HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_05.08.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown
May 8, 2015 at 10:00 AM
at 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the
Regular Session that follows.
B Introduction of Visitors
C Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates
D Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, C.M.,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Legislative Regular Agenda
F Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on April 10, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
G Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Cholla Pavement Maintenance,
of Apache Junction, Arizona, for single and two course surface treatment on streets identified in
the Pavement Management Program for $867,824.00 – Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
H Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cutler Repaving of Lawrence, KS
in the amount of 849,904.50 for pavement maintenance (hot in place recycling)—Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager.
I Considerations and possible action to recommend approval of a rate of 30 cents per square foot for
Page 1 of 71
leasing storage locations in city-owned hangers at the airport. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
J Presentation and Possible Action on the City's annual year-end external audit on the Airport Fund
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014 and Financial Analysis and Process Review Report
for the Georgetown Municipal Airport - Micki Rundell, CFO and Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director.
K Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation on the proposed Streets, Drainage, and
Airport Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2016 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Engineering
Director
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Page 2 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
Page 3 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
GTAB Projects
Austin Avenue Bridge Evaluation and Repairs
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements – Madella Hilliard to MLK
FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue
FM 1460 Improvements Project
Sidewalk Master Plan
Southwest Bypass Project (TIP #14C)
Transit Study as Requested by City Council
Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance
GTEC Projects
Project Status Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GTAB Project Reports (May 2015) Exhibit
GTEC Project Status Exhibit
Page 4 of 71
Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations
(North and South San Gabriel Rivers)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
May 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue
bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several
phases – I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and
evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project
budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents,
estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration.
Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long‐term vehicular
capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP
Element Status / Issues
Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic
paths to consider: Do Nothing. Short Term Temporary Fix. Medium Term Fix. Replace
Structure.
Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed
reconstruction of the bridge.
Surveying TBD
Environmental TBD during Phase II
Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street.
Utility Reloc’ns TBD (future)
Construction TBD
Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election;
Project submitted for CAMPO funding;
Project eligible for TxDOT Off‐System Bridge Replacement Program.
Page 5 of 71
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete.
Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB
Wood Road)
#14A 5QW Design – 90% complete; final 10%
(construction contract documents and WCCF
environmental permitting fees required at time
of actual construction.)
Construction – Pending 2105 Bond funding
Other Issues – Fencing has been deleted from
project. Staff is completing a task order
amendment to pay for that work performed by
Engineer prior to it being deleted from project.
ROW has been acquired.
On Schedule
Unchanged
1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350
Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less
construction contract documents and
environmental permitting required at time of actual
construction.
Weir Trust property - Condemnation pending.
Guy/Knight property – Acquisition complete.
Wolf property – Acquisition complete.
Other Issues – Several re-design items pending
due to ROW negotiations and changes to
adjacent development; final task order
amendment will be brought forth to finish the
On Schedule
Unchanged
7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320
Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary
Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E
design efforts.
Engineer is developing ROW strip map and
In-process
Unchanged
1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590
NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel
at both the local Area Office and District
Environmental Division.
In-process
Unchanged
613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0
ROW - 1460 #EEa
#EEb
#EEc
5RB Construction scheduled to begin in Spring
2015.
Utility relocations - ongoing.
As of October 16th, the City has obtained
Possession and Use Agreements or have closings
completed or planned for all the remaining FM
1460 parcels.
On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643
TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete.
Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0
FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete.
Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0
Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete.
Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Rivery Boulevard 5RM Survey has begun; Engineer expects to have
documents available to begin appraisals this
month.
On Schedule
Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is complete;
Agreement has been reached for the property
need to install a water quality pond; paperwork
pending.
On Schedule
Unchanged
825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed
alignment and is working on the 30%PS&E.
On Schedule
Unchanged
196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
May 2015
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-04.xlsx Page 1 of 2 4/28/2015Page 6 of 71
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
May 2015
Current Economic Development Projects Project
Type
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Budget
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo
Project
5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 0
Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives
and preliminary cost estimates.
On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 0 0
Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500
16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-04.xlsx Page 2 of 2 4/28/2015Page 7 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, C.M.,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Airport Projects:
CIP - Air Field Electrical Improvements Development and Timeline
FAA Tower Report
Fuel Sales Report
Hangar Lease Update
Tie-Down Lease Update
Economic Impact Study
Airport Monthly Financial
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Airport Project Update Backup Material
FAA Tower Report Backup Material
Airport Fuel Sales Report Backup Material
Airport Hangar Update Backup Material
Airport Tie-Down Lease Update Backup Material
Airport Economic Impact Report Backup Material
Financials Backup Material
Page 8 of 71
Airfield Electrical Improvements
Project No. 1414GRGTN
May 2015
Project Description FY2014 project: Runways / taxiways lighting and signage
Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport lighting
Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager
Project Engineer Garver
Notes:
Currently working on the Runway 18/36 edge lighting and new lighting vault
• Approximately 500 feet on north end of Runway to install new lights
• Installing new lighting control panel in Tower
• Vault work 90% complete
Page 9 of 71
Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update
May 2015
Project Description Georgetown Tower Update
Purpose Tower Monthly Report
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Operating Statistics
Performance/volumetric
indicators
For the Month of:
March 2015
March
2014
Y-T-D
March
2015
Y-T-D
Variance
Take Offs and
Landings Day*
Night*
VFR 5,525
65 32,520 30,671
(1,849) -6%
IFR 438
9 2,278 3,263
985 23%
Total Take
Offs/Landings 5,963
74 34,798 33,934
(864) -4%
Total for Month 6,037
* This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure
control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.).
Page 10 of 71
Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update
May 2015
Project Description Georgetown Fuel Sales Update
Purpose Fuel Sales Monthly Report
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Operating Statistics
Performance/volumetric
indicators
Gallons For the Month of:
March
March
2014
Y-T-D
March
2015
Y-T-D
Variance
Type of Fuel 2014 2015
AVGAS 15,073
15,804 102,718 116,801
14,083 14%
JET A 38,910
30,440
213,144 215,668
2,524 1%
Total Gallons Sold 53,983
46,244
315,862 332,469
16,607 5%
Page 11 of 71
Airport Hangar Lease Update
May 2015
Project Description Hangar Lease Agreements
Purpose Implement new lease agreements with approved rates
Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager
Unit Stats
Total Hangars – 114
• 104 new leases executed
• 1 for use by Airport Maintenance
• 4 yet to return agreement
• 5 hangars changing tenants
Total Storage Units – 13
• Need to establish lease rate with formal agreement
• 2 for use by Airport Maintenance
• 2 for use by Civil Air Patrol
• 1 for use by Experimental Aircraft Association
Page 12 of 71
Airport Tie-Down Lease Update
May 2015
Project Description Tie-Down Lease Agreements
Purpose Implement new lease agreements with approved rates
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Unit Stats
Total Tie-Downs – 43
Available for Long Term Lease – 29
● 18 Available at City Terminal (9 vacant)
● 11 Available at FBO
Transient / Overnight Spaces – 14 (7 on concrete, 7 on grass)
Page 13 of 71
Economic impacts • 2011
T e x a s D e p a r T m e n T o f T r a n s p o r T a T i o n
Georgetown municipal airport
Georgetown, tX
Page 14 of 71
Geor G e T own mU ni C ipa L a irpor T • Geor G e T own, T x
Georgetown Municipal Airport logs more than 6,000 operations monthly with the majority designated as corporate activity, flight training, and recreational activity. The airport also hosts several events each year, including: AirFest each fall; Easter Egg Drop in the spring; and numerous Young Eagles and Experimental Aircraft Association events. The airport is also planning a canned goods donation drive. Georgetown is located north of Austin.
Runways:
18/36 - 5,000 ft. x 100 ft.
11/29 - 4,100 ft. x 75 ft.
Page 15 of 71
n Capital Expenditures for infrastructure and other airport improvements from 2006-2010 generated $2.7 million in economic activity that created 23 job-years of employment. (A job-year equals one job lasting one year.)
n Airport staff is working with the regional communications director and tourism manager to promote the airport and attract more community involvement, with a goal of attracting a restaurant to the airport.
Description impacts
Economic activity $ 23,738,564
salary, Wages, and Benefits $ 9,872,319
Employment 227
sources: survey responses, impLan, and authors’ estimates
In conjunction with the local economic development
organization, new efforts are being made to facilitate
development at the airport.
The general aviation system in Texas provides important infrastructure that promotes both regional economic development and community recreational opportunities. The system’s airports also generate economic activity through capital and operations expenditures, business activities of airport tenants, and spending by visitors using airport facilities. This analysis examined the economic impacts of the facilities that are part of the Texas Airport System Plan (TASP). In total, the state’s general aviation airports and general aviation activities at commercial airports create:
Economic Activity$14.6 billion
Salary, Wages, and Benefits$3.1 billion
Employment56,635 permanent jobs
GeneraL aviaTion
impacts on Texas
2010 eConomiC impaCTs
Page 16 of 71
Texas
Department
of Transpor tationTexas Department of TransportationAviation Divisionwww.TxDOT.gov/business/aviation1-800-68-PILOT125 E. Eleventh StreetAustin, TX 78701-2483
prepared by:Center for Economic Development and ResearchDepartment of EconomicsDenton, TXhttp://www.unt.edu/cedr
airport statistics
faa identifier – GtU
Latitude / Longitude
30-40-43.7124n / 097-40-45.7815W
elevation – 790 ft.
Location
3 miles north of Georgetown, tX
PD
S
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
/
1
1
Page 17 of 71
Prepared by: LKemp
4/24/2015
Georgetown Municipal Airport
As of March 31, 2015
Statement of Operations A - B = C B - D = E
A B C D E
2014/2015 3/31/2014
Budget $ YTD Actuals $%
Beginning Fund Balance 21,612 82,210 (60,598) 363,339 (281,129) -77%
Operating Revenues:
Fuel Sales 2,469,900 1,039,251 1,430,649 1,216,815 (177,564) -15%
Fuel Expense (2,272,600) (912,241) (1,360,359) (1,106,242) 194,002 -18%
Net Fuel Revenues 197,300 127,010 70,290 110,573 16,438 15%
(A)Leases & Rentals 641,200 289,092 352,108 291,961 (2,869) -1%
(B)Bankruptcy - Georgetown Jet Center - - - 93,452 (93,452) -100%
Interest 4,000 14 3,986 182 (168) -92%
(C)Other Revenues 39,150 1,610 37,540 1,945 (334) -17%
Total Operating Revenues 881,650 417,727 463,923 498,113 (80,386) -16%
Operating Expenses:
Personnel (350,253) (153,064) (197,189) (142,981) (10,083) 7%
Operations (608,072) (443,766) (164,306) (386,098) (57,668) 15%
Furniture & Equipment - - - (561) 561 -100%
Total Operating Expenses (958,325) (596,830) (361,495) (529,640) (67,190) 13%
Total - Net Operating Revenues (Expenses)(76,675) (179,103) 102,428 (31,527) (147,576) 468%
Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses):
Bond Proceeds 870,000 - 870,000 - - 0%
Debt - Principal & Interest (178,612) (12,750) (165,862) (11,381) (1,368) 12%
Capital Improvement Program
Settlement Revenue - AJS Drainage - - - 110,000 (110,000) -100%
Transfer from General Fund - Capital Projects - - - 65,500 (65,500) -100%
Improvements, Taxiway - - - (10,667) 10,667 -100%
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights - - - (87,501) 87,501 -100%
AJS Draining Improvements - (59) - (103,235) 103,176 -100%
Runway 1836 Lights (770,000) (6,645) (763,355) - (6,645) 0%
Fuel Farm (100,000) - (100,000) - - 0%
Net Capital Improvement Program (870,000) (6,704) (863,355) (25,903) 19,200 -74%
Total - Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)(178,612) (19,453) (159,218) (37,284) 17,831 -48%
Net Revenues/(Expenses)(255,287) (198,556) (56,790) (68,812) (129,744) 65%
Ending Fund Balance (D)(233,675) (116,346) 294,527
NOTES:
(A)Leases and rentals include T-Hangars, ground leases, and tie downs.
(B)The City does not expect to receive any more bankruptcy revenue as the lease is now owned by the bank.
(C)Other revenues include ad valorem tax, special events and discounts. Most are received at fiscal year end.
(D)The Electric Fund is covering the contingency requirements for Airport to meet City-wide contingency reserves per policy.
Reserve decreased to 45 days effective October 1, 2014.
*The City operates on a consolidated cash basis. Due to timing of individual fund receivables and payables,
cash and investment fund balances may fluctuate.
3/31/2015
YTD Actuals
Variance
Year to Date
Variance
Budget
Balance Sheet Highlights Current Actuals
3/31/2015 2/28/2015 1/31/2015 9/30/2014
Assets:
Cash & Investments - - 3,448 -
Accounts Receivable - Leases & Fuel 44,456 43,534 52,034 201,293
Liabilities:
*Due to Consolidated Cash 84,138 68,181 - -
Bond Debt Outstanding 603,847 603,847 603,847 741,938
Page 18 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on April 10, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on
April 10, 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Minutes Backup Material
Page 19 of 71
Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
April 10, 2015
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Truman Hunt – Chair, John Pettitt – Vice Chair, Ray Armour - Secretary, Rachel
Jonrowe, Chris H’Luz, Steve Johnston, Donna Courtney
Board Members Absent: John Hesser, Scott Rankin
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Micki Rundell, Ed Polasek, Jana Kern, Bill Dryden, Russ Volk, Bridget
Chapman, Wesley Wright, Mike Babin, Paul Diaz, Mark Miller
Others Present: Hugh Norris, John Milford, Fran Dressler, Richard Ballantine – ACC, Bruce Barton –
Omni Project, Inc., Mark Allen, Tom Crawford – 2015 Road Bond & GTEC Board member, Wesley Jasek
& Erin Gonzales – Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc.
Regular Session
A. Call to Order: Mr. Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday, April 10,
2015 at 10:00 AM
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to
convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager,
Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: One of the main things that staff is doing now is following
the Legislation. There is a Bill to fund additional transportation non tolled projects for $20B over
20 years. This money cannot be used to repay debt from current tolled projects. This Bill appears
to have some momentum.
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines – Bill Dryden, P. E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek,
AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Russ Volk, Airport
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Persons signed up to speak on this item: Hugh Norris – See presentation at the end of these
minutes.
F. Distribute the bond election memo from Carol Palumbo to GTAB. – Bridget Chapman, City
Attorney
Chapman discussed with the Board what can and cannot be done, used or said.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
Page 20 of 71
G. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting
held on March 13, 2015 – Jana Kern
Motion by Pettitt second by Jonrowe to approve the minutes as presented. Approved
Unanimous 7-0 (Hesser & Rankin absent)
H. Consideration and possible action to recommend to City Council to establish rate of 30 cents per
square foot for leasing city owned storage locations on the airport. - Russ Volk, C.M., Airport
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Tabled - to be brought back next month
I. Consideration and possible action to recommend to City Council to establish rate of 75 cents per
gallon markup above wholesale cost plus taxes/freight surcharge/fees for Jet A fuel sales. - Russ
Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Tabled - to be brought back next month
J. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the Third amendment to Task
Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October
25, 2011) related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to
University Boulevard) in the amount of $350,500.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation
Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Dryden gave the board a brief over of the project. Then went on to explain that during
the design of the project, the hydraulic analyses determined that two significant
modifications were required in the drainage design – an additional barrel would be
required for the West Fork of Smith Branch and the culvert intended for Smith Branch
would actually require upsizing to a bridge. The Engineer has completed the design of
the project with these modifications. Also, during acquisition of rights-of-way, several
modifications were required as a result of those negotiations (additional driveways and
additional widths of proposed driveways). Last, additional development along the
corridor has required modifications in the design for adequate accommodations. The
costs of this additional design will be $350,500.00 and some of the revisions will result in
the issuance of Change Order No. 1 for the project. Motion by Courtney second by Jonrowe
to approve third amendment to T.O. BGE 11-001. Approved Unanimous 7-0 (Hesser & Rankin
absent)
K. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the Fourth amendment to Task
Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October
25, 2011) related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to
University Boulevard) in the amount of $88,500.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation
Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Dryden stated subsequent to the completion of the project design, and somewhat as 1) a
result of the development of an apartment complex along the roadway; 2) the closing of
the Rabbit Hill School and 3) the adoption of the Overall Transportation Plan (which
includes a new collector level roadway being added as a future intersection with FM
1460), it has been determined inclusion of this intersection, in conjunction with the
location of the driveway for the apartments is in the long-term best interest of the City.
The design work will require realignment of the horizontal and vertical geometrics of
the proposed FM 1460 and coordination with adjacent land owners regarding access and
environmental impacts. The costs of this additional design effort will be $88,500.00 and
these revisions will result in the issuance of Change Order No. 2 for the project. Motion
Page 21 of 71
by Armour second by Jonrowe to approve fourth amendment to T.O. BGE 11-001. Approved
Unanimous 7-0 (Hesser & Rankin absent)
L. Discussion related to the Transportation Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) for 2015/2016. – Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director
Wright explained the process of the CIP. The final CIP will be brought
to the May 2015 GTAB meeting. No Action Required
Adjournment
Motion by Pettitt second by Courtney to adjourn meeting. Meeting adjourned at
10:52 AM
Approved: Attested:
_______________________ ______________________
Truman Hunt - Chair Ray Armour – Secretary
_________________________________
Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
Page 22 of 71
GTAB STATEMENT
APRIL 10, 2015
AGENDA ITEM “E”
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. For
the record, my name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My wife and I reside at 4400 Luna Trail. I am a
member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC).
This is the 38 th presentation by members of ACC to the city council and to the GTAB since
January 14, 2014. These presentations have been in pursuit of the moral and legitimate rights of
the general public for public participation in decisions for use and expenditure of federal funds
for development of expanded aviation operations at the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU).
My statement, on behalf of the ACC, this morning is an extension of our comments made at the
GTAB February 2015 meeting. At that meeting we presented an alternate vision for a
Williamson County Regional Airport (WCRA) to replace the current GTU airport. We also
described an alternate vision for the GTU property transforming it into the upscale shopping,
residential, business, banking and financial center for our ever expanding city. Time constraints
prevented a discussion on how such alternate visions could become a reality. This statement
provides a brief outline for that process.
The process should begin with a city council appointment of an Airport Relocation Steering
Committee (ARSC). This committee would be charged with responsibility for examining the
feasibility of making the two visions a reality. All future planning documents clearly show the
total envelopment of the GTU by residential, schools, churches, and businesses. It is clear that
future environmental and political agony of our city that will be a result of that envelopment.
Prior to that inevitable future, the ARSC would be charged to examine these plans for a better
environmental and political alternative.
We recommend the ARSC be managed and directed by three councilperson appointees:
• Chairman - Councilman Keith Brainard for his objectivity and financial expertise;
• Assistant- the soon to be elected District 5 councilman whose district contains the GTU;
• Assistant - Councilwoman Anna Eby for District 1 for her demonstrated interests in
preservation of Georgetown's historical heritage and her legal expertise.
We recommend that each council appointee have two general public appointees for assurance
of public participation and that Councilman for District 5's appointees be ACC members due to
their motivation for the project and process.
The actual study should be a Due Diligence – Feasibility Study conducted by a Joint Venture
team of professionals managed and directed and by a fully qualified airport design engineering
firm. A firm that is familiar with the local area such as GRW-Willis, Inc. or Garver Engineering,
Inc. would be ideal. The engineer should have at his direction teams of professionals that
include experts in real estate planning, development, marketing and sales, real estate law, and
Page 23 of 71
contracts. Financial experts should be available to provide advice on options for financial
structuring and political liaison.
Prior to taking any action for development, of such a Joint Venture contract, the ARSC must
engage in one or several meetings with TxDOT and FAA officials to seek their understanding
and support for the two vision goals of the committee. These federal officials hold expertise in
structuring and managing such a contract. They possess extensive projection data for the
proper conceptual planning scope of the WCRA, cost accounting, applicable federal laws &
regulations and vast knowledge of the history of such ventures. This engagement, with federal
officials, is essential in order to establish the proper structure and management of the study.
It is important that all should understand this study is not a design study. It is a conceptual
feasibility study to determine if a WCRA and conversion of the GTU properties are possible and,
if so, how these goals may be accomplished. The process would have several possible “Stop”
points. For example:
• Once the engineer has developed a TxDOT approved WCRA conceptual design or
“Footprint”, if no location is available within reasonable travel distance from the city,
the study may be terminated.
• If an acceptable location is found then the real estate team experts must demonstrate,
that by delayed occupancy sale of the GTU property, the WCRA can be financed. If
estimated funding is insufficient the study may be terminated.
• If funding is adequate the political liaison experts, attorneys and financial experts
should examine if the State Legislature is willing to support the venture similar to its 77th
Legislature HB 2522 and if acceptance can be obtained from political bodies outside the
city.
• These steps and others will determine the outcome of the final study.
The ARSC could take heart that it has a series of successful models from which to observe for
success. For example:
• the seamless and federally approved and supported transfer of Mueller Airport's
operations to Bergstrom;
• the highly successful transformation of the Mueller property to best land use and tax
production developments;
• the expert real estate teams that managed the best use land planning, contributions by
the city and sale of the Wolf family lands;
• and the well documented economic needs of the Central Texas region for a superior,
permanent planned WCRA that can provide its vital services unlimited into the future.
Mr. Chairman, we request that GTAB recommend to City Council, at its next regular session,
the appointment of a ARSC charged with management and implementation of a Due Diligence
– Feasibility Study as briefly described herein. Upon request, the ACC has more detailed
information that we are happy to share with you and city staff on this recommended process.
`Mr. Chairman, I welcome any comments or questions from the board or staff.
Page 24 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Cholla Pavement Maintenance,
of Apache Junction, Arizona, for single and two course surface treatment on streets identified in
the Pavement Management Program for $867,824.00 – Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were received by the City of Georgetown at 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, April 1, 2015 for the
above referenced project. There were three plan holders and one competitive bid was received. A
detailed bid tabulation is included with this item. This project was publicly advertised June 23rd
and 30th with bid opening on the July 16th.
The base bid consisted of four parts and included furnishing, installing and providing all labor and
materials required for construction of approximately 62,700 square yards of two course chip seal
with fog seal, 127,000 square yards of single course chip seal with fog seal, traffic control, and
miscellaneous striping. The locations of the Chip Seal project are listed below. The product
consists of a durable polymer modified oil and a graded black volcanic aggregate coating. The
“fast set” fog seal is immediately added to help lock the aggregate in place. This product was
applied to D.B.Wood Road, Rivery Boulevard and Wolf Ranch Parkway and is performing very
well in these high volume areas of automobile and construction traffic.
Two Course Treatment w/ fog seal Roadways:
Part A: Williams Drive from Serenada Drive to DB Wood Road
Part B: Rockmoor Drive from Luther Drive to IH 35 Frontage Road;
Single Course Treatment w/ Fog Seal Roadways:
Part C: Katy’s Crossing Subdivision (Katy Crossing, Bastion Ln., River Bluff Cr.,
Claris Lane, Rosemary Cove, Meadowlark Circle, Adkins Cove, Prairie Springs Ln.,
Prairie Springs Lp., Kajon Cove, Janae Ct. and Prairie Springs Cv.)
Part D: Leander Road Subdivision (Norwood Dr., Riverwood Dr., Norwood Cv.,
River Bow Dr., Friendswood Dr., Ridgewood Dr., River Tree Cv., Greenwood Ct.,
Greenwood Dr., Ridgewood Cv., Ridge Oak Dr., Innwood Cr., Tallwood Dr., Deep
Wood Dr., Innwood Dr. and Oakwood Dr.
Add Alternate A was an item to Remove and replace pedestrian ramps to meet current ADA
guidelines. It is not being recommended for award as we can add the ramps to our existing curb
and gutter contract as additional quantities bid with substantial savings to the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has worked satisfactorily with Cholla for the past several years and agrees with the
Engineer’s recommendation to award the Base Bid: Part A thru D to Cholla Pavement
Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of 867,824.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
See CIP Budgetary & Financial Worksheet
Page 25 of 71
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Miller (jk)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Bid Tab Backup Material
Location Map Backup Material
Finacial Backup Material
Page 26 of 71
Page 27 of 71
Page 28 of 71
Page 29 of 71
Page 30 of 71
H
U
T
T
O
R
O
A
D
AU
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
W UNIVERSITY AVE.
LAK
E
W
A
Y
D
R
.
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
I
V
E
NE
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
SE
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
WO
L
F
R
A
N
C
H
RIV
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
15TH
D.B
.
W
O
O
D
S
D
R
I
V
E
SER
E
N
A
D
A
D
R
.
SHEETS CS-01 THRU CS-05
SHEETS CS-006 THRU CS-27
SHEETS CS-28 THRU CS-48
SHEETS CS-049 THRU CS-49
0
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
1500 3000
N
O
R
T
H
Plot Date:
4/17/2015 10:33:17 AM
Plotted By:
BRICHARDSONFI
L
E
:
P:
\
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
\
2
0
1
5
\
2
0
1
5
-
1
0
5
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
\
2
0
1
5
-
1
0
4
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
\
C
A
D
\
c
h
i
p
s
e
a
l
-
2
0
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
e
t
\
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
\
1
5
-
1
0
5
s
t
r
r
e
h
a
b
-
C
S
-
g
e
n
s
h
e
e
t
s
.
d
w
g
L
A
S
T
S
A
V
E
D
:
3/
1
2
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
0
1
:
1
5
P
M
LA
Y
O
U
T
:
G-
0
3
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
SHEET NO.
G-03 OF
05 SHEETS
APPROVED BY
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
PROJECT NO.
DATE
Alvin R. Sutton, III
15-104
Bruce Richardson
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
2015 Street Maintenance Project
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 2015 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP
KPA Firm Registration Number F-510
BYREVISIONDATENO.DESIGN
SET GENERAL SHEETS
PROPOSED STREET SURFACE TREATMENT - Chip Seal
LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
GEORGETOWN CITY LIMITS
GEORGETOWN ETJ
CHIPSEAL
Page 31 of 71
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:30-Apr-15
Division/Department:Director Approval
Prepared By:Mark Miller Finance Approval La'Ke 4/30/15
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 2,250,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B)Budget
Consulting 184,689.00 184,689.00 8%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction 847,219.66 867,824.00 1,715,043.66 76%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 1,031,908.66 1,899,732.66
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
203-9-0880-90-076 Chip seal 378,000.00
203-9-0880-90-075 Cutler 1,371,000.00
203-9-0880-90-072 Rejuvenate 501,000.00
Total Budget 2,250,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 2,250,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 184,689.00 184,689.00 8%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 1,715,043.66 1,715,043.66 76%
Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0%
Total Project Costs 0.00 1,899,732.66 1,899,732.66
,To be paid with 319.651 chip seal, 414,463.50 cutler and 133,709 rejuvenate
Transportation Services
Chip Seal 2015 project # 1CF
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
Page 32 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cutler Repaving of Lawrence, KS
in the amount of 849,904.50 for pavement maintenance (hot in place recycling)—Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This project was bid on April 1, 2015 for the above referenced project. One (1) competitive bid
was received and a detailed bid tabulation is included. The HIPR project consists of furnishing,
installing and providing all labor and materials required for construction of approximately 81,250
square yards of hot-in-place recycled asphalt pavement, 21,000 linear feet of milling, adjustment
of water valves and manholes, tree pruning, traffic control, and miscellaneous striping. The
process heats up, scarifies, rejuvenates and screeds existing asphalt while a ¾ -inch of new asphalt
is placed on top and rolled simultaneously creating a strong thermal monolithic bond.
The locations of the HIPR project are listed below:
Part A: Williams Drive from Lakeway Drive to Serenada Drive;
Part B: River Bend Drive from Williams Drive to Gabriel View Drive;
Part C: Dunman Drive, Parker Drive, Mesquite Lane, Power Road, Bob White Lane and
Cottonwood Drive (part I)
Part D: Power Circle, Parker Circle, Judy Drive, Oak Lane, and Cottonwood Drive (part II)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Cutler has satisfactorily performed this same process on Georgetown streets for the past 8 years.
Staff and KPA Engineers recommend awarding a total bid (parts A thru D) to Cutler Repaving of
Lawerence, KS in the amount of $849,904.50.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
See Financial Budget Sheet
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Miller (jk)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Bid Tab Backup Material
Map Exhibit
Financial Backup Material
Page 33 of 71
Page 34 of 71
Page 35 of 71
Page 36 of 71
Page 37 of 71
Page 38 of 71
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:4/30/2015
Division/Department:Director Approval
Prepared By:Mark Miller Finance Approval La'Ke4/30/15
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 1,371,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B)Budget
Consulting 106,632.00 106,632.00 8%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction 849,904.50 849,904.50 62%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 106,632.00 956,536.50
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
203-9-0880-90-075 1,371,000.00
Total Budget 1,371,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 1,371,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 106,632.00 106,632.00 8%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 849,904.50 849,904.50 62%
Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0%
Total Project Costs 0.00 956,536.50 956,536.50
Comments:Balance is currently 1,264,368.00 remainder to go to chip seal $414,463.50
Transportation / Streets
Cutler Repaving # 1CU
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
Page 39 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Considerations and possible action to recommend approval of a rate of 30 cents per square foot for
leasing storage locations in city-owned hangers at the airport. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Georgetown Municipal Airport operates from the Airport Fund to provide maintenance and
operations as well as match to TxDOT and FAA grants. The Airport Fund has two sources or
revenue -- fuel sales and lease payments. Lease payments originate from land, hangar, storage, and
tie-down agreements. A previously completed airport appraisal recommended a rate structure for
the land, hangar, and tie-down locations but did not include a recommendation for the storage
locations.
The airport has city owned facilities with rooms currently leased for storage. These rooms are
typically located at the ends of the T-Hangar facilities. While a lease rate for storage locations has
not been established, the current rates charged for the Airport Storage locations vary from 8 to 24
cents per square foot.
A survey was conducted of local storage rental facilities. The quoted rates at the local facilities
ranged from 37.5 to 45 cents per square foot.
Based upon survey results, a fee of 30 cents per square foot is being proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager
Storage Units
Units Sq Ft Rate/Mo Monthly Annual Total
Large*8
Rent 4555 $0.30 $666.00 $7,992.00
Small*5
Rent 4176 $0.30 $211.20 $2,534.40$10,526.40
* Public Use: 2 Large Airport Maintence; 2 Large EAA & CAP; 1 Small
CAP
Page 40 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Presentation and Possible Action on the City's annual year-end external audit on the Airport Fund
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014 and Financial Analysis and Process Review Report
for the Georgetown Municipal Airport - Micki Rundell, CFO and Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City’s external auditors will present the results of the annual external audit and the final
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2014 related to
the Airport Fund. City Council also contracted the external auditors to perform and Process and
Management audit of the Airport.
The City’s external auditors with the firm of Weaver and Tidwell, LLP will discuss the results of
the auditors’ independent audit and Process Review Report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial Analysis and Audit Reports will be presented to GTAB prior to the Meeting. A draft
presentation is attached, updates and draft reports will be submitted Monday, May 4th.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Presentation with updates to follow Backup Material
Page 41 of 71
Georgetown Municipal Airport
May 8, 2015
City of Georgetown
Financial Analysis and Process
Review Report
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
Page 42 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes OnlyTopics
2
•Scope
•Overview
•Process Review Results
•Roadmap Validation Results
•Financial Analysis Results
•Conclusion
Page 43 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
3
Scope
The scope of the financial analysis and process review procedures included two distinct objectives.
1. Significant Process Review
Evaluate the significant operations and management processes of the Airport to evaluate whether:
Appropriate people, processes, and technology are in place to effectively run, report and maintain compliance with statutory regulations
Processes are repeatable, scalable, and sustainable for future growth
2. Financial Analysis and Road Map Validation
Perform an analysis of the economic consequences of the actions put in place by the City in response to the recommendations made in the 2013 Georgetown Airport Business Analysis report issued by CH2MHill. We validated that the responses formulated by the City to the recommendations are:
For the actions that have a financial consequence we
Evaluated the projected economic out come on a prospective basis
Projected the economic impact to evaluate whether the financial outcome would result in a self-sustaining cash flow for the Airport
Closed and in place
In Progress No Action
On Hold
Open and planned for future implementation
Page 44 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
To have accurate, efficient and sustainable operations in any organization, three key components must be in place:
People,
Process, and
Technology
Since the release of the 2013 Georgetown Airport Business Analysis report by CH2MHill, the City has made efforts to improve each of the three components.
The City is working to establish qualified and competent people to manage Airport operations with the hire of a new Airport Manager in January of 2015.
The results of the process review provide specific recommendations for the City to enhance the processes and technology to improve the operations of the Georgetown Municipal Airport.
4
Overview
Page 45 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
5
Process Review Results
To complete the review of the Airport’s significant processes, we conducted interviews with Airport, Finance and Utilities personnel to gain an understating of the current state of the procedures. We also examined existing documentation to validate the activities being performed.
Processes Evaluated:
1. Inventory Management
2. Sales and Accounts Receivable
3. Contract Management and Compliance
4. Internal Financial and Operational Reporting
5. Regulatory Compliance and Reporting
The results of our process review included 9 observations and recommendations.
Page 46 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
6
Process Review Results
Observation 1
There are important operational or financial processes for which the Airport does not have defined
procedures designed to ensure they are executed. Some of the processes may be infrequently
conducted on an ad hoc basis.
Recommendation
Airport management should implement policies and design procedures for the processes identified.
Polices and procedures should establish basic expectations of how processes should be performed and
the criteria for evaluating or executing the transactions related to the processes, including:
Inventory Loss Allowance: Monitoring inventory balances, establishing variance thresholds, defining write-off
criteria, and appropriate review.
Delinquent Lease Payments: Setting time intervals for follow-up, assigning collections responsibility,
documenting collection attempts, and reviewing outstanding balances.
Reserves for Uncollectable Accounts: Policies and procedures to evaluate delinquent balances, defining
write-off criteria, performing appropriate review and approval of write-offs.
Tracking Prokey Cards: Inventory of cards, card issuance criteria, logging card issuance, monitoring card
usage, and deactivating dormant or revoked cards.
Lease Prepayments: Procedures for recording and monitoring the amortization of prepaid accounts.
Sublease Review and Approval: Establishing a sublease review process, sublease compliance monitoring,
and sublease approval process.
CPI Adjustments: Process and timing to research CPI rate adjustments and approvals of vacant land lease
rate adjustments.
Rental Rate Assessments: Annual hangar and tie-down rate review policy, rate benchmarking, and rate
change approvals.
Lease Contract Retention: Procedures to file and retain legal documents such as leases and other contracts.
Lease Compliance Monitoring: Annual FBO and significant contract review for compliance with contract
terms.
Page 47 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
7
Process Review Results
Observation 2
There are critical processes for which the Airport lacks standardized and documented
procedures. While there is a general process, these process occur on a regular and/or
ad-hoc basis with little direction or supervision.
Recommendation
Airport management should formalize and standardize the procedures and implement
policies to establish documentation standards for the identified processes. should identify
critical processes related to the Airport's operations. The policies, and/or procedures that
establish an expectation of how the process should be performed under normal
operating circumstances including:
Fuel Markup Rates: Establishing a periodic evaluation; separating fuel contracts from land-leases;
determining appropriate markups to cover delivery, storage, flowage fees, admin, and taxes; and
approval of rates and markups.
Charging Late Fees: Establishing criteria for the posting of late fees to accounts; monitoring
accounts for timely payment; and approving fees posted to accounts.
Prospective Tenant Lease Evaluations: Establishing an application process; determining evaluation
criteria; documenting the review/selection process; and defining a hierarchal approval of
contracts.
New Contract Review/Change and Approvals: Establishing contract evaluation criteria;
documenting the review and approval process; and defining a hierarchal approval process.
Airport Condition Inspection Checklists: Developing a formalized airport inspection checklist to be
completed by staff on a regular basis and documenting the performance of inspections
appropriate of a general aviation airport, which may result in a NOTAM.
Page 48 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
8
Process Review Results
Observation 3
The Airport currently operates using ad hoc methods through spreadsheets and systems managed by
other Departments within the City. The Utilities Department issues Airport hanger rental bills. This system
does not have the ability to report unutilized rental units.
Many of the Airport's transactions are processed manually and recorded in Excel spreadsheets.
Additionally, there is no review to ensure that spreadsheet formulas are correct or that data is complete
and accurately entered into the spreadsheet. Critical spreadsheets are kept to record 1)fuel inventory
purchases, receipts, and sales, 2) customer payments and outstanding accounts, 3)lease inventories
and tenant information.
Recommendation
The Airport should be responsible for preparing and issuing lease invoices. Additionally, the Airport
should explore options related to abandoning the use of spreadsheets and applications not designed
for airports to process transactions, and move towards a system designed specifically to handle the
following transactions related to operations of an FBO:
Fuel sales processing and billing
Fuel inventory management
Rent roll processing and billing
Lease contract and inventory management
Standalone FBO systems are a more reliable and secure method to processing transactions that occur
at the Airport. Two examples of an appropriate software that the City should evaluate are:
TotalFBO – Modules include Inventory Control, Ordering/Receiving, Reservations/Scheduling,
Concierge.
FBO Manager – Modules include tracking of receivables and payables, inventory management,
hangar and tie-down rental management.
Page 49 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
9
Process Review Results
Observation 4
The key performance indicators reported to Airport management and the GTAB are limited and do not
provide a complete overview operations. Some financial and operational information is shared with the
GTAB. However, other performance information is not provided to Airport management and the GTAB on a
regular basis that would be beneficial to manage operations.
Recommendation
The City should increase the information and data reported to Airport management or the GTAB. The
following KPI's should continue to be reported:
Number of new/lost tenants
Occupancy percentage
Fuel sales revenue and volumes sold
Budget to actual comparisons
Additionally, in order for Airport management or the GTAB to effectively evaluate KPIs and Airport
performance, the additional financial results and operations performance information should be included in
the monthly reports.
Commercial Lease Revenue
Hanger Revenue
Fuel Inventory levels and value
Outstanding accounts receivable balances, accounts receivable aging, and collection activities
Leasing activity including tenant retention and occupancy rates, and average waiting list times
Rent roll reports including a breakdown of existing leases and the commencement date, terms, rent payable, and
accumulated rent paid.
Page 50 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
10
Process Review Results
Observation 5
Daily transactions and the reports provided to Airport management and the GTAB are not
regularly reviewed for accuracy and completeness.
The following items were identified to have insufficient review over the source data.
Review of inventory roll forward balances
Posting of fuel invoices to customer accounts
Sales and Accounts Receivable data reported to Accounting and City management
Statistical Inventory Report data submission
Recommendation
Airport management should implement the review of transactional information as well as the
information reported to Airport and City management and the public. Reviews should include
a validation and review of the data for completeness and accuracy. The items identified
should be reviewed, at a minimum:
Beginning inventory (fuel) and the roll forward of purchases, sales, and any shrink
Fuel sales recorded to receipts issued as well as changes in inventory to determine if sales were
accurately recorded
Fuel sales and receivables should be reviewed for reasonableness and accuracy before reporting to
the GTAB and management
Fuel inventory statistics should be compared to invoices, receipts and sales for reporting of the
Statistical Inventory Report
Page 51 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
11
Process Review Results
Observation 6
Certain processes at the Airport were identified to lack segregation of duties.
The following specific segregation of duties conflicts were identified:
Fuel Attendants place orders, receive and accept deliveries, and issue
sales receipts.
The Airport Business Coordinator receives and records cash payments.
Recommendation
The Airport should ensure that duties related to receiving cash, inventory, and
recording of these items in the ledger are properly segregated.
The responsibility of ordering fuel, receiving fuel, and issuing sales receipts
should be segregated to separate individuals to remove the opportunity to
misappropriate assets and to provide for the detection of errors.
The ability to receive cash payments and record payments should be
segregated or monitoring controls should be implemented to removed the
opportunity to misappropriate assets.
Page 52 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
12
Process Review Results
Observation 7
Lease customers are billed on a monthly basis by the third-party provider through the
Utilities office. Starting April 1, 2015, customers will have an option of pre-paying for a year;
however this process has not been implemented.
Recommendation
In order to reduce billing processing time and expenses, Customer Care within the Utilities
Department should pro-actively monitor the implementation process of yearly billing.
Observation 8
Fuel Attendants count oil inventory three times a day and record it in a Weekly Inventory
Report. Based on the facts that oil is a slow-moving inventory item, has a low inventory level
and a low monetary value, we consider counting oil inventory three times a day excessive.
Recommendation
We recommend updating the inventory monitoring procedures for the slow-moving and
low level items to reduce the number of counts from three times a day to a daily or twice-
weekly count to ensure that Airport staff is utilizing its time efficiently and effectively.
Page 53 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
13
Process Review Results
Observation 9
The Airport Ledger spreadsheet is stored on the City’s network and is password
protected. However, several users who have access to modify data in the
Airport Leger file, but do not require that access based on their function and
responsibilities. Additionally, we could not verify the date of the last password
change on the spreadsheet.
Recommendation
Airport management should review the user access to the Airport Ledger
spreadsheet and limit access to modify data in the spreadsheet to the Airport
and/or Accounting personnel whose job function includes the entry of
transactions into the spreadsheet. Other personnel should have read-only
access to the file. This access can be managed through security rights
management in the City’s electronic file system. Additionally, the spreadsheet
password should be changed on a periodic basis.
Page 54 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
14
Road Map Validation
To validate the City’s progress to date for each of the recommendation in the 2013
Georgetown Airport Business Analysis report, we conducted interviews with Airport
personnel to determine the changes made to address the recommendations in the report.
We also gained an understanding of efforts that are in progress and future plans to
address other recommendations. We obtained documentation and support for the
changes that have been made or are in progress.
The table below presents the status of recommendations from the CH2MHill report.
Open In
Progress
Partially
Closed Closed On Hold
No
Action
Short Term 7 2 2 1 1 0 1
Medium Term 8 2 2 0 0 4 0
Long Term 6 0 0 0 1 3 2
Financial and Legal 8 2 4 0 2 0 0
Capital Development
and Maintenance 800 0170
Operations, Safety,
and Security 440 0000
Administrative and
Organization 522 0001
Total 46 12 10 1 5 14 4
Recommendation Status
Category Total
CH2M Hill Report Recommendations Summary
Page 55 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
15
Of the 7 Short Term recommendations:
2 are Closed or have No Action
2 are In Progress
1 is Partially Closed
2 are Open
Four of the items that are Open or In Progress relate to observations and recommendations
from our procedures. Implementing the recommendations should aid the City in closing the
recommendations from the CH2MHill report.
Road Map Validation
Category Ref # Recommendation Status Comment
Obser.
Ref.
4.1.1.1 Standard Lease and Lease Rate
Review Closed
4.1.1.2 Fuel Markup Rate Review In Progress JetA markup will go to GTAB for approval May
8, 2015. 2
4.1.1.3 Recommendation for Airport
Organizational Changes
Partially
Closed
Airport Manager position is filled. Airport
Operations Manager position recommended
by CH2MHill has not been created.
10
4.1.1.4 Airport Manager position elevated to
increase business development role No Action
4.1.1.5 KPI Performance Reporting Open 4
4.1.1.6 Vision and Brand Setting In Progress 11
4.1.1.7 Restaurant Development Open
Short Term
Page 56 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
16
Of the 8 Medium Term recommendations:
2 are In Progress
4 are On Hold
2 are Open
The recommendations with an On Hold status should be able to be addressed upon the
completion of the Airport Master Plan Update.
Category Ref # Recommendation Status Comment
Obser.
Ref.
4.1.2.1 Airport Development Committee
Establishment Open 10
4.1.2.2 Long‐Term Airport Management
Option Analysis and Selection In Progress 10, 11
4.1.2.3 Develop Comprehensive Marketing
Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.1.2.4 Develop RFPs and Gauge Private
Sector Demand for Development On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update
4.1.2.5 T‐Hanger vs. Shade Hanger Analysis On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update
4.1.2.6 Coordination of Land Development
Plan with Marketing Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.1.2.7 Develop Relationships with Local
Economic Development Agencies Open
4.1.2.8 Replace Terminating Leases with
Updated Stronger Leases In Progress 1
Medium Term
Road Map Validation
Page 57 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
17
Of the 6 Long Term recommendations:
1 is Closed
2 were determined to have No Action
3 are On Hold
The recommendations with an On Hold status should be able to be addressed upon the
completion of the Airport Master Plan Update.
Category Ref # Recommendation Status Comment
Obser.
Ref.
4.1.3.1 Develop Stronger Standard Lease
Contracts Closed
4.1.3.2 Reinstating Airshow No Action
4.1.3.3 Using Airport Revenue to Fund Land
Development Initiatives On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.1.3.4 Using Increased Revenues to Upgrade
Airport On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.1.3.5 Continuous Refinement of Airport
Brand and Marketing Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.1.3.6 Consider Runway Extension No Action
Long Term
Road Map Validation
Page 58 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
18
Of the 6 Financial and Legal recommendations:
2 are Closed
3 are In Progress
2 are Open
Updates to the Airport minimum standards and rules are in progress. Implementing our
recommendations should aid the City in closing the recommendations from the CH2MHill
report.
Road Map Validation
Category Ref # Recommendation Status Comment
Obser.
Ref.
4.2.2.1 Develop New Comprehensive Airport
Rules In Progress 11
4.2.2.2 Update Delegation of Authority Closed
4.2.2.3 Improving KPI Reporting Open 4
4.2.2.4 Improving Ad Valorem/Business Tax
Assessment Situation Open
4.2.2.5 Update Airport Minimum Standards In Progress Review completed by outside
counsel is in review.
4.2.2.6 Review and Update Airport Rules and
Regulations In Progress Review completed by outside
counsel is in review.
4.2.2.7 Update Contract Management
System In Progress 2
4.2.2.8 Conduct Annual Lease Compliance
Inspection. Closed
Financial and
Legal
Page 59 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
19
Of the 8 Capital Development and Maintenance recommendations
1 is Closed
7 are On Hold
The seven recommendations with an On Hold status should be able to be addressed upon
the completion of the Airport Master Plan Update.
Road Map Validation
Category Ref # Recommendation Status Comment
Obser.
Ref.
4.2.3.1 Updating GTU Master Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.2.3.2 Developing an Airport
Property/Commercial Development On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update
4.2.3.3 Establish an Airport Property
Development Committee On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.2.3.4 Develop Landscaping Enhancement
Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.2.3.5 Developing Airport Renovation Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.2.3.6 Maintain and Update the Capital
Development Plan On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
4.2.3.7 Consider TxDOT Assistance for
Project Planning Closed
4.2.3.8 Work with TxDOT to Development
Pavement Maintenance Program On Hold Awaiting TxDOT for Master
Plan Update 11
Capital
Development
and
Maintenance
Page 60 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
20
All 4 of the Operations, Safety, and Security Procedures recommendations are Open.
Of the 5 Administrative and Organization recommendations
1 was determined to have No Action
2 are In Progress
2 are Open
Upon completion of the Airport Master Plan Update, the Open items should be evaluated,
and a formal plan and timeline should be developed to address each recommendation.
Road Map Validation
Category Ref # Recommendation Status Comment
Obser.
Ref.
4.2.1.1 Develop an Updated Security Plan Open
4.2.1.2 Develop MOU with City Firefighting Open
4.2.1.3 Develop Tenant Security Watch
Function Open
4.2.1.4 Work With Police Department to
Improve Presence at the Airport Open
4.2.4.1 Establish Airport Advisory Committee
Structure Open 10
4.2.4.2 Develop Airport Marketing Plan In Progress 11
4.2.4.3 Develop Updated Job Descriptions In Progress
4.2.4.4 Develop Ties to Local Community Open
4.2.4.5 Elevating Airport Manager Position to
Higher Report Structure No Action
Administrative
and
Organization
Operations,
Safety, and
Security
Procedures
Page 61 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
21
Through our validation of the City’s progress and plans to address the
recommendations made by CH2MHill, we identified two observations
and recommendations.
Observation 10
Due to changes in Airport management and governance structure, clear lines of
responsibility have not been established to address all of the recommendations
and required changes identified in the CH2M Hill report. Many of the
recommendations provided in the report have not been addressed, and to date,
a plan has not been developed to respond to each of the recommendations.
Recommendation
The City and GTAB should establish clear responsibilities to prioritize the CH2MHill
financial and operational issues and address each of the recommendations
identified by CH2M Hill and Weaver. These responsibilities should be assigned to
an individual to prepare a plan and timeline to address each recommendation.
Road Map Validation
Page 62 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
22
Observation 11
The City has no formalized plan or established timeline to carry out their role
during the update to the Airport Master Plan. The master plan update was
scheduled to start in 2015, however the project is not funded. Many
recommendations CH2M Hill have been deferred to the update of the master
plan, however there is no documented plan or timeline.
Recommendation
Airport and City management should establish formal action plan and
timeline, which includes the budgeted funds to execute the project, to fulfill
their role during the Airport Master Plan. Individuals such as the Airport
Manager and Director of Transportation should be responsible for the
oversight of the development of the action plan. Milestone goals such as
steering committee selection, marketing/brand development plan, capital
development plans, security procedure plans, etc. should have specific
deadlines for completion.
Road Map Validation
Page 63 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
23
Financial Analysis Results
After validating the progress to date the City and Airport
management have made on the recommendations from the 2013
Georgetown Airport Business Analysis report, we evaluated the
economic impact those changes will have on the future operations
of the Airport to project if future operations could result in self-
sustaining cash flow.
To achieve this, we updated estimates prepared by the City’s
Finance Department with the lease rates, fuel markups, personnel
and operating expenses that were changed, in response to the
recommendations in the Airport Business Analysis report.
For the amounts provided by the City’s Finance Department, we
used the estimated 2% increase for projected revenues and
expenditures, and the budgeted amounts for the 2015 fiscal year.
Page 64 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
24
Amounts in blue represent 2015 projections provided by the Finance Department, adjusted for the
anticipated 2% annual increase.
Year End 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Notes
Projected Rental Unit Revenues
Commercial Space Leases 217,024$ 216,839$ 216,839$ 221,176$ 225,600$ 230,112$ 1
Hangar Leases 346,729$ 398,423$ 406,392$ 414,520$ 422,810$ 431,266$ 2
Tie Downs 15,416$ 26,100$ 26,622$ 27,154$ 27,698$ 28,251$ 3
Total Rental Unit Revenue 579,169$ 641,363$ 649,853$ 662,850$ 676,107$ 689,629$
Rental Operating Expenses
Personnel 22,050$ 22,500$ 22,950$ 23,409$ 23,877$ 24,355$ 4
Utilities 20,969$ 21,397$ 21,825$ 22,261$ 22,706$ 23,161$ 4
Maintenance of Rental Units 19,600$ 20,000$ 20,400$ 20,808$ 21,224$ 21,649$ 4
Total Rental Unit Operating Expense 62,619$ 63,897$ 65,175$ 66,478$ 67,808$ 69,164$
Rental Net Profit 516,550$ 577,466$ 584,678$ 596,372$ 608,299$ 620,465$
Rental Operating Margin 89.19% 90.04% 89.97% 89.97% 89.97% 89.97%
Rental Revenues and Expenses
1. Commercial Space Lease revenues are projected at the current rates. The City is determining whether the contracts allow for CPI
adjustments, which may affect this calculation. As of February 2015 there are 32 land leases that are fully occupied. There ar e no plans to add
additional lease space. It's estimated that rate adjustments to the lease rates will not be possible until 2017 due to contract limitations. Revenues
in 2017 are projected using market rates estimated in the market study provided to the City and increased by 2% in subsequent years.
2. There 114 hangars that are available to be leased. The hangars are currently 94% occupied. Despite availability, there is a waiting listing for
prospective tenants who want to lease a hangar. Hangar revenue was projected using the rates effective March 2015, which were updated
based on a market study and increased by 2% in subsequent years.
3. There are 34 tie-downs available for leasing. The occupancy rate for tie down spots is 82%. Revenue for tie down spots is projected using the
rates effective March 2015, which were updated based on a market study and increased by 2% in subsequent years.
4. Estimated fuel, personnel, maintenance and operating expenses for Fuel and Rental operations are based on the Airport's budgeted 2015
costs and increased by 2% each year. Personnel expenses are assigned to Fuel and Lease operations based on the position and tim e spent on
each area. There are a total of 3 Full-time employees and 4 Part Time Employees.
Financial Analysis Results
Page 65 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
25
Year End 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Notes
Fuel Revenues 2,518,237$ 2,576,983$ 2,635,729$ 2,694,475$ 2,753,222$ 2,811,968$ 1
Total Fuel Revenues 2,518,237$ 2,576,983$ 2,635,729$ 2,694,475$ 2,753,222$ 2,811,968$
Cost of Fuel 2,266,418$ 2,272,600$ 2,318,052$ 2,364,413$ 2,411,701$ 2,459,935$ 2
Total Cost of Fuel Sales 2,266,418$ 2,272,600$ 2,318,052$ 2,364,413$ 2,411,701$ 2,459,935$
Fuel Sales Operating Expenses
Personnel 109,515$ 111,750$ 113,985$ 116,265$ 118,590$ 120,962$ 2
Utilities 9,757$ 9,957$ 10,156$ 10,359$ 10,566$ 10,777$ 2
Maintenance of Fuel Infrastructure 4,900$ 5,000$ 5,100$ 5,202$ 5,306$ 5,412$ 2
Total Fuel Sales Operating Expense 124,172$ 126,707$ 129,241$ 131,826$ 134,462$ 137,151$
Fuel Net Profit 127,647$ 177,676$ 188,436$ 198,237$ 207,058$ 214,881$
Fuel Operating Margin 5.07% 6.89% 7.15% 7.36% 7.52% 7.64%
2012 2013 2014
2,341,998 2,332,610 2,518,237
-0.40% 7.96%2.33%
Fuel Revenue Projection
Average
Increase %Fuel Sales
Increase
Fuel Sales Revenues and Expenses
2. Estimated fuel, personnel, maintenance and operating expenses for Fuel and Rental operations are based on the Airport's budgeted 2015
costs and increased by 2% each year. Personnel expenses are assigned to Fuel and Lease operations based on the position and tim e spent on
each area. There are a total of 3 Full-time employees and 4 Part Time Employees.
1. Fuel sales were projected using historical fuel sales for the years 2012-2014. The average increase was 2.33% in fuel revenues per year.
Financial Analysis Results
Page 66 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
26
Financial Analysis Results
Year End 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Notes
Other Airport Revenues
Ad Valorem Tax 31,057$ 31,678$ 32,312$ 32,958$ 33,617$ 34,289$ 1
Bond Proceeds -$ 890,000$
All Other 125,905$ 43,232$ 48,434$ 36,561$ 30,936$ 25,197$ 2
Total Other Airport Revenues 156,962$ 933,232$ 48,434$ 36,561$ 30,936$ 25,197$
Other Airport Expenses
Personnel 145,190$ 216,003$ 220,323$ 224,730$ 229,224$ 233,809$
Additional Operations Manager -$ -$ 78,000$ 79,560$ 81,151$ 82,774$ 3
Operations and Maintenance 94,508$ 185,280$ 188,985$ 192,765$ 196,620$ 200,553$ 4
Allocations (ISFs, Admin, Joint Svc) 266,008$ 351,254$ 354,767$ 358,314$ 361,897$ 365,516$ 5
Capital Expenditures -$ 890,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Debt Service 169,178$ 165,222$ 113,004$ 112,969$ 79,847$ 71,542$
Grant Matching -$ 66,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Other Airport Expenses 674,884$ 1,873,759$ 955,079$ 968,338$ 948,740$ 954,194$
Net Other Revenues and Expense s (517,922)$ (940,526)$ (906,645)$ (931,776)$ (917,804)$ (928,996)$
3. CH2M Hill recommended an Operations Manager position to be filled at the Airport in 2016. We agree this is a needed position for operations.
We estimate this position will require a base salary of $60,000 plus benefits estimated at 30% ($18,000) resulting in a total c arrying cost of
$78,000. Increases to the personnel expense for this position are based on 2% increases each year.
1. Ad Valorem Tax is based on the amount assessed 2014 increased by 2% each year.
2. All Other Revenue represents items including terminal sales of t-shirts and oil, bankruptcy collection settlements, grant revenue, airport event
revenues, and other miscellaneous revenues.
4. Budgeted Operations and Maintenance expenses are projected based on historical work orders fulfilled by the Maintenance Department.
Actual costs may exceed the budged amount due to increased awareness by the Airport Manager of maintenance issues that could cause an
increased number of work orders over the projected amount used for the budget estimate.
5. Allocations include the Building ISF, Technology ISF, Administrative Allocations, and Joint Services Allocations. These allocations are
projected to increase by 1% over the next 5 years.
Other Revenues and Expenses
Page 67 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
27
Based on the current lease rates, fuel pricing conditions and the
current operating constraints, it is anticipated that the Georgetown
Municipal Airport will have expenditures in excess of revenues
through at least the 2019 fiscal year.
Financial Analysis Results
Year End 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Rental Net Profit 516,550$ 577,466$ 584,678$ 596,372$ 608,299$ 620,465$
Fuel Net Profit 127,647$ 177,676$ 188,436$ 198,237$ 207,058$ 214,881$
Net Other Revenues and Expenses (517,922)$ (940,526)$ (906,645)$ (931,776)$ (917,804)$ (928,996)$
Revenues Greater/(Less) than
Expenditures 126,275$ (185,384)$ (133,530)$ (137,167)$ (102,447)$ (93,650)$
Revenues Greater/(Less) Than Expenditures
Page 68 of 71
DRAFT –For Discussion Purposes Only
28
Conclusion
After filling the position of the Airport Manager, the City and Airport
management have focused on the maintenance, safety and
operations of the airport to improve it to acceptable operating
conditions.
The Georgetown Municipal Airport does not have the fundamental
processes and technology in place to address the larger issues in the
CH2MHill report. The City should focus on implementing the
recommendations to the observations from our procedures to
establish the operational infrastructure necessary for effective
operations.
Once the Airport has restored acceptable operating conditions, the
Partially Closed, Open, and On Hold items should be evaluated,
prioritized, and a formal plan and timeline should be developed to
address each outstanding recommendation in the CH2MHill report.
Page 69 of 71
Discussion
Alyssa Martin, Executive Partner
Alyssa.Martin@Weaver.com
972.448.6975
Daniel Graves, Senior Manager
Daniel.Graves@Weaver.com
512.609.1913
Weaver
Risk Advisory Services
1601 S. Mopac Expressway, Suite D250
Austin, Texas 79746
Page 70 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
May 8, 2015
SUBJECT:
Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation on the proposed Streets, Drainage, and
Airport Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2016 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Engineering
Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Please see attached CIP plan.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright
Page 71 of 71
