Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Intro and Table of Contents - Century Plan - Airport Plan Element June 199817326/960507i CENTURY PLAN : AIRPORT PLAN ELEMENT Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan prepared for: The City of Georgetown and TxDOT Aviation Division prepared by: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. June' 1+998 � AIRPORT PLAN WORKING GROUP Airport Advisory Board Members Rondald Parker, Chair Donald Cole Al Fittipaldi Randy Smedley Dick Sowash (from January 1997) City Council Dick Vincent (through May 1997) Members At -Large James Accuntius - Serenada Neighborhood Deborah Boone - Brangus Ranch Neighborhood Beth Jenkins - Airport Fixed Base Operators Jim Spikes - Golden Oaks Neighborhood Staff and Consultant Travis McLain, Airport Manager Clyde von Rosenberg, AICP, Chief Long Range Planner Michelle Hannah, Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division William Griffin, P.E., Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 17326/960507 INTRODUCTION Pur ose The purpose of this Century Plan element is to provide both a policy direction and a detailed description of the future workin development group the Georgetown the City Council to represent the Having been approved by a citizen g gr P to insure interests of airport users and the s r in the be t interests of plan who usetthedairport as well as community, this that decisions about the airport ar e those who are directly or indirectly affected he 1 needs and finncin c capabilities and will be implement this plan will be based p City's reflected in subsequent Annual Operating Plan Elements approved by the City Council. In January of 1996, the City Council appointed a citizen working group, designated the Airport Plan Working Group. The Airport memberoa representative of the ahrport's fixed base Airport Advisory Board, a City Council ral operators and representatives of sevQhbo hoods. dThrough residenti contract areas, e administered ed bythe Teaas Brangus Ranch and Golden Oaks nela Department of Transportation's Aviation com l lete the technical work on the master plan. consultant, Espey, Huston & Associates, was chosen p The Working Group met, alowith 0ctober of 1996tandl from Octobeer of 1997 to Division staff, from March of 1996 through February of 1998 to complete work on e a second n public hearty held for June lt24,1 998 hearing on March 16, 1998 and has scheduled Following the incorporation of the input at Grou thntendsltohp esent the draft report o the City section of the Master Plan, the Working P Council at an as yet to be determined date in the future. 17326/960507 iii (-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Century Plan Explanation of "Ends" Statements The Airport Plan is a component of the City of Georgetown's comprehensive plan, known as the Georgetown Century Plan. The Policy Plan Element of the Century Plan contains the City's Mission Statement and Ends Statements for fourteen different Policy Areas. Ends statements are expressions of the ultimate desired result for each Policy Area. The Airport Plan Ends statements contained in the following section reflect the contributions of the Airport Plan Working Group and are part of the Transportation Policy Area. Each Policy Area has one Policy End, a broad, relatively permanent, expression of the ultimate desired result as expressed by the community's values. Each of the Ends statements is numbered for reference, based on its location in the Policy Plan. The Policy End statement for the Transportation Policy Area is numbered 12.0 and is presented in the following section for reference. Focus Ends are more specific descriptions of the results desired and expressed by the Policy Ends. The Airport Plan Working Group created eleven Focus Ends, 12.6 through 12.16, which specifically describe the Georgetown Municipal Airport's role in providing transportation for the community. These Ends statements were used as guidance in preparing the detailed master plan for airport improvements. The recommendations in the Airport Master Plan are, therefore, fully consistent with the Ends statements created by the Airport Plan Working group. Each year during the development of the City's Annual Operating Plan Element, City staff will create Means Statements to describe the specific activities, in support of the Ends, which are to be carried out during that fiscal year. The recommendations in this Airport Master Plan will be used to develop Means Statements in future Annual Operating Plan elements. Ends Statements Policy End 12.0 Georgetown's transportation system provides for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, promotes the economic interests of the community, and adequately serves the needs of individuals. (Adopted by City Council - Policy Plan Element) Airport Plan Focus Ends 12.6 The Georgetown Municipal Airport is an integral part of the transportation system and business activity as well as being a good citizen of the community. 12.7 There is direct public access to the areas east and west of the Georgetown Municipal Airport runways. 12.8 Funding for the Georgetown Municipal Airport's operations and facility development reflects the needs of the community, as expressed by the Airport Master Plan and the current Annual Operating Plan Element, and is authorized on the basis of prudent fiscal policies and planning. 17326/960507, iv 12.9 The Georgetown Municipal Airport primarily serves general aviation users operating with aircraft that are designed for safe operation on a runway length no greater than 5,000 feet, which is the maximum length of the main runway (Runway 18 -36) at Georgetown Municipal Airport, as certified by the City Council on November 13, 1990. 12.10 Airport facilities are served by the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. 12.11 The Georgetown Municipal Airport has adequate infrastructure, including hangar space, terminal facilities, commercial facilities, runways, taxiways, ramps, roadways and parking areas, to meet user demand for general aviation, in accordance with the Airport Master Plan. 12.12 The City provides matching funding to support State and Federal funds for the improvement of the airport infrastructure and facilities described in the Airport Master Plan. 12.13 The City provides long -term land leases for the construction of corporate /commercial hangars and aviation related businesses, in accordance with the Airport Master Plan. 12.14 The Georgetown Municipal Airport provides for professional services, including fueling, terminal operations and a UNICOM, which are efficient, customer service oriented, and financially beneficial to the City. 12. 15 The Georgetown Municipal Airport is zoned appropriately for the uses described in the Airport Master Plan and in consideration of the surrounding land uses 12.16 Noise from airport activities affecting surrounding residential areas is controlled. As previously stated, the Master Plan was prepared using the above Focus Ends as guidance. It is, therefore, intended that the recommendations in the Master Plan be fully consistent with the stated Focus Ends. Summary of the Master Plan The document summarized in the following is an Airport Master Plan for the Georgetown Municipal Airport. This report was funded by a grant from the Texas Department Transportation (TxDOT) Aviation Division. The Master Plan considers a twenty -year planning horizon and evaluates the projected needs of the airport on the basis of a comparison of existing facilities to facilities required to meet projected aviation demand. The Plan also provides recommendations for capital improvements to meet the projected demand. Finally, the Plan examines the Airport's fiscal operations and recommendations for improvements where noted. Airport Master Plans funded with TxDOT Block Grant funds are required to follow a specific format and include various stipulated planning elements. Accordingly, the Master Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport includes the following components: Inventory of Facilities Aviation Demand Forecasts 17326/960507 • Facility Requirements • Development Overview • Environmental Analysis • Airport Plans • Financial Analysis • Public Participation Each of the components will be briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. The Master Plan was begun with an inventory of the various facilities that make up the Georgetown Municipal Airport. The primary airside facilities are two runways, 18 -36 and 11 -29, which are 5,000 feet (ft) and 4,100 ft in length, respectively. These runways are served by a taxiway system that allows full taxiway access to all runway ends. The runways are both lighted. Runway orientation provides excellent wind coverage. In addition to the runway and taxiway system, airside facilities include a large terminal area apron and aprons which support operation of the airport's various fixed base operators (FBO's). The inventory section also covers landside improvements. Following the inventory section, projections were made for future aviation demand. The demand section addresses the following parameters. • Based aircraft by type • Numbers of aircraft operations, where an operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing. Operations are further classified as either being local or itinerant. • Number of operations per based aircraft • Peaking characteristics Projections are made on a twenty -year planning horizon in five year increments for the first ten years and a final ten year period. The most critical parameter forecast is based aircraft with the projections being as follows. FORECAST BASED AIRCRAFT Year Based Aircraft 1996 (a) 133 (a) 2000 150 2005 169 2015 244 (a) Actual While the demand section concentrates on Georgetown Municipal Airport's primary role as a general aviation airport, the possibility of scheduled commercial service is acknowledged. The potential for such service depends heavily on market factors that are beyond the scope of this study to analyze. While recognizing that a potential for the institution of air carrier service may exist, the City is not actively pursuing scheduled air service. Accordingly, if a viable prospect for the provision of air carrier service should emerge, it is recommended that the City's administration 17326/960507 Vi carefully evaluate the potential benefits to the community resulting from the provision of such service versus possible costs such as the provision of terminal facilities and associated adverse impacts such as increased air traffic. In determining if cooperation with private interests to bring such service to Georgetown Municipal Airport is warranted, due consideration must also be given to the fiscal practicality of the proposal and it's consistency with the City Council's previous action regarding the limitation of the length of the primary runway (18 -36) to 5,000 feet. Following the demand projection section, the adequacy of the existing facilities, as described in the inventory section, to meet the projected aviation demand is addressed. The conclusion of this analysis was that apart from required maintenance of existing pavements, lighting systems and Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs), little airside work, except that necessary to support additional hangar development is required. The need for the refurbishment or replacement of the Terminal Building was identified. As stated above, the most acute need at Georgetown Municipal Airport is for more hangar spaces to support potential new based aircraft. In order to support the new hangar development, several additional hangar access taxiways and aprons are required. These recommended improvements form the bulk of the expenditures in the recommended capital improvement program. Additionally, a number of infrastructure improvements such as roadways and water /wastewater utilities, particularly a central sanitary sewerage system, were also identified as being needed to support the additional hangar development. Finally, as an aid to the overall development at Georgetown Municipal Airport, it is recommended that the property be rezoned from its current category of Residential, RS -1, to a new Aviation /Industrial zoning category. The development overview section reviews the alternatives for the necessary development and makes capital improvement recommendations. Capital improvement recommendations are based on a comparison of the airport's existing facilities to those facilities that are determined to be required to meet the aviation demand projections developed in the aviation demand segment of the Master Plan. In the case of Georgetown Municipal Airport, the alternatives are relatively few with the primary decision to be made being that of whether or not the community wishes to encourage additional based aircraft at Georgetown Municipal Airport and if so to what extent? The environmental analysis section examines the potentials for environmental impacts resulting from the proposed improvements with particular attention being given to existing and projected land uses in the vicinity of the airport While many facets of environmental concern were reviewed, the two most critical concerns at Georgetown Municipal Airport, as with most airports, are noise and land use. The environmental analysis did not, however, identify any significant constraints to the recommended development program. The Master Plan is documented by not only a written report but a full set of airport plans including an Airport Layout Plan, on and off airport land use plans, an airspace plan and a Terminal Area plan. These plans are provided in separate section of the Master Plan document. The Master Plan analyses are concluded with a section that examines the fiscal operations of the airport. The goal of this section is to determine if the recommended improvements will fiscally support themselves and whether the airport can financially provide the local funding necessary to support the improvement program. In the case of Georgetown Municipal Airport, it was determined that the airport is fiscally well managed and can be expected to adequately support the recommended program of improvements. 17326/960507 vii The Master Plan report includes a section that documents the public participation elements of the master planning effort. Public participation was an integral part of the entire planning process in that each of the Airport Plan Working Group meetings was publicly announced and was open to public attendance. A number of citizens attended Working Group meetings and their comments were carefully considered. Upon completion of the Master Plan itself, the draft document was made available for public review and a Public Hearing was scheduled. This hearing was held on March 16, 1998, and was attended by more than fifty persons. After a brief presentation by the Consultant and comments by the Master Plan Working Group, each person wishing to make comment on the Master Plan was given the opportunity to do so. A number of citizens addressed various concerns that were subsequently addressed by the members of the Airport Plan Working Group. The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by those attending the March 16, 1998, Public Hearing and the responses to those concerns developed by the Working Group. Issue The majority of questions and comments relative to the continued development of the airport, as reflected in the Master Plan, were concerned with noise emanating from aircraft operations, that is, taking off, landing or flying overhead. Response For purposes of this discussion, the definition of "noise" shall be as follows: unwanted sound that is undesirable because it interferes with normal speech and hearing or is annoying to an individual or group of individuals. Airport generated noise can be viewed as a system of integral parts including, but not limited to, the following: • Nature and intensity • Number and fleet mix of aircraft using the airport • Time of day • Adjacent land uses • Background or ambient noise levels in adjacent residential areas The aviation industry uses a number of different measurements to define noise. The four most widely used methodologies are as follows: t�%�:�I An A- weighted sound level that approximates the auditory sensitivity of the human ear • EPN(IB Effective perceived noise levels providing a subjective assessment of the human perception of noisiness of the aircraft • SEL Single event sound level measurement of individual aircraft takeoff, landing, or overflight 173261960507 Viii • DNL Measurements used in the Master Plan that provide the day- night, A- weighted average sound level during a 24 -hour period with a penalty applied to nighttime sound levels The DNL values are used to develop noise contours in increments of 5 dBA, with 55 DNL being insignificant and 65 DNL significant exposure. Residences located within a sustained 65 DNL are generally incompatible. However, it should be noted that the noise level created by an aircraft taking off is of a very short duration, lasting only seconds. To develop the noise impact constant DNL contours shown in the Master Plan, the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, Version 5, was employed using the airport's mixed fleet aircraft as an input, along with the measured number of 87,000 aircraft operations 1tl that occurred in 1995 at the Georgetown airport. For a more complete understanding of the noise profile methodology and development, see pages 5 -1 through 5 -12 of the Master Plan. For comparison purposes, the following tables provide information on early morning and late evening flight departures for both runways at the Georgetown airport. The data was taken from the 1995 operational measurements of the 111 mixed airport fleet based at the Georgetown airport. These departures were recorded during a one -week period in the spring and fall and a two -week period in the summer and winter. Runway 11/29 Before 7.00AYYf After 9:00 PjVf March 22 -29 3 departures, average 1 departure, average 0.3 /day 0.14 /day July 15 -29 4 departures, average 5 departures, average 0.29 /day 0.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 4 departures, average 0.57 /day January 27- February 1 departure, average 5 departures, average 10 0.07 /day 0.36 /day Runway 18/36 Before 7.00 AM After 9:00 PM March 22 -29 6 departures, average 10 departures, average 0.86 /day 1.43 /day July 15 -29 7 departures, average 89 departures, average 0.50 /day 6.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 6 departures, average 0.86 /day January 27- February 4 departures, average 8 departures, average 10 0.29 /day 0.57 /day The following list provides some normal, everyday sound level comparisons given in dBA (human ear sensitivity approximation): • Bedroom:24db • Library:35db • Living room: 40db 1 An operation is defined as a take -off or a landing 17326/960507 ix - • Conversational speech: 60db • Piston - powered singles: 65db • Business office: 65db • Business jet: 74db • Average street traffic: 85db • Heavy truck: 90db • Pneumatic drill: 100db • Rock concert: 110db • Electronic siren and threshold of pain: 140db A concern was expressed regarding the prolonged noise resulting from testing after engine repair or overhaul. In order to reduce the noise levels from such engine testing procedures, the airport conducts these tests as close to the center of the airport and as far from residences as possible. Such preventative measures greatly reduce the resulting noise. In addition, a question was raised about why Austin's air carrier airport was moving from it's current location at Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) to the new Austin - Bergstrom International Airport. Although noise complaints from the residents surrounding the airport played some part in the relocation, the main and compelling reason for the move was that RMMA is simply too small to handle the growth of Austin and the resulting increased demand for air travel. Proposed Action Plans Following is a list of proposed Action Plans that were developed in response to the issue of aircraft noise. 1 Review Current Procedures Flight procedures have been and will continue to be reviewed for methodologies to lessen the noise impact on the residential areas surrounding the airport, as well as the air space over any populated area in the Georgetown region. 2 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding In addition to published FAA guidelines, a memorandum will be developed and forwarded to all aircraft owners, fixed base operators, flight instructors, and businesses at the airport requesting that they honor, without exceeding safety boundaries, the following noise abatement guidelines to reduce the impact of airport operations on their neighbors: • Be aware of noise sensitive areas, particularly residential areas, and avoid low flights over these areas • Fly traffic patterns tight and high, keeping the airplane as close to the field as possible • In constant speed propeller aircraft, do not use high RPM settings in the pattern; prop noise from higher - performance aircraft increases drastically with high RPM settings • On takeoff, reduce to climb power as soon as it is safe to do so • Climb at liftoff at best angle -of -climb speed to airport boundary, then climb at best rate • Depart from threshold of runway, rather than intersections, for the 17326/960507 highest possible altitude when leaving the airport vicinity • Climb out straight ahead to at least 1,000 feet; turns rob an aircraft of climb ability • Maintain a minimum of 1,000 feet altitude (preferably higher) over populated areas • Avoid prolonged run -ups prior to takeoffs • Try lower power approaches and always avoid the low, higher power, dragged -in approach; use maximum safe glide slope • Minimize night takeoffs and landings if at all possible 4 The Airport management will post signs at appropriate locations urging compliance with established noise abatement procedures. The airport's management will place signs at appropriate locations throughout the airport that encourage departing and arriving aircraft pilots to voluntarily conform to established noise abatement procedures. 5 Review Additional Noise Abatement Processes to be Based on Available Funding Such processes /facilities might include the construction of berms, the planting of sound reducing vegetation or the construction of sound resistant structures. 6 Request Restricted Hours of Operation from Army Helicopters Because of state and federal funding, the airport cannot restrict the operations of Fort Hood, the National Guard, etc. in flying in and out of the Georgetown Airport. However, we can request that they restrict touch and go operations to certain hours of the day. 7 Publish the FAA Contact Number This contact number can be used by concerned citizens to report aircraft that are not observing flight safety and noise abatement regulations. 8 Address Additional Action Plans to be Proposed H Issue The second major concern relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the safety of general aviation, specifically in the areas of training, safety records, fuel storage, and hearing loss. Response The following information should provide reassurance that the safety of the people of Georgetown is of prime importance to all participants involved in every airport activity, whether on the ground or in the air. 1 Required Training The safety record of general aviation has been excellent. The training and education required to obtain a Private or Commercial License is time consuming, exacting, and rigorous, and greatly contributes to general aviation safety. In addition, FAA requirements for adhering to the "rules of the air" and enforcement of regulations to ensure air - worthiness of aircraft are essential elements that promote general aviation safety. 17326/960507 xi 2 Aviation Safety Records The following information is derived from studies of general aviation accidents based on records from 1976 through 1990. "General aviation' is a term encompassing all aviation activity except that of airlines and military flying. It includes not only business and recreational flying, but also instruction and training, air taxi, aerial application for agriculture and forestry, aerial mapping, aerial fire control, testing and demonstrations, traffic advisory, police activities, air shows, and other miscellaneous activities. Between 1976 and 1990, according to the FAA and the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) data, there were 333 general aviation Building and Residence (B &R) Accidents, or an average of fewer than 23 per year. Seventy of these accidents resulted in a fatality, either aboard the aircraft or in a building/residence on the ground, while 12 of these resulted in an injury to persons on the ground. On average, only about 10 general aviation B &R accidents per year result in a serious injury and/or death to individuals either in the aircraft or in a building/residence on the ground. Over the 15 -year period studied, only seven general aviation B &R accidents involved fatalities on the ground. On average, less than one general aviation accident a year results in a fatality or serious injury to persons in a building or residence on the ground. All in all, only nine individuals between 1976 and 1990 were killed when a general aviation aircraft crashed into the structure in which they were located. Further, between 1985 and 1990, there were absolutely no fatalities or injuries to individuals on the ground as the result of a general aviation B &R accident. To put these statistics into perspective, during 1985 alone, 7,750 pedestrians were killed by motorists, 1,100 people were killed in boating accidents, and 900 were victims of bicycle accidents. In 1984, 11,600 were killed in falls, 4,800 by fire, and 1,800 by firearms. During 1985, general aviation conducted over 44.3 million departures or almost 1.5 takeoffs for every hour flown. Using this methodology, general aviation conducted more than 500 million departures between 1976 and 1985. Considering that only 12 of these 500 million flights resulted in a serious injury or fatality to persons in buildings or residences on the ground is an impressive statistic. In other words, 99.999998% of all general flights do not result in a serious injury or fatality to individuals in a building or a residence on the ground. 3 Fuel Storage Fuel storage safety is of paramount concern to the management of the airport. For Jet A fuel, the City has a 12,000 gallon double - walled steel, fiberglass lined underground tank and, in addition, a 10,000 gallon steel underground tank for AvGas. The tanks have cathodic protection and monitor wells. The lines to the fuel dispenser are double - walled fiberglass pipes. It is safe to say that the fuel storage at the airport is as safe or safer than any of the many service stations located in the Georgetown vicinity. 17326/960507 X i i Additionally, one of the FBO's at the airport has underground fuel storage facilities that are used primarily for their own aircraft and aircraft operated by their customers. This fueling facility, as well as any others that might be constructed on the airport in the future, using either above or below ground storage tanks, are required to meet local ordinances, federal regulations and the regulations off the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The TNRCC's regulations for underground storage tanks are particularly stringent at Georgetown Municipal Airport since the airport is located in the Upper Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone. 4 Adverse Impacts on Schools There is no noise hazard from the airport that would cause the loss of hearing to children playing in the school yard. The Georgetown schools are either not in the landing and takeoff patterns or are at such a distance from the airport that the altitude of the aircraft is sufficient to mitigate any noise that would be injurious to human ears. When contacted by members of the Working Group for a comment relative to the concern that the airport adversely impacted local schools, Dr. Jim Gunn, Superintendent of the Georgetown Independent School District (GISD), responded that with the following: "The Georgetown Municipal Airport does not create any problems, noise or safety, for any school in the GISD." Proposed Action Plans No action necessary III Issue The third major concern that was discussed regarded the method for determining the number and frequency of aircraft activity at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. Response Obtaining operations data at non - towered airports is a major concern to the Georgetown airport, as well as the TxDOT aviation divisions. Accurate airport activity is valuable information for planning and development of individual airports as well as the entire Texas airport system. This data is used in identifying both present and future operational levels. The Georgetown airport was monitored for operational activity during periods representing the four seasons in 1995. Aircraft activity is estimated by sampling operations with acoustical aircraft counters, using statistical methods to calculate annual operations. This is one of the most accurate and cost effective ways of gathering reliable data. The equipment is manufactured by RENS Manufacturing Company in Oregon, and has been constantly improved since its inception in 1988. The forecast data presented in the Master Plan is based on the number of operations initiated by a mixed fleet of 111 aircraft in the 1995 TxDOT audited activities as compared to the current mixed fleet of 133 aircraft. This data is then used as a guideline to forecast the number of operations based on the increase in the numbers of aircraft using the airport. 17326/960507 Y i i i To conduct an operations count, TxDOT personnel set up the counter that is then maintained by the airport on a daily basis. The airport also maintains a daily weather report and dispensed fuel log to correlate with the recorded operations data so that annual operations can be projected using these factors. Aircraft operations vary depending on the weather and day of the week, generally increasing on the weekends with recreational flying and during the week for business flying. To capture the daily variations, samples are taken in clusters of seven to fourteen consecutive days: one week in the spring, two weeks in the summer, one week in the fall, and two weeks in the winter. This sampling technique results in the greatest accuracy for estimating annual operations. The acoustically triggered counters are self - contained and weather resistant, consisting of an electronic counter with a day and hour timer, a microphone, and a gel battery. The microphone is situated on a special stand, plugged into the counter via a 50 -foot cord and located adjacent to the midpoint of the runway length. This arrangement allows recording of the departing aircraft at full engine power. When sound activates the recorder, it records for five seconds, then shuts itself off until the next aircraft sound. The recorded sound is audibly audited by the analyst to select only the sounds of departing aircraft. Because of generally quiet landings at runway touchdown by an aircraft, the counter is not activated. To account for this operations event, the departures are doubled to represent total operations. The data analysis begins with establishing the airport's weekly operations for each of the four seasons, and from these totals, average daily operations can be calculated. Seasonal averages are expanded to total seasonal operations, and total seasonal averages are then added to obtain the estimated annual operations for the airport. The accuracy of the annual total operations is +/- 10 %. The current ratio of aircraft types is expected to remain relatively static as the number of based aircraft increases. There is no plan to encourage commercial operations at the airport. If this were to occur, the operators of such a service would be limited to small turboprops similar to the Swearingen Merlin type aircraft. Departures would probably not exceed two or three a day. A specific question was raised regarding whether the hours of operation can be limited at a municipal airport that has and will receive financial aid from the State and Federal Government. The answer to that question is no, the hours of operation cannot be limited because the airport is a public facility. Proposed Action Plans No action necessary IV Issue Another major concern that was raised relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the financial impact to the City. Response The information provided in the table below was taken from a confidential FBO Survey for Calendar Year 1997. 17326/960507 Xiv FBO Survey Information Number of Employees 72 Annual Payroll $3,036,000 Gross Sales for All Goods and Services $54,285,400 Estimated Gross Sales to Transient Sources $52,600,000 Estimated Annual Expenditures for Local Goods and Services $1,835,000 Annual State Sales Taxes $1,295,000 Annual City Sales Taxes $10,400 Annual City Property Taxes $11,700 Annual School Property Taxes $50,200 Annual County Property Taxes $10,600 With regard to adverse impacts on land values, a review of past sales and listings in the neighborhoods adjacent to the airport revealed no definable loss of value to those properties due to the airport. V Issue The next major issues discussed concerned future city service plans for the Georgetown Airport area. Response Current City services to the airport include police and fire protection, electricity, water, and garbage pickup. The airport is planning to tie into the sanitary sewage line which is located within the northern and eastern airport boundaries along and which currently serves the Sun City development. This connection will provide for the elimination of septic tanks now in use. In addition, the City has scheduled the refurbishment of Airport Road between the City limits and Lakeway Drive to be completed this fall. The history and development of the Georgetown Airport is chronologically presented in the Master Plan on pages 1 -2 through 1 -3, beginning with its inception in 1943 for use as a Navy Auxiliary Field. Also listed on page 1 -3, is a list of the current corporate airport users. A specific question was raised regarding how many airports in Texas that are similar in size to Georgetown's airport are currently expanding or are involved in new development. According to the March 1997 issue of the Aviation newsletter published by the TxDOT, the following airports similar in size to Georgetown's airport are undergoing expansion. • The Brazoria County Airport currently has plans to arrange air freight for perishable goods, market five acres of free trade zone now available at the airport, and build a recently approved new terminal. Such efforts are designed to enhance the airport's chances of gaining status as an international airport with customs services available. • The Mesquite Metro Airport has recently secured Mobil Oil's pipeline surveying, including the domiciling of their five - aircraft fleet. Plans are in the works for the 17326/960507 xv creation of an airport master plan for the airport, perhaps a new terminal, and additional hangars to attract corporate traffic to the airport. McKinney Municipal Airport has recently initiated projects for a new terminal and a lighting system that will replace the existing runway lights and install taxiway lights. Other projects include securing a new electrical vault, airport signage, the reconstruction of the FBO apron and the construction of a new apron. Future plans for the airport include an expansion from a 366 -acre to a 1000 -acre airport with multiple runways to attract more corporate and general aviation activity and, perhaps, based aircraft. Sugar Land's Hull Field has successfully attracted BFI's Flight Department as a corporate tenant. They are currently coordinating the construction of a fuel farm - storage facility on the airport. Goals for the future include fully developing the corporate hangar area to provide commercial airline service. Finally, the question of whether Georgetown's Airport could be moved to another location was also raised. The state's criteria for funding airport relocation depends on maximum capacity being reached at the existing airport location. Georgetown Municipal Airport is not currently at maximum capacity. Proposed Action Plans 1 Develop a Public Information Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport Such a plan will provide information regarding the airport to keep the citizens of Georgetown fully informed of any activity at the airport that might be of concern to their well being. 2 Additional Action Plans to be Proposed A second public hearing was held on June 24, 1998. During this public hearing additional citizens' comments were received and will be provided to the airport's management, the Airport Plan Working Group and, ultimately, to the Georgetown City Council. Conclusions The recommendations in the Master Plan are intended to provide guidance for the development of the Georgetown Municipal Airport. It is not intended that either the demand projections or the timing of the recommended improvements should restrict the airport's development within specific time frames. It is necessary, particularly in a dynamic market environment such as Georgetown faces at this time, to respond to the demands of the market. It must not, however, be overlooked that is a legitimate policy decision to elect not to foster development or to limit such development to specific levels. At this time, Georgetown Municipal Airport finds itself in the almost unique and somewhat enviable position, of being able to determine the level of based aircraft that it wants to have by virtue of the actions taken, or not taken, to develop facilities, particularly hangar space, at the airport. This opportunity is, however, time limited. The actions being taken now, such as the recent Request for Proposals for Fixed base Operator (FBO) services and the provision of the local funding to support Texas Department of Transportation Block Grant funding, will go far to 17326/960507 Xv i aiding the development of the airport. Further actions could, however, be taken if the full potential of the airport is to be met in the future. 17326/960507 xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS GEORGETOWN MASTER PLAN SECTION TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1.0 INVENTORY 1 -1 1.1 Airport Background 1 -1 1.2 Airport Users 1 -3 1.3 Airside Facilities 1 -3 1.4 Landside Facilities 1 -5 1.5 Perimeter Fencing 1 -7 1.6 Ground Access to the Airport 1 -7 1.7 Signage 1 -7 1.8 Pollution Control Facilities 1 -8 1.9 Socio- economic Information 1 -8 2.0 AVIATION DEMAND FORECAST 2 -1 2.1 General 2 -1 2.2 Background Information 2 -2 2.3 Current and Historic Based Aircraft and Aircraft 2 -2 Operations 2.4 Georgetown Municipal Airports Services Area 2 -4 2.5 Forecasting Methodologies 2 -6 2.6 Forecasts of Based Aircraft 2 -7 2.7 Fleet Mix 2 -9 2.8 Forecasts of Operations 2 -10 3.0 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 3 -1 3.1 General 3 -1 3.2 Airside Capacity 3 -1 3.3 Landside Capacity 3 -2 3.4 Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division 3 -7 Standards 3.5 New Facilities Required to Meet Aviation Demands 3 -9 and TxDOT Standards 3.6 Instrument Approaches 3 -14 17326/960507 Xviii 17326/960507 xix TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) 3.7 Airport Zoning 3 -14 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW 4-1 4.1 Airside 4 -1 4.2 Landside 4 -2 4.3 Summary 4 -3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 -1 5.1 General 5 -1 5.2 Aviation Related Noises 5 -1 5.3 General Ecology 5 -10 5.4 Wetlands 5 -17 5.5 Endangered and Threatened Species 5 -17 5.6 Cultural Resources 5 -19 6.0 AIRPORT PLANS 6 -1 7.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 7 -1 7.1 Introduction 7 -1 7.2 Economic Feasibility and Financing 7 -8 7.3 Management Analysis 7 -16 8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8 -1 8.1 Introduction 8 -1 8.2 User Surveys 8 -1 8.3 Public Hearings 8 -1 GLOSSARY APPENDIX Aircraft - Owners and Pilots Survey 17326/960507 xix TABLES GEORGETOWN MASTER PLAN NUMBER TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1 -1 Williamson County Population Projections 1 -9 1 -2 Per Capita Income 1 -9 2 -1 Based Aircraft History - 1985 -1994 2 -3 . 2 -2 Operations History - 1985 -1994 2 -3 2 -3 Forecasts of Based Aircraft (Using County Population 2 -7 Projections 2000 -2015) 2 -4 Comparison of Forecast Methodologies 2 -8 2 -5 Forecast Based Aircraft 2 -9 2 -6 Projected Fleet Mix 2 -10 2 -7 Forecast of Annual Aircraft Operations 2 -10 2 -8 Forecast Peaking Characteristics 2 -11 3 -1 Hangar Space Demand - Georgetown Municipal Airport 3 -3 3 -2 Georgetown Municipal Airport Runway Length Analysis 3 -9 3 -3 TxDOT Aviation Division Standards Compared to Airfield 3 -10 Facilities at Georgetown Municipal Airport 5 -1 Land Uses Normally Computable with Various Noise Levels 5 -3 7 -1 Georgetown Municipal Airport Stage I Near -Term Airport 7 -3 Improvements (0 to 5 years) 7 -2 Georgetown Municipal Airport Stage II Mid -Term Airport 7 -5 Improvements (6 to 10 years) 7 -3 Georgetown Municipal Airport Stage III Long-Term Airport 7 -7 Improvements (10 to 20 years) 7 -4 Summary of 20 -Year Development Costs - Georgetown 7 -1 Municipal Airport 17326/960507 xX