HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Section 3 - Industry Best PracticesSECTION 3
3 Industry Best Practices
3.1 Background
In order to assist in the identification and development of potential opportunities for GTU a traditional SWOT
analysis was developed. Upon completion of meetings with City Officials, airport staff, and airport tenants,
several of GTU's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats were identified. These various conditions are
depicted in traditional SWOT format in Table 3 -1.
TABLE 3 -1
Analysis of Conditions
3.2 Industry Best Practices
CH2M HILL conducted a study of seven comparable airports across the country, in order to collect a variety of
best practices and provide a comparison point for GTU's current practices. Seven airports were selected to
represent a range of management and charter set ups and for their industry experience. Airports were also
selected based on having a similar profile to that of GTU, including number of operations, number of based
aircraft, runway length range, and type of service offerings. The airports interviewed included the following:
• Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO), WA
• Craig Municipal Airport (CRG), FL
• Denton Municipal Airport (DTO), TX
• Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG ), FL
• Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO), VA
• Morristown Municipal Airport (MMU), NJ
• San Marcos Municipal Airport (HYI), TX
The sections below provide an overview of each of the study airports, followed by a summary of the interview
questions and responses.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 23
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Favorable
Unfavorable
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Location
• Lack of vision from City
• Established History
• Lack of funds to maintain /develop facilities
rne'
• Strong Tenant Base
• Leases not equitable
• Multiple runways
• Staffing levels
• Slow City approval of development requests
• Airport operating capacity limited
• No marketing plan
External
Opportunities
Threats
• Growing community
• Encroachment from city growth
• Strong demand for facilities
• Losing market share to other airports
3.2 Industry Best Practices
CH2M HILL conducted a study of seven comparable airports across the country, in order to collect a variety of
best practices and provide a comparison point for GTU's current practices. Seven airports were selected to
represent a range of management and charter set ups and for their industry experience. Airports were also
selected based on having a similar profile to that of GTU, including number of operations, number of based
aircraft, runway length range, and type of service offerings. The airports interviewed included the following:
• Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO), WA
• Craig Municipal Airport (CRG), FL
• Denton Municipal Airport (DTO), TX
• Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG ), FL
• Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO), VA
• Morristown Municipal Airport (MMU), NJ
• San Marcos Municipal Airport (HYI), TX
The sections below provide an overview of each of the study airports, followed by a summary of the interview
questions and responses.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 23
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.2.1 Case Study Airports — Overview
Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO)
Arlington Municipal is located north of Seattle in northwest Washington. The airport is owned by the City of
Arlington, which operates under a Council, City Manager form of government. The airport is an independent
department positioned directly under the City Manager. A unique feature of the airport's organization is they
have a strong airport commission which means the City Council has budget approval, but Commission has
budget execution authority as long as items remain within Council approved budget. The airport land leases
only with tenants performing all marketing and development functions. There are very few funds available for
airport marketing and branding efforts. Branding efforts have been very limited. The airport is self supporting
but not from aviation related activities, but instead from industrial park revenue. The airport does not sell retail
fuel itself but provides the service through one FBO located on the field. Fuel fees are collected from a 5 cent
per gallon into tank fee based on bill of lading. No flowage fees. They also give a credit to FBO for fuel taken off
the airport. Security and Safety activities are addressed loosely through an informal security /safety
committee. The committee meets infrequently and documents the meetings through minutes. Security is not
an important issue on the field. Airport is not completely fenced and only has limited access hardware in
place. Airport has a security program, but not tied to leases or City rules and regulations. Overall, the airport
measures performance by basic indicators such as budget performance, Fuel deliveries, and Corporate aviation
activities. Airport could use some collaborative marketing and branding efforts.
Craig Municipal Airport (CRG)
Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport, or Craig Municipal, is located about 8 miles east of Jacksonville in
northeast Florida. The airport is owned by the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA), which owns and operates
Jacksonville's four airports (Jacksonville International, CRG, Herlong and Cecil) as an independent government
agency. The JAA is made up of seven members, four appointed by the Governor and three by the Mayor. Craig
Municipal Airport is staffed with five full time employees including a manager, two maintenance workers, 1
operations specialist, and one general aviation specialist. Craig Municipal does not sell retail fuel directly to
customers but provides this service through two on- airport FBO's. Some tenants are allowed to perform self
fueling operations. The primary revenue producer is fuel flowage fees. Safety and security are addresses
through the Authority's rules and policies and through an airport security plan developed specifically for Craig.
Safety and security meetings are held monthly with tenants. ARFF and firefighting support is not available on
the airport but is provided by the City of Jacksonville through the 9 -1 -1 system. Police services are provided by
the Authority's police department. Overall, the airport is not self supporting. The largest expense is staff costs.
Denton Municipal Airport (DTO)
Denton Municipal Airport is a city- owned, public use airport located approximately three miles west of the City
of Denton, Texas. The airport is operated as an enterprise fund under a City Council, City Manager form of
government with the Airport Manager answering to the Assistant City Manager. The airport advisory board is
made up of seven members appointed by the Mayor and provides advisory recommendations to the City Council
concerning airport operations. Fueling services are provided by two FBO's located on the airport. Avgas, JetA,
and Mogas are all provided. The airport receives revenues from fueling operations through a percentage of
retail price. Airport safety and security programs are in effect at the airport with periodic tenants meetings held
to discuss safety and security issues. Police services are provided by the local police department. Aircraft,
rescue and firefighting services are not required, and therefore, not available on the airport. Airport gets
revenue from shale natural gas which goes directly into airport's capital development fund. Airport has been
proactive in development implementation of a comprehensive business plan. Denton Municipal Airport is
staffed with five full time employees including a manager, one administrative /business manager, two
maintenance workers, and 1 operations manager. Personnel, landscape maintenance, and paved surface
maintenance are the airport largest expenses.
24 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG)
Jacksonville Herlong Airport, is located about 13 miles southwest of Jacksonville in northeast Florida. The
airport is owned by the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA), which owns and operates Jacksonville's four
airports (Jacksonville International, CRG, Herlong and Cecil) as an independent government agency. The JAA is
made up of seven members, four appointed by the Governor and three by the Mayor. Herlong Airport is staffed
with nine full time employees including a manager, one FBO supervisor, two maintenance workers, four fuelers,
and one general aviation specialist. A unique service feature of Herlong is that it retains exclusive rights to
perform fueling operations to customers of the airport. Self fueling is also available on the airport. The primary
revenue producer is the airport fueling operation. Safety is addressed through policies and procedures
developed by the Authority's Risk Management Department. Security is addresses through the airport security
plan. Safety and security is not formally coordinated with airport tenants. ARFF and firefighting support is not
available on the airport but is provided by the City of Jacksonville through the 9 -1 -1 system. Police services are
provided by the Authority's police department. Overall, the airport is not self supporting. The largest expense is
staff costs.
Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO)
Leesburg Executive Airport is located North of Dulles Airport in the Washington DC metro area. The airport is
owned by the Town of Leesburg, is not an enterprise fund department but is instead a general fund
department. They have an advisory commission only. The airport is growing very quickly but has very limited
green space for development or expansion. Staff is very small. Airport Manager has no staff, does not leave the
airport very often, and has no budget for advertising or brand marketing. This is not a high priority with the
growth and demand the airport is experiencing. Some advertising is done by the FBO. Airport is interested in
collaborative efforts to market airport. The airport has a continuing goal to develop GA activities as well as
attract Corporate Flight departments. Fueling services offered by one FBO. Fuel fees are collected through
retail flowage fees and into tank corporate fees. Safety and Security are not formally addressed at the
airport. When necessary safety and security meetings are held by the advisory commission and FAA. A very
unique situation with Leesburg Executive Airport is that it's a general fund department. This could cause
funding issues but town separates accounting functions to meet sponsor assurance requirements. The airport
pays no fees to the City but is covered under general funding policies.
Morristown Municipal Airport (MMU)
Morristown Municipal Airport is a general aviation reliever airport located approximately 27 miles west of New
York City. The airport is owned by the Town of Morristown. A unique feature of this airport is that it is owned
by the town but is managed by a private company under a 100 year management contract. The management
company is responsible for overall management of the airport under the municipal framework of the Town of
Morristown. Fueling services are provided by FBOs located on the airport. The airport owns the fuel farm and
sells fuel to the FBOs. Self fueling is not allowed on the airport. The management company has authority and
responsibility for all strategic and operational decision making on the airport. Safety and security on the airport
are addressed through policies, procedures, programs, and training. Information is conveyed to tenants through
tenant meetings and newsletters. Firefighting services are available on the airport. Law enforcement services
are provided by Morristown Police Department. The airport is staffed by 25 personnel of various classifications.
The airport's largest revenue generator is from airport ground leases. The largest expense is personnel costs. A
non - traditional revenue source at this airport is the presence of on- airport billboards.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 25
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
San Marcos Municipal Airport (HYI)
San Marcos Airport is a general aviation airport located in central Texas approximately 50 miles northeast of San
Antonio and 32 miles southwest of Austin along the Interstate 35 corridor. Prior to becoming a public use
airport, the airport was Gary Army Airfield, a Worth War II army training field. In 1965, the airfield was deeded
to the City of San Marcos who now own and operate it as San Marcos Airport. A unique feature of this airport is
that it is owned by the city but is managed by a private company under a management contract. The
management company is accountable directly to the City Manager of San Marcos. Fueling services are provided
by FBOs located on the airport. No fueling or fuel handling is conducted by the City or management company.
Fuel revenue to the City is calculated as a percentage of gross sales of fuel on the airport. Safety and security on
the airport are addressed through airport safety and security programs. Two safety and security inspections are
performed daily by the management company. Airport safety and security committee meets twice a year to
address issues. Firefighting services are not available on the airport. ARFF on the field is a currently a high
priority safety item. Law enforcement services are provided by San Marcos Police Department. Airport is
patrolled by police department every three hours. The airport is staffed by four personnel. When the
management company took over the airport, staff costs were reduced by 50 percent. The airport's largest
revenue generator is from fuel flowage. The largest expense is personnel costs. TXDOT has funded the
development of an airport business plan. That plan is currently in the development stage.
Basic profile information on the selected comparable airports is listed in Table 3 -2, Comparable Airport
Statistics.
3.2.2 Case Study Airports — Summary of Interview Questions and Best
Practices for GTU
Information gathered by airport was divided into four major categories:
• Operations, Safety and Security
• Finance and Legal
• Capital Development and Maintenance
• Administrative Organization
The responses to each question by airport are provided in Tables 3 -3 through 3 -6, by category. The
recommended best practice to be applied by GTU is also provided.
26 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -2
Comparable Airports Statistics
Georgetown
Municipal Airport Percent
(GTU) Change
Arlington
Municipal Airport Percent
(AWO) Change
Craig Municipal
Airport Percent
(CRG) Change
HISTORIC AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 11
1995 48.100
2000 99,366 106.58%
2005 136,412 37.28%
2010 57,048 - 58.18%
I-UKtLASI AIKUKAI- I UrtKAI IONS "
ZU11 b3,tSb /
ZU1b b3,9 /1 U.12S o
ZUZU b4, /t56 1.Z2S7o
ZUZb bb,b2b 1.Z97o
ZU3U bb,42S3 1.317o
EXISTING BASED AIRCRAFT 21
Jets
Turbo -Props
Multi- Engine
Single- Engine
Helicopters
Military
Total
RUNWAY DIMENSIONS 31
FIXED BASE OPERATORS31
5
20
164
3
192
137,542
141,287 2.72%
134,032 -5.13%
135,ZUU
139,9/5 3.5370
14b,16/ 4.44"/o
154b0/ 4.43/o
15J,459 4.4bTo
10
12
260
11
293
111,048
131,210 18.16%
171,350 30.59%
107,021 - 37.54%
16
48
161
6
18
231
1.097o
1.U17o
1.U27o
1.1/0%o
Runway 18/36 5000 x 100 Runway 16/34 5332 x 100 Runway 14/32 4088 x 100
Runway11 /29 4100x75
Aero Centex
Solutions Air Center
American Aero
City or Georgetown Terminal
Runway 11/29 3498 x 75
Castle & Cooke Aviation
Arlington FlightSerices, Inc.
Runway5 /23 4004 x 100
Sky Harbor Aviation
Craig Air Center
Sources:
1 /Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecast, December 2012.
2/ GCR & Associates, Inc., 5010 Airport Master Records and Reports, December 2012.
3 /AirNay.com, December2012.
Prepared byCH2M HILL, December 2012.
Denton Municipal
Airport Percent
(DTO) Change
134,000
96,023 - 28.34%
83,704 - 12.83%
138,393 65.34%
14b,9Z4
10/ ,LIZ 14.1ti7o
11 1 ,titS3 5.937o
1 titS,Zbti 5.967o
199,494 5.9 /To
20
38
222
9
289
Runway 18/36 7002 x 150
US Aviation
Business Air
COMPARABLE AIRPORTS
Herlong
Recreational
Aiport Percent
(HEG) Change
66,371
80,700 21.59%
61,535
64,9ti"L 4.ZU 7o
69,4b1 0.N%
94,'LU4 b.3U /o
99,2U1 0.3U%
16
132
1
150
Runway 7/25 3999 x 100
Runway 11/29 3500 x 100
JAA/Herlong Aviation
Leesburg
Executive
Airport Percent
(JYO) Change
92,000
100,502 9.24%
114,012 13.44%
103,656 -9.08%
1 Ub,UZ4
11ti,Ub3 9.4ti7o
1'L9,159 11.9237o
145,551 1'L.UU /o
1 ti3,U33 1'L.U17o
20
133
3
156
Runway 17/35 5499 x 100
ProJet Aviation
Morristown
Municipal Airport Percent
(MMU) Change
277,066
268,734 -3.01%
233,661 - 13.05%
123,214 - 47.27%
111,7S/j
1U /, /U4 3./370
111,b44 3.titi7o
11b, /bZ 3.0237o
1'LU,U31 3. /U 70
60
18
91
9
178
Runway5 /23 5998 x 150
Runway 13/31 3997 x 150
FTC FBO
Signature Flight Support
San Marcos
Municipal Airport Percent
(HYI) Change
57,150
115,350 101.84%
118,997 3.16%
3,JZZ
0U,1 Z3 11 /2S.UU 7o
51,35b 2.4ti /o
bL,bL1 Z.4ti7o
53,91 / Z.4ti 7o
4
20
73
97
Runway8 /26 6330 x 100
Runway13 /31 5601 x150
Runway 17/35 5214 x 100
BeryAviation, Inc
Redbird Skyport
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 27
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CI-12M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -3
Interview Responses: Operations, Safety and Security
Question:
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Craig Municipal Airport
(CRG)
Denton Municipal Airport
(DTO)
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Leesburg Executive Airport
(JYO)
Morristown Municipal
Airport (MMU)
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
1 How is the fueling operation
administered at your
airport? (airport, FBO, self,
combination)
2 Do you allow fuel to be
brought onto the airport by
tenants for personal use?
3 What accounting and
inventory controls do you
have in place for fuel
operations?
4 How do you collect fuel
fees? (fuel flowage, bulk
into tank, into plane, by
delivery, etc.)
5 Who performs airport
maintenance at your
facility? (Mowing, Airfield,
Custodial, Lighting, tenant
areas, etc.)
6 Is airport safety addressed
at your facility? If so, how?
(programs, policies, lease
agreement language,
enforcement, procedures,
training)
Provided entirely by 2 FBOs.
Yes
Tenants should pay flowage
for self fueling but the airport
has no way to monitor this.
Fueling fees are based on into
tank operations. The fuel
delivery company provides the
bill of ladings.
Into Tank Fee - $0.05 per
gallon
Fee is based on the supplier
bill of lading. This works well
for the airport.
City of Arlington Public Works
Dept.
The airport assigns duties and
tasks to department
employees assigned to the
airport. This works best for
them.
Yes, through a Safety Plan.
A safety committee meets as
necessary. Performance is
measured by the number of
incidents at the airport. Airport
is partially fenced and gated.
They are not covered by FAA
safety and security
requirements.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
Provided entirely by 2 FBOs.
Yes
Corporate hangar owners are
allowed to bring fuel from off
airport and self fuel their own
aircraft.
N/A
Fuel Flowage Fee - $0.06 per
gallon
Airport Staff
This airport has its own
assigned staff to maintain the
facilities
Yes, through Safety Programs
and Policies.
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Risk Management
Department has programs
and policies that address
airport safety.
Provided entirely by 2 FBOs.
A standard set up with no
retail fuel revenue works best
for them.
Provided by an airport owned
FBO with full fueling service.
Self service is also available
Yes No
One of the FBOs are starting
to sell Mogas. Many of the
aircraft owners receive Mogas
waivers and are looking for
lower cost alternatives.
N/A
The City receives a
percentage of gross sales as
fuel flow revenue. To improve
practices they are seeking to
change this to percentage by
volume.
5 -7% of gross fuel sales
Fuel revenue for the airport is
a flexible item. This fee is
being reworked to be a gallon
volume percentage.
Airport Staff
They use a standard set up
where duties and tasks are
assigned by the airport.
Yes, through the local police
department.
A tenant committee meets
periodically. Not provided for
in lease agreement. Their
overall objective is to stay
ahead of new TSA
regulations.
The Airport prepares daily fuel
sales reports and reconciles
them with the total amount of
fuel received.
Fuel is sold by the gallon to
customers.
Airport Staff
Yes, through Safety Programs
and Policies.
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Risk Management
Department has programs
and policies that address
airport safety.
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Provided entirely by 1 FBO.
JYO finds having one strong
FBO is ideal for their
operation.
Not officially
Each FBO reports the
information directly to the
airport.
Flowage fees are collected
from the FBO and corporate
clients. FBOs are charged into
plane fees and corporate
tenants are charged into tank.
Contracted companies and
Airport Staff
Airport staff maintain the
airfield. Landscaping is
contracted out. Custodial
services are also contracted
out on a citywide contract bid
with other cities.
Yes, through Safety Policy.
The airport has a minimum
standards and leasing policy
which seems to be the best
practice for Leesburg.
Provided by 2 FBOs. The
airport owns the fuel farm and
sells the fuel to the FBOs.
No
N/A
The amount of fuel delivered
to each FBO is watched over
by the airport.
Fuel Flowage Fee
Airport Staff
The airport is managed by a
private company who is
responsible for total
operations of the airport.
Yes, through Safety
Programs, Policies,
Procedures and Training.
Provided entirely by 2 FBOs.
A standard set up with no
retail fuel revenue for the
airport operator, or the City
works best for them.
N/A
The airport collects a fuel
flowage fee based on a
percentage of gross sales.
Fuel Flowage Fee - 4% of
gross fuel sales by the FBOs.
The private operator performs
all collections and deposits
them into the city Enterprise
fund.
Private Management
All maintenance is performed
by a private management
operator. The Airport
Management Operator
assigns tasks and duties.
Yes, through SOP's and a
plan established for safety
and security.
Twice daily airport safety and
security inspections are found
to be their best practice.
No specific best practice
1. Consider storage and sale
of Mogas as a business line.
1. Fuel flow revenues derived
as a percentage of gross
sales.
1. same as above
1. Maintenance performed by
full time dedicated staff
1. Develop safety /security
plans and have those
provisions reflected in rules
and regulations, and tenant
ease documents.
28
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -3 CONTINUED
Interview Responses: Operations, Safety and Security
Question:
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Craig Municipal Airport
(CRG)
Denton Municipal Airport
(DTO)
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Leesburg Executive Airport
(JYO)
Morristown Municipal
Airport (MMU)
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
7 Does airport safety involve
interactionlcommunication
with airport users and
tenants? Is this
documented?
8 Is there ARFF or off airport
fire support? Is it by
agreement?
9 Is airport security
addressed at your facility?
If so, how? (programs,
policies, procedures, tenant
watch /security committee,
documentation, training) Is
a copy of your plan
available?
10 Are security provisions
included in airport
leasesloperating
agreements? If so, how? Is
it tied to a published
security program.
11 Who provides for general
security requirements?
(fencing, access control,
signage, identification, etc.)
12 Are there provisions for
Law Enforcement Support?
If so, what are they?
Yes
There are safety committee
meetings where meeting
minutes are taken to provide
documentation.
Yes
The airport has a monthly
tenants meeting where they
address airport safety.
Service is provided by the City Offsite airport fire support
Fire Department trained in provided by calling 9 -1 -1
ARFF.
Since ARFF is not required,
this works well for airport.
Security addressed through
an established security plan.
City Police department
provides two resource officers
with dogs.
Not in lease language but
covered in lease by
statements regarding
compliance with airport rules
and regulations.
The Airport
The Local Police department
provides two resource
officers.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
The Airport Security Plan
outlines security for the
facility.
No
The Airport
Yes
There are safety committee
meetings where meeting
minutes are taken to provide
documentation.
No ARFF at Airport
Since ARFF is not required,
this works well for airport.
There is no formal plan for this
airport. A
Safety /security committee facility.
meets quarterly.
No.
No ARFF at Airport
City of Jacksonville Fire
Department provides fire
support by calling 9 -1 -1
The Airport Security Plan
outlines security for the
Not in lease language but
covered in lease by
statements regarding
compliance with airport rules
and regulations.
The Airport
Law Enforcement is provided The city works on a
by the Jacksonville Aviation continuous patrol cycle.
Authority's Police Department.
No
The Airport
Law Enforcement is provided
by the Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Police Department.
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Yes
Periodic public meetings held
with FAA, AOPA group, and
tenants.
No ARFF at Airport
Town owned fire department
responds. There is no
agreement for this response.
No Security Program at the
airport. Issues are handled
through advisory commission
meetings.
No, Security Program Issues
are handled through advisory
commission meetings.
The access control
program /system is owned and
operated by airport.
New tenants are required to
install and maintain basic
security elements.
A police substation is located
on the airport. Police respond
to airport as any other town
citizen request.
Yes
There are meetings and
newsletters addressing safety.
Yes
The airport has small ARFF
station on airport.
Policies and Documentation
outline airport security which
includes ID badges.
Yes. It is tied to a published
security program.
The Airport
Law enforcement is provided
by the Town's Police
Department.
Yes
The Airport Advisory
Committee meets twice each
year about safety and
security.
No ARFF at Airport
An ARFF training facility is
being created across the
street in the local job core.
This will provide airport ARFF
support.
San Marcos Police
Department provides patrols
every 3 hours.
Yes
The Airport
The Local Police Department
provides a 3 hour inspection
cycle.
1. Schedule safety and
security meeting agenda as a
discreet function as part of
scheduled advisory committee
meetings
1. ARFF is not a required
function, but having the
function at the airport is an
added safety enhancement
that can help in marketing to
the corporate and business
aircraft market.
1. routine and non - routine
LEO patrols are a cornerstone
of a solid airport security plan.
1. A security plan that
encompasses access control,
signage, lighting, fencing and
an active airport watch
program are essential.
1. Airport sub - station, with
scheduled and non - scheduled
LEO patrols.
29
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -4
Interview Responses: Finance and Legal
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Question:
1 Does the airport have debt
issuing capability?
Who /what provides the
backing for the debt? (City,
Authority, Airport revenues,
etc.?
2 Do you have the authority to
adjust rates and charges
according to operational
needs? How is this process
administered?
3 Are you operationally self
supporting? What is the
major revenue producer on
the airport?
4 What is your largest
expense item?
5 Who provides legal support
to the airport? (City,
Authority, Outsourced, etc.)
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Yes
Debt is issued through the city
for the airport, only through
revenue bonds.
Yes
The airport can adjust tie -town
fees. Land leases are
adjusted every 5 years by
lease agreements base on
comparable property. Lease
and land adjustments are
based on airport commission
recommendation with City
Council approval. Increases
are spread out over the 5 year
period.
Yes.
Most revenue for the airport is
provided by industrial park
revenue.
Police, Fire, and EMS.
A City Attorney is outsourced
and available for the airport's
use.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
Craig Municipal Airport
(CRG)
Yes
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority provides backing.
No
No
The major revenue producer
is Fuel Flowage Fee
Personnel
City of Jacksonville, Office of
General Counsel
Denton Municipal Airport
(DTO)
GO bonds are available
however, not currently used.
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Yes
Once the annual budget gains
approval, then: $25K can be
adjusted by the airport
manager, $50K by city
manager, and $100K by city
council delegated signing
authority.
Yes
The annual budgetary goal is
to be completely self
supporting. Fuel sales allow
for the airport to break even.
Denton has strong best
practices in budgeting /admin
and safety security.
Personnel, Landscape and
Mainenance costs
A City Attorney is outsourced
and available for the airport's
use.
Yes
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority provides backing.
Yes
The airport can adjust fuel
pricing. This is done during
the budgeting process.
No
Fuel sales is the major
revenue producer.
Personnel
City of Jacksonville, Office of
General Counsel
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Leesburg Executive Airport
(JYO)
Town only issued debt. No
airport capability. Not enough
revenue to service debt.
Fully backed by good faith of
town. Not enoug revenue is
generated so this is the
airports only option.
No
Rates and charges
considered and adjusted
through the budget process.
Budgets are recommended by
the airport advisory
commission and approved by
town council.
Morristown Municipal
Airport (MMU)
Airport is operated as a
general fund department. Not
an enterprise fund. Major
revenue generators are T-
Hangar and FAA Lease.
Accounting for airport is kept
separate to meet FAA grant
assurances. Former FAA
AFSS is leased by FAA for
Security equipment.
Personnel, Environmental
Compliance Contracts, and
Utilities.
The Town provides support at
no charge to airport due to the
airport being a general fund
department. The airport finds
this is the best practice for
them.
Yes
The Town of Morristown
provides backing.
Yes
The Airport may adjust rates
and charges annually during
the budgeting process.
Yes
Ground leases are the major
revenue producer for the
airport.
Personnel
Outsourced through private
attorney.
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
The City can access GO
bonding however, no current
debt issued.
Best Practice
No
Rates and charges
parameters are set for the
operating company by
contract. An annual market
analysis of comparable
airports is used as the basis
for annual rates and charges
setting annual rates and
charges recommendations are
sent to City Council for
approval
Yes
The major revenue producing
item for the airport is fuel
flowage fee revenue.
Personnel
The City provides
adminstrative support which
includes legal services.
1. GO bonding with airport
revenues and City backing as
necessary.
1. City Council annual budget
approval with delegated
signing authority down to the
airport manager level. Signing
authority levels are set during
budget approval process. 2.
Fuel margin and fuel price and
charges are set annually
during the budgeting process,
based on local market
analysis. 3. Airport manager
has the delegated authority to
modify retail pricing on a
weekly basis, based on the
current price of fuel.
1. Fuel sales is typically the
greatest revenue producer.
Consider using fuel revenue
as the break -even provision
for the airport budget.2.
Consider strategies for
improving ground lease and
industrial development
revenue production.
1. Most similar airports in the
4 -8 range for full time staff.
1. Function is typically
outsourced
30
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -4 CONTINUED
Interview Responses: Finance and Legal
Question:
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Craig Municipal Airport
(CRG)
Denton Municipal Airport
(DTO)
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Leesburg Executive Airport
(JYO)
Morristown Municipal
Airport (MMU)
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
6 Does the airport have an
overlay, airport, compatible
land use, zoning ordinance
in place for airport and
surrounding area
development? Who
administers the ordinance?
(plan review, zoning review
and updating)
7 Does the airport's fueling
operation breakeven? Does
fueling revenue cover total
costs of providing fuel?
8 Does the airport sell retail
fuel? If so, how do you
manage margin?
(Ordinance, Airport Manager
Discretion, etc.)
9 Does the airport employ
practices for non - traditional
revenue development?
10 How do you handle lease
increases? (CPI,Fixed,Time)
Do the increases keep up
with costs?
11 Does the airport have
reversionary provisions in
lease agreements? Do they
work or do they impede
private development?
Yes
Airport Protection District
Overlay. Administered by City
Planning and Zoning.
No fueling. N/A
No
Airport leases and only. All
marketing is done by the
tenant.
Fixed Rate Increases
Yes, at airport descretion.
The tenant must tear down or
revert to airport. This does
not affect any development.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
Yes
Administrated by The City of
Jacksonville, Planning
Department.
No fueling. N/A
No
Yes
CPI and Fixed. The increases
do not keep up with costs.
Yes. They impede private
development.
Yes
ACLUZ with an overlay for
noise and building height.
City council approved and
administered through building
department.
No fueling. N/A
No
FTZ for local industrial park
and strong training ties to the
University of North Texas
flight training, professional
aeronautics program.
CPI increases built into each
lease
Yes
Administrated by The City of
Jacksonville, Planning
Department.
Yes
The fueling revenue covers
the total costs of providing
fuel.
Yes. The Airport is FBO,
margin is managed by the
Manager's discretion.
Yes
CPI and Fixed. The increases
do not keep up with costs.
Reversionary clause is not a Yes. They impede private
concern and works well for all development.
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Yes
Adminstered through town
planning and zoning
department. The airport finds
that this is the best practice
for them.
No fueling. N/A
No
No
A couple of long term leases
are on CPI. Most land leases
are on fixed term increases.
Yes, but only on two or three
facilities owned by others.
Most are already owned by
airport.
No
Airport is surrounded by
wetlands that is managed by
the New Jersey EPA.
No fueling. N/A
No
The only non - traditional
revenue source is on- airport
billboards.
CPI, Fixed and Time.
Yes. They do not impede
private development.
No
There is not a current zoning
ordinance in place. The rural
setting for the airport has
allowed them to get by without
zoning protection.
No fueling. N/A
No
Yes
Non - aeronautical property
development is included in
operating contract, with
incentive provisions for
operator to act as developer
contract operator this their
best found practice.
The airport is currently
working on updating the lease
boilerplate which will include
CPI increases.
Reversionary clause is not a
concern and works well for all
1. Comprehensive land use,
zoning, tall structures and
noise ordinances are
standard.
1.best practice is to make a
solid bottom line margin for
airport operated fuel sales
1. Delegate some authority for
minor fuel sales margin
modifcations to the airport
manager, within well defined
bounds.
1. Best practice is to view
airport boundary as an
aviation industrial
development site, using all
avialable means to grow
aviation business.
1. Lease rate increases must
be tied to local CPI index
1. Lease reversionary clauses
work well for both airport and
tenant.
31
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -5
Interview Responses: Capital Development and Maintenance
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Question:
1 How is your capital plan
developed? (consensus, by
airport management,
authority approval) Is there
a best practice you use to
develop your plan?
2 What is the vetting and
approval process for capital
projects?
3 Are your capital plans
included in a master
planning document?
(Master plan, strategic plan,
business plan, budget,
Long Term CIP, etc.)
4 What funding sources do
you use in your capital
development process?
5 Do you have internal
personnel to manage the
capital development
process or is it outsourced?
(AIE, Project manager,
Project inspection, quality
control, accounting)
6 Have you had to defer
capital maintenance during
the last economic down
cycle?
7 Do you include your tenants
and stakeholders in the
project identification
process? If so, how?
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Capital plan is developed
based on the airport master
plan document.
Capital plan is developed and
recommended by airport
commission. Once approved
by City Council, airport
commission has full execution
authority as long as projects
fall within established budget.
Capital development is
included in airport master plan
for major development and
budget for execution. There is
also a pavement
maintenance program
developed to provide
guidance on pavement
projects.
Federal grants, state grants,
revenue from airport, and
federal transportation grants
for road work.
This varies by size and scope
of project. The airport most
frequently uses an outsourced
NE firm, and sometimes uses
City personnel for inspection
and quality control.
No. They always have more
projects and funds. Priority of
projects is based on the
budget.
Only in the master planning
process through public
meetings.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
Craig Municipal Airport
(CRG)
Airport Management and
Authority approval
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Planning
Department works with Airport
Manage to identify projects for
the Capital Plan.
Business Plan and CIP
Airport Revenues and
Government Grants
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Planning
Department manages the
capital development process.
No
Yes. The FBOs are
sometimes included in the
project identification process.
Denton Municipal Airport
(DTO)
The master plan and business
plan are the primary
roadmaps. The airport
considers this their most
important development tool.
All local stakeholders and
airport advisory board provide
input on capital projects.
Yes
Bonds, FAA, TxDo, and Shale
natural gas revenues which
are retained for local share
requirement for Capital
development.
Use an NE firm (KSA) on a
blanket contract to support
airport staff. They access KSA
through a master agreement
with TxDot's creative use of
blanket Txdot contract to
augment airport staff with A/E
resource.
No, most facilities are fairly
new. Currently KSA assisting
in updating their capital
maintenance plan.
Only in the master planning
process through public
meetings.
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Airport Management and
Authority approval
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Planning
Department works with Airport
Manage to identify projects for
the Capital Plan.
Business Plan and CIP
Airport Revenues and
Government Grants
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority's Planning
Department manages the
capital development process.
No
No.
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Leesburg Executive Airport
(JYO)
Town has a capital projects
division responsible for
development of the town's
capital program. Airport and
planning and zoning have
input into airport's capital plan.
The airport commission to
capital projects division to
town council for approval.
The town has a long term
town capital development plan
that the town manager sticks
to.
Airport Master Plan and Town
Capital Development Plan.
Airport has input for airport
projects. This appears to work
well for airport planning.
FAA Grants, State Grants,
Airport revenue, and debts
issued by town.
No. They have an NE on
retainer contract. Projects
usually handled through the
airport, A/E, and town
engineer.
No
Tenants are informally
included. Usually through
airport advisory commission.
Morristown Municipal
Airport (MMU)
The airport management is
responsible for managing the
airport's capital program
under the 99 -year
Management Agreement.
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
Airport management develops
and approves all capital
projects.
Business Plan and CIP
Airport Revenues
Airport staff
No
No.
Consensus
Stakeholders provide input at
the airport. The management
group then makes
recommendations to the city.
Yes
Bond, FAA, TxDot, local and
operator /developer for
revenue producing projects.
The City and TxDot
No, but prior to arrival of the
Texas Aviation Partners, the
City had deferred much
maintenance.
Yes, through the stakeholders
committee.
1. Done with input from City
Council, airport management,
granting agencies, and with
strategic input only from
tenants or advisory board.
see above
1. New best practice;
business/strategic plan sets
the stage for the master plan
which is used to develop
annual capital plans
1. Airport revenue, federal and
block grants, and third party
funding are primary sources.
1. In Texas, some airports use
the TxDot on call airport
consultant to help with small
airport specific capital needs.
1. No defered maintenance
during down economic cycle.
1. For strategic input only
32
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -5 CONTINUED
Interview Responses: Capital Development and Maintenance
Question:
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Craig Municipal Airport Denton Municipal Airport Herlong Recreational
(CRG) (DTO) Airport (HEG)
Leesburg Executive Airport Morristown Municipal
(JYO) Airport (MMU)
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
8 Is major maintenance
included in your capital
planning or is it
administered differently. Is
there a threshold for such
items?
9 Are there strong and
enforceable tenant
maintenance provisions
included in your standard
lease agreement? Is a copy
of your lease available?
10 Do you have a
developerlbroker policy for
developing your non -
aeronautical property?
Does this process work
well?
11 Does the airport employ
tools to help market and
develop non - aeronautical
property? (incentives, tax
increments, FTZ, etc.)
Little of both. Roofing and Yes
painting is included in capital
budget which has a threshold
of 200k. Cracksealing is
provided for in operating
budget.
Yes. Maintenance is to be Yes
provided for by the tenant on
owned facilities. The Airport
provides maintenance on
airport owned buildings at no
cost to tenant.
On east side of airport they
have a master developer. well.
This works well for the airport
as they don't have to deal with
development. On west side of
airport, airport will probably be
developer and deal tenant by
tenant.
Yes. But, it does not work
No FTZ. Airport grants 9 -12 No
months rent free for
development and move -in.
No tax exemptions. This
seems to work well for them.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
yes
Yes
Not as strong as we would Yes
like. The airport is working on
updating standard lease
agreement.
No broker policy because,
there is not a lot of non- well.
aeronautical property. The
Airport's development focus is
on aeronautical and
aeronautical support property.
Yes. But, it does not work
FTZ available on the non
aeronautical property.
No
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Handled through the Capital Yes
Asset Replacement program
though town. $5k and up is
included in this program.
Anything under $5k this
handled through O &M.
Yes. It is included in the
tenant lease agreements.
Yes
No. When needed they use No.
town resources.
No.
No
The City handles this. The
Operator provides input on
maintenance needs to the
City.
No, new boilerplate lease
agreements are to be
provided in the new business
plan.
No broker policy. The Airport
operations company functions
as developer under contract to
the City.
FTZ is in place. The Airport
will also get CBP first point of
entry rights.
1. Need a discreet year by
year capital maintenance plan
with associated budget to
ensure proper life cycle cost
management.
1. Strong, enforcable tenant
maintenance requirement
language with accountability
built in to the lease
agreement.
1. Inland port, and FTZ
incentives are used typically,
with local, and state matching
incentive packages. Tax
increment and other site
specific programs can also be
a great benefit.
33
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -6
Interview Responses: Administrative Organization
Question:
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Craig Municipal Airport
(CRG)
Denton Municipal Airport
(DTO)
1 Under what type of
ownership structure do you
operate?
2 Who or what is the
governing authority? What
is the makeup of that
authority?
3 Where does the airport
operation fit into the
departmental or
organizational structure?
4 How are the airport's
support functions
administered? (IT, HR,
Finance, Bookkeeping,
Contracts) What
percentage of your staffing
budget is an allocation to
other departments or
groups?
5 What is the airport
department makeup? How
many FTE and their
classifications?
6 Is the airport a subdivision
of a larger department or
division within your
ownership authority?
7 Do you have strategic
decision making authority?
Operational Management
Authority?
City Owned Airport. Operates
on City Council /City Manager
form of government.
City Council is overall governing
authority
Airport is directly under City
Manager. Tenants are members
of airport commission. This
seems to work well for them.
City provides HR, Finance, and
IT. Airport performs billing and
collections, and quarterly tax
statements internally. Airport
processes invoices which are
forwarded to City for payment.
4 Office personnel including
manager
3 Maintenance personnel
provided by Public Works Dept.
3 Part Time workers.
The airport is a stand alone
department directly under the
City Manager.
The City Council has Strategic
decision making authority with
recommendation from the
airport and Commission.
The Airport has operational
management authority.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
Jackson Aviation Authority
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority
A department within the
Operations Division.
Support functions are
administered at the
Jacksonville Avaiation
Authority's corporate offices
1 Manager
2 Maintenance Workers
1 Operations Specialist
1 General Aviation
Specialist
A subdivision of a larger
Department
The Airport has limited
strategic decision making
authority.
Full operational
management authority
City Owned Airport. Operates
on City Council /City Manager
form of government.
City Council is overall
governing authority. This is a
hybrid authority with a City
Council Airport authority board
appointed by Mayor.
Airport director reports directly
to the Assistant City Manager.
This improves the airports'
visibility and ability to get things
done.
City provides HR, Finance, IT,
and legal support. The
allocated staff budget is: $125K
of an overall $800K operating
budget
5 FTE Employees:
1 Manager
1 Admin /business manager
2 Maintenance
1 Operations manager
A subdivision of City
Government.
The Airport has strategic
decision making authority.
Policy decisions start at director
level and go to city council.
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Jackson Aviation Authority
The Jacksonville Aviation
Authority
A department within the
Operations Division.
Leesburg Executive Airport
(JYO)
Morristown Municipal
Airport (MMU)
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
Support functions are
administered at the
Jacksonville Avaiation
Authority's corporate offices
1 Manager
1 FBO Supervisor
2 Maintenance Workers
4 Fuelers
1 General Aviation Specialist
A subdivision of a larger
Department
The Airport has limited
strategic decision making
authority.
Full operational
management authority
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
Town owned with an Airport
Advisory Commission. This is
the best practice for this
airport.
Town Council, and Town
Manager. Airport operated as
a general fund department.
Airport is a general fund
department under one of the
Assistant Town Managers.
All are functions provided by
town at no cost. This due to
airport being a general fund
department.
3 FTE Employees:
1 Manager
1 MX Manager
1 MX Technician
The airport is a stand alone
department within the town
general fund.
The Town Manager has
strategic decision making
authority.
Airport Manager has
Operational Management
Authority.
Municipal
Town of Morristown, The
Town owns the airport.
However, the airport is
managed by private company.
A private company operates
the airport under a 99 -year
management agreement with
Morristown. The major
departments within the
management company are:
Executive; Operations;
Facilities; Accounting; and
Human Resources
The company that manages
the airport has specific
departments to support the
airport's operation.
5 FTE Employees
No. The airport is owned by
the Town of Morristown,
managed by a private
company.
The airport management
company has strategic
decision making and
operational management
authority over the airport.
City Owned Airport. Airport
contract operator answers
under contract to the city
manager
City Council is overall
governing authority.
The Contract Operator
answers to the City Manager.
City provides legal,
purchasing, finance and public
works support. The airport
contract operator provides
stand alone airport
management administrative
support. City core functions
are paid for by enterprise fund
allocation.
4 FTE Employees:
1 Manager
1.5 Maintenance
1.5 Admin
The Airport does not have
strategic decision making
authority.
The airport provides inputs for
policy and stategic decisions
to the city manager for
submission to City Council.
Contract operator Authority is
shared with the city.
1. Municipally owned with a
chartered airport authority.
Some hybrid forms exist in
certain locations that are very
efficient.
see above
1. Municipally owned airports
with an airport management
function that is elevated within
the municipal government.
1. Typical for airport
authorities and municipal
governments to allocate
central staff functions for
greater efficiency. Allocation
budget levels should be
revisited on an annual basis
General staffing GTU sized
facility: 1. (1) managet;
(1)Admin /business manager;
(1.5) dedicated maintenance;
(1) airport operations
See above
1. Airport Manager should
have more or less full
delegated authority for
ongoing operational
management decisions.
34
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 35
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -6 CONTINUED
Interview Responses: Administrative Organization
Question:
AIRPORT RESPONSE
Arlington Municipal Airport
(AWO)
Craig Municipal Airport Denton Municipal Airport
(CRG)
(DTO)
Herlong Recreational
Airport (HEG)
Leesburg Executive Airport Morristown Municipal
(JYO)
Airport (MMU)
San Marcos Municipal
Airport (HYI)
Best Practice
8 Do you have strategic
and/or operational control
over the airport budget?
9 Do you have personnel
decision making authority?
(hiring, firing, disciplinary,
performance evaluation)
10 Does the airport provide
personnel for operations at
the airport or is personnel
provided by other
departments or agencies?
(maintenance, airfield,
ARFF, Security)
11 Do you have delegated
contractual signing
authority? If so, to what
level or extent is that
authority?
12 Do you have joint marketing
plans with your commercial
or FBO tenants? If so, do
they work?
13 Do you have a marketing,
branding, or economic
development plan? If so,
what works and what does
not work. Copies available?
14 What percentage of your
duties, as an airport
administrator, is spent on
airport versus off airport?
15 Does the airport have a
current strategic or
business plan. If so, do you
operate under a set of Key
Performance Indicators?
Copies available?
No
The budget is approved and
amended by City Council with
execution authority by airport
Commission.
Limited strategic but full Yes, on the Council approved
operational control over the budget
airport budget
Airport does evaluations and Yes
disciplinary actions. The City
Mayor has authority over hiring
and firing.
Public Works permanently No
assigns personnel to airport.
Airport has authority for leases, No
small works projects under
$30K and professional services
agreements under 20K. All
grants and capital are
commission approved and then
sent directly to the Mayor.
No
No
There is a flight brochure but No
self branding is a struggle with
the City.
95% on airport.
5% off airport
Yes, with assistance from the
City's Human Resources.
Allocations as referenced
previously.
Approved budget annually by
Council. $25K signing authority
of airport director, $50K -
$100Ksigning authority of City
manager; above $100K City
Council has signing authority.
No
Branding has been an issue as
a City Department.
80% on airport and 20% off 90% on airport
airport
Master plan only. Used as a No
working document as well as a
benchmark document. The
Benchmark is their Masterplan,
Measured by Fuel Flowage,
Corporate activities and budget
performance.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
Limited strategic but full
operational control over the
airport budget
Yes
No
Yes
Form documents (i.e., Tie -
Down, T- Hangar, and Office
Leases)
No
No
The airport prepares the Yes
budget. The Town Manager
then receives it with final
approval by town council.
The Airport has authority for Yes
airport employees.
Other departments provide all. No
T- hangar, Tie -down leases, Yes
and state grants are signed by
Airport Manager. Purchasing
is signed by Town Finance.
Federal Grants are signed by
the Town Manager.
No
No
90% on airport and 10% off 90% on airport and 10% off
airport airport
An older master plan, their No
business plan is a living
document that governs all
airport activities. It has 4 major
initiatives and 18 specific
objectives. The 18 business
plan objectives serve as Key
Performance Indicators that the
airport directors' performance is
keyed to. They find this a very
effective way to manage.
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
No
No
Only input on revenue
projections and expense
projections. The City pays the
contract operator directly out
of enterprise funds
Yes
The Aiport has full hiring and
firing authority for internal
contract operator employees.
Airport relies on city for ARFF
and police patrols
The Airport has full authority
within the approved annual
budget allocation
No, but this is a best practice
for them.
Branding has been an issue
as a City Department.
80% on airport and 20% off 90% on airport
airport.
Airport does not have a Yes
strategic plan. Performance
indicators are occupancy of t-
hangars and tie - downs. The
Benchmark for this airport is
100% Occupancy, this is also
the measured performance
indicator.
A business plan has just
recently begun development.
1. City Council or Airport
Authority Board have strategic
and policy decision making
authority. Airport Manager has
full operational authority.
1. Airport Manager has hiring
and firing authority for airport
staff only.
1. allocations for support
functions and some O &M
functions are typical
1. Delegated operational and
limited signing authority for
the Airport Manager are
typical.
1. Best practice is to leverage
airport marketing resources
together with that of their
FBO's
1. Detailed Marketing plan 2.
Airport Branding program
1. 80 -90% with outreach time
for Municipality, Stakeholders
and developing the airport
Brand
1. Business or strategic
planas an overarching
document to strategically
guide the airport masterplan
and other management
activities
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 3 -38
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.3 Case Study Summary and Best Practices
The completion of various meetings, interviews, and other information collecting tasks provided significant
insight into the current and potential operation of GTU. Many of the operational and managerial aspects of the
Georgetown Airport are consistent with industry standards and provide a solid basis for future successful
operations. The completion of interviews with each of the comparable airports identified several best practices
used by each of the airport. The best practices are contained within each of four major categories including
operations /safety /security, Finance /Legal, Capital Development and Maintenance, and Administrative
Organization. The best practices recommended for GTU in each of the four operational categories are found in
Table 3 -7.
In reviewing industry best practices for airports of comparable size and operation, a comprehensive review of
GTU's strategic and operational documents was also conducted. GTU's Minimum Standards, Airport Rules and
Regulations, Land Lease template and Hangar and Storage Lot agreement were reviewed. These documents
work in conjunction with each other to provide a contractual basis for the operation of the airport.
1. Minimum Standards
GTU's Minimum Standards is the strategic level document that identifies and stipulates the minimum
requirements an individual or entity desiring to provide aviation - related services to the public on a public -
use airport must provide in order to provide those services. When kept current and up -to -date, this
document provides a host of benefits to the airport owner and operator, as well as additional benefits to
current and potential commercial service operators.
Benefits to Airport Owners
• Safe operating environment
• High quality of services to the public
• Reduced conflict between tenants and owners
• Reduced political entanglements
• More efficient development activities
• Helps to identify and ensure appropriate levels of insurance to be maintained
• Helps airport in compliance with Federal Grant Assurances
Benefits to current or future service providers
• Protects current provider investment by not allowing new service providers at significantly lower
initial investment levels
• Allows future providers to more accurately development business plans for services
The purpose an airport implements a comprehensive set of minimum standards is to ensure a minimum
level of safe and efficient services are available to the airport's users and public; as such, when developing
and maintaining airport minimum standards, they should be based on some definable goals or development.
A common practice for airport minimum standards is to tie them to the airport master plan. Kept up to
date, and uniformly applied and enforced, GTU's minimum standards help to reduce the possibility of claims
of discrimination and unfair treatment from current and potential commercial operators on the airport. To
achieve maximum benefit to the airport, tenants, and the public, airport minimum standards must be
strictly and uniformly supported and enforced. Enforcement of minimum standards is often achieved
through their reference in an airport's leases, rules and regulations.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 39
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
2. Airport Rules and Regulations
While airport minimum standards establish the minimum requirements to provide commercial services at an
airport, airport rules and regulations address ongoing, day -to -day, operations of both service providers and
users of an airport. Airport rules and regulations cover a variety of topics and deal with operations more
specific to a particular airport and its environment.
Rules and Regulation Topics
• Operations within the Airport Operations Area (AOA)
• Communications on the airport
• Safety Procedures
• Security Procedures
• Fire Safety requirements
• Aircraft identification and registration
• ATCT operations
• Disabled aircraft removal
• Use and disposal of hazardous materials (including fuels and oils)
• Stormwater requirements
• Self fueling operations
• Removal of non - airworthy, wreckage, or unsightly aircraft or components
• Vehicle operations
• Construction Activities
To be effective in their implementation, GTU's airport rules and regulations should be included, by
reference, in both the airport's minimum standards and leasing documents. Means and reference to
enforcement authority should also be included in the leasing documents.
40 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -7
Recommended Best Practices
Operational Category
Recommended Best Practice
Operations /Safety /Security
Finance /Legal
•
• Allow private /corporate tenants to store and self fuel only if subject to fees in
Rules and Regulations and lease agreements.
• Derive fuel flowage fees from a percentage of gross fuel sales.
• Airport maintenance should be performed by permanent, dedicated airport
staff.
• Develop and implement formal airport safety and security plans for GTU and
include provisions and enforcement in airport rules and regulations and
lease /operating agreements.
• Establishment of safety /security advisory groups and conduct scheduled
meetings to address issues related to safety and security.
• Publish the availability of ARFF or Fire capabilities, either on or off the airport.
• Establishment of a permanent police presence on the airport and conduct
routine and non - routine police patrols on the airport
• Develop a security plan that encompasses access control, signage, lighting,
fencing and tenant watch groups.
• Possess bonding authority, or capability, with airport revenue or city backing.
• Budgets developed with airport input with City Council or Authority approval.
Signing authority levels set by City Council and delegated down to Airport
Manager.
• Fuel margin, price, and fuel charges set annually as part of budget process.
Airport Manager has authority to modify retail prices, based on market prices,
to make margin.
• Fuel sales are typically greatest revenue generator.
• Airports of GTU size and operation range from 4 -8 full time staff to manage and
maintain airport.
• Legal counsel is normally outsourced at airport of GTU size and operation.
• Comprehensive zoning ordinances for noise and compatible land use are a
standard best practice.
• Establishment of a solid bottom line for margin for airport operated fuel sales.
• View airport boundary as an aviation industrial development site, using all
available means to grow the airport.
• Airport minimum standards, airport rules and regulations, and operating leases
are complimentary in nature and work as a legal foundation for airport /tenant
relations and airport operations.
• Lease rate should be adjusted annually and tied to some consumer price
indices.
Capital • Capital improvement plans developed with input from governing authority,
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 41
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Development /Maintenance
Administrative Organization
airport management, granting and funding agencies, airport tenants, and
advisory boards /commissions.
• Where in place, business plans set the stage for master plan development which
in turn drives capital plan development
• Airport revenue, federal and block grants, and third part funding are primary
funding sources.
• Development of a discreet, year by year, capital maintenance plan with budget
for life cycle cost management.
• Maintenance responsibility language with enforcement and accountability
provisions built into operating and lease agreements.
• Airport management is in an elevated position within municipal government
hierarchy.
• Best practice to allocate airport support staff functions to municipality for
greater efficiency. Allocation levels are reviewed and set annually during
budget cycle.
• Staffing for GTU sized airport is: (1) manager; (1) administrative /business
manager; (1) airport operations; (1) dedicated maintenance.
• Airport Manager has overall delegated authority for operational management of
airport.
• City Council or Airport Authority have strategic and policy decision making
authority.
• Airport Manager has hiring and firing authority for airport staff.
• Airport Manager has limited signing authority for airport.
• 80 -90 percent of airport manager's time is spent on airport with remaining time
for community outreach, municipal, and airport marketing and branding
activities.
• Development of an airport marketing and branding plan. Leverage resources
with tenants, community, and municipality.
42 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.4 Primary GTU Considerations
3.4.1 Airport Contract Tower
The GTU contract tower being funded through the FAA contract tower budget has been slated for termination as
a result of the current Federal budget sequestration process. GTU is one of 149 airports across the United States
that are now slated to lose their contract tower function. The immediate impacts to GTU from losing the tower
function would be to the safety and marketability of the airport. The City has a range of options that might be
considered as a result of the federal budget impact and resulting tower closure. Those options are;
1. Allow the tower to close indefinitely
2. Fully fund the current tower operation at its current operational level, 15 hours daily, (would probably
require a City RFQ for a contract operator)
3. Partially fund the tower operation in shorter daily schedule of either 8, 10, or 12 hour increments, (would
probably require a City RFQ for a new contract operator)
The potential financial impacts of the contract tower closure are fairly substantial in light of GTU budget and
general fund implications. The full 15 hour contract operation is expected to cost almost $650,000 on an annual
basis. A scaled down (8) hour minimal operation is estimated to cost roughly $250,000 on an annual basis. The
possibilities for funding either a full or partial operation at GTU are minimal and problematic. The possible
funding options for the GTU contract tower operations are as follows;
• Georgetown City general fund
• A time specific stipend from the State of Texas
• Funds raised from a GTU user fee tower specific assessment aimed at tenants, businesses and private flyers
• A combination of all of the above
It is the opinion of CH2MHILL that the contract tower funding issue will put the Federal Government into a
serious safety risk liability situation. Currently the FAA has pushed back any final decision to September of 2013.
It is reasonable to expect that a more long term budgetary answer will be found before September, and that
congress will be called on to find a long term funding remedy. If this is the case, it may be in the City's best
interest to look at a scaled down, either 10- or 12 -hour daily program, with the current operator or a
replacement operator, procured through a new RFP beginning in September. It may be in the City's best interest
to keep any new contract term short in duration.
In the most recent congressional action that re- allocates FAA budget to fund furloughed controllers, congress
has left room in the bill for the FAA to take part of the new allocation to fund all or part of the 149 contract
towers. Using this available funding to continue or reinstate the contract tower program will be left to FAA
discretion in beyond this coming September.
3.4.2 Fueling Options
Under current operations, GTU is in a strong position from the standpoint of owning all of the fuel storage
facilities at the airport. Because of this, the airport is able to generate revenue for wholesale jet fuel throughput
and retail self service of Avgas. This fueling set up at GTU offers perhaps the highest potential revenue upside to
the airport both now, and looking into the future. The prospect of upgrading the fueling facilities in the next
2 years using TxDOT grant funding and requiring potentially as little as a 10% local project match, further
strengthens the business based potential revenue return to the City.
Currently, GTU generates 31 cents per gallon of Jet A wholesale fuel (includes 14 cents in fuel flowage and 17.8
cents in wholesale margin), and also retains a retail margin of 77.5 cents per gallon for self serve Avgas. Because
the airport owns the fuel storage facility, GTU also retains the largest share of annual fuel service related O &M
costs, as they are spread between the City and the fixed base operators.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 43
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
According to our analysis, under the current pricing set up, the fueling operation is rendering an approximately
8% return on investment, when all staff and fuel facility O &M costs are considered with respect to revenues
generated. Central to our recommendation for both the fueling operation, and the leasing of facilities and
grounds, is a stronger business based management focus. With respect to the fueling operation, a more
business based return on investment would be a 10 -12% ROI, versus the current 8 %. Adopting a fuel pricing
philosophy that offers the airport a more solid ROI, would improve revenue to the airport bottom line by
approximately $60,000 - $120,000 per year. Our recommendation would be to boost the fuel operation ROI
through a combination of nominal increases to the following fuel rate categories:
1. Retail self service Avgas at the pump, (currently 77.5 cents per gallon)
2. Wholesale Jet fuel flowage fee, (currently 31 cents per gallon)
3. Pre -paid Avgas discount to flight schools, (currently 31 cents less the self serve retail rate of 77.5 cents per
gallon)
Currently, there is approximately $1 million dollars per year in retail fuel margin at GTU, shared by the private
sector operators with retail fueling rights. This is primarily in jet fuel sales, in that the private operators are
currently offering avgas at roughly the same price as the city, (approximately $5 per gallon). The city should
consider all of the available options in determining what would make the most practical sense in potentially
improving its revenue stake in the GTU fueling operation. The onus for increasing the city's revenue stake is tied
to the fact that the city carries a cost burden and liability not shared by the fixed base operators in operating
and maintaining the only fuel farm at the airport.
There is a general rule of thumb that states that it takes approximately one million gallons of fuel flow to
support one fixed base operation. Currently, GTU has roughly between 720,000 to 750,000 gallons of annual fuel
flow throughput. The annual fuel flow retail margin at GTU is currently split between four different operators,
including the City. There are two full service FBO's in Aero Centex and Longhorn Jet Center, and two partial retail
operations, in Gantt Aviation and the City. Because the annual fuel flow is Tess than one million gallons, with four
operators sharing in the retail fuel margin, it makes it difficult for any of the groups to succeed financially, which
may have a bearing in the long term on reinvestment in facilities, and overall customer service. For this reason
the City should adopt a set of minimum standards for fixed base operators that would ensure a high level of
service and a reasonable level of initial investment for any potential new fueling operators. The long term goal
should be to balance the need for competition with the need for maintaining healthy businesses that will offer a
high level of customer service at the airport.
Exclusive fueling is a concept and program that some general aviation airports in the United States have gone
back to in order to help them achieve their operational and capital development break even need. Exclusive
fueling is one of numerous commercial rights that are conferred on all airports, by the federal government, at
the point of property conveyance. Typically, these fueling rights are offered to private sector fixed base
operators, as they are better set up to perform the full range of services that fueling entails. In some cases,
airports have rescinded, purchased, or taken back the right to provide fueling on an exclusive basis. In the right
setting, exclusive fueling for the airport can provide substantial revenue upside potential, and an increase to
level of service provided to the general aviation community.
There is a range of fueling options that the City might consider going forward. Each of the options would offer
the City certain revenue and cost considerations that should be further evaluated. The range of options is:
1. The current limited retail fueling operation: No additional changes in staff, equipment, or service offering.
2. A full retail fueling set up- non exclusive: Would require additional City staff, a hangar facility, retail fueling
equipment, and a remodeled central terminal building to include higher end customer service
3. A partnership with a private fixed base operator: Would require either a management agreement, or a
concession agreement with a private sector FBO. Would require a remodeled central terminal building to
44 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
include higher end customer service amenities. If an arrangement is reached with one of the existing FBO's
those existing facilities and equipment and staff can be utilized.
4. An exclusive fueling arrangement for the City: Would require additional City staff, the full range of retail
fueling equipment, a hangar or hangars, and a remodeled central terminal building.
Following are general revenue and cost considerations for each of the four options:
• Fueling option #1, current operation: would entail the same costs as existing, with an improved ROI
through a rate adjustment. The potential revenue increase would be $60,000 to $120,000 per year.
• Options #2 would require: approximately $250,000 dollars to renovate the existing central terminal
building, (possibly TxDot grant eligible). The additional operating costs for equipment and staff, would
run roughly $225,000 per year, and potential additional revenues would be $250,000 to $350,000 per
year.
• Option #3 would require: approximately $250,000 dollars to renovate the existing central terminal
building, (possibly TxDot grant eligible). The private operator should pick up all existing fuel related staff
costs. Potential net revenues would range from approximately $300,000 to $600,000 depending upon
which management option, (management agreement, or concession agreement) is chosen as
preferable.
• Option #4 would require: the same facility improvements and requirements as options #2 and #3, with
additional staffing and equipment costs up to $400,000 per year, and a negotiated price to secure
exclusive fueling rights. The annual revenue potential would be approximately $600,000 which would be
net of all expenses.
Regardless of which option the city chooses, it is very important that a commercial balance is maintained at GTU
so that any and all fueling operators will remain financially viable, and able to reinvest in the airport, and
continue to offer a competitive level of service to airport users. 2
3.4.3 Management Options
This business case analysis considered several airport management options that the City might consider to help
move the airport forward in its development. The three primary options for managing an airport such as GTU
would be:
• City managed (current method)
• Private contract managed
• Fully privatized
There are many pros and cons associated with each of these potential management options, and these are listed
section 5 of this executive summary. The airports selected to be part of the best practices analysis in this report,
were selected to offer examples of these potential management options. Of the three potential management
options considered, City managed, and private contract managed options are considered to be the most viable
in the immediate and short term. The fully privatized option might present itself as an option, if GTU were to
attain exclusive fueling rights at some point in the future. Under current operating conditions, GTU does not
have sufficient commercial /revenue upside potential to provide the needed returns that a company would need
in order to make a full airport privatization work financially.
According to our analysis, the two most viable management options; City managed, and private contract
managed would offer the City some of the following important considerations before choosing a long term path:
2 The four fueling options implicate escalating levels of legal issues which will require advice from the City Attorney.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 45
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
1. City managed: current staff must be reorganized around a strong business development and business
management focus in order to have the financial returns that would keep the airport operationally viable.
2. Private contract managed: in this public - private partnership arrangement, the private operator would
require a flat management fee, and an incentive based contract driven by market growth
requirements /improvements. This would require active management oversight and development support
on behalf of the City in order for both parties to be successful.
As a result of our financial analysis, both of these options will have some difficulty in attaining an operational
break even need. Both options would continue to require a City general fund commitment to cover local share
of large capital expense in those years where a large capital expenditures are planned. The analysis findings
show a small benefit in favor of the private contract management option with regard to attaining an operational
break even. This is primarily due to the stronger business management and business development incentive
based contract that the private contract management company would operate under.
A further more detailed analysis of these options is included in the recommendations section of this executive
summary. The recommendations section details the necessary; administrative set up, staffing, and business
development focus that will allow either of these management options to be successful going forward.
3.4.3.1 Airport Authority
An airport authority was not considered specifically as part of this analysis, primarily because it may not operate
substantially different from that of the existing City managed airport. In a typical business charter for an airport
authority, the organization remains in a tight orbit with its parent organization (in this case, the City of
Georgetown), while having the advantage of some administrative autonomy that would allow the organization
to move more quickly, and to operate from a stronger business management focus. In our opinion, airport
authorities when well chartered can offer an excellent business platform from which to manage a successful
airport operation. From this perspective, the establishment of an airport authority is something well worth
consideration on the part of City management, and City Council. 3
3.4.4 Administrative Implications
As mentioned in the previous section, the two most viable airport management options will continue to struggle
to meet operational break even and over time, with improvements to the airport revenue base, financial self
sufficiency is possible.. To the extent that many of the recommendations in this analysis are implemented,
operational break even can be attained, but short of improved fueling and leasing revenue production, at a
minimum, local share of capital improvement costs will fall back to the City general fund for financial support.
One of the goals of this analysis was to capture a variety of different airports in our best practices analysis. This
variety of airport charters, management options, and revenue production types, was meant to give the City an
indication of what is working in the airport industry, and what might work for GTU in the future.
The seven airports brought into our best practices analysis have operating characteristics as depicted in Table 3-
8.
3 The establishment of an airport authority would involve legal tasks, but not significant legal obstacles.
46 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -8
Best Practices Analysis
Operating Characteristics of Interviewed Airports
Airport Name
Type of
Governance i/
Operationally
Break Even
Local Share of
Capital Costs
Covered
Short Fall Funding Non - traditional
Source z/ Revenue Source
Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO),
WA
Jacksonville Executive at Craig
Airport (CRG), FL
Denton Municipal Airport (DTO), TX
Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG),
FL
Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO), VA
Morristown Municipal Airport
(MMU), NJ
San Marcos Municipal Airport (HYI),
TX
City Department under
City Manager
Aviation Authority
City Department
Aviation Authority
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Town Owned, Yes
Department of Town
City Owned with
Management Contract
City Department with a
contract management
agreement
Yes
Yes
Yes N/A
No Authority
Yes N/A
Yes N/A
No City General Fund
No Management
Company
No City General Fund
Industrial Park
Golf Course
Ground Lease and
Timber Sales
Natural Gas Lease
Exclusive Fueling
FAA Regional
Security Office
Lease
None
None
Notes:
1/ Type of Governance options: airport authority, town or city managed, city managed /management contract
2/ Short Fall Funding Source options: general fund, management company, or authority
From the above table, some initial conclusions can be drawn. It can be concluded that many airports in the same
general size band as GTU are reasonably successful at covering their annual operating costs, but still struggle to
meet local share of capital development requirements. Those airports that are successful in both meeting their
operational break even need, and their annual capital development needs, do so because of the extent of their
land lease business base, or a non - traditional revenue source. In the case of Denton Texas, their natural gas
lease is used to help ensure break even need for capital programs. In the case of Herlong airport in Florida, their
exclusive fueling operation offers the airport both operational and capital development break even. In the case
of Morristown in New Jersey, their operational and capital break even success is based on the magnitude of
their high end aircraft business, and the extent of their existing land lease revenues.
3.4.5 GTU Marketing /Branding
A recommendation of this analysis and report is for the City of Georgetown to develop a top down vision for
GTU going forward. This unified vision is necessary for the airport to move forward to meet its financial goals
and needs. More importantly, as one of the most significant transportation related economic development sites
in the City, a unified vision will relate directly to jobs and economic viability for the City's future. A policy
statement from the City Council regarding the unified vision for the airport would allow staff to work to achieve
the vision.
Secondary to, but directly related to the vision, is the branding of GTU. Currently the airport struggles to define
itself, and therefore, the branding of the airport is currently undefined. An assumption of this study is that the
airport will continue to be developed to accommodate both leisure aviation and the higher end business aircraft
market. If this is the vision that City leaders wish for GTU, then a more descriptive branding and marketing
program can be developed for the airport. This clear cut brand and resulting marketing program for GTU is
essential to both keep existing businesses and to attract new businesses to the City.
The resulting top down branding and marketing program that would result from the City visioning exercise could
include versions of the following airport brands: "Georgetown Executive Airport "; "Georgetown Business
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
47
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Airport "; "North Austin Regional Airport at Georgetown "; etc. A branding process that defines GTU is considered
essential for the airport to move forward, and achieve its economic development and financial goals for the City.
Airport visioning and branding is a best practice that is consistent with all of the successful airport operations
that this analysis has touched on.
3.4.6 Physical Layout, Capital Program and Planning
CH2MHILL has reviewed the current GTU master plan document as it pertains to improving business activity,
market growth potential, and Capital development. The current GTU master plan is now outdated, and in need
of an FAA /TxDOT funded update. In this update, certain key analyses should be completed that will help guide
the airport toward a stronger business based bottom line. For reference, business development items being
pointed out that should be addressed in an upcoming master plan update would be the following:
• The potential to extend Runway 18/36 in any appreciable amount
• Development of an airport security plan
• A land use plan
As runway length considerations are central to potential marketing opportunities, some added discussion on
runway length is provided below.
The new master plan should also reassess the 5, 10 and 20 year capital improvement program for GTU. This
planning process will both update and revalidate the current airport capital improvement program projects as
presented in the next section.4
3.4.6.1 Capital Program
The current Capital program for GTU is depicted in the following tables. Capital programs for GTU are
administered through Texas Department of Transportation, (TxDot), under a block grant program funded by the
FAA airport improvement program, (AIP). Because of the nature of federally funded projects, most of the CIP
projects listed are airfield related.
Tables 3 -9 and 3 -10 depict the current 20 year capital program for GTU, which runs from the year 2000 to the
year 2020. Table 3 -11 is a detail of short term capital projects that are scheduled to begin in 2014. Of these
projects, the fuel farm relocation and the realignment of taxiway A are the largest, and also offer a substantial
long term benefit to GTU. The fuel farm relocation will offer GTU a new state of the art environmentally sound
facility for the long term future. Taxiway A realignment will offer the airport additional high value development
area, which can be leveraged for ground lease revenue improvement.5
4 Runway extension and and use planning will involve many legal issues, primarily in the area of eminent domain and municipal land use law, but some
aviation issues will be implicated.
5 The projects listed in the tables below involve primarily construction, environmental, and administrative law issues, but no significant obstacles.
48 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -9
The Current 20 Year Capital Program (Page 1)
Printed: 10/23/2012
Revised: 10/10/2012
Texas Airport System Plan
Airport Development Worksheet
DEVELOPMENT BY TIME PERIOD
Pago 1 of 2
Airport: GEORGETOWN MUNI Airport ID: GTU
Associated City: GEORGETOWN NPIAS Site #:48 -0093 FAA Site #: 23934 *A
'Status Codes: U- Unassigned, D- Draft, C -CIP, A- Active, F- Finished, X -Disc. Req. "Totals Only Include Items with Status Code = U, D, X or C
Project Proj Airport Proj Wk Code Item
Project Description Time Period : 00 -OS
1 Cost Purp Comp Type ID Status'
Expand apron /relocate taxilane north of terminal (3100 sy) 232,500 CA AP EX 2 U
Expand apron /relocate taxilane south of terminal (2110 sy) 232,500 CA AP EX 2 U
Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 18 -36 ends 210,000 RE AP IM 4 U
Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 11 -29 ends 182,000 RE AP IM 4 U
Rehabilitate ramp at T- hangar B & C (300 x 50) & (300 x 40) 17,994 RE AP IM 4 U
Mark terminal apron tie -downs 5,000 RE AP IM 4 U
Relocate ASOS/ or Install AWOS for terminal apron expansion 120,000 ST EQ WX 41 U
Acquire and southwest of RW 11 -29 (2 ac) 28,000 ST LA DV 99 U
Engineer /design fuel farm 100,000 OT OT FF 113 U
Environmental studies (Karst & EDDA) 33,000 EN PL MA 140 U
Rehabilitate RW 11 -29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.) 205,002 RE RW IM 155 U
Mark RW 11 -29 (4331 sf) 4,331 RE RW IM 155 U
Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50) 106,668 RE TW IM 198 U
Rehabilitate mid -field hangar access TWs (5500 sy) 33,000 RE TW IM 198 U
Rehabilitate south corporate hangar TW (1500 x 150) 30,000 RE TW IM 198 U
Rehabilitate north T- hangar access TWs (10,416 sy) 27,040 RE TW IM 198 U
Rehabilitate south hangar access TW (300 x 50) 9.996 RE TW IM 198 U
Install MIRLs & signage for RW 11 -29 495,000 SP TW LI 201 U
Construct parallel mid intersecting TW 8 (900 x 50) 375,000 ST TW CO 202 U
Construct north connecting stub T to RW (435 x 50) 181,200 ST TW CO 202
W U
Pavement demo & sod 65,000 CA AP EX 2 C
Apron layout & marking. 15,000 CA AP EX 2 C
Install new airfield signage (21) 54,600 ST OT SG 134 C
Rehabilitate RW 18 -36 (5000 x 100) 465,000 RE RW IM 155 C
Mark RW 18 -36 (37,700 sf) 55,000 RE RW IM 155 C
Replace MIRLS RW 11 -29 (4100 ft) 320,000 SP RW LI 158 C
Replace MIRLs RW 18 -36 (5000 If) 320,000 ST RW LI 170 C
Contingency, admin. fees, RPR, etc. 91,554 170 C
Install PAPI -2 RW 11 -29 180,000 ST RW VI 176 C
Construct realign new parallel TWA (5480 x 50) & connecting stub TWs 2,910,000 RE TW IM 198 C
Contingency, admin. fees, RPR, etc. 645,000 RE TW IM 198 C
Engineering /design for parallel TWA & lighting 560,000 RE TW IM 198 C
Install MITLs & signage TWA 495,000 SP TW LI 201 C
Install MITLs on new parallel TW B (1800 If) 99,000 SP TW LI 201 C
Install MITLs TW C & E 2100 If) 189,000 ST 7W IM 204 C
Relocate fuel farm 800,000 OT OT FF 234 C
Contingency, admin.fees, RPR, etc. RE AP IM 4 A
Rehabilitate north hangar access area (16,800 sy) RE AP IM 4 A
Rehabilitate mid hangar access area (9985 sy) RE AP IM 4 A
Acquire RPZ RW 36 (7.15 ac.) ST LA SZ 102 A
Acquire RPZ RW 11 (6.8 ac) ST LA SZ 102 A
Acquire RPZ/ TSS land RW 29 (4.7 ac) ST LA SZ 102 A
Environmental studies EN PL MA 140 A
Environmental studies EN PL MA 140 A
Improve RSA RW 36 ST RW SF 167 A
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 49
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -10
The Current 20 Year Capital Program (Page 2)
Texas Airport System Plan
Airport Development Worksheet
Printod: 10/23/2012
Revised: 10/1012012 DEVELOPMENT BY TIME PERIOD
Page 2 of 2
Airport: GEORGETOWN MUNI
Associated City: GEORGETOWN NPIAS Site #:48 -0093
Airport ID: GTU
FAA Site #: 23934. *A
'Status Codes: U- Unassigned, D -Draft, C -CIP, A- Active, F- Finished, X -Disc. Req.
"Totals Only Include Items with Status Code = U, D, X or C
Project Description Time Period : 00 -05
Pro 1 P
Protect
Cost
Proj
Purp
Airport
Comp
Proj
Typo
Wk Code
ID
Item
Status`
Improve RSA southwest side RW 36 (Corp. Eng. rock drainage put in pipe
ST
RW
SF
167
A
& buried)
Engineering/design
ST
RW
SF
167
A
Rehabilitate corporate taxiway (south area) (28,000 sy)
RE
TW
IM
198
A
Widen taxilane to T- hangars E,F & G (510 x 50) & relocate fire hydrant.
ST
TW
IM
204
A
Obstruction Survey (Planning Grant)
XX
XX
XX
555
A
RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance.
OT
OT
CO
999
A
RAMP: TxDOT to contract for AWOS Maintenance, Sponsor to contract for
airport general maintenance projects.
OT
OT
CO
999
A
Time Period : 00 -05 "Total Cost :
S 9,892,385
Project Description Time Period : 06 -10
Pro 1 p
Project
Cost
Prof
Purp
Airport
Comp
Proj
Type
Wk Code
ID
Item
Status'
Rehabilitate aprons (36,000 sy)
216,000
RE
AP
IM
4
U
Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 11 -29 ends
182,000
RE
AP
IM
4
U
Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 18 -36 ends (2800 sy)
16,800
RE
AP
IM
4
U
Rehabilitate RW 18 -36 (5000 x 100)
333,336
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Rehabilitate RW 11 -29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.)
205,002
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Mark RW 18 -36 (37,700 sf)
37,700
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Mark RW 11 -29 (28,500 sf)
28,500
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Rehabilitate & mark TWs A & C (6500 x 50)
216,666
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50) (12,500 lbs.)
106,668
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate mid -field hangar access TWs (5500 sy)
33,000
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate south corporate hangar TW (1500 x 150)
30,000
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate north T- hangar access TWs (10,416 sy)
27,040
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate south hangar access TW (300 x 50)
9.996
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Time Period : 06 -10 "Total Cost :
5 1,442,708
Project Description Time Period : 11 -20
Pro 1 P
Project
Cost
Proj
Purp
Airport
Comp
Proj
Typo
Wk Code
ID
Item
Status'
Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 11 -29 ends
182,000
RE
AP
IM
4
U
Rehabilitate aprons (36,000 sy)
36.000
RE
AP
IM
4
U
Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 18 -36 ends (2800 sy)
12,480
RE
AP
IM
4
U
Rehabilitate RW 18 -36 (5000 x 100)
333,336
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Rehabilitate RW 11 -29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.)
205,002
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Mark RW 18 -36 (37,700 sf)
37,700
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Mark RW 11 -29 (4331 sf)
4,331
RE
RW
IM
155
U
Rehabilitate & mark TWs A & C (6500 x 50)
216,666
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50) (12,500 lbs.)
106,668
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate mid -field hangar access TWs (5500 sy)
33,000
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate south corporate hangar TW (1500 x 150)
30,000
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate north T- hangar access TWs (10,416 sy)
27,040
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Rehabilitate south hangar access TW (300 x 50)
9,996
RE
TW
IM
198
U
Time Period : 11 -20 "Total Cost :
5 1,234,219
Time Period: 0 -20 **Total Cost : S
12,569,312
50 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -11
Short Term Capital Projects
AVIATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 1'ROGRANI Texas Department of Transportation -- Aviation Division
Locations. Projects. and Costs October 23, 2012
FF.DE RA I, & STATE F1' 2015 Federal FY 2015 (October 2014 - September 20151 Stato FY 2015 (September 2014 - August 2015)
City & Proloct Status & ProJoct Costs
Airport Description Total Federal State Local
GEORGETOWN
GEORGETOWN MUNI
Project Status:
PENDING
Rehabilitate RW 18 -36 (5000 x 100)
Mark RW 18.36 (37.700 sf)
Install MITLs TW C & E 2100 II)
Pavement demo & sod
Construct/realign new parallel TWA (5480 x 50) & connecting stub TWs
Relocate fuel farm
Contingency, admin. fees. RPR, etc.
Apron layout & marking.
Install MITLs & signage TW A
Install MITLs on new parallel TW B (1800 11)
465.000 418,500 0 46.500
55,000 49,500 0 5.500
189.000 170,100 0 18.900
65.000 58.500 0 6.500
2.910,000 2,619,000 0 291.000
800.000 720,000 0 80,000
645,000 580,500 0 64.500
15.000 13,500 0 1,500
495,000 445.500 0 49,500
99,000 89.100 0 9.900
Prof oct Totals: 5 5,738,000 5 5,164,200 5 0 5 573,800
Additional Short Term Capital Projects
This business case analysis has made recommendations that will also involve capital improvements in order for
the recommendations to be carried out. Below is a listing of short, medium and longer term capital
improvement projects that result from recommendations in this study:
Short term projects, (0 -2 years)
Updated GTU airport master plan; estimated $350,000, eligible for federal grant participation through TxDot,
estimated local share; $35,000
Lower overhead lines on development parcel "D" to allow for setback requirements necessary for establishing a
new bank of T- Hangars, estimated local share; $100,000
Establish an annual airport planning fund and function through TxDot and utilizing TxDot on -call engineering
resource to assist with site specific layout planning and environmental analysis in support of the GTU property
and business development initiatives. Estimated annual local share; $25,000 per year
Demolition and replacement of hangar building "A" estimated local share; $15,000. Not to be demolished before
the existing tenant use can be relocated. The site is a premium aviation development site that could generate
development interest if marketed to the private sector through an RFP process. Other hangar facilities coming
available in the short term could also be used to relocate tenant use.
Medium term projects, (2 -5 years)
Establish an annual property development fund to perform site specific improvements on developable parcels in
support of the GTU property and business development initiatives to potentially include; clearing and grubbing,
grading and drainage, utility connections, etc. estimated annual local share; $50,000 per year.
Central Terminal Building; Remodel and upgrade amenities, potential restaurant addition. The "public space" in
this building can be eligible for federal grant participation. Estimated project cost; $250,000. Estimated local
share; $125,000 (potential for TxDot participation).
Security upgrades; cameras, fencing, motorized gates, lighting improvements. These upgrades can be eligible for
federal grant participation if made a part of the upcoming master plan. Estimated project cost; $175,000.
Estimated local share; $17,500.6
6 All of the state and federal "grant participation" suggestions involve administrative and aviation law issues, but no significant legal obstacles.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 51
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Longer term projects, (5 -15 years)
Hangar demolition; as facility leases terminate, and as necessary, given new facilities available to accommodate
tenant uses. Buildings 12, 32, 36, 37. Estimated local share; $40,000.7
3.4.6.2 Extending Runway 18/36
Extending Runway 18/36 would most likely generate some local neighborhood controversy. Additionally, an
extension would be very difficult to accomplish technically, due to Runway Safety Area (RSA) considerations at
both runway ends 18 and 36.
Understanding and developing options for dealing with the technical runway extension impacts on each runway
end would be the primary subject of a master plan update. Ultimately, the decision regarding adding runway
length at GTU will come down to the cost both political and for potential property purchase, balanced against
the safety and market development costs of not having the additional runway length. 8
3.4.6.3 Runway Length Analysis
A runway length analysis was performed in an effort to better understand the potential business aircraft
marketing impacts due to runway length at GTU. Refer to Tables 3 -12 and 3 -13 and Figure 3 -1 below.
TABLE 3 -12
GTU Runway Length Analysis
Aircraft Manufacturer Data Method
Corporate Jet Type
MTOW (Ibs)
Range (nm)
Takeoff
Length
(MTOW)
Adjusted
Takeoff
Weight
Takeoff Length
(Adjusted
Weight)
Useful Load at
Adjusted Takeoff
Weight
Notes
m
m
'a
Gulfstream V
89,000
6,750
7,600
(Chart not available)
Elev. 760 ft; 97 °F.
Falcon 900EX
48,300
4,500
7,500
42,500
5,000
75%
Elev. 1,000 ft; 97 °F. 20° flaps
Hawker 4000
39,500
3,190
7,340
32,000
4,900
53%
Elev. 1,000 ft; 97 °F. 0° flaps
-6 2 $
us
Citation XLS
20,200
1,940
4,800
(Max)
4,800
100%
Elev. 1,000 ft; 97 °F. 15° flaps
Learjet45
20,200
2,000
5,350
(Chart not available)
EIev.760ft;97 °F.
E
`n
Citation 03
13,870
1,900
4,850
(Max)
4,850
100%
EIev. 1,000 ft; 97°F. 0° flaps
Beechcraft Premier
12,500
1,175
6,565
11,500
4,840
75%
Elev. 1,000 ft; 97°F. 0° flaps
*Source: various aircraft manufacturer planning charts.
Fleet Source: Sampling of high -end corporate jets
Notes:
General: runway lengths provided are estimates only. Distances are for max weight, adjusted for the field elevation of 790' MSL, calm winds, zero slope,
and mean hottest temperature of 97° F where possible, unless otherwise noted. Where max weigth takeoff distances exceeded, an adjusted load was
determined to fall within the 5,000' runway length (where charts were available for such calculations).
7 Whether to demolish and rebuild, lease "reversionary" hangars to a master tenant, or to retain and manage such hangars for direct lease, involve several
legal issues.
8 Aviation counsel can provide RSA dimensions if needed to consider the economic and non - economic costs. Runway extension legal issues would be
numerous.
52 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
FIGURE 3 -1
GTU Runway Length Chart
Aircraft Manufacturer Data Method
Corporate Aircraft
Gulfstream V
Falcon 900EX
Hawker 4000
Citation XLS
Learjet 45
Citation Ci3
Beechcraft Premier
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Landing Distance Requirement
• Takeoff Length
(Adjusted Weight)
Takeoff Length
(MTOW)
Existing Runway 18/36
Length (5,000')
Prepared by: CH2M HILL, 2013.
TABLE 3 -13
GTU Runway Length Analysis
FAA Airport Design Software Methodology (AD42d.exe)
Aircraft Category
Runway length Requirement (ft)
Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs. with less than 10 seats
75% of Small Aircraft Fleet
2,860
95 % of Small Aircraft Fleet
3,400
100% of Small Aircraft Fleet
4,040
Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs with 10 or more seats
4,540
Airplanes greater than 12,500 lbs. and less than 60,000 lbs.
75 % of fleet at 60% useful load
5,100
75 % of fleet at 90% useful load
7,530
100 % of fleet at 60% useful load
6,250
100 % of fleet at 90% useful load
9,780
Airplanes over 60,000 lbs
Length of Haul — 2,100 miles (GTU — SEA)
8,180
Length of Haul —1,800 miles (GTU — NY)
7,700
Length of Haul —1,500 miles
7,190
Length of Haul —1,200 miles
6,650
Length of Haul — 500 miles
5,290
Source: FAA AC 150/5325 4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, AD42D.exe Design Software
Note: Design Software has been discontinued as of the most recent AC 150/5300 -13a update. Data provided is for comparison only.
Assumptions: Field elevation of 790' MSL, zero slope, and mean hottest temperature of 97° F
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
53
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
According to the runway length analysis, the following broad conclusions can be drawn with respect to the
5,000 feet of runway at GTU:
• 5,000 feet is minimally acceptable for all but the very largest (Gulfstream 5) class of business jets.
• Midsized business jets (Learjet 45) class of business jets can operate on a 5,000 -foot runway with only minor
maximum gross takeoff weight penalties.
• 100 percent of the small aircraft fleet in the less than 12,500 pound gross takeoff weight category can
operate on Tess than a 5,000 -foot runway.
• 75 percent of the business aircraft grouping in the 12,500 to 60,000 pound gross takeoff weight category
can operate on 5,100 feet of runway at a 60 percent useful load.
From a marketing perspective, additional runway length up to roughly 8,000 feet is always a safety and aircraft
performance consideration for any corporation making decisions about where to base their aircraft. Because of
this consideration, it is important to the airport's future that the City continue to plan for and pursue options
that would result in even minor runway length increases at GTU.
Also from a marketing perspective, in favor of the current runway length at GTU, Georgetown is in the center of
the U.S. geographically, which allows many of the business aircraft fleet to reach either coast with less than their
full takeoff weight fuel load. Additionally, the GTU market could continue to grow with a strong marketing
program aimed solely at medium and small business jet operators.
3.4.6.4 Runway Length, Market Share and Business Case
As previously noted, 5,000 feet of runway is minimally acceptable for most corporate aircraft to operate at an
airport. Most business aircraft owners make airport location decisions based upon the following criteria:
convenience to their business location; convenience to their executive residences; services and amenities; and
their aircraft size and performance versus runway length. Because of the variables that go into making an airport
base decision, it is difficult to project in a linear fashion how much more business would come to GTU with an
additional 500 or 1,000 feet of runway. It is safe to say that GTU market share increases for business aircraft will
continue to be a function of business and economic development activity in the near proximity of the airport.
As discussed, the upcoming airport master plan update should fully address all aspects, and develop a business
case for a runway extension at GTU. According to our airfield engineers, a 1,000 foot runway extension with
associated parallel taxiway would cost approximately $900,000 dollars to construct. This does not include the
cost to move a roadway, (runway 36 approach), or to purchase property, (runway 18 approach). The master plan
should consider the relative costs and impacts associated with these, and find an acceptable business case
balance. Additionally regarding a business case approach, the master plan should consider making a strong case
for federal grant support which will come from classifying the runway extension as a safety, noise abatement or
capacity related project. In this way, even a $2,000,000 dollar total project cost would have a $200,000 dollar
local share requirement, which could be easily supported by the added marketing benefit of such an extension.
3.4.7 Economic and Business Development
As a part of the airport best practices evaluation of this study, the subject airports were interviewed regarding
their focus on business and economic development. A result of this study is to recommend that the GTU airport
manager be freed up to concentrate more fully on economic and business development.
From that standpoint, the more successful airport organizations interviewed all had a strong focus on
developing their property for both aviation and non - aviation land uses. One of the stronger economic
development programs interviewed was that of Denton, Texas. The Denton airport manager explains that his
airport is viewed as one large aviation economic development site. This focus has allowed Denton airport to
move toward financial self sufficiency through a robust facility and land lease revenue base.
54 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.4.7.1 Runway Length and Service Levels at GTU
In analyzing the future marketability and high end aviation user market share for GTU, there must be a
discussion about runway length and service levels. As GTU defines its role and vision, both runway length and
level of service must be addressed to avoid losing market share. Runway length notwithstanding, GTU is behind
its competitors in terms of high end services offered to corporate users. It is the opinion of the GTU study team
that service level gaps will need to be filled even if additional runway length is not possible in order to get to a
level of equal competitiveness in the Austin region. Service level gaps are viewed in; amenities offered, level of
corporate facilities, aesthetics, and trained personnel. The City should continue to work with the GTU fixed base
operators to improve these aspects of their business offering.
3.4.7.2 Property Development
GTU has numerous developable sites throughout the entire airport site. These sites vary in accessibility,
availability of utilities, and environmental considerations that have an impact on the each site's availability and
cost to develop. Because of these variations in each site, they have been categorized as immediately
developable and longer term developable, as illustrated and described in Figure 3 -2.
An important aspect of the master plan update will be the land use plan for GTU. In the master plan, the GTU
development sites will be reviewed with regard to whether or not they will be needed in the long term to
directly support aviation. Any parcels that are not needed to support aviation are eligible to receive a "non -
aviation" land use designation. As a non - aviation development parcel, the parcel can then be marketed to non -
aviation commercial /industrial /retail potential users. This designation improves the value and marketability of
the parcel, and improves the options that the airport would have to diversify and grow its land lease revenue
base.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 55
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
FIGURE 3-2
GTU Developable Sites and Parcel Descriptions
Immediate developmen
\ potential
Intermediate and tonger term
development potential
"
Potential reversion of property Vo
/77 the i rt
Immediate development potential:
Parcel A
This site is considered to be immediately developable for aviation, and aviation support uses. The west side of the
parcel is cleared and has direct *irfio|daccess capability. East side of the parcel wou!d require clearing and
environmental analysis. The site has some landside access constraints due to routing through the local
neighborhood. The potential turn back of the tennis center to the airport, (site L) would provide an alternate
|andoideocceua route to the west, which would be preferable to that of existing. Because of existing development
near the site, reasonable utility connections are assumed.
Parcel C
This is a premium immediate aviation development opportunity parcel. The site has excellent landside access via
airport road, as well as through the current internal airport roadway system. The site has potential direct airfield
access. Site utilities are assumed to be reasonably accessed through airport road, and as a continuation through
existing airport complex. This site was previously master planned for nested t-hangars. This site could potentially
be connected via internal roadway to the western site A, but this would be subject to FAA approval for a private
roadway traversing through a runway protection zone.
56
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CAS ANALYSIS
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Parcel D
This is a premium immediate aviation development opportunity parcel. This site has excellent landside access via
the existing internal airport roadway. It also has direct airfield access via an existing taxilane. The site would need
an initial investment of roughly $100,000 dollars to bury the above ground utilities that currently present a
geometric constraint for taxiing aircraft. The site was previously master planned for nested t- hangars, and has
been the subject of recent developer interest for t- hangar expansion.
Parcel E
Because of the central location of this site, and its landside roadway and airfield access, it is considered to be the
premier aviation development parcel currently available at GTU. The site currently houses the oldest buildings at
the airport, hangars A and B. These hangars are well past their useful life, and should be torn down in order to
open the site up to new development. The site is considered ideal for direct aviation (community hangars, high
end FBO facilities). The eastern part of the parcel that fronts the airport entrance roadway is considered to be
ideal for aviation support businesses, as well as potentially an aviation themed restaurant.
Parcels F
and K
These sites are considered to be immediately developable for direct aviation, aviation support, or FBO expansion
facilities. Site F would require some clearing, and both sites would require utility connections that should be
available in the central airport core. Both sites have very good landside roadway access, as well as airfield access
potential.
Parcel G
This site is considered to be immediately developable for direct aviation, aviation support, or FBO expansion. The
site would need clearing, drainage and utility connections. The site would need geometric layout improvements, to
improve taxilane access to the airfield.
Intermediate and longer term development potential:
Parcel H
This site is ideal for aviation, aviation support, and FBO expansion uses. The site is considered to be more
intermediate in nature because it will require more site specific improvements in order for it to be development
ready. The site will need clearing, some environmental analysis, utility connections and taxilane access to the
existing east apron area. While this is a good development site, it would cost more than other preferable sites at
GTU to be site ready, and is therefore considered to be more intermediate and long term in nature
Parcel I
This site is ideal for direct aviation uses. This site offers very good access to the airfield on both its west and north
perimeters. The site is considered more intermediate and long term in its development potential due to the cost to
bring in landside roadway access, site utilities and to perform the required clearing. The site will also need some
initial environmental analysis, and the northern part of the site will be somewhat height limited due to the
imaginary surface locations of the approach end of runway 29.
Parcel J
This site offers a large block site potential for aviation, aviation support and non - aviation commercial development
uses. The site would need access, planning and traffic impact approvals for access to the west side roadway
system. The site has environmental issues that would require mitigation in that cave spiders have already been
found on the site. This site should be more thoroughly master planned in the upcoming airport master plan
update. Through the master planning process, portions of this site might receive an FAA non - aviation designation,
which would make them available for non - aviation commercial /industrial development uses. Non - aviation
commercial /industrial uses could provide a very solid additional ground lease revenue source to the airport.
Parcel B
This site is ideal for aviation and aviation support uses. The site has very good potential airfield access
capabilities matching up to the existing parallel taxiway system on the west side. The site would require
investments in; an environmental analysis, site utility connections, clearing, and a taxilane connection to the
parallel taxiway system. This site is considered to be an intermediate to long term development opportunity due to
the site specific needs mentioned above.
Potential reversion of property to the airport:
Parcel L
This site offers the potential for immediate development and ground lease revenue opportunities for the airport.
The site also offers a west side landside public roadway connection that would help open up development
opportunities on adjacent site A. The reversion of this site to the airport would offer the potential for immediate
development opportunities on site A.9
Parcel 1 from the above plan on the west side of GTU appears to have potential as a future non - aviation land use
development site. Parcel L and adjoining parcels also have some potential as non - aviation designated
development sites.
9 This would involve legal issues.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
57
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.4.8 Maintenance Standards
As part of this study, CH2MHILL performed a site maintenance condition assessment walkthrough with our civil
and building engineers. In this walkthrough, we wanted to identify a general state of repair, and also assess the
level of maintenance necessary to bring the facilities up to good repair and thus extend their useful life. Tables
3 -14 and 3 -15 below highlight the summary of the airfield and facilities assessments conducted in October of
2012. Building ID's listed in Table 5 refer to Figure 3 -3 below, provided by the Airport.
TABLE 3 -14
Georgetown Airfield Pavement Condition Assessment
Area Assessment 1
Taxiway A
Taxiway B and D
Taxiway B and D
Taxiway C
Runway 11 -29
Runway 11 -29
Shoulders
Runway 18 -36
Runway 11 -29
Holding Aprons
Runway 18 -36
Holding Aprons
Terminal Ramp
Hangar
Taxilanes
Overall in good condition. Minor cracking and weathering. Will require
maintenance in the next 0 -5 years to maintain this condition.
Recommend rehabilitation consisting of an overlay in 5 -10 years.
Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every
8 -10 years after.
Overall in good condition. Minor cracking and weathering. Will require
maintenance in the next 0 -5 years to maintain this condition.
Recommend rehabilitation consisting of an overlay in 5 -10 years.
Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every
8 -10 years after.
Missing centerline reflectors on Taxiway B. To be included in short term
maintenance.
Several cracks on Taxiway C. An overlay is recommended in the next 0 -5
years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed
every 8 -10 years after.
Recently seal coated. Reconstructed in 1994 and a rehabilitation was
completed in 2002. Several cracks on runway that require repair.
Rehabilitation consisting of an overlay is recommended in the next 0 -5.
Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every
8 -10 years after.
In failed condition. Severe cracking with weed growth throughout.
Recommend removal of the pavement.
Recently seal coated. Overlaid in 1988 and a rehabilitation was
completed in 1998. Several cracks on runway that require repair.
Rehabilitation consisting of an overlay is recommended in the next 0 -5.
Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every
8 -10 years after.
Several cracks on holding aprons. An overlay is recommended in the next
0 -5 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be
needed every 8 -10 years after.
Holding aprons are in generally good condition. Crack repair and seal
coat is recommended in the next 0 -5 years, and 5 -10 years.
Rehabilitation with overlay is recommended in 11 -20 years.
Several cracks on the terminal aprons. An overlay is recommended in the
next 0 -5 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be
needed every 8 -10 years after.
Overall, hangar taxilanes are in generally good condition. Crack repair
and seal coat is recommended in the next 0 -5 years, and 5 -10 years.
Rehabilitation with overlay is recommended in 11 -20 years.
Comparison with CIP 2
The taxiway will be relocated in FY2015
3. The existing taxiway will be left in
place to provide access to the hangars.
Rehabilitation for the existing taxiway is
planned for 6 -10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Rehabilitation is planned for 0 -5 years, 6-
10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Rehabilitation is planned for 0 -5 years, 6-
10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Taxiway C is anticipated to be removed
as part of the Taxiway A relocation
project.
Rehabilitation is planned for 0 -5 years, 6-
10 years, and 11 -20 years.
No planned removal of the shoulders
Rehabilitation is planned for 0 -5 years
(FY2015 3), 6 -10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Rehabilitation is planned for 0 -5 years, 6-
10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Rehabilitation is planned for 0 -5 years, 6-
10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Rehabilitation is planned for 6 -10 year,
and for 11 -29 years.
Rehabilitation and maintenance is
planned for various hangar taxilanes for
0 -5 years, 6 -10 years, and 11 -20 years.
Notes:
1) Under the assessment category: Maintenance generally refers to crack seal and seal coat. Rehabilitation
asphalt surface.
2) Dates refer to those in the "Texas Airport System Plan" revised on 10/10/12 unless otherwise noted
3) Dates based on the Texas DOT — Aviation Division "Aviation Capital Improvement Program" dated Octob
generally refers to overlay or replacement of
er 23, 2012
58 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 3 -15
Georgetown Facilities Condition Assessment
Building Building Cost to Cost to
Building Name ID* Condition Demo Upgrade
Annual
Maintenance
Cost Estimate
Comments
Aircraft 2 Fair to N/A $25,000
Systems & Good
Manufacturing
Central Texas 7 Fair to N/A $10,000
Avionics Good
Civil Aviation
Building
Gantt Aviation
T - Hangar C
T - Hangar B
T - Hangar G
T - Hangar A
Draeger Motor
Company
Hangar D
Rent House
Terminal
Building
T - Hangars M,
N &0
12 Poor
19 Good to
Better
$2,000 to N/A
$10,000
N/A N/A
31 Fair N/A $15,000
32 Poor $5,000 N/A
35 Fair to N/A N/A
Good
38 Poor $15,000 N/A
39 Fair to N/A $15,000
Good
48 Fair to N/A $10,000
Good
49 Fair to
Good
51 Good to
Better
28, 29, Good
30
T - Hangars E & 33, 34 Fair to
F Good
Hex Hangars 36, 37 Fair
BB & CC
N/A $20,000
N/A N/A
N/A $15,000 per
hangar
N/A N/A
$10,000 $15,000 per
per hangar
hangar
$4,000
$3,000
N/A
$5,000
$1,000
$500 per
hangar
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
$1,500
$4,000
$1,500 per
hangar
$1,000 per
hangar
$1,000 per
hangar
Were not able to see inside the office areas or
inside the hangar. Upgrades could include new
carpet, new paint, new restroom fixtures and
new HVAC.
The building appeared to be in reasonable
condition. The interior office space could be
improved as well as the hangar lighting upgraded.
The exterior of the building will need to be
painted within the next 5 to 10 years.
The building should be demo'd. It may contain
asbestos. Consequently the demo cost can vary.
Building appeared to be in good condition. The
office areas and the lunch room had a restroom
and were air conditioned. Mr. Gantt stated that
the roof had been recently repaired.
The hangar could be upgraded with the addition
of an office and HVAC.
Needs demo —the hangar is 60 to 70 years old.
The hangar is simple aircraft storage. There is no
HVAC, no office areas and no restrooms.
Needs demo — the hangar is 60 to 70 years old.
The hangar could be upgraded with the addition
of an office and HVAC.
The building appeared to be in reasonable
condition. The interior could be improved as well
as the hangar lighting upgraded.
The house could be upgraded with central
heating and air conditioning.
The terminal building was in good condition and
had recently been upgraded.
The building appeared to be in good condition.
The interior partitions could be improved by
increasing the lighting and taking the partitions
that separate the hangar areas up to the
underside of the roof to increase security.
The hangar is simple aircraft storage. There is no
HVAC or restrooms. There is one office area in
each hangar.
The hangar is simple aircraft storage. There is no
HVAC or restrooms. The hangar has a dirt floor.
* Building ID refers to Figure 3 -3 below, provided by the Airport.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
59
INDUSTRY B� . PRACTICES
FIGURE 3 -3
e•
•
GTU Land Use Map and Building Identification
' '* 7.444 %.. ( •
.it•.... 4.1,
,.... _
i .., ,„„,,,, ' -tkI 12. • .. ..
.....
-,. . • ._ . ....„, --„r. - „ tikl?..9., .. _
..., .. ... 0,
"...tog' vk\INCA-
0 / E••••6' 414 • - (----------7.4i -
lt•,. IV CT-7g.
! tc,
i Ju'ff' r-------g --
CORSAIR DR . " 7 —,
1 — , -
1,-
•it: • .
••■•••••••••=e•••••••■1111mel•Ims•mme.•••
•
4.
„)
0 .•
0 .
..?o
.) .• . " f e• 4 4 4 ' 4P '-'-;
Y.
co
City Owned Property, Occupied
City Owned Property, Unoccupied
Land Leased, Occupied
Land Leased, Unoccupied
Foreclosed Property. Occupied
General Structure, Unoccupied
C )
• -r
1'1'4m • ••• • • us. II on) • am • • .1. O •
„ I
ft:;?
-0-
, . '-.. *a. ..'..-- *) , • ' - ' ''.1'''' ..
a ■ -4 . lit
''.A.-. .* ? ::% -....
. 14.. z __,...,..
...c• %.6.- * t4 s6..,4° 1..,-.• ,„.•• . ‘ 4
r,(;,,,,er it II
"44'
.• .
"0 ;-' ' ' . • , : : a
,..,.* ° • fir- " Ito. jak
it..7..i' t ..: ; 41 ' ,- • -. ‘.. P St "gir N -
7:".1P4114'14F
Ao
'
•
...j...•.„.. .
• `••■•...... I
'. 4% %* t ,.....:
• .,. 7 1,,, .•,v ,
%
• "1-"i. ^4T•
4t.70E
7.6
5
5
5
oa 2 3
2
E.!
o o
.0
kJ LI Lft
a)
LJ
;
J 0
Clark Thurmond
Darn,' lire ski
0 0
9
:7
nn far w on .1
O00000—
0 0 0 0 0 0 r.
7,1
3,
a
••1
91
•
11°
•%,- • `.% r
t ,
.Ct
Ili a
” 0
to
c
uJ
E
TR)
CU
4—,
0
4—)
1.
5
5 0
>-
0
0
V)
LJ 9
--i .
6 <
, 3
or
, „, ..c
CO M CO
,..7 ...7. LI
-; ..t ,.. N :7) _:,._
' 1 ;I'
7‘.
741
7.1
(9
-g
(.?
-a- 3
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Based on the facility assessment and analysis conducted it is recommended that the annual $50,000 dollar
repair and replacement maintenance budget be doubled to $100,000 in order to bring the GTU facilities up to a
reasonable state of repair, and extend their useful life.
3.4.8.1 Airfield Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Currently, GTU does not have a PCI rating for its airfield pavements. The pavement PCI is essential for
establishing a deterioration baseline, and for establishing a pavement maintenance program. Additionally, the
PCI will set the schedule and timing for more significant capital pavement maintenance (mill and overlay), which
is necessary to greatly extend the useful life of heavily used runway pavements.
A recommendation of this study is for GTU to work with TxDOT to scope and proceed with a non - destructive
pavement structural survey which will result in establishing a PCI on all airfield pavements. Upon establishment
of an airfield PCI, it is recommended that TxDOT be approached to help provide a complete pavement
maintenance program that can be followed and implemented by airport management.
3.4.9 Land Lease Documents
In reviewing industry best practices for airports of comparable size and operation, a comprehensive review of
GTU's strategic and operational documents was conducted. GTU's Land Lease Agreement template was
reviewed in depth to confirm the presence of provisions which provide for the fair and equitable leasing of real
property at GTU. The following paragraphs address consistencies and inconsistencies with industry best practice
language for Airport Ground /Land Lease agreements in the areas of Rental Rate Adjustment, Maintenance,
environmental, and Reversion of Improvements. Also included is a paragraph addressing land and hangar lease
agreement rental rates and the potential for review and adjustment.1°
3.4.9.1 Rental Rate Adjustment
GTU currently includes land lease language for scheduled rental rate adjustments in five -year increments during
the term of agreement using a Dallas consumer price index. During time of great economic fluctuation and
activity, five year adjustments can be significant. More recent common practice is to provide for annual
adjustments based on more universal price indices such as the CPI -U. Annual adjustments allow for a more
immediate response to economic changes with more palatable, nominal increases. Annual adjustments also
allow changes to occur when less than five year terms are in place or remaining on an agreement. Language
should also be included that reflects that under no circumstances would an annual adjustment result in a
decrease in rental rate.
3.4.9.2 Maintenance of Leased Premise
Language outlining parameters and limits of maintenance to be provided by both lessor and lessee should be
included in detail. Maintenance responsibilities are important aspects of a lessor /lessee relationship as they
possess both cost and aesthetic implications. GTU's maintenance language appears to be consistent with most
common airport industry language. It contains detailed responsibilities and identifies premise parameters. To
strengthen the maintenance provision further, a provision could be added to address the requirement for lessor
to enter leased premises to perform contract compliance inspections, perform maintenance required by lessee
and to stipulate further that the cost of such maintenance will be billed to lessee.
3.4.9.3 Environmental
Land Lease Agreements should contain provisions addressing the protection of the environment in accordance
with EPA, state, and local laws. A review of GTU's land lease agreement confirms the presence of current
industry language supporting stormwater regulations. However, the land lease agreement does not contain
provisions for operations involving hazardous materials regarding operations, compliance with regulations, and
remediation responsibilities. Sample language addressing environmental requirements is included in Appendix
B, Sample Lease Agreements.
10 All of Section 3.4.9 implicates legal issues.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 63
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.4.9.4 Reversion of Improvements
Reversion, as it relates to airport lease agreements, means that at the termination of a lease agreement
ownership of all tenant improvements revert to the property owner /lessor. The inclusion of reversionary
clauses in land lease agreements is standard practice within the airport industry for a number of reasons. Some
reasons include:
• A level of property owner control over development and use of airport property.
• Future revenue stream considerations as they relate to airport self - sustainability.
• Control over maintenance of tenant improvements
The goal of a reversion clause is to provide for the ability of an airport property owner to have a certain level of
control over the use, development, and expansion of airport real property. As an industry standard and best
practice GTU's land lease agreement template should include reversion provision language. The language
should allow for reversion of improvements and title to improvements to property owner; a provision for
reversion of improvements at lease termination prior to full term; and a provision for either reversion of
improvement or removal of improvements. By including all inclusive reversion language in a land use
agreement, the owner /lessor retained the flexibility to consider and select the best option for use and reuse of
leased airport property.
3.4.9.5 Rental Rates and Charges
A review of GTU's current rental rate schedule and proposed rental rate schedule for ground lease and t-
hangar /tie down areas indicates a need for a more in -depth study of GTU's market area to determine more
balanced revenue /rate /occupancy rate ratio. Currently rental rates do not provide an adequate ROI. This along
with a lengthy wait list for hangar space indicated a disparity in rental rates. The most recent proposed rate
schedule is presented in Appendix C. The establishment of fair and yet equitable base rates are a key factor
when considering future revenue streams as all contract driven rental adjustments are based on an established
beginning base rate. Base rates set too low do not support self sustainability in the long run. Base rates set too
high reduce marketability of facilities and low occupancy rates.
3.4.9.6 Leasing Recommendations
Upon completion of review and evaluation of existing and comparable land lease agreements it is recommended
GTU consider implementation of the following provisions.
1. Amend current and future lease agreements to include annual rental rate adjustments based on CPI -U.
2. Include rental adjustment language to reflect that under no circumstances will annual adjustments result in
a reduction in rental rates.
3. Language to allow for periodic, scheduled, contract compliance inspections of leased premises by GTU
should be added to maintenance and /or inspection sections of lease agreements. Language should include
provisions for GTU to perform required maintenance at tenant's expense.
4. Amend current and future lease agreements to include industry standard language regarding the handling,
use, storage, regulatory compliance, reporting, and cleanup of hazardous materials on leased premises.
Sample language is presented in Appendix B, Sample Lease Agreements.
5. Amend current and future lease agreements to include strong, clearly stated, reversionary language. Move
current language contained in ARTICLE III, Paragraph 3.02 (Term of Lease) regarding reversion to ARTICLE VI,
Paragraph 6.04 (Surrender of Premises). Add language to reflect that upon lease termination (not to include
default), current tenant will possess first right of refusal on negotiation of a new lease for premises.
6. Amend current and future lease agreements to reduce the 10 -year lease extension option to 5 -year options
which are more in line with industry standard. Continue with annual lease rate adjustments during each
executed option period.
64 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
7. Conduct a market survey of comparable airports with a goal of setting rental rates that provide a more
favorable economic balance. This base rate analysis will be the benchmark on which future rate review and
adjustments will be established.
8. With regard to contract management in general. It is recommended that GTU explore the acquisition of
online contact management software. The acquisition of such a program greatly increases the efficiency of
day -to -day contract management costs by automating functions such as contract date and milestone
alerting. It also allows multiple users "view only" access to actual copies of contracts and requires less labor
hours to manage.
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS 65
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.