to contain E.C.S. ZONE 3: Areas that probably do not contain E.C.S. ZONE 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for E.C.S. or other ZONE 4: Areas that do not contain E.C.S. endemic invertebrate cave fauna. EVRA—Engineering E Huston &Associates, Inc. &Environmental Consultants Exhibit 5 -9 north ZONES OF ENDANGERED 0 2000 4000 feet CAVE SPECIES (E.C.S.) IN RELATION TO GEORGETOWN Iv1UNIC!PAL AIRPORT Base Map: USGS 7.5' Quadrangle; Georgetown, Texas 5 -16 Mammals representative of the area potentially include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Brazilian free - tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), black - tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), coyote (Canis latrans), common raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and the white - tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Davis and Schmidly, 1994). Representative herptofauna of the area includes the Gulf coast toad (Bufo valliceps), Blanchard's cricket frog (Acris crepitans crepitans), ornate box turtle (Terapene ornata), red -eared slider (Trachemys scripta), six -lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), Texas spiny lizard (Sceloporus olivaceus), and the Texas rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta lindheimerii) (Dixon, 1987). Karst habitats are probable throughout the study area and may be seasonally important to species such as the Brazilian free - tailed bat, and cave myotis ( Myotis velifer). Karst features may also serve as hibernacula for several species of herptiles including the western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) and the cliff frog (Syrrhophus marnocki) as well providing important habitats for many troglobites. The aquatic habitats within the study area are limited tohydric areas associated with tributaries of Pecan Branch and related drainages. These areas are generally ephemeral in nature and under normal circumstances, do not provide year -round habitat for aquatic life forms. 5.4 Wetlands The study area lies within a subwatershed of the Brazos River Basin and drains to the south/southwest into unnamed tributaries to Pecan Branch. Pecan Branch is mapped as intermittent by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS, 1982). Areas of bottomland/riparian habitats (potential jurisdictional wetlands) observed were located in the southwest comer of the study area and are associated with an unnamed tributary to Pecan Branch. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has produced National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping for the area which is based upon 1982 aerial photography (FWS, 1993). The Georgetown, TX NWI map designates three areas of palustrine wetlands within the study area. These areas were not found during EH &A's site visit. Hydric habitats within the study area may be defined as jurisdictional wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCE). If these areas meet the criteria necessary to define them as jurisdictional wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, certain activities (e.g., placement of fill) within these habitats are subject to regulation. 5.5 Endangered and Threatened Species 5.5.1 Vegetation Currently, 28 plant species are listed by the FWS as endangered or threatened in Texas (FWS, 1994 and Texas Natural Heritage Program (TXNHP), 1995). None of these species is known to exist within Williamson County. 17326/960507 5 -17 5.5.2 Wildlife Table 5 -2 lists wildlife species considered by the FWS, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), or Texas Organization for Endangered Species (TOES) to be endangered or threatened that are known to have occurred within Williamson County and could potentially occur within the study area. TABLE 5 -2 ENDANGERED OR THREATENED WILDLIFE OF POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name FWS Status TPWD TOES Coffin Cave mold beetle E Tooth Cave ground beetle E Bone Cave harvestman E Timber rattlesnake -- T T Texas horned lizard -- T T Brown pelican E E E White -faced ibis -- T T Wood stork -- T T Swallow - tailed kite -- T T Bald eagle T T E American peregrine falcon E E E Arctic peregrine falcon E /SA T T Whooping crane E E E Interior least tern E E E Black - capped viero E E T Golden - Cheeked warbler E E E Four karst zones have been established in the Austin, Texas region based upon the potential for occurrence of endangered cave species (Veni & Associates, 1991). Zone 1 consists of areas known to contain endangered cave species. Zone 2 consists of areas having high probability of suitable habitat for endangered cave species or endemic invertebrate cave fauna. Zone 3 consists of areas that probably do not contain endangered cave species, and Zone 4 consists of areas that do not contain any endangered cave species. The study area contains areas of Zone 2 and 3 (Exhibit 5 -9). Three karst invertebrates currently listed by FWS as endangered have been found in Williamson County: the Coffin cave mold beetle (Batrisoides texanus), Tooth cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone), and the Bone cave harvestman (Texella reyesi). Information from TPWD's Biological and Conservation Data system (BCD) reveals that two of these species, the Coffin cave mold beetle and Bone cave harvestman, have been observed within the boundaries of the Georgetown, Texas USGS topographic quadrangle map (BCD, 1996). During a limited field survey by EH &A personnel, no surface karst features, with the exception of a few minor sink holes, were observed within the airport boundaries; however, a more detailed field effort would be needed in order to determine the presence or absence of these features. 17326/960507 5-18 No current federally listed endangered reptiles occur within the study area; however, one state- listed threatened snake and one state- listed threatened lizard have been recorded from Williamson County. The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) inhabits wooded bottoms, and is more common in the eastern portion of Texas (Tennant, 1985). While it has been recorded from Williamson County (Dixon,1987), its presence within the study area is unlikely. The Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) was once common throughout Texas, and prefers open, flat terrain with scattered vegetation. It has been recorded from Williamson County (Dixon,1987), and its presence within the study area is possible but not probable. The Texas horned lizard is also a FWS Species of Concern (SOC). SOCs are species for which some evidence of vulnerability exists, but not enough to support listing at this time. These species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Apart from the Texas horned lizard, four other SOCs have been recorded from Williamson County and, therefore, may occur within the study area. These are the Texas garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis annectens) and three salamanders (Eurycea sp.): the Buttercup salamander, the Georgetown salamander, and the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Eleven federally or state - listed endangered or threatened birds are of potential occurrence in Williamson County. Of these, the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), white -faced ibis (Pelegadis chihi), wood stork (Mycteria americana), swallow - tailed kite (Elanoides forfcatus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), arctic peregrine falcon (F. tundris), whooping crane (Grus americana), and interior least tem (Sterna antillarum athalassos) are not known to reside in the study area, but could pass through during migration or post - breeding dispersal (Oberholser, 1974; FWS, 1992; TOS, 1995). The black- capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus), an endangered species, is a spring and summer resident of the Balcones Escarpment. It utilizes open, shrubby areas dominated by sumacs (Rhus spp.), shin oak (Quercus sinuata var. breviloba), ash juniper, and live oak (Marshall, Clapp and Grzybowski, 1985). There are no recorded sightings of the black- capped vireo within the study area; however, their presence is possible if suitable habitat exists. During the field investigation, areas with suitable habitat structure were observed; however, due to the small size of the areas and their species composition, it is unlikely that these birds would be found within the study area. The golden - cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) is an endangered species of special concern because it has the distinction of being the only avian species that nests exclusively in Texas. Its nesting range comprises approximately the eastern one -third of the Edwards Plateau and the southwestern one - quarter of the Cross Timbers and Prairies. Its nesting habitat includes mature ash juniper, Texas oak, live oak, and various other deciduous trees, with a dense canopy cover (Oberholser, 1974; Pulich, 1976; FWS, 1992). BCD data shows recorded sightings of this species west of the airport, but none within the study area. The golden - cheeked warbler is unlikely to occur within the study area as preliminary observations by EH &A personnel failed to locate suitable habitat. 5.6 Cultural Resources A literature search and records review for the Georgetown Airport was conducted by EH &A in October 1996. The records of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Texas Historical Commission (THC) were reviewed for the identification of sites on or determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Research of available records and literature was conducted at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, J.J. Pickle Research Center, the University of Texas at Austin. 17326/960507 5-19 The review was conducted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89 -665) as amended by PL 94-442 (1974), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91- 190), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93 -291), Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR 800), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the National Preservation Amendment Act of 1980 (PL 96 -515). The literature /records review revealed that no previously recorded archaeological or historic sites are located within the airport property. However, there are eight archaeological sites recorded within a one -mile radius of the GMA boundaries. All of the sites are located to the south and the southeast of the airport. The eight sites are designated as 41WM378, 41WM379, 41WM430, 41WM783, and 41WM824 to 41WM827. Of these, information was available for only four sites: 41WM378 and 379, 41WM430 and 41WM783. According to the survey forms at TARL, sites 41WM378, 41WM379 and 41WM430 were all recorded during the LCRA's Pecan Branch Survey in 1979. Two of the sites (41WM378 and 379) are prehistoric sites described as lithic scatters. Site 41WM430 is also a prehistoric site. This site is a large lithic procurement area with chert outcrops and large cobbles and debitage on the surface. No temporal affiliation was made for any of the sites. A recommendation of no further work required was made by the recording archaeologist. Site 41WM783 is a prehistoric burned rock midden. The site was recorded in 1992 during a survey for the Texas Department of Transportation. Besides burned rock, the only other cultural materials observed were flakes. No recommendation was made by the recording archaeologist. The remaining four sites (41 WM824 -827) were recorded in 1995 during a survey for the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor. No data on any of these sites is on file at TARL. 17326/960507 5 -20 6.0 AIRPORT PLANS The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is provided for review. Other associated plans will be based on the ALP, when updated to Change 5 of AC 150/5300 -13, and will be provided at that time. 17326/960507 6 -1 7.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 7.1 Introduction A number of proposed development items have been identified as a result of the Master Planning process. These projects and estimated costs are listed in this chapter. A schedule of proposed development periods is shown in three stages: Stage I, Short-Term (1 to 5 years); Stage II, Mid -Term (6 to 10 years); and, Stage III, Long -Term (10 to 20 years). The recommended projects for each development period are depicted in this chapter in Exhibit 7 -1. Tables 7 -1 through 7 -3 present the detailed cost estimates of the recommended airport improvements while Table 7-4 is the summation of the twenty year development costs proposed by this Master Plan broken down by various agency participation shares. TABLE 7-4 SUMMARY OF 20 -YEAR DEVELOPMENT COSTS GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Engineering & Total Construction Contingencies Development Federal State GMA Cost @15% Cost Funding Funding Funding Other Stage I - Short Term $4,944,984 $741,748 $5,686,731 $1,122,812 $198,375 $542,207 $3,823,338 Stage II - Mid -Term $7,927,875 $1,189,181 $9,117,056 $2,253,178 $0 $278,530 $6,774,348 Stage III - Long- $5,484,859 $822,729 $6,307,588 $1,650,679 $0 $152,517 $4,556,142 Term Total $18,357,718 $2,753,658 $21,111,375 $5,026,669 $198,375 $973,254 $15,153,828 The total cost estimates developed for this Master Plan are based upon the estimated construction costs of the individual items determined to be required in Facility Requirements, Section 3.0, stated in 1997 dollars. In addition to construction costs, however, financial consideration must be given to the final engineering and design costs, plus a small allowance for construction contingency costs which have not been specifically enumerated. For the purpose of this section, 15 percent of the base construction estimate has been added to all items to reflect these engineering and contingency costs. After the total costs of all the projects in each stage or development period are determined, it is helpful for financial planning to indicate the respective amounts which are subject to funding assistance by the federal, state, and local agencies, and other amounts which might be funded by private or other governmental agencies. Presently, federal funding assistance is channeled from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Aviation Division in the form of a Block Grant. The TxDOT, Aviation Division is charged with administering and allocating 17326/960507 7 -1 EXHMIT 7 -1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Stage I - Short-Term (1 to 5 years) • Construct three 8 -Bay T- Hangar units • Construct access T/W for north T- Hangar area (between Tejas and Gantt) • Construct new Northeast Airport entrance for GA Access • Construct South Corporate Area Apron and Taxiways • Construction utilities for the South Corporate Area • Construct roadways to the South Corporate Area • Construct hangars in South Corporate Area • Seal coat bituminous apron adjacent to Terminal • Construct first stage utility improvements including a central wastewater system for the Terminal area • Construct Main Terminal Area Corporate Apron • Construct Main Terminal Area Corporate Hangars • Rehabilitate R/W 18 -36 • Repair and seal expansion joints on fueling apron • Construct aircraft holding aprons, R/Ws 18 -36 and 11/29 • Construct aircraft wash rack • Replace or renovate the Terminal Building • Rehabilitate roadways in North Corporate Area • Construct north water quality basin Stage II - Mid Term (6 to 10 years) • Complete Terminal Area wastewater system • Construct three additional 8 -Bay T- Hangar units • Improve instrument approaches R/W 18 -36 • Construct corporate hangars (as demand warrants) • Seal coat R/W 11 -29 and associated T/W's • Improve airport roadways, with emphasis on Terminal Drive • Construct Phase I of improvements to West Corporate Area • Improve boundary fencing and rehabilitate wildlife fence Stage III - Long -Term (10 to 20 years) • Rehabilitate, R/W 18 -36 • Install HIRL, R/W 18 -36 • Construct Phase II improvements to West Corporate Area 17326/960507 7 -2 i h C. O O O F CD v1 N N O r v� C N G61 4q 69 69 6A O 69 O 69 O O 49 " i O O O O r v kn N N 49 69 O O O 69 69 K 06A 049 O O M O v O v^ N 00 A v C m r-4 Q 69 L:7 c 00 C to N — RE C- co f.9 6 O rn N [.. Onp- C Cn et O c.. n y C m GZ-] 6N9 Q G u o C O ' O rn N V U CraUa. m 10 64 69 69 q � c r v_ O 2 O C O W o Q U U t O O C C N O U r V C C Q 69 tr] O Z O O O Q K fA 6r'9 69 669 O O O O r v kn N N 49 69 O O O 69 69 K 06A 049 O O M O O O v^ 00 00 N m r1l m r-4 �r O 69 6A °o o° 00 C. N 69 o co f.9 O r rn N CN O et r n y O m wl 69 64 6N9 Iq O O C O O v-r o r O rn N o0 O m 10 64 69 69 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 000 0 MM fA Vi 49 0 o c O O O O rn rn o r r o E.9 rn o � 69 M o 0 0 0 v_ v 00 0 00 00 M 0n 6 .0 O v^ O h N r C\ �r O v1 O O� 00 F N 69 N K 69 co f.9 0 '0 00 T fA K 6A 69 69 69 — N O N f'1 69 69 O O O {ry O O O O o0 O m 10 O O h N r v_ O 2 000 O b N Cq C.4 O O 4A O O oo — N N N r O C 69 69 O O O O O O O O C O K fA 6r'9 69 669 0 69 EA m 69 N 69 — 6N9 669 -Li..7 � � 69 O O O O O 0 0 69 69 69 K 69 H 6r9 CD CD 0 CD O tn 69 6A 409 6 0 9 m � r 10 T v 00 r 10 fA 69 69 0 0 o O m O m 0 o O IL O O O I N vn r 10 C` V O Vi O O\ 00 n 69 I q 69 69 00 ..; G1 N bA 69 0 o O o m o 00 ° o ° v n N 7 O v O C m m V1 6A 64 Erg — 69 69 64 Q N 69 W m 69 O O rn o 'Ir O O h O CrA O O O r N N N F O of fA ir°/ N 69 N K 69 0 0 O O O O O M 69 69 69 0 0 0 O b O O h O O O O O n O d N N ffi 69 N 64 N EA fA O O O O O 6`T 69 69 69 6R O O M O V 69 f.9 r O N f'1 M 7 CD v •a o0 00 Q 00 M 0 ER 69 0 0 0 kn O O O O F r N n O O O O O O O O F N N N r O C 69 619 N EA N 69 69 0 0 p O cl O O oo_ h N 669 69 EA m 69 N 69 64 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 O O O O O r O F O ^ O O O O p4 7 00 cc m N r- 6A C14 cq vl 69 EA 64 49 69 EA CD 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 O O O O In O V M 69 V 7 O O O O r 69 O N O b9 O o v O r N 69 669 cn [}i� -Li..7 � � L<C7 � o In o 0 o o 10 M r v r N - 0 0` O O o O N O O 00 10 o r-: M 69 N W m Vi 64 69 N O m V O — 69 M 69 69 yr o 0 rn o 0 v-r o vi o O R O 7 ` O 0 G q @_' o Cl G, o` < > T y ^ 0 Lo = rs w N 0 L v O� C -= =O O d v G C v C v [— O ` O ` ` tC ` U F o— o 0 o U 0 c 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o` o U vo o n O F U U z U< U U U U UEll U U U u U ti C U << z N r c r V1 6A M N 00 a0 r ri 64 N r W Q fH r M 00 C, 69 N C\ h N N 69 M W r Q 69 C1. r a 6Q9 CD 0 °+ o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 is O b wn N .D O In t O h O O O n Yl N O O v1 r vi N O O O N Q O h n b eT N - — �O 00 %0 N O Vl ^ N °, M f/9 O\ fH 7 N — W 00 N 6q 00 f/f M 4q O O O O 69 6'f fiq O O O 1p 00 � r iA 6q vi O fq O 6q O 6q O 69 O 69 (M 4q O O 0 vl 0 h O fA O 69 O O 6) fH U V? N r N F�- a O J N — M O O O 69 6q 69 O O In r v1 O Cl O H In Wn O O C O N n O r r n O O O 6q 6q r o0 r o0 N lc O N vi N 4 C V) N o0 Q N �_ y C Q N 00 — M X�' 69 69 69 E 6% C% 6q U > rNi fA 69 � fA fA fA O O O h O O O O N O O O O 69 69 b9 m 6q 6) " VI m 69 69 69 6q m ca Q Z c c 00 �_.. E C U 00 U o f) C q f) m Ol E > 0 69 3 o c ° 64 o E O vi N O O O O O O V'f vl O O -r Q �n N r 10 M 69 64 69 6q 60q 6q r oo N lc O 00 n C� V1 O� Q 7 h r M 00 N 69 r 6q O N 6A 69 69 C Q O O C, O O O O 0 0 O O O O W O �n 10 W) O O O V1 O vl vl O C. N O r n O n N O r N O N tn O h r \0 Q N 00 '° ry C Vl 6q n N r O\ M M 69 U " Q N N 00 o0 N 6A 00 69 M — w F 6q 6q 6q tIq 61) Oz °o ° °O °o Nom' W �D ° N 00 r o O CD ° N C) O ° r ° N C. O N ,C b (:5 Q Q N — 16 \° M ^ Vl Q 69 N o N 69 M Q Qi ? 69 69 V) 64 6q 69 N6q 69 69 U � n? o o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 o M o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O z Q Q 'n N 1 O O C Q Gq m M Q � M 69 00 69 r Q N 69 r 69 0 N fA O 6q 6`qq V) 6�9 - boq U � Q `=1 ° °o °o C, 0 0 °o °0 0 W F U= v r o °o 6 o o °o c o o 0 °o o Cl vi Gq o Iq W vi Q M o DO vi N vi N vi r Z 66q 69 69 M(lq 69 64 c r V1 6A M N 00 a0 r ri 64 N r W Q fH r M 00 C, 69 N C\ h N N 69 M W r Q 69 C1. r a 6Q9 Y r C/) cn < 'A N Q O O O O O O O O O 1p 00 � r vi U F�- a O J O O O O O V] O CO r_ H i? V] 0 V1 C f"" a� C c mo c 4 C .L cJ > E G Q �_ y C y^^ q E V X�' X E U U > .`U.. G > L `o a c o U o m ca Q Z c c � n �_.. E C U U_ � U o f) C q f) m E > 0 3 3 o c ° o o E o c' n U U > U U -r vi (.] N — 7 7 Y r a F Q Q � N � C � U C j � e Q � E C W k Y+� C W E C7 Q C7 O. v w c N 7 � i N � C c U V1 Cq ^ U 7 o L h U G ti o c O V N < V'1 r 4 6 O C 64 6 O c 69 6 o c O V N < V1 r tn 6 O C O v N < � 6 0 O 00 69 O 6R O r 69 0 O i V'1 GD O 1 � CD 69 0 0 0 h 64 h M M O O_ 64 69 O O O b4 b9 69 O O O V'7 69 V7 64 64 C) O o O lri n N64 00 O ^ N 69 64 O O O O O t� I� 1� M O N C n 64 N N 64 69 0 0 O O rn 7 664 664 O O 64 64 K6 104 0 O V'f 664 O O 64 0 O h rn 66R O O u> O M h O O 00 o O &9 64 r,� n DD o 0 00 V1 N 0 0 ^ 69 0 o c o h 64 o O o 0 0 o O C 6.) 60-1 O 604 cl 0 0 0 M O O K 604 O !t 00 M O C> M V'S M r, N v M 64 D 64 Cl) 00 0 0 0 0 000 669 a0 N tr � Vl n C, 64 00 to �. 4 64 69 64 6% 64 M O O O O 69 Otn O N 0 W) n 0 0 o O\ o 64 �- N 0 0 69 64 69 64 0 0 O o 0 0 o O 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o h o o O o 0 0 o O C o O o cl 0 0 0 0 O O O O h M O C> M V'S O O V1 v D Cl) 00 66A V'f 000 669 � N � 6�4 64 64 64 64 69 6r9 r>9 64 69 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OM O N O N [- en O O O O 64 64 O 69 v1 64 Vl O O O V1 N O V1 N 64 Cl) cc 6R 669 64 64 `n� cn C/) r¢a a C4 ¢ M O 00 V7 O O OO ^ -• N N O N N Vl ^ �O N N Q ¢ o o 0 N ZD E c/1 O r v) ° � T Q L v h 00 r3 U ?; 121 T ti L O ! L ¢ cn ? 'X L r- O E cn M� W �'+ R Q G L L T A Q cz O G CL.. u 'A y v ^ °v° i r O U .U.. ,>� L «3 0 T ra �- Q i c T� °D e U U C 3 r ` `v _ o cc L v v ¢ H a �, v V) u cU r3 .�. rte•, v C] y cz y L Cl tj L L `- O C U ^ E' V C C OL C CL C v O O O O c u -- 'v] O O 0 3 U¢ U C4 n UU UQ u U v N M V vl cn V'i O O � 00 et et O iH 69 K CD 0 69 6R Qq 6r5 169 OIO O O 69 69 0 0 0 0 vl vl 69 6q O O 0 O O '7 N 64 O O 0 O Ql O N 69 v1 7 ri 0 o� co VlOli Oli t` 6q r ri 69 L O O vl � J f¢- F O O q F Q G ¢ F cl Cs C .. Qi fC ca C — 69 69 � N — r1 � n �_ r � 41% O% 6A N 69 69 69 CD CD CD 64 69 6R 69 69 6R 69 6% 69 �o — h kO N M [ 00 1.0 J— �o cr� -- rn n h 'o N 69 64 N 69 69 69 O O O M to -,,I- W) 0 � h � �O N %0 J` := �n" 00 [� �o 00 en V' �c n v 69 �c 69 N69 ¢ 6 4 664 0 ^ 0 0 o rl v vl C, — E"' E., N w l J` Q o0 h \O cl — 64 00 64 64 69 69 r- E- DZ z 4¢ O O O N O N . O eat o 0 0 la n — t` V ° n 110 d CC. s7 Z 64 N en 69 rl 6A 69 :F F. G' F'i0 O C CD CD CD wl O O O N r 69 69 G 69 O 64 O v M 6s A v a O O O O C7 0 o vl o ¢ — ri v co F M — F¢- O � O F c F c2 cn r w ! C; c ca MD cs ca � c a3 N 1 C C CS N ¢ .U. cu u 3 C- t—lu G CC3 L — C L N N h ¢ R c3 U 3 U c] c C4 n� V t- 00 — C-j O O � 00 et et O iH 69 K CD 0 69 6R Qq 6r5 169 OIO O O 69 69 0 0 0 0 vl vl 69 6q O O 0 O O '7 N 64 O O 0 O Ql O N 69 v1 7 ri 0 o� co VlOli Oli t` 6q r ri 69 L O O vl � J f¢- F O O q F Q G ¢ F cl Cs C .. Qi fC ca C — F; � G O � E e C� Q r7 C � U c -�z � � E F3� c O� F. LV U C C E w E i Q N . fn N C dl E ca CL o 7 d Q U o O C o 0 W U 0 a c 0 U C U C o, en vl O O c N r- 64 64 v n to O N v1V 000 fq 6R 6H 64 6R O r- 6A 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 6H v OIL t` 64 O 6H M Yl to N Vl N 00 r` V1 lO C` to O N 6R 64 6R 6H 64 O r- 6A 64 64 64 v en W O 00 64 O 64 r; m t ` 64 64 64 O r- N N ON O 00 l � C7 r' O 00 M h eq M 000 eY 69 N N M 64 6A 64 6R 64 64 64 6H 00 O O O Vl O M h O O vl 00 00 to O O t` O N to Vl t` 00 �O N tn n M V1 W h N N h V1 '^7 Ol In ? N M 00 n O N O 00 M 64 69 64 64 6A 6A 6R 64 64 64 6R 00 O O O vl O M �O O O V' O, M Vl O O V- O%0 ^ Vl Vl 110 N et N h vl 00 vl O "t N N [� �O Ol n Ol 10 t` t` h O 1 N co 64 64 r- bM4 � 6N9 669 ONO 6R b4 69 69 64 O O O O Cl 0 Cl C1 O O ON C\ Wn O o o O o Wn o_ O o O vl N O O O Vl O r` O O 00 �O vl O O N O M ko Vl In ^ c 604 5�4 6H 64 ff, � 6N9 6R 64 6M^-. h 6q � 99 Cl o O O o Cl Vl %n o O O O O O O N t` O O r` M O O O 64 64 O to 64 Vl O 6 H O O N O vl vi 64 M N [� M 64 6R 6R .] cn Q .a ..I L] C/) V) ra O O O ^ O O vl O ^ vl O N O ^ vl O M vl W n O N h M 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ U O O O O FF 0 Cs L Cd V O 18. N ¢ Q U L ca 3 �, yv O O N cl y en ` M ` O cJ 00 L O O cn ` -- ¢ N cz: u E 3 U o 0 3 _Z3 3 C O r N I v U v C. y ca C3 L. ca o c 3 c 0 c c o w r o, ( N - 0 0 as 0 C o 0 0 0" 3 o U O F U¢ U¢ U U U U C C� C4 c*-' C/) y l O N t+i 3 ,G r; Table 7 -4 SUMMARY OF 20 -YEAR DEVELOPMENT COSTS GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Engineering & Total Construction Contingencies Development Federal State GMA _QM @15% f = Fundine Fundine Fundin2 Other Stage I - Short Term $4,972,984 $745,948 $5,718,931 $1,252,592 $198,375 $484,752 $3,783,213 Stage II - Mid -Term $7,863,875 $1,179,581 $9,043,456 $2,091,088 $0 $308,243 $6,644,125 Stage III - Long -Term $5,484,859 $822,729 $6,307,588 $1,624,804 $0 $180,534 $4,502,250 Total $18,321,718 $2,748,258 $21,069,975 $4,968,484 $198,375 $973,529 $14,929,588 these funds to all non -air carrier airports in the State of Texas. Some projects are eligible but not of high enough priority to receive funding. The federal funding percentage for projects eligible under the Block Grant Program is 90 percent. The remaining 10 percent of the project costs is the responsibility of the Sponsor, in this case, the City of Georgetown. TxDOT also has a program to fund certain projects which are not eligible for FAA funding or are too low on the priority scale to be considered due to the lack of available FAA grant funds. The percentage of assistance in this situation is typically a 90/10 sharing between the Sponsor and the TxDOT. In addition to these capital improvement programs, TxDOT recently instituted a program which funds terminal building improvements. This is a state funded program which requires matching funding by the Sponsor. Currently, the total project cost is limited to a maximum of $400,000. When determining eligibility of the various projects for federal funding assistance, onlythose items which have historically been allowed are included in the federal funding category. These items generally include airfield components, i.e., runway, taxiway, and apron projects, land acquisition, general aviation public use aprons, security fencing, lighting, and certain navigational aids (NAVAIDs). The work items listed in each of the three development stages are not necessarily in order of priority. However, in terms of importance, it is recommended that due to the demand for additional hangar storage space, the work associated with constructing at least three 8 -bay T- hangar buildings should be among the first projects completed during Stage I. Also, the estimated $400,000 for terminal renovation would be at a 50150 matching share with TxDOT. Since, the local portion of $200,000, represents a large percentage of the Sponsors budgeted funding, it is recommended that this item be placed toward the end of Stage I. Terminal funding alternatives will be discussed in the Management Analysis at the end of this chapter. 7.2 Economic Feasibility and Financing This section is primarily concerned with the examination and evaluation of the economic feasibility of the proposed stages of airport development for GMA. A management analysis which will offer various possibilities for financing certain proposed improvements will be included later in this section. An analysis of economic feasibility of development at an airport, regardless of its size, concerns itself with that airport's ability to produce the necessary capital investment for the proposed improvements required to satisfy the forecasted aviation demand, as well as the airport's ability to meet operating and maintenance costs. The economic feasibility analysis, therefore, focuses on the GMAs operating revenue, expenses, and capital investment requirements. To facilitate this analysis, a separate forecast of airport operating and maintenance costs and operating revenues was accomplished. Not included in this analysis, however, are of revenue or expense associated with capital improvement expenditures. These costs have historically come from the City "general fund" as a loan to the GMA under the supposition that the funds would eventually be paid back to the City. Additionally, no consideration was given to any revenue or expenses from non - related industrial development on the airport, as none was specifically identified during the Master Plan study period. Some airport costs and revenues have been derived from projected airport developments which have been determined to be needed and feasible to construct, for example, new T- hangars. There is, also, 17326/960507 7 -8 expected revenue from additional land associated with the development of a corporate hangar area on the southeast and southwest areas of the airport over the 20 year study period. A scenario of the development program for these hangars will be discussed in the Management Analysis to follow. Possible impacts on the future growth of GMA resulting from changes in the aviation environment in the Austin area, only 30 miles south of Georgetown, are discussed in the Management Analysis section. Specifically, the existing City of Austin air carrier airport is being relocated to the old Bergstrom Air Force Base site. Also, a near -by general aviation facility, Austin Executive Airpark, located approximately 6 miles north of Austin, may be in jeopardy for continued use as an airport because of a change in ownership of the land. It is, however, safe to say at this point that the basis for projecting future changes in the GMA financial position will relate to increases in based aircraft. Therefore, a correlation between the income generated by the airport relative to the existing number of based aircraft will be applied to a number of aircraft projected to be based at GMA over the study period. 7.2.1 Revenues and Expenditures In projecting the financial conditions at GMA for the study period, it was necessary to begin with known levels of expenditures and revenues. These were obtained from the Airport Manager's office in the form of summary financial reports for previous operating periods. An example form is provided as Exhibit 7 -2. An examination of previous and current airport financial reports reveal that the airport is self - sustaining in terms of the day to day operations of the airport, please refer to Table 7 -5. In regard to capital development funding requirements, it has been the policy of the City to provide monetary transfers from the City Budget to cover the Sponsor's share of non - revenue generating facilities such as runways and taxiways capital improvement projects. Though, the Airport Fund has an obligation to repay the funds, no specific terms for repayment are in place. While a public service facility such as the GMA is not operated for profit, the maximum amount of revenue generated on a fair and reasonable basis should be realized to offset the costs of operation, maintenance and to generate funds for capital improvement projects. The following paragraphs examine first, the elements of GMA's expenditures and the assumptions made in projecting them. Then a similar discussion will follow regarding revenue development for the airport. 7.2.1.1 Expenditures Expenditures have been divided into two major elements for this study: Personnel Services and Operating expenses. An explanation of each is discussed below. The resulting projections of these expenses are found in Table 7 -6. 7.2.1.2 Personnel Services Based on the Georgetown Airport Financial Statement, an example of which is provided as Exhibit 7 -2 line items 204 -5010 - 204 -5019 are included as Personnel Services. This element includes all salaries, taxes, insurance, and non regular salaries. Currently there is one full time employee, the airport manager, and seven part-time employees including six fuel attendants and one bookkeeper. Also, a slot has been approved for a full -time grounds maintenance employee at cost of $18,000 per year. 17326/960507 7-9 10-02- 1997 09:21 AM PAGE: 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF: SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1997 600 - AIRPORT OPERATIONS REVENUES ACCOUNT NO#t ACCOUNT NAME 000 -NON- DEPARTMENTAL 000- 4004 -00 TRANSFER IN, WTTB 000 - 4100 -00 AD VALOREM TAX 000- 4110 -00 SALES TAX 000- 4351 -00 MISC REVENUE 000- 4354 -00 CONTRACT LEASES 000- 4355 -00 FUEL SALES 000- 4356 -00 FUEL FLOWAGE FEE 000-4357 -00 HANGAR TIE DOWN REVENUE 000- 4358 -00 TERMINAL SALES, TAXABLE 000- 4359 -00 TERMINAL SALES, NON - TAXABL 000- 4600 -00 INTEREST 000- 4999 -00 DISCOUNTS TAKEN *** REVENUE CATEGORY TOTALS *** 040- ADMINISTRATIVE /DEBT SVC 040- 4007 -00 BUDGET TFR SALARY ADJ *** REVENUE CATEGORY TOTALS *** *** TOTAL REVENUES *** ANNUAL CURRENT Y -T -D % OF Y -T -D BUDGET BUDGET PERIOD ACTUAL BUDGET ENCUMB. BALANCE 63,485.00 0.00 50,000.00 78.76 0.00 13,485.00 6,000.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 0.00 5,209.38 86.82 0.00 790.62 0.00 0.0( 122.73) 0.00 0.00 122.73 40,150.00 3,020.86 41,737.62 103.95 0.00 ( 1,587.62) 300,000.00 35,989.47 385,637.98 128.55 0.00 ( 85,637.98) 1,000.00 0.00 1,249.40 124.94 0.00 ( 249.40) 112,000.00 9,333.69 106,544.28 95.13 0.00 5,455.72 3,000.00 681.66 2,982.06 99.40 0.00 17.94 300.00 0.00 265.48 88.49 0.00 34.52 1,500.00 0.00 2,077.67 138.51 0.00 ( 577.67) 0.00 0.11 2.13 0.00 0.00 ( 2.13) 533,435.00 49,025.79 595,583.27 111.65 0.00 ( 62,148.27) 2,734.00 0.00 2,734.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 2,734.00 0.00 2,734.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 536,169.00 49,025.79 598,317.27 111.59 0.00 ( 62,148.27) TABLE 7 -5 SUMMARY of ACTUAL 5 YEAR OPERATING EXPENSES and REVENUE GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT YEARI EXPENSES2 REVENUE2 PROFIT (LOSS) 1993 378,523 379,754 1,231 1994 369,694 401,141 31,447 1995 834,672 488,883 (345,789) 1996 43 1,214 525,887 94,673 1997 618,730 591,400 (27,330) 1 FY Year Ends September 30 2 Figures obtained from City Airport Operating Plan Element 2 Figures include Transfers In and Out: specific Capital Improvements Project projects excluded TABLE 7 -6 PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSE2 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Base Year FY. 1996/97 2000 2005 2015 Personnel 118,600 147,104 170,535 229,183 Supplies 4,150 4,804 6,131 9,071 Maintenance 251,800 291,490 372,023 605,986 Administrative 25,910 28,313 32,823 44,111 Utilities 10,116 10,735 11,852 14,448 Other 35,470 38,759 44,932 60,385 TOTAL 446,046 521,205 638,296 963,184 1 New Field Maintenance Employee included in first year after base year 2 Does not include Transfer Out associated with Capital Improvement Projects 17326/960507 7 -11 Projections of increases to the manpower requirements at GMA were based primarily on conversations with the Airport Manager and similar personnel requirements at other airports. No additional land is planned for acquisition during the Master Plan study period. Accordingly, the employment of additional maintenance personnel is not anticipated, Additionally, because of the secretarial and technical assistance from the City, no provisions are made in the study for new administrative employees. 7.2.1.3 Operations and Supplies This element was further broken out into five separate sub - headings including: Supplies, Maintenance, Administrative, Utilities, and other. The supplies element includes account numbers 204 -5101, 5102, 5103, 5104 and 5107. When analyzing various expense accounts, primary concern is for a comparison of proposed airport projects with the requirements for additional supplies and services. An overview of the development plans for the airport reflect no significant increase in any of the supplies accounts. Therefore, the account adjustments reflect an inflation increase only. Airport Maintenance accounts are listed under account numbers 204 -5201, 5202, 5202RS and 5208. The costs associated with these accounts are directly related to the maintenance of airport facilities. The exception is account 5202RS which shows the costs of fuel purchased for resale. This account will be discussed in a following paragraph. Specific development items which might cause a significant increase in a given maintenance account include land purchases, airfield construction, or the construction of new buildings. A review of the projects proposed for future development shows that airfield construction projects are planned for all three stages of development. However, because of the proposed schedule for these development activities, adjustments to maintenance accounts are not anticipated to be required until after the 2005 budget year. The pavement area at GMA will increase by approximately 35 percent if the various project's recommended by the Master Plan are implemented. While this increase will undoubtedly have an impact on the maintenance costs of pavements it represents only a portion of the overall maintenance budget. Therefore, the projections of future maintenance costs, while reflecting changes due to increases in pavement area, were not increased in a direct ratio with the additions in pavement area. Because substantial increases in the number of based aircraft are projected over the study period, there will obviously be an increase in the amount of fuel purchased for resale, resulting in a relative increase in income. If an effort to lease the airport operated fueling services and Terminal operationsto a private company is successful, the income and expenses picture will change. It is anticipated that this scenario may occur late in Stage I or in Stage II. Therefore, the account related to fuel purchased for resale was deleted in Stage II and the appropriate income account adjustment were made. Administrative accounts are 204- 5301, 5302, 5303, 5305, 5306, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5401 and 5402. As stated earlier, no significant changes in the administrative operation of the airport are anticipated. This is primarily due to the expected continuation of the City's technical and administrative support. Therefore, the standard inflation figures will be applied to these accounts. Accounts which do fall into the above headings have been classified as "Other" for the purposes of the financial analysis. These account numbers are 204 -5109 (interest due), 5410 (Building ISF), 5430 (Administrative Allocation - General Fund) and 5501 (Contingencies). Again, the estimates found herein 17326/960507 7 -12 were based in large part on discussions with the Airport Manager. The result of the discussions is that no significant change beyond the normal inflation rates have been applied to these accounts. Utilities comprises account number 204 -5304. While no major increase beyond a normal supplier periodic adjustment is evident, there will be some increases in utility costs relating to expanded facilities, particularly related to the planned T- hangar additions. This is not expected to be significant due to the limited use of power in the units. Also, the cost of these utilities will be passed along to the tenants. No additional street lighting is anticipated over the course of the planning period. 7.2.2.1 Revenues As was done with expenditure projections at the GMA, future revenues were also based on the summary financial reports immediately prior to the study period, please refer to Exhibit 7 -3 for an example of this report. Additionally, by referring to Table 7 -7 it is possible to identify four primary sources of operating revenue: 1) Ad Valorem & Sales Tax; 2) Fuel and Terminal Sales; 3) Interest and Other; and 4) Leases and Rents. TABLE 7 -7 PROJECTED REVENUES GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Base Year FY. 1996/97 2000 2005 2015 Ad Valorem and Sales Tax 13,500 14,752 17,102 22,984 Fuel and Terminal Sales 374,800 433,878 449,036 603,467 Interest and Other 2,200 2,400 2,600 3,000 Leases and Rents 148,1661 204,450 274,600 540,180 538,666 655,480 743,338 1,116,631 2 124 New T- hangars added during the first 3 years of the planning period 2 Corporate Development will add significant revenue between 2005 -2010 3 Does not include Transfers In associated with Capital Improvement Projects 7.2.2.2 Ad Valorem and Sales Tax A dedicated source of income for the airport comes from the public taxes generated by facilities and aviation activity on the premises. In specific, all property taxes and the sales tax generated from sales of aviation products on the airport, which flow into the City Treasury, are funneled back to the airport operations account. Any increase in these dollars will be tied directly to the growth in aviation activity on the field. Such growth is projected and the resulting increase in revenues is shown Table 7 -7. 17326/960507 7 -13 10-02- 1997 09:21 AM 600 - AIRPORT OPERATIONS 204- AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT NON ACCOUNT NAME PERSONNEL SI 204 - 5010 -00 204 - 5013 -00 204- 5014 -00 204- 5015 -00 204 - 5016 -00 204- 5017 -00 204- 5018 -00 204- 5019 -00 :RVICES SALARIES TAXES, SOCIAL SECURITY GROUP INSURANCE RETIREMENT LONGEVITY WORKERS' COMP STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX NON REGULAR SALARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF: SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1997 ANNUAL CURRENT BUDGET PERIOD Y -T -D Y. OF ACTUAL BUDGET PAGE: 5 Y -T -D BUDGET ENCUMB. BALANCE 45,691.00 1,641.52 39,154.74 85.69 0.00 6,536.26 8,312.00 632.34 7,037.56 84.67 0.00 1,274.44 5,972.00 241.08 3,038.54 50.88 0.00 2,933.46 3,278.00 230.92 2,482.72 75.74 0.00 795.28 1,932.00 252.00 2,136.00 110.56 0.00 ( 204.00) 1,641.00 166.40 1,149.08 70.02 0.00 491.92 1,206.00 0.00 729.34 60.48 0.00 476.66 55,047.00 2,172.04 55,999.16 101.73 0.00 ( 952.16) ** CATEGORY TOTAL ** 123,079.00 5,336.30 111,727.14 90.78 0.00 11,351.86 OPERATING 204- 5101 -00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,600.00 100.15 1,127.53 75.28 77.00 395.47 204- 5102 -00 EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 204 - 5103 -00 FOOD 1,300.00 0.00 1,099.59 104.00 252.35 ( 51.94) 204 - 5104 -00 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 250.00 0.00 227.33 90.93 0.00 22,67 204- 5107 -00 SMALL TOOLS 900.00 59.95 476.08 66.48 122.27 301.65 204 - 5109 -00 OTHER, INTEREST DUE 4,550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,550.00 204- 5201 -00 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT 11,000.00 0.00 3,141.80 28.56 0.00 7,858.20 204- 5202 -00 GAS, OIL & TIRES 1,500.00 31,940.24 32,502.54 376.21 18,140.59 ( 49,143.13) 204- 5202 -RS FUEL 235,000.00 63.00 233,075.26 99.41 535.26 1,389.48 204- 5208 -00 MAINTENANCE - AIRPORT 5,871.00 143.40 15,816.86 283.03 800.00 ( 10,745.86) 204- 5301 -00 INSURANCE 6,690.00 0.00 5,595.00 83.63 0.00 1,095.00 204- 5302 -00 CONTRACTS & LEASES 2,000.00 0.00 1,800.00 90.00 0.00 200,00 204- 5303 -00 SPECIAL SERVICE & LEGAL 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00 204 - 5304 -00 UTILITIES 16,000.00 843.40 10,116.11 63.23 0.00 5,883.89 204- 5305 -00 TELEPHONE 1,200.00 66.16 815.72 75.26 87.41 296.87 204 - 5306 -00 TRAVEL & TRAINING 800.00 0.00 328.94 41.12 0.00 471.06 204- 5307 -00 SUBSCRIPTIONS & DUES 100.00 0.00 77.50 77.50 0.00 22.50 204 - 5308 -00 REFUNDS, JUDGMENTS, DAMAGE 500.00 ( 23.4( 51.58) 10.32- 0.00 551.58 204 - 5309 -00 ADS, NOTICES, RECORDING FE 0.00 0.00 188.40 0.00 0.00 ( 188.40) 204- 5401 -00 VEHILE LEASE 8,320.00 0.00 8,320.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 204- 5402 -00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 4,938.00 0.00 4,938.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 204- 5410 -00 BUILDING ISF 2,470.00 0.00 2,470.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 204 - 5430 -00 ADMIN ALLOC - GENERAL FUND 40,867.00 0.00 28,528.00 69.81 0.00 12,339.00 204- 5501 -00 CONTINGENCY 1,000.00 0.00 11.00 1.10 0.00 989.00 ** CATEGORY TOTAL ** 350,456.00 33,192.83 350,604.08 105.75 20,014.88 ( 20,162.96) CAPITAL 204- 5602 -00 BUILDINGS & IMPROVEMENTS 50,000.00 0.00 13,072.56 238.40 106,128.00 ( 69,200.56) ** CATEGORY TOTAL ** 50,000.00 0.00 13,072.56 238.40 106,128.00 ( 69,200.56) *** DEPARTMENT TOTAL *** 523,535.00 38,529.13 475,403.78 114.90 126,142.88 ( 78,011.66) 7.2.2.3 Fuel and Terminal Sales During Stage I of the study period, the sale of aviation fuel is evaluated as part of the airport operations revenue. However, it is anticipated that an arrangement will be consummated with a private firm to provide professional aviation services at the GMA. Therefore, the sale of fuel and aviation supplies from the terminal will show an increase relative to the number of additional aircraft projected to be based at GMA during the first five years of the study. After this period, an adjustment will be made to reflect a continuing increase in the sale of fuel, but with the airport receiving a percentage of the fuel sales by a Fixed Base Operator (FBO) through a fuel flowage fee. This fee has been estimated at $0.10 per gallon, as an amount which reflects a fair fee with ownership of the fueling system in the hands of the airport (City). 7.2.2.4 Interest and Other This is an adjusting account which has little impact on the overall financial picture at GMA. Accordingly, only changes relating to inflation are reflected in the projections for this account. 7.2.2.5 Leases and Rents Airport improvement plans call for the immediate construction of three 8 -bay T- hangar units. These structures will be owned and maintained by the City as an investment. It is anticipated that these units will fill quickly. The initial revenue will be used to retire the construction debt over a period of seven years. In Stage H, three additional 8 -bay T- Hangar units will be constructed, and new land and facilities rental income is planned to be derived from the lease of the FBO area. Also, new revenue is planned from the first Phase of the development of the corporate hangar area on the Southeast side of the airport will be developed. No revenues from additional land uses such as agriculture operations or industrial development are expected during the planning period. 7.2.2.6 Transfers In This account reflects the income from the City designated as the local share of Federal and State projects. These amounts are projected in Table 7 -4 in relation to the local share of development costs for the specific airport improvement projects planned for the appropriate stage but are not included in the projections of operating revenues. 7.2.3 Summary The general picture which emerges from a fiscal analysis of GMA operations is that of a well managed relatively prosperous enterprise. Any apparent deficiencies in net revenues results from City policies regarding the funding of capital improvements. Airport operations generates more adequate funds to cover the associated costs. These positive net revenues are then available to partially off -set capital improvement and major maintenance projects. 17326/960507 7 -15 It must be noted that while airfield facilities are the airport's reason for being, in the absence of landing fees (uncommon at general aviation airports) or similar charges, these facilities generate no direct revenues. In fact they are the source of substantial expense as result of the need for periodic minor and major maintenance. Unlike airfield facilities, hangars and similar support facilities can be the source of a significant stream of positive net revenue. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City administration carefully consider investing in hangar construction or infrastructure construction to support the private development of hangar facilities. Carefully planned and prudently structured, such arrangements can be the source of substantial positive revenue. Some possibilities for such arrangements are discussed in the following Management Analysis. 7.3 Management Analysis The plan for the airport improvements at the GMA, as developed by this Master Plan, is based on the premise that most aspects of aviation activity will experience a healthy growth over the planning period. The primary contributing factors include the closing of the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) in Austin, and the possible purchase of the Austin Executive Airport (Executive) property by individuals who are expected to use the property for purposes other than aviation. This change in the aviation environment in the Austin area will have significant and potentially beneficial impacton growth at GMA. The number of displaced aircraft from the closing of the two previously mentioned airports total approximately 350. It is estimated for the purpose of developing a planning base, that the number of aircraft expected to relocate to GMA, would bring the total aircraft based at GMA to nearly 170 at the end of the Mid -Term period. Therefore, projected revenues from airport operations at GMA will reflect a per aircraft comparison between the number of aircraft based at GMA during the pre - planning period and the number of aircraft projected to be based at GMA. The current economic situation of the airport operations shows what can be expected in the future. Simply stated, the airport is now operating in the black. Projections of the future operating budget reflect a substantial increase in revenue with relatively modest increases in expenses associated primarily with inflation and increases in maintenance costs resulting from the construction of new facilities. The City administration should, therefore, be comfortably justified in supporting the projected local share of $973,000 over the 20 year Master Planning period. Since GMA is a general aviation facility, revenue sources are very limited as compared to a commercial service airport or an airport which serves as part of an industrial development park. In looking for additional potential revenue sources, very few areas appear to present prospects that would prove to be advantageous to the airport. For example, though agriculture income at many airports produces significant income, the soil at GMA does not have the soil makeup or balance that would be conducive to row crop or hay leases. There are no plans to promote any form of non - aviation related industrial development on the airport at this time, therefore, no examination of this potential revenue has been done. However, some land would be available to lease for this purpose in the future if the desire or need arises. The most promising source of additional income appears to be construction of additional aircraft storage facilities on the airport, and the leasing of FBO facilities will provide the additional income need 17326/960507 7 -16 to continue the aggressive airport development program. Over the 20 year planning period, the City will construct at least six 8 -bay T -hangar units. These will be operated by the City, and, after the payoff period is passed, the income will be invaluable as a source of operating and capital improvement revenue. Another planned area of revenue development will be the construction of two corporate hangar aprons, and the leasing of hangar construction sites to private developers. Since the land is already owned by the airport, the only cost to the airport would be the local share of the apron construction and such infrastructure improvements as the City deems it appropriate to make. Negotiations with a prospective developer may result in his participation in the infrastructure costs. Finally, the airport is considering the lease of approximately three acres of land to a company which will take over the airports fuel and supplies services. The airport may see a slight drop in revenue following the release the aircraft fueling rights to this FBO, however, revenues should increase as the FBO's business increases and the airport realizes a share of this increase through a percentage of FBO revenues as part of the base rent contract. The airport should develop minimum standards for the operation of the FBO prior to advertising for proposals. As in the case of the corporate hangars, the negotiations with a prospective FBO tenant may include participation in the local share of FBO development costs and the general aviation terminal building. The overhead of operating the airport has been kept at a minimum by the Airport Manager. With the continuing support of the City, a progressive increase in revenues over expenses can be expected. Therefore, the continued participation in the State Block Grant Program through the Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division will prove to be a successful endeavor without putting undue strain on the airport finances. 17326/960507 7 -17 8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8.1 Introduction The participation of the public has been an important concern through out the process of developing the Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan. The planning effort included the conduct of surveys of aircraft owners and certificated pilots in the area in and around the City of Georgetown. These surveys provided opportunities for the airport's users and potential users to comment on their needs for airport facilities and services as well as a means to express their opinions on the airport's management and operations. Further, personal interviews were held with representatives of all the Fixed Base Operators currently using the airport. These interviews provided direct opportunity for input to the planning process. In addition to surveys and interviews directed at the aviation community, the public has been invited to all of the Airport Plan Working Group meetings. A number of citizens have attended these meetings and made comments on a fairly regular basis. Certain of these individuals have, at their request, been placed on the Working Group mailing list and have been receiving working papers and report drafts as the study progressed 8.2 User Surveys Using lists of aircraft owners and certificated pilots developed from FAA records, surveys were sent to both pilots and owners with addresses in Williamson County and the northern part of Travis County. Some 1,500 surveys were sent with a response rate of approximately 20 percent. Copies of the survey forms used and summaries of the responses are provided in the Appendix to this report. . In order to assist with identifying needed improvements at the Georgetown Municipal Airport, the surveys requested information on the need for improvements. In the case pilot's survey the top three requested improvements were as follows: 1. An improved instrument approach 2. Additional hangars 3. Improved terminal facilities The top three requested items from the aircraft owner's survey were as follows: 1. Additional hangars 2. lower fuel prices 3. An improved instrument approach The survey responses were analyzed in detail and used as a guide in establishing priorities for copilot improvements at Georgetown Municipal Airport. 8.3 Public Hearings Upon completion of the Master Plan itself, the draft document was made available for public review and a Public Hearing was scheduled. This hearing was held on March 16, 1998, and was attended by more than fifty persons. After a brief presentation by the Consultant and comments by the Master Plan Working Group, each person wishing to make comment on the Master Plan was given the opportunity to do so. 8 -1 17326/960507 A second Public Hearing was held on June 24, 1998. In preparation for the second Public hearing, the Master Plan draft, revised in response to the initial Public Hearing and including data from additional studies made by the Working Group and airport staff, has been made available of public review at a number of locations in the City. A previously stated, the members of the Master Plan Working Group carefully considered the concerns addressed by various citizens at the initial Public Hearing and undertook additional studies in order to respond to citizen concerns. The following is a summary of the issues raised at the March 16, 1998, Public Hearing and the responses to those issues subsequently developed by the Working Group. I. Issue The majority of questions and comments relative to the continued development of the airport, as reflected in the Master Plan, were concerned with noise emanating from aircraft operations, that is, taking off, landing or flying overhead. Response For purposes of this discussion, the definition of Noise shall be as follows: unwanted sound that is undesirable because it interferes with normal speech and hearing or is annoying to an individual or group of individuals. Airport generated noise can be viewed as a system of integral parts including, but not limited to, the following: • Nature and intensity • Number and fleet mix of aircraft using the airport • Time of day • Adjacent land uses • Background or ambient noise levels in adjacent residential areas The aviation industry uses a number of different measurements to define noise. The four most widely used methodologies are as follows: • dBA An A- weighted sound level that approximates the auditory sensitivity of the human ear • EPNdB Effective perceived noise levels providing a subjective assessment of the human perception of noisiness of the aircraft • SEL Single event sound level measurement of individual aircraft takeoff, landing, or overflight • DNL Measurements used in the Master Plan that provide the day - night, A- weighted average sound level during a 24 -hour period with a penalty applied to night time sound levels The DNL values are used to develop noise contours in increments of 5 dBA, with 55 DNL being insignificant and 65 DNL significant exposure. Residences located within a sustained 65 DNL are generally incompatible. However, it should be noted that the noise level created by an aircraft taking off is of a very short duration, lasting only seconds. To develop the noise impact constant DNL contours shown in the Master Plan, the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, Version 5, was 8 -2 17326/960507 employed using the airport's mixed fleet aircraft as an input, along with the measured number of 87,000 aircraft operations Ill that occurred in 1995 at the Georgetown airport. For a more complete understanding of the noise profile methodology and development, see pages 5 -1 through 5 -12 of the Master Plan. For comparison purposes, the following tables provide information on early morning and late evening flight departures for both runways at the Georgetown airport. The data was taken from the 1995 operational measurements of the 111 mixed airport fleet based at the Georgetown airport. These departures were recorded during a one -week period in the spring and fall and a two -week period in the summer and winter. Runway 11/29 Before 7: 00 AM After 9:00 PM March 22 -29 3 departures, average 1 departure, average 0.3 /day 0.14 /day July 15 -29 4 departures, average 5 departures, average 0.29 /day 0.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 4 departures, average 0.57 /day January 27- February 1 departure, average 5 departures, average 10 0.07 /day 0.36 /day Runway 18/36 Before 7: 00 AM After 9:00 PAI March 22 -29 6 departures, average 10 departures, average 0.86 /day 1.43 /day July 15 -29 7 departures, average 89 departures, average 0.50 /day 6.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 6 departures, average 0.86 /day January 27- February 4 departures, average 8 departures, average 10 0.29 /day 0.57 /day The following list provides some normal, everyday sound level comparisons given in dBA (human ear sensitivity approximation): • Bedroom:24db • Library:35db • Living room: 40db • Conversational speech: 60db • Piston - powered singles: 65db • Business office: 65db • Business jet: 74db • Average street traffic: 85db • Heavy truck: 90db • Pneumatic drill: 100db • Rock concert: 1 lOdb • Electronic siren and threshold of pain: 140db I An operation is defined as a take -off or a landin.- 8 -3 173261960507 A concern was expressed regarding the prolonged noise resulting from testing after engine repair or overhaul. In order to reduce the noise levels from such engine testing procedures, the airport conducts these tests as close to the center of the airport and as far from residences as possible. Such preventative measures greatly reduce the resulting noise. In addition, a question was raised about why Austin's air carrier airport was moving from it's current location at Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) to the new Austin - Bergstrom International Airport. Although noise complaints from the residents surrounding the airport played some part in the relocation, the main and compelling reason for the move was that RMMA is simply too small to handle the growth of Austin and the resulting increased demand for air travel. Proposed Action Plans Following is a list of proposed Action Plans that were developed in response to the issue of aircraft noise. 1 Review Current Procedures Flight procedures have been and will continue to be reviewed for methodologies to lessen the noise impact on the residential areas surrounding the airport, as well as the air space over any populated area in the Georgetown region. 2 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding In addition to published FAA Guidelines, a memorandum will be developed and forwarded to all aircraft owners, fixed base operators, flight instructors, and businesses at the airport requesting that they honor, without exceeding safety boundaries, the following noise abatement guidelines to reduce the impact of airport operations on their neighbors: • Be aware of noise sensitive areas, particularly residential areas, and avoid low flights over these areas • Fly traffic patterns tight and high, keeping the airplane as close to the field as possible • In constant speed propeller aircraft, do not use high RPM settings in the pattern; prop noise from higher - performance aircraft increases drastically with high RPM settings • On takeoff, reduce to climb power as soon as it is safe to do so • Climb at liftoff at best angle -of -climb speed to airport boundary, then climb at best rate • Depart from threshold of runway, rather than intersections, for the highest possible altitude when leaving the airport vicinity • Climb out straight ahead to at least 1,000 feet; turns rob an aircraft of climb ability • Maintain a minimum of 1,000 feet altitude (preferably higher) over populated areas • Avoid prolonged run -ups prior to takeoffs • Try lower power approaches and always avoid the low, higher power, dragged -in approach; use maximum safe glide slope 3 The Airport management will post signs at appropriate locations urging compliance with established noise abatement procedures The airport's management will place signs at appropriate locations throughout the airport 8 -4 17326/960507 noise abatement procedures. 4 Review Additional Noise Abatement Processes to be Based on Available Funding Such processes /facilities might include the construction of berms, the planting of sound reducing vegetation or the construction of sound resistant structures. 5 Request Restricted Hours of Operation from Army Helicopters Because of state and federal funding, the airport cannot restrict the operations of Fort Hood, the National Guard, etc. in flying in and out of the Georgetown Airport. However, we can request that they restrict touch and go operations to certain hours of the day. 6 Publish the FAA Contact Number This contact number can be used by concerned citizens to report aircraft that are not observing flight safety and noise abatement regulations. 7 Address Additional Action Plans to be Proposed II Issue The second major concern relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the safety of general aviation, specifically in the areas of training, safety records, fuel storage, and hearing loss. Response The following information should provide reassurance that the safety of the people of Georgetown is of prime importance to all participants involved in every airport activity, whether on the ground or in the air. 1 Required Training The safety record of general aviation has been excellent. The training and education required to obtain a Private or Commercial License is time consuming, exacting, and rigorous, and greatly contributes to general aviation safety. In addition, FAA requirements for adhering to the "rules of the air" and enforcement of regulations to ensure air - worthiness of aircraft are essential elements that promote general aviation safety. 2 Aviation Safety Records The following information is derived from studies of general aviation accidents based on records from 1976 through 1990. "General aviation" is a term encompassing all aviation activity except that of airlines and military flying. It includes not only business and recreational flying, but also instruction and training, air taxi, aerial application for agriculture and forestry, aerial mapping, aerial fire control, testing and demonstrations, traffic advisory, police activities, air shows, and other miscellaneous activities. Between 1976 and 1990, according to the FAA and the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) data, there were 333 general aviation Building and Residence (B &R) Accidents, or an average of fewer than 23 per year. Seventy of these accidents resulted in a fatality, either aboard the aircraft or in a building /residence on the ground, while 12 of these resulted in an injury to persons on the ground. On average, only about 10 general aviation B &R accidents per year result in a serious injury and /or death to individuals either in the aircraft or in a building/residence on the around. 8 -5 17326/960507 Over the 15 -year period studied, only seven general aviation B &R accidents involved fatalities on the ground. On average, less than one general aviation accident a year results in a fatality or serious injury to persons in a building or residence on the ground. All in all, only nine individuals between 1976 and 1990 were killed when a general aviation aircraft crashed into the structure in which they were located. Further, between 1985 and 1990, there were absolutely no fatalities or injuries to individuals on the ground as the result of a general aviation B &R accident. To put these statistics into perspective, during 1985 alone, 7,750 pedestrians were killed by motorists, 1,100 people were killed in boating accidents, and 900 were victims of bicycle accidents. In 1984, 11,600 were killed in falls, 4,800 by fire, and 1,800 by firearms. During 1985, general aviation conducted over 44.3 million departures or almost 1.5 takeoffs for every hour flown. Using this methodology, general aviation conducted more than 500 million departures between 1976 and 1985. Considering that only 12 of these 500 million flights resulted in a serious injury or fatality to persons in buildings or residences on the ground is an impressive statistic. In other words, 99.999998% of all general flights do not result in a serious injury or fatality to individuals in a building or a residence on the ground. 3 Fuel Storage Fuel storage safety is of paramount concern to the management of the airport. For Jet A fuel, the City has a 12,000 gallon double - walled steel, fiberglass lined underground tank and, in addition, a 10,000 gallon steel underground tank for AvGas. The tanks have cathodic protection and monitor wells. The lines to the fuel dispenser are double - walled fiberglass pipes. It is safe to say that the fuel storage at the airport is as safe or safer than any of the many service stations located in the Georgetown vicinity. Additionally, one of the FBO's at the airport has underground fuel storage facilities that are used primarily for their own aircraft and aircraft operated by their customers. This fueling facility, as well as any others that might be constructed on the airport in the future, using either above or below ground storage tanks, are required to meet local ordinances, federal regulations and the regulations off the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The TNRCC's regulations for underground storage tanks are particularly stringent at Georgetown Municipal Airport since the airport is located in the Upper Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone. 4 Adverse Impacts on Schools There is no noise hazard from the airport that would cause the loss of hearing to children playing in the school yard. The Georgetown schools are either not in the landing and takeoff patterns or are at such a distance from the airport that the altitude of the aircraft is sufficient to mitigate any noise that would be injurious to human ears. When contacted by members of the Working Group for a comment relative to the concern that the airport adversely impacted local schools, Dr. Jim Gunn, Superintendent of the Georgetown Independent School District (GISD), responded that with the following: "The Georgetown Municipal Airport does not create any problems, noise or safety, for any school in the GISD." 8 -6 17326/960507 Proposed Action Plans No action necessary III Issue The third major concern that was discussed regarded the method for determining the number and frequency of aircraft activity at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. Response Obtaining operations data at non - towered airports is a major concern to the Georgetown airport, as well as the TxDOT aviation divisions. Accurate airport activity is valuable information for planning and development of individual airports as well as the entire Texas airport system. This data is used in identifying both present and future operational levels. The Georgetown airport was monitored for operational activity during periods representing the four seasons in 1995. Aircraft activity is estimated by sampling operations with acoustical aircraft counters, using statistical methods to calculate annual operations. This is one of the most accurate and cost effective ways of gathering reliable data. The equipment is manufactured by RENS Manufacturing Company in Oregon, and has been constantly improved since its inception in 1988. The forecast data presented in the Master Plan is based on the number of operations initiated by a mixed fleet of 11 1 aircraft in the 1995 TxDOT audited activities as compared to the current mixed fleet of 133 aircraft. This data is then used as a guideline to forecast the number of operations based on the increase in the numbers of aircraft using the airport. To conduct an operations count, TxDOT personnel set up the counter that is then maintained by the airport on a daily basis. The airport also maintains a daily weather report and dispensed fuel log to correlate with the recorded operations data so that annual operations can be projected using these factors. Aircraft operations vary depending on the weather and day of the week, generally increasing on the weekends with recreational flying and during the week for business flying. To capture the daily variations, samples are taken in clusters of seven to fourteen consecutive days: one week in the spring, two weeks in the summer, one week in the fall, and two weeks in the winter. This sampling technique results in the greatest accuracy for estimating annual operations. The acoustically triggered counters are self - contained and weather resistant, consisting of an electronic counter with a day and hour timer, a microphone, and a gel battery. The microphone is situated on a special stand, plugged into the counter via a 50 -foot cord and located adjacent to the midpoint of the runway length. This arrangement allows recording of the departing aircraft at full engine power. When sound activates the recorder, it records for five seconds, then shuts itself off until the next aircraft sound. The recorded sound is audibly audited by the analyst to select only the sounds of departing aircraft. Because of generally quiet landings at runway touchdown by an aircraft, the counter is not activated. To account for this operations event, the departures are doubled to represent total operations. The data analysis begins with establishing the airport's weekly operations for each of the four seasons, and from these totals, average daily operations can be calculated. Seasonal averages are expanded to total seasonal operations, and total seasonal averages are then added to obtain the 8 -7 17326/960507 estimated annual operations for the airport. The accuracy of the annual total operations is +/- 10 %. The current ratio of aircraft types is expected to remain relatively static as the number of based aircraft increases. There is no plan to encourage commercial operations at the airport. If this were to occur, the operators of such a service would be limited to small turboprops similar to the Swearingen Merlin type aircraft. Departures would probably not exceed two or three a day. A specific question was raised regarding whether the hours of operation can be limited at a municipal airport that has and will receive financial aid from the State and Federal Government. The answer to that question is no, the hours of operation cannot be limited because the airport is a public facility. Proposed Action Plans No action necessary IV Issue Another major concern that was raised relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the financial impact to the City. Response The information provided in the table below was taken from a confidential FBO Survey for Calendar Year 1997. FBO Survey Information Number of Employees 72 Annual Payroll $3,036,000 Gross Sales for All Goods and Services $54,285,400 Estimated Gross Sales to Transient Sources $52,600,000 Estimated Annual Expenditures for Local Goods and Services $1,835,000 Annual State Sales Taxes $1,295,000 Annual City Sales Taxes $10,400 Annual City Property Taxes $11,700 Annual School Property Taxes $50,200 Annual County Property Taxes $10,600 With regard to adverse impacts on land values, a review of past sales and listings in the neighborhoods adjacent to the airport revealed no definable loss of value to those properties due to the airport. V Issue The next major issues discussed concerned future city service plans for the Georgetown Airport area. Response Current City services to the airport include police and fire protection, electricity, water, and garbage pickup. The airport is planning to tie into the sanitary sewage line which is located 8 -8 17326/960507 within the northern and eastern airport boundaries along and which currently serves the Sun City development. This connection will provide for the elimination of septic tanks now in use. In addition, the City has scheduled the refurbishment of Airport Road between the City limits and Lakeway Drive to be completed this fall. The history and development of the Georgetown Airport is chronologically presented in the Master Plan on pages 1 -2 through 1 -3, beginning with its inception in 1943 for use as a Navy Auxiliary Field. Also listed on page 1 -3 is a list of the current corporate airport users. A specific question was raised regarding how many airports in Texas that are similar in size to Georgetown's Airport are currently expanding or are involved in new development. According to the March 1997 issue of the Aviation newsletter published by the TxDOT, the following airports similar in size to Georgetown's Airport are undergoing expansion. • The Brazoria County Airport currently has plans to arrange air freight for perishable goods, market five acres of free trade zone now available at the airport, and build a recently approved new terminal. Such efforts are designed to enhance the airport's chances of gaining status as an international airport with customs services available. • The Mesquite Metro Airport has recently secured Mobil Oil's pipeline surveying, including the domiciling of their five- aircraft fleet. Plans are in the works for the creation of an airport master plan for the airport, perhaps a new terminal, and additional hangars to attract corporate traffic to the airport. McKinney Municipal Airport has recently initiated projects for a new terminal and a lighting system which will replace the existing runway lights and install taxiway lights. Other projects include securing a new electrical vault, airport signage, the reconstruction of the FBO apron and the construction of a new apron. Future plans for the airport include an expansion from a 366 -acre to a 1000 -acre airport with multiple runways to attract more corporate and general aviation activity and, perhaps, based aircraft. • Sugar Land's Hull Field has successfully attracted BFI's Flight Department as a corporate tenant. They are currently coordinating the construction of a fuel farm - storage facility on the airport. Goals for the future include fully developing the corporate hangar area to provide commercial airline service. Finally, the question of whether Georgetown's airport could be moved to another location was also raised. The state's criteria for funding airport relocation depends on maximum capacity being reached at the existing airport location. Georgetown Municipal Airport is not currently at maximum capacity. Proposed Action Plans I Develop a Public Information Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport Such a plan will provide information regarding the airport to keep the citizens of Georgetown fully informed of any activity at the airport that might be of concern to their well being. 2 Additional Action Plans to be Proposed 8 -9 17326/960507 L , GLOSSARY ALP - Airport Layout Plan AOA - Aircraft Operations Area ASV - Annual Service Volume ATCT - Air Traffic Control Tower AvGas - Aviation Gasoline, used in piston powered air craft AWOS - Automated Weather Observation Station DNL - Average Day -Night Sound Level DTN - Duats Service Provider DUATS - Direct User Access Terminal System FAA - Federal Aviation Administration FBO - Fixed Base Operator GDP - Gross Domestic Product GMA - Georgetown Municipal Airport GPS - Global Positioning System IFR - Instrument Flight Rules INM - Integrated Noise Module Jet A - Jet/Turbojet Fuel, used in turbine powered aircraft MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lighting MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Area NDB - Non Directional Beacon PAPI - Precision Approach Plan Indicator PLASI - Pulsating Light Approach Slope Indicator REIL's - Runway End Identification Lights RMMA - Robert Mueller Municipal Airport RTRO - Remote Transmitter /Receiver TAC - Texas Aeronautics Commission TAFP - Texas Aeronautics Facilities Plan TxDOT - Texas Department of Transportation VFR - Visual Flight Rules VOR - VHF (Very High Frequency) Omni - Directional Radio Range APPENDIX AIRCRAFT OWNER AND PILOT'S SURVEYS 8 -10 17326/960507 AIRCRAFr OWNER SURVEY We are evaluating all aspects of the GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. As an aircraft owner and a current or potential user of the airport's facilities, your input into`our evaluation is important to the City of Georgetown and the airport's management. PLEASE answer all parts of this survey and return the completed survey within 15 days of receipt (in the stamped envelope provided) to Ms Jessica Carruth, Espey Huston & Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 519, Austin, Texas 78767 -0519 (Phone: 512- 329 -8342, ext. 2029). 1. Do you use your airplane for business, recreation or both? 2. Please provide the following information relative to your aircraft: Aircraft 41 Aircraft 42 Aircraft #3 Make Model Number of Engines "N" Number (Optional) Where based? Is the Aircraft Normally Hangared? Yes _ No _ Yes _ No _ Yes _ No If you own more than three aircraft, please provide similar information on the others. 3. a. Have you ever used GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? (check one) Yes ; No ; Date of last use: b. Estimated number of annual operations at Georgetown? C. If yes, which of the following are your reasons for using GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? (Check all that apply) Location (convenient to home) Location (convenient to work) Runway (adequate for my operations) Hangar(s) and tiedowns _ FBO service Adequate NAVAIDS FAA -1 Operational safety Maintenance fees (reasonable) Hangar rental fees (reasonable) _ Tiedown fees (reasonable) Security of plane and personnel Other (Please escribe) 4. 5. d. In using GEORETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, have you experienced any congestion, either airborne or ground access, that you consider greater than normal for a general aviation airport. If so, please describe the situation: If no, which of the following are your reasons for not using GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? (Check all that apply) Location (inconvenient to home) _ Location (inconvenient to work) Runway (inadequate for my operations) _ Hangar(s) and tiedowns Lack of FBO service _ Inadequate NAVAIDS Operational safety _ No mechanic on duty _ Hangar rental fees (unreasonable) Tiedown fees (unreasonable) Security of plane and personnel _ Other (Please describe) Please list other airports that you use regularly: Airport Airport a. Total operations (Per Year) Total operations (Per Year) _ If you currently base your aircraft at Robert Mueller Municipal Airport and it is closed as is currently being proposed, would you consider relocating your aircraft to Georgetown? Yes No Please list the primary factors in your making such a decision: 6. Satisfaction level with GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (Check only one blank in each category): A. Services: _ highly satisfied; _ moderately satisfied; _ unsatisfied. B. Facilities: highly satisfied; _ moderately satisfied; _ unsatisfied. How would you rate the overall appearance of GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (Check one): good; _ satisfactory; _ poor FAA -2 8. Please list changes and/or additions that you would like to see made at GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT so it would better serve your needs: (Please print) 9. Your general comments, observations and suggestions are important to the evaluation of GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. Please provide any additional information (use back of page if necessary): ...... Your participation in this survey is appreciated. All data you supply will be carefully evaluated. All information will remain confidential. We appreciate your help in determining how best GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT can serve you and respond to your needs. THANK YOU! Please provide your name, mailing address including zip code and daytime telephone number (optional). (Name) (Address) (Telephone) If you choose not to supply personal information, please provide just your zip code for the purpose of tabulating the survey. FAA -3 CERTIFICATED PILOT SURVEY As part of the preparation of an Airport Master Plan, we are evaluating all aspects of the GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. As a certificated pilot and a current or potential user of the airport's facilities, your input to our evaluation is important to the City of Georgetown and the airport's management. Please answer all parts of this survey and return the completed survey form within 15 days of receipt to Ms Jessica Carruth, Espey Huston & Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 519, Austin, Texas 78767 -0519 (Phone: 512- 329 -8342, ext. 2029). A stamped self - addressed envelope is provided, 1. Do you own your airplane, rent an airplane or fly for a business? Own Rent Business 2. What type of pilot's certificate do you currently hold? If you own your own airplane, please go to question 3. If you fly for a business, please go to question 4. 3. Please provide the following information relative to your aircraft: Aircraft #1 Aircraft #2 Aircraft #3 Make Model Number of Engines Where based Is the Aircraft Normally Hangared Yes—No— Yes—No— Yes—No- If you own more than three aircraft, please provide similar information on the others. 4. Please provide the following information on the aircraft you use for the business. If you are the business owner and have supplied the requested information in question 3, please so indicate. Aircraft #I Aircraft 92 Aircraft 93 Make Model Number of Engines Where based Is the Aircraft Normally Hangared Yes _ No _ Yes _ No _ Yes _ No _ 5. Have you ever used GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? Yes _ ; No ; Date of last use: Ifyes, Please answer the following questions; if no, please go to question 6: FAA -1 f ' Q 7. a. Estimated number of annual operations (takeoffs or landings) at GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? b. The following are my reasons for using GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? (Check all that apply) _ Location (convenient to home) Location (convenient to work) _ Runway (adequate for my operations) Hangars) and tiedowns FBO service _ Quality of ramp service NAVAIDS Operational safety Maintenance fees (reasonable) Hangar rental fees (reasonable) Tiedown fees (reasonable) Security of plane and personnel _ Security of plane and personnel _ Other (Please describe) C. In using GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, have you experienced any congestion, either airborne or ground access, that you consider greater than normal for a general aviation airport? If so, please briefly describe the situation: d. Do you consider GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT generally convenient to use? Yes No The following are my reasons for not using GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? (Check all that apply) Location (inconvenient to home) Location (inconvenient to work) Runway (inadequate for my operations) Hangar(s) and tiedowns Lack of quality in ramp service Inadequate NAVAIDS _ Operational safety Hangar rental fees (unreasonable) Tiedown fees (unreasonable) Please list other airports that you use regularly: Airport Airport FAA -2 Security of plane and personnel Other (Please describe) Total operations (Per year) Total operations (Per year) 8. Satisfaction level with GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (Check only one blank in each category): A. Services: _ highly satisfied; _ moderately satisfied; _ unsatisfied. B. Facilities: _ highly satisfied; _ moderately satisfied; _ unsatisfied. 9. How would you rate the overall appearance of GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (Check one): good; _ satisfactory; _ poor 10. Please list changes and /or additions that you would like to see made at GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT so it would better serve your needs: 11. Your general comments, observations and suggestions are important to the evaluation of GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. Please provide any additional information (use back of page if necessary): ...... Your participation in this survey is appreciated. All data you supply will be carefully evaluated. All individual responses will remain confidential. We appreciate you help in determining how best GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT can serve you and respond to your needs. THANK YOU! If you wish, please provide you name, mailing address and daytime telephone number (optional). (Name) (Address) (Telephone) FAA -3 PILOTS SURVEY RESPONSES Changes or Additions No. of Responses Improved Instrument Approach 63 Additional hangars (private) 29 Improved Terminal Facilities 19 Self Serve Fuel 14 Cheaper Fuel Prices 14 Lower hangar Fees 13 Full Service FBO 10 Restaurant/ Snack Bar/ Diner I 10 Improved Visual Aids 9 Control Tower I 8 Fueling from Trucks (city) I 6 Improved Weather Briefing/ ADIS Service 6 Pilot Store 6 Improved Signs to Local Business 5 Additional hangars (corporate) 4 Improved Wash Rack 4 Better Lighted Taxiways 4 Improved Auto Access to /on Airport 4 Longer der Runways 4 Availability of Auto Fuel 4 Lower Maintenance Fees 3 Improved Unicom Service 3 More Auto Parking By T- hangars 3 Designated Run Up Area 3 Landscaping /Beautification's /Roads 3 Less FOD 2 Covered Tiedowns 2 Additional Support to Local CAP 2 Limit Development Around Airport 2 Improved Ground Facility Lighting 2 More FBO's to Rent Planes 2 More Tiedown Spaces (N. End) 2 Grass Runway 2 Larger Two -way Traffic Taxiways 2 Improved Night Security 2 Cleanup Recent Seal Coat 2 Stop Zoning Adjacent Land Residential 2 Telephone in T- hangar 1 Park on Airport Property 1 Improve Drainage (hangar D) i 1 On Airport Fire Station 1 Lower Land Lease Rates 1 Add a Taxiway on 18 -36 1 Improved Measures to Keep Deer Away 1 Remove Trees to Improve Sight Distance i 1 Repaint Taxiways /Runways /Roads 1 r OWNER SURVEY RESPONSES Changes or Additions INo. of Responses New hangars 9 Lower Fuel Prices 7 Instrument Approach 7 Restaurant/ Snack Bar 4 Self Serve Tanks 4 Lower hangar Fees j 3 New Sewer System 2 Better Terminal Facilities 2 Wash Rack 2 Improved Visual Aids 2 Pilot Store 2 Full Service FBO j 2 Buy More Land For Growth j 1 Aircraft Related Business's j 1 Better Maintenance/ Avionics 1 Improved hangar Maintenance j 1 Pave N. End Of Airport j 1 Improved Airport Lighting j 1 Designated Run Up Area 1 Lower Overnight Tiedown Cost j 1 More Parking Surface j 1 Widen and Smooth Taxiways 1 Auto Fuel Availability 1 Fuel Trucks j 1