Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 08.14.2018 Workshop
Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas August 14, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet onAugust 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM at Council Chambers - 101 East 7th Street 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 Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930- 3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTYusers route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Presentation and discussion of the Draft Airport Master Plan -- Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Octavio Garza., Public Works Director B Presentation and discussion on the Austin Avenue Bridges Environmental Clearance Process and selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator C Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge - - Chris Foster, Resource Management and Integration Manger, Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities, and Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager D Presentation and discussion of the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager E Presentation and discussion concerning ethics -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. F Sec.551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Escalera Ranch Owners' Association Inc. v Planning and Zoning Commission Members Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Quarterly Utility Financial Update Page 1 of 588 Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Shelley Nowling, 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 , 2018, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 2 of 588 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the Draft Airport Master Plan -- Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Octavio Garza, Public Works Director ITEM SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that airports update their long-term planning documents every 7 to 10 years, or as necessary to address local changes at the airport. The current Master Plan is dated 2005. The Airport Master Plan effort is being undertaken to evaluate the airports capabilities and role; to forecast future aviation demand; and to plan for the timely development of improved or new facilities that may be required to meet demand. The ultimate goal of the Master Plan is to provide systematic guidelines for the airport's overall maintenance, development, operation and land use. Input during the plan study included recommendations from a City appointed Planning Advisory Committee, as well as public input obtained during three Public Information Workshops and through a public accessible web site. The Airport Master Plan Study was accomplished in accordance with FAA requirements, including multiple FAApublished Advisory Circulars. The Master Plan is intended to be a proactive document which identifies and then plans for future facility needs well in advance of the actual need. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager ATTACHMENTS: MP Part 1 MPPart 2 MP Part 3 MP Part 4 MP Part 5a MP Part 5b MPPart 6 MPPart 7 MPPart 8 MP Part 9 Page 3 of 588 '9/Rp O�T� -9STFR p GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DRAFT FINAL GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTER PEW DRAFT FINAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN For GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Georgetown, Texas Prepared for THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS J C Of::.an Associates Airport Consultants J U LY 2018 I IT* 18411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTER PL' - TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................... i-2 MasterPlan Issues........................................................................................................................ i-3 BaselineAssumptions................................................................................................................... i-4 MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS................................................................................................. i-4 COORDINATION........................................................................................................................................ i-6 SWOTANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ i-7 SWOTDefinitions.......................................................................................................................... i-7 SWOTAnalysis Results.................................................................................................................. i-8 Chapter One — Inventory REGIONAL SETTING.................................................................................................................................. 1-2 AirportHistory............................................................................................................................. 1-2 AirportAdministration................................................................................................................. 1-4 Airport Location and Access........................................................................................................ 1-4 RegionalClimate.......................................................................................................................... 1-6 AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING ROLE.......................................................................................................... 1-7 FederalAirport Planning.............................................................................................................. 1-7 RegionalSystem Planning............................................................................................................ 1-8 StateAirport Planning.................................................................................................................. 1-8 LocalAirport Planning................................................................................................................ 1-13 FutureRole of the Airport.......................................................................................................... 1-13 EconomicImpact........................................................................................................................ 1-13 AirportProperty......................................................................................................................... 1-13 AREALAND USE...................................................................................................................................... 1-14 ExistingLand Use....................................................................................................................... 1-14 FutureLand Use......................................................................................................................... 1-14 AreaZoning................................................................................................................................ 1-14 AIRFIELDFACILITIES............................................................................................................................... 1-20 Runways..................................................................................................................................... 1-20 Taxiways..................................................................................................................................... 1-23 PavementMarkings................................................................................................................... 1-24 PavementCondition.................................................................................................................. 1-24 Airfield Lighting Systems............................................................................................................ 1-25 Weather and Communication Aids............................................................................................ 1-26 AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL......................................................................................... 1-27 Page 7 of 588 Al • ' 1,i , AirspaceStructure...................................................................................................................... 1-27 SpecialUse Airspace.................................................................................................................. 1-30 AirspaceControl......................................................................................................................... 1-31 NavigationalAids....................................................................................................................... 1-31 Instrument Approach Procedures............................................................................................. 1-32 LocalConditions......................................................................................................................... 1-35 Runway Use and Traffic Patterns............................................................................................... 1-37 LANDSIDEFACILITIES.............................................................................................................................. 1-37 AirportBusinesses..................................................................................................................... 1-37 Airport Buildings and Hangars................................................................................................... 1-38 AircraftAprons........................................................................................................................... 1-41 Aircraft Tie -Down Positions....................................................................................................... 1-41 SupportFacilities........................................................................................................................ 1-42 AirportDocuments.................................................................................................................... 1-45 AIRPORT SERVICE AREA......................................................................................................................... 1-49 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................................... 1-50 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY.............................................................................................................. 1-52 AirQuality.................................................................................................................................. 1-52 Biological Resources (Including Fish, Wildlife and Plants).........................................................1-52 Climate....................................................................................................................................... 1-54 CoastalResources...................................................................................................................... 1-55 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)........................................................................ 1-55 Farmlands................................................................................................................................... 1-56 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention ................................................... 1-56 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ............................................ 1-58 LandUse..................................................................................................................................... 1-59 Noise and Compatible Land Use................................................................................................ 1-61 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and SafetyRisks................................................................................................................................ 1-62 Visual Effects (Including Light Emissions).................................................................................. 1-62 Water Resources (Including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wildand Scenic Rivers).............................................................................................................. 1-63 DOCUMENT SOURCES............................................................................................................................ 1-65 Chapter Two — Aviation Demand Forecasts SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS....................................................................................................................... 2-3 NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS.................................................................................................................. 2-3 Economic Environment................................................................................................................ 2-4 FAA General Aviation Forecasts................................................................................................... 2-4 FORECASTING APPROACH..................................................................................................................... 2-11 FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST (TAF).................................................................................................. 2-12 Page 8 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICll'nl Alkl'Ok l AIRPORT MAS GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS ................................... Registered Aircraft Forecast ............................. Based Aircraft Forecast ..................................... Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Forecast ..................... Operations Forecast .......................................... PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS .......................................... Operations by Fleet Mix .................................... ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES ........................... FORECAST SUMMARY ................................................... AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION........... Aircraft Classification ........................................ Airport and Runway Classifications .................. CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT .......................................... Airport Design Aircraft ...................................... Runway Design Code ........................................ Approach and Departure Reference Codes...... Critical Aircraft Summary .................................. SUMMARY..................................................................... Chapter Three — Facility Requirements .. 2-13 ...................................................................... 2-13 ...................................................................... 2-19 ...................................................................... 2-23 ...................................................................... 2-24 ...................................................................... 2-36 ...................................................................... 2-38 ...................................................................... 2-39 ...................................................................... 2-40 ...................................................................... 2-40 ...................................................................... 2-40 ...................................................................... 2-42 ...................................................................... 2-45 ...................................................................... 2-46 ...................................................................... 2-50 ...................................................................... 2-SO ...................................................................... 2-51 ...................................................................... 2-S1 PLANNING HORIZONS.............................................................................................................................. 3-2 AIRFIELDCAPACITY.................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Factors Affecting Annual Service Volume.................................................................................... 3-3 Annual Service Volume................................................................................................................ 3-6 AircraftDelay............................................................................................................................... 3-7 Capacity Analysis Conclusion....................................................................................................... 3-7 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................................ 3-7 RunwayConfiguration................................................................................................................. 3-8 RunwayDesign Standards.......................................................................................................... 3-12 Runway Separation Standards................................................................................................... 3-17 Runways..................................................................................................................................... 3-19 Taxiways..................................................................................................................................... 3-25 HoldingBays............................................................................................................................... 3-31 Instrument Approach Capability................................................................................................ 3-31 VisualNavigation Aids................................................................................................................ 3-32 Airfield Lighting, Marking, and Signage..................................................................................... 3-33 Weather and Communication Aids............................................................................................ 3-33 AirsideSummary........................................................................................................................ 3-34 LANDSIDEREQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................... 3-35 AircraftHangars......................................................................................................................... 3-35 General Aviation Aircraft Apron................................................................................................ 3-38 Page 9 of 588 GEORGETOWN MI INICIPAI AIRI'OK I r AIRPORT MASTER PLX1�aii General Aviation Vehicle Access and Parking............................................................................ 3-40 General Aviation Terminal Services........................................................................................... 3-41 LandsideSummary..................................................................................................................... 3-41 AIRPORT SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................... 3-42 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Facilities...................................................................... 3-42 MaintenanceBuilding................................................................................................................ 3-42 FuelStorage............................................................................................................................... 3-42 PerimeterFencing...................................................................................................................... 3-44 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. 3-45 Chapter Four —Alternatives PLANNING OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................ 4-1 NON -DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................... 4-4 AirportClosure History................................................................................................................ 4-4 Factors and Procedural Requirements Related to Airport Closure ............................................. 4-5 Non -Development Alternatives Summary................................................................................. 4-12 REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS AIRPORT PLAN............................................................................................ 4-13 AIRPORT LAND USE................................................................................................................................4-13 AirfieldOperations..................................................................................................................... 4-14 AviationDevelopment............................................................................................................... 4-14 Non -Aviation Revenue Support................................................................................................. 4-18 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................................... 4-18 Design Standards Consideration................................................................................................ 4-18 Runway Object Free Area(ROFA).............................................................................................. 4-22 Runway Protection Zones.......................................................................................................... 4-27 Approach Surface Analysis......................................................................................................... 4-33 TaxiwayGeometry..................................................................................................................... 4-35 HoldBays....................................................................................................................................4-35 Runway Extension Alternatives................................................................................................. 4-39 LANDSIDEALTERNATIVES...................................................................................................................... 4-43 Hangar Development Alternatives............................................................................................ 4-44 Terminal Development Area 1................................................................................................... 4-44 Terminal Development Area 2................................................................................................... 4-47 Terminal Development Area 3................................................................................................... 4-48 Terminal Development Area 4................................................................................................... 4-55 Northwest Development Area 5................................................................................................ 4-55 Southwest Development Area 6................................................................................................ 4-63 TerminalBuilding....................................................................................................................... 4-63 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 4-63 Page 10 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAl Alkl'Ok I NNIL AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� Chapter Five — Recommended Development Plan AIRSIDECONCEPT.................................................................................................................................... 5-1 AirportReference Code............................................................................................................... 5-2 RunwayDesign Code (RDC)......................................................................................................... 5-5 Runway18-36 Length.................................................................................................................. 5-6 Runway Object Free Area(ROFA)................................................................................................ 5-7 Runway Protection Zones(RPZ)................................................................................................... 5-8 ApproachSurface......................................................................................................................... 5-9 Taxiways..................................................................................................................................... 5-10 HoldBays.................................................................................................................................... 5-10 Instrument Approaches............................................................................................................. 5-11 PropertyAcquisition.................................................................................................................. 5-12 AirsideConclusion...................................................................................................................... 5-13 LANDSIDECONCEPT............................................................................................................................... 5-13 Hangars...................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Area6 Development.................................................................................................................. 5-16 Maintenance Equipment Building............................................................................................. 5-16 SupportFacilities........................................................................................................................ 5-17 AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN...................................................................................................................... 5-17 On -Airport Land Use Obligations...............................................................................................5-17 On -Airport Land Use Plan.......................................................................................................... 5-19 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW, RECYCLING PLAN & LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ................................... 5-20 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW................................................................................................................ S-20 Potential Environmental Concerns............................................................................................ 5-23 RECYCLINGPLAN....................................................................................................................................5-41 Current Recycling Practices....................................................................................................... 5-42 Current Solid Waste Practices.................................................................................................... 5-42 FutureOpportunities................................................................................................................. 5-42 Recycling Goals and Objectives................................................................................................. 5-43 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY...................................................................................................... 5-44 ExistingLand Use....................................................................................................................... 5-44 FutureLand Use......................................................................................................................... 5-44 Zoning........................................................................................................................................ 5-46 SubdivisionRegulations............................................................................................................. 5-47 BuildingCodes............................................................................................................................ 5-48 Land and/or Property Acquisition.............................................................................................. 5-48 Fair Disclosure Regulations........................................................................................................ 5-49 Noise Exposure Contours........................................................................................................... 5-49 Non -Compatible Development Analysis.................................................................................... S-50 Land Use Compatibility Recommendations............................................................................... 5-56 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. S-56 Page 11 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIKI'OK I Nw AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� Chapter Six — Capital Improvement Program AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES AND COST SUMMARIES.............................................................. 6-1 Short Term Improvements........................................................................................................... 6-4 Intermediate Term Improvements............................................................................................6-12 Long Term Improvements.......................................................................................................... 6-16 Capital Improvement Summary................................................................................................. 6-21 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES....................................................................................... 6-21 FederalGrants............................................................................................................................ 6-22 StateAid to Airports.................................................................................................................. 6-25 LocalFunding............................................................................................................................ 6-27 FUNDINGPLAN...................................................................................................................................... 6-29 Considerations to Enhance Economic Aviation Development .................................................. 6-30 Funding Airport Operations....................................................................................................... 6-31 Airport Rates and Charges......................................................................................................... 6-32 AIRPORT FUTURE AND BRANDING........................................................................................................ 6-36 MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................................... 6-37 EXHIBITS APROJECT FLOW.............................................................................................................................. i-5 1A LOCATION/VICINITY MAP............................................................................................................ 1-5 113 NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM COMPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ............................... 1-9 10EXISTING LAND USE................................................................................................................... 1-15 1D FUTURE LAND USE..................................................................................................................... 1-16 1E CURRENT AREA ZONING............................................................................................................ 1-17 1F HEIGHT AND HAZARD ZONES..................................................................................................... 1-19 1G AIRPORT FACILITIES.................................................................................................................... 1-21 1H AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION/VICINITY AIRSPACE...................................................................1-28/29 1J INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES....................................................................................................... 1-33 1K FLY FRIENDLY PROGRAM........................................................................................................... 1-36 1LBUILDING INVENTORY............................................................................................................... 1-39 1M PLANNING TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................... 1-47 1N SERVICE AREA............................................................................................................................. 1-51 1P ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES............................................................................................... 1-57 2A SOCIOECONOMIC HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS.......................................................................... 2-5 2B FAA NATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION/AIR TAXI FORECASTS......................................................... 2-9 2C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS........................................................................................... 2-18 2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS.................................................................................................... 2-22 2E GA OPERATIONS FORECASTS..................................................................................................... 2-29 2F FORECAST SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 2-41 Page 12 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'Ok I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� 2G AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS................................................................................. 2-43 2H AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES...................................................................................................... 2-44 2.1 TFMSC JET OPERATIONS............................................................................................................ 2-47 3A AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS....................................................................................................... 3-4 3BWINDROSES ............................................................................................................................3-9/10 3C FAA DESIGN STANDARDS........................................................................................................... 3-13 3D RUNWAY LENGTH AND USAGE.................................................................................................. 3-23 3E GEOMETRY AND DESIGN STANDARD — AREAS OF INTEREST .................................................... 3-29 3F AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................. 3-36 3G LANDSIDE AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS................................................................................ 3-43 4A PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................................4-3 4BEXISTING ALP.............................................................................................................................. 4-15 4C ON -AIRPORT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.................................................................................. 4-17 4D C-II AND B-II DESIGN STANDARDS.............................................................................................4-19 4E ROFA RUNWAY 18-36 FUTURE C-II ALTERNATIVES...................................................................4-23 4F RPZ RUNWAY 18 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................ 4-29 4G RPZ ALTERNATIVES RUNWAY 36................................................................................................ 4-31 4H THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE ALTERNATIVES........................................................................... 4-34 4.1 TAXIWAY/HOLD APRON ALTERNATIVE 1................................................................................... 4-37 TAXIWAY/HOLD APRON ALTERNATIVE 2................................................................................... 4-38 4K DECLARED DISTANCE/RUNWAY EXTENSION............................................................................. 4-41 4L DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS....................................................................................................... 4-45 4M AREA 1 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................... 4-49 4N AREA 2 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................... 4-51 4P AREA 3 SOUTH ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................... 4-53 4Q AREA 3 NORTH ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................. 4-57 4R AREA 4 ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................. 4-59 4S NORTHWEST ACCESS ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................ 4-60 4T AREA 5 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................4-61/62 5A RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT................................................................................ 5-3 513 AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN.......................................................................................................... 5-21 5C KARST HABITAT MAP................................................................................................................. 5-25 5D POTENTIAL GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER HABITAT.................................................................. 5-27 5E POTENTIAL BLACK -CAPPED VIREO HABITAT.............................................................................. 5-28 5F EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS................................................................................ 5-35 5G CITY OF GEORGETOWN LIMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (ETJ) ......................... 5-45 5H LAND USE ANALYSIS — FUTURE LAND USE................................................................................. 5-51 51 LAND USE ANALYSIS — ZONING.................................................................................................. 5-53 6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM........................................................................................... 6-5 613 SHORT TERM DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................... 6-7 Page 13 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT mL AIRPORT MASTER PCA a 6C INTERMEDIATE TERM ............ 6D LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT... Appendix A GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................. 6-13 ............................................................................................. 6-17 Appendix B AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS Appendix C GRANT ASSURANCES Appendix D HEIGHT AND HAZARD ZONING Appendix E FORECAST SUPPLEMENTAL Appendix F AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 1 Page 14 of 588 I IT* 18411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS INTRODUCTION Page 15 of 588 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that airports update their long-term planning documents every seven to 10 years, or as necessary to address local changes at the airport. The last master plan update for Georgetown Municipal Airport was completed in 2005. The City of Georgetown, the sponsor of the Airport, has received a grant from the FAA to update the Airport Master Plan. The FAA grant covers 90 percent of the fixed fee project cost with the Airport Fund providing a ten percent match. The Airport Master Plan is being undertaken to evaluate Georgetown Municipal Airport's (Airport) capa- bilities and role, to forecast future aviation demand, and to plan for the timely development of improved or new facilities that may be required to meet that demand. The ultimate goal of the Master Plan is to provide systematic guidelines for the Airport's overall maintenance, development, and operation. The study is designed to provide guidance for future development and provide updated justification for pro- jects for which the Airport may request funding participation through federal and state airport improve- ment programs. Following a qualification -based selection process, the Airport sponsor contracted with Coffman Associates, a national aviation consulting firm specializing in master planning and environmen- tal studies, to lead the master plan project. The Airport Master Plan Update is prepared in accordance with FAA requirements, including Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (as amended), and AC 150/5070-6C, Airport Master Plans (as amended). The Master Plan is intended to be a proactive document which identifies and then plans for future facility needs well in advance of the actual need. This is done to ensure that Airport management can coordinate project approvals, design, financing, and construction in a timely manner, prior to expe- riencing the detrimental effects of deteriorating or inadequate facilities. mob GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRF M I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN An important outcome of the Master Plan process is a recommended development plan which reserves sufficient areas for future facility needs. Such planning will protect development areas and ensure they will be readily available when required to meet future needs. A detailed on -airport land use concept which outlines specific uses for all areas of airport property, including strategies for revenue enhance- ment, results. The preparation of this Master Plan is evidence that the City of Georgetown recognizes the importance of the Airport to the surrounding region and the challenges inherent in providing for its unique operating and improvement needs. The cost of maintaining an airport is an investment which yields impressive benefits to the local community. With a sound and realistic Master Plan, the Airport can maintain its role as an important link to the regional, state, and national air transportation systems. Moreover, the plan will aid in supporting decisions for directing limited and valuable resources for future airport devel- opment. Ultimately, the continued investments in the Airport will allow the region to reap the economic benefits generated by the presence of the Airport. The Georgetown Municipal Airport is particularly important to the National Aviation System. It is one of a select few that are designated by the FAA as reliever airports. Reliever airports are intended to provide alternate locations for general aviation aircraft to operate in order to reduce congestion at commercial service airports and to provide enhanced general aviation services. The Airport is further classified as a Regional Airport by the FAA, which supports regional economies by connecting communities to statewide and interstate markets. tT /_� 1J6���:�»�T►�L�Iil_A ►ALJ►fLp�7:�1 The primary objective of the Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan is to develop and maintain a financially feasible, long term development program, which will satisfy aviation demand of the region; be compatible with community development, other transportation modes, and the environment; and enhance employment and revenue for the local area. The most recent planning effort for the Airport was the completion of the Georgetown Municipal Airport — Airport Master Plan 2005. The Airport's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) has been updated or modified periodically to include various as -built projects. This Master Plan is intended to provide guidance through an updated capital improvement plan and financial program which identifies the future investments that may be necessary by the Airport. This study will also prioritize future development and provide either the existing project justification or the triggers for justification. The plan will be closely coordinated with other planning studies in the area and with aviation plans developed by the FAA. Specific objectives of the study include, but are not limited to, the following: • Research factors likely to affect air transportation demand in the region and develop new aviation demand forecasts to cover a 20-year planning horizon. IntroductionDRAFT Page 17 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRPO I AIRPORT MASTER PLA , • Determine projected needs of airport users as it relates to the airside (runways, taxiways, etc.) and the landside facilities (hangar layout and mix). Recommend improvements that will enhance the airport's ability to satisfy future aviation needs. • Establish a schedule of development priorities and a financial program for implementation and ana- lyze potential funding sources, consistent with FAA planning. • Provide specific recommendations for aviation and non -aviation related land uses on airport prop- erty and review existing or proposed land use, economic development, and zoning documents to ensure future compatibility with off -airport development. • Develop active and productive public involvement throughout the planning process. MASTER PLAN ISSUES The Master Plan specifically addresses the following issues: • Assist the City, through the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), in determining a long-term vision for the Airport; • Conduct a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis identifying strengths, weaknesses, realistic markets, goals, resources and strategy to move forward. This analysis will factor the strengths and weaknesses of the Airport to include physical and operational features. Prepare an evaluation of existing and future general aviation demand at the Airport; • Based on the realistic evaluation of the facility in terms of configuration, condition, amenities, loca- tion, competition and forecasted aviation demand, establish goals and priorities for the Airport to meet that vision; • Identify airfield alternatives based on goals and opportunities as well as FAA applicable design stand- ards. The analysis will include an evaluation of the airfield geometry to address any non-standard conditions as compared to current FAA design criteria; • Provide a landside development plan that identifies areas for accommodating the forecasted growth of aviation and aviation -related business and, if appropriate, areas for non -aviation revenue -produc- ing opportunities. Consideration will be given to the potential for new or expanded aviation facilities, including aircraft hangar and ramp capacity, and airport support facilities. • Assess compatible land use in the vicinity of the Airport; Page 18 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRF M I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN • Prioritize preservation and rehabilitation recommendations in order of greatest overall positive im- pact; and • Identify elements of an ongoing maintenance plan. BASELINE ASSUMPTION A study such as this typically requires several baseline assumptions that will be used throughout this analysis. The baseline assumptions for this study are as follows: • Georgetown Municipal Airport will continue to operate as a reliever general aviation airport through the 20-year planning period; • Georgetown Municipal Airport will continue to accommodate general aviation, air taxi, and military operations; • The general aviation industry will grow through the planning period as projected by the FAA. Specifics of projected growth are contained in Chapter Two — Aviation Demand Forecasts; The socioeconomic characteristics of the region will generally grow as forecast (see Chapter Two); and, • A federal grant program will be in place through the planning period to assist in funding future capital development needs. MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS The Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan was prepared in a systematic fashion following FAA guidelines and industry -accepted principles and practices, as presented on Exhibit IA. The Master Plan has six chapters that are intended to assist in the evaluation of future facility needs and provide the supporting rationale for their implementation. Chapter One — Inventory summarizes the inventory efforts. The inventory efforts are focused on col- lecting and assembling relevant data pertaining to the Airport and the area it serves. Information is collected on existing airport facilities and operations. Local economic and demographic data is collected to define the local growth trends, and environmental information is gathered to identify potential envi- ronmental sensitivities that might affect future improvements. Planning studies which may have rele- vance to the Master Plan are also collected. Chapter Two — Forecasts examines the potential aviation demand at the Airport. The analysis utilizes local socioeconomic information, as well as national air transportation trends to quantify the levels of aviation activity which can reasonably be expected to occur at the Airport through the year 2036. The Page 19 of 588 GEORGETOWN PAC # 1 AIRPORT INVENTORY Airport Facilities • Airport Access and Area Socioeconomic Data Airspace and Air Parking, Utilities, and Local Planning and Land Us Traffic Activity Aerial Photography FORECASTS Based Aircraft and Fleet Mix • Peaking Characteristics • Annual Operations FACILITY REQUIREMENTS • Design Categories • Support Facilities • Hangar Facilities • Aprons • Runway Length • Taxiways • Terminal Building • Navigational Aids and Strength • Airfield Caoacity PAC #2 PIW #1 I AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES • Evaluate Development Scenarios - Airside - Landside PAC #3 RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT/ :PIWM#2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Detailed Master Plan Facility • Review/Evaluation of NEPA and Land Use Plans Environmental Categories FINANCIAL PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS I • Airport Development Schedule • Cost Estimates • Funding Sources AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Airport Layout Plan Airspace/Approach Drawings Property Map Landside Drawing On -Airport Land Use Plan Land Use Plans PAC #4 DRA . MasterPlan Approdals sterPla ' 0 M 171A M1f 6 Introduction - DRAFT Exhibit IA PROJECT FLOW GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRF M I AIRPORT MAS results of this effort are used to determine the types and sizes of facilities which will be required to meet the projected aviation demand at the Airport through the planning period. The current and future critical design aircraft, as defined by FAA criteria, is identified and the appropriate design standards are selected for the planning of current and future airport facilities. Chapter Three — Facility Requirements comprises the demand/capacity and facility requirements anal- yses. The intent of this analysis is to compare the existing facility capacities to forecast aviation demand and determine where deficiencies in capacities (as well as excess capacities) may exist. Where deficien- cies are identified, the size and type of new facilities to accommodate the demand are identified. The airfield analysis focuses on improvements needed to safely serve the type of aircraft expected to operate at the Airport in the future, as well as navigational aids to increase the safety and efficiency of operations. This element also examines general aviation terminal services, hangar, apron, and support needs. Chapter Four — Airport Development Alternatives considers a variety of solutions to accommodate the projected facility needs. This element proposes various facility and site plan configurations which can meet the projected facility needs. An analysis is completed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each proposed development alternative, with the intention of determining a single direction for devel- opment. Alternatives for addressing any current or future non-standard airfield conditions are also pre- sented. Chapter Five — Airport Layout Plans and Land Use Compatibility provides both a graphic and narrative description of the recommended plan for the use, development, and operation of the Airport. An envi- ronmental overview is provided at the end of this chapter to analyze potential environmental impacts of proposed Airport development projects. New noise exposure contours are developed and land use compatibility analysis is undertaken. Chapter Six — Financial Management and Development Program provides a proposed capital improve- ment program which defines the schedules, costs, and funding sources for the recommended develop- ment projects. The official ALP drawings that are produced as a result of the recommended Master Plan Concept and used by the FAA in determining grant eligibility, will be included as an appendix to the Master Plan at the completion of the project. COORDINATION The Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan is of interest to many within the local community and region. This includes local citizens, local businesses, community organizations, City officials, airport us- ers, airport tenants, and aviation organizations. As a component of the regional, state, and national aviation systems, the Airport is of importance to both state and federal agencies responsible for over- seeing the air transportation system. IntroductionDRAFT Page 21 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRF M I AIRPORT MAS To assist in the development of the Master Plan, the City of Georgetown has identified a group of citizens to serve on the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC is comprised of Airport users and tenants, and local community leaders to act in an advisory role in the development of the Master Plan. Members of the PAC met four times at designated points during the study to review draft study materials and provide comments to help ensure that a realistic, viable plan is developed. Electronic copies of the draft chapters were prepared at various milestones in the planning process. Review of the draft chapters by the PAC during the master plan process allowed for timely input during each step to ensure that all issues were fully addressed as the recommended program developed. All draft chapters and meeting materials were made available to the public during the process at a pro- ject -specific website: www.georgetown.airportstudy.com. In addition, three public information work- shops were scheduled in order to engage the public and to receive comments and suggestions during the master planning process. The master planning process took approximately 12 months to complete. Local and state approvals followed. SWOT ANALYSIS A SWOT analysis is a strategic business planning technique used to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Op- portunities, and Threats associated with an action or plan. The SWOT analysis involves identifying an action, objective, or element and then identifying the internal and external forces that are positively and negatively impacting that action, objective, or element in a given environment. For this study, the SWOT analysis factors are being applied to the Airport within the confines of the Master Plan. As a result, it provides a continuous vision and direction for the development of the Master Plan. SWOT DEFINITIONS As previously discussed, this particular SWOT analysis groups information into two categories: • Internal — attributes of the airport and market area that may be considered strengths or weak- nesses to the action, objective, or element. • External — attributes of the industry that may pose as opportunities or threats to the action, ob- jective, or element. The SWOT further categorizes information into one of the following: • Strengths — internal attributes of the airport that are helpful to achieving the action, objective, or element. • Weaknesses — internal attributes of the airport that are harmful to achieving the action, objec- tive, or element. • Opportunities — external attributes of the industry that are helpful to achieving the action, objec- tive, or element. Page 22 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAl AIRPORR I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN -isamOlill • Threats — external attributes of the industry that are harmful to achieving the action, objective, or element. SWOT ANALYSIS RESULTS The SWOT analysis is based upon information gathered during the initial data gathering phase, which included a kick-off PAC meeting that was conducted in December 2016. As previously discussed, the PAC is a diversified group of airport stakeholders that represent several interests in the Airport. A SWOT analysis was conducted with this group to identify key factors that might be addressed in the Master Plan. A summary of the results from the SWOT analysis exercise is presented in Table IA. These results were utilized as a means to frame the subjective and/or judgmental processing of the data presented in the Master Plan. TABLE IA SWOT Analysis Results Georgetown Municipal 1-35 corridor location. Between major cities Airport traffic control tower Reliever airport status (FAA) Diverse mix of users (business jets and turbo- props, recreational, flight schools, EAA, CAP) Several FBOs Proximity of fire station Runway Length The mere existence of the airport in its current lo- cation Currently operating in the black (2016) Multiple instrument approaches Hangars full History of obtaining FAA grants Various attractions in the area Numerous area businesses that use general avia- tion rt administration National pilot shortage Hangar demands Population growth Attractive to recreational flyers Runway length Most business jets are weight -restricted Limits to economic development opportuni- ties Short length for an FAA Regional Airport Lack of a grooved runway Lack of taxiway lighting Lack of hangars (180 aircraft wait list) Lack of efficient hangar layout Limited community understanding of the ben- efits of the airport Age/condition of some buildings $1.3 million in total debt Aging infrastructure Both runway surfaces are 27 years old Land use compatibility (proximity of resi- dences) Airport airspace crosses City and County Council resolution limiting runway length Environmental concerns (possible endangered species habitat) Other airports (Taylor) Opposition groups Page 23 of 588 EST 1848 GEORGETOWN TEXAS CHAPTER ONE INVENTORY Page 24 of 588 The initial step in the preparation of the Master Plan for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (Airport) is the collection of information pertaining directly to or influencing the Airport and the area it serves. The information summarized in this chapter will be used in subsequent analyses within this study and in- cludes: • Background information related to the Georgetown region, including descriptions of the local geog- raphy, regional climate, and surface transportation systems. • Physical inventories and descriptions of current facilities and services offered at the Airport. The analysis will include airfield and landside infrastructure and services, as well as local and regional airspace, competing airport facilities, air traffic control, and aircraft operating procedures. • The Airport's role in regional, state, and national aviation systems. Development at the Airport over the last 20 years will also be discussed. • Socioeconomic data, including population, employment, and income activity sectors will be analyzed. These sectors typically offer an indication of future trends that could influence general aviation ac- tivity at the Airport. • A review of existing local and regional plans and studies which will be utilized later in the process to determine their potential influence on the development and implementation of the Airport Master Plan. • Review of existing environmental conditions and sensitivities, on or near the Airport, to be factored in the recommended development plan. The information outlined in this chapter provides a foundation for all subsequent chapters. Much of the information was obtained through on -site inspections of the Airport and personal interviews with Air- port staff and tenants. Information was also obtained from outside resources, including documents pre- pared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Texas Department of Transportation —Aviation Divi- ,E,N.,.L at i - _- LOW Page 25 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER P1_:XMkftTaa lion (TxDOT), City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and other pertinent regional planning and eco- nomic agencies. REGIONAL SETTING The City of Georgetown is located in central Texas, along the 1-35 corridor between the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex to the north and the state capital of Austin to the south. The City of Georgetown was incorporated in 1848 and had a 2016 census estimated population of 63,700, a 32 percent increase from the 2010 census population of 47,400. Georgetown and the region is one of the fastest growing parts of the country. It is home to Southwestern University, which is the oldest university west of the Mississippi River. Georgetown is approximately 30 miles from Austin and may be described as a bedroom community with many working age residents commuting to work. Sun City Texas is a large retirement - oriented age -restricted community whose residents constitute more than one-third of Georgetown's population. The Georgetown Courthouse Square is known as one of the most beautiful and well-preserved town squares in Texas. In 1977, the Williamson County Courthouse Historical District, containing some 46 structures, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Georgetown is also known as the "Red Poppy" capital of Texas for the red poppy (Popover rhoeos) wildflowers planted throughout the city. The City is located on the northeastern edge of the Texas Hill Country. The Hill Country is characterized by a karst topography consisting of rugged hills with thin layers of topsoil. Areas to the east are flatter with fertile top soils appropriate for agriculture. AIRPORT HISTORY In February of 1942, the City of Georgetown entered into agreement with the Federal government to allow the construction of an airport at the current location. The Federal government would make the necessary improvements to construct an airport and other support facilities, all of which would then fall under the ownership of the city. The city agreed to operate the airport as such for the benefit of the public for the useful life of the improvements. The original airfield was constructed in 1943 to serve as a U.S. Navy Auxiliary Airfield. The City took ownership and management of the Airport in 1945, following the conclusion of WWII. The Airport has been operated as a general aviation facility since that time. In the late 1990s, Robert Mueller Municipal Airport and Austin Executive Airpark were closed. Commer- cial service was transferred from Robert Mueller to the newly renovated Austin -Bergstrom International Airport in 1999. The impact at Georgetown was felt immediately as the number of based aircraft in- creased from 131 in 1998 to 268 in 2000. Even by 2004, more than 100 aircraft owners remained on a hangar waiting list. While many hangars have been constructed since this time, there is still a significant wait list for space at the Airport. As of this writing (2016), 179 aircraft owners are on the wait list for an enclosed hangar, while 10 owners are on a wait list for an aircraft tie -down position. Plans were developed to locate and construct a new general aviation airport, tentatively called the Cen- tral Texas Airport, in the years that followed; however, a new airport was never constructed. Therefore, pressure still exists on Georgetown Municipal Airport to meet local general aviation demand. Page 26 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS From the year 2000 to the present, activity continues to increase at the Airport. A variety of hangars and aircraft tie -down aprons have been constructed. An airport traffic control tower (ATCT) was con- structed in 2007. Recent Airport Development As a block -grant state, the TxDOT — Aviation Division administers the federal Airport Improvement Pro- gram (AIP) for the general aviation airports in the state. Since 2001, the Airport has accepted more than $17.2 million in grants from TxDOT. Through these grants, the Airport has constructed an airport traffic control tower, acquired adjacent land for approach protection, and improved runway safety areas. In addition, numerous pavement areas have been rehabilitated, including runways, taxiways, and aprons. Currently, the airport is constructing a new parallel taxiway to Runway 18-36 and adding additional apron area. Because this project is currently underway, all references and exhibits regarding the airfield will consider this project as having been completed. Table 1A presents the federal grants received since 2001. TABLE 1A Recent Development Grant History Georgetown Municipal Airport Year 2016 Descri ption Airport Master Plan Update Total Grant Amount $213,286 2016 Taxiway A and Airfield Improvements $8,000,000 2016 RAMP: General airport maintenance $100,000 2015 RAMP: General airport maintenance $64,030 2014 Land acquisition (4.7ac): RW 29 RPZ/TSS Land acquisition (6.8ac): RW 11 RPZ $1,019,862 2014 Upgrade RW 11-29 lights, signage, electrical vault $1,209,353 2014 RAMP: General airport maintenance $50,112 2013 RAMP: General airport maintenance $38,850 2013 Design TW A $691,347 2013 Obstruction survey $64,742 2012 RAMP: General airport maintenance; AWOS maintenance $100,000 2011 RW 36 RSA Improvements; Taxilane rehabilitation $1,248,644 2011 RAMP: General airport maintenance $132,072 2010 Airport roads maintenance $300,604 2010 RAMP: fuel farm maintenance, tower equipment, NDB $4,472 2009 Land acquisition (7.15ac): RW 36 RPZ; Taxilane rehabilitation; RSA improvements RW 18-36 $1,072,518 2009 RAMP: AWOS maintenance; fuel farm maintenance; terminal renovations; tree removal $17,100 2008 RAMP: PAPI controller and other maintenance projects $10,662 2007 RAMP: Hangar door repairs $4,682 2006 RAMP: Spill prevention plan $3,820 2005 Tower design and construction $1,666,667 2004 Update ALP $36,468 2003 RAMP: security cameras $25,724 2002 Rehab RW 11-29; PAPI RW 18; Taxilane rehab; New beacon; fencing/drainage improvements $830,750 2001 Conduct Part 150 Study $310,198 TOTAL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT GRANTS SINCE 2001 $17,215,963 Source: TxDOT -Aviation Division InventoryDRAFT Page 27 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa As the administrator of both federal and state development funds for general aviation airports, TxDOT participates in the development of the annual airport capital improvement program (CIP). These are summarized on the Airport Development Worksheet (ADW). Both the development history at the Air- port and the current 20-year CIP are presented in Appendix B. The ADW will be updated based on the results of this master plan. AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Georgetown. As of this writing, the City is in the process of reorganizing the city department responsible for the Airport. When complete, the Airport will fall under a new Public Works Department that will report to the General Manager of Utilities. The Airport Manager will report to the Director of the Public Works Department. The Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) is in place to review and provide recommenda- tions to City Council for all transportation related issues, including the Airport. The GTAB is comprised of eight individuals appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. AIRPORT LOCATION AND ACCES` Airports are a significant part of the national transportation infrastructure. Other modes of transporta- tion can work in synergy with airports to promote access and economic development, but they can also compete with airports for users. The following discussion presents information related to the various transportation modes available in the area. Georgetown Municipal Airport is located three miles to the north of the historic central business district of the City of Georgetown. The Airport encompasses approximately 533 acres and it is at an elevation of 790 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The main airport entrance road, Terminal Drive, extends from an intersection with Airport Road which extends along the east side of the Airport. Interstate 35 passes approximately one mile to the east of the Airport providing connections to the north and south. Exhibit 1A shows the location of the Airport and the surface transportation system. Ground Transportation The Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) provides bus service in the region. There is a bus station in the City of Georgetown. There is not a route that extends to the Airport currently. With a reservation, curb -to -curb service is available. The Airport has two courtesy cars available for the use of visitors that fly into the Airport. The cars are available from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days per week. Trips are limited to the Georgetown city limits and a maximum of four hours in duration. Inventory - VAAW Page 28 of 588 GEORGETOWN ' MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN LOCATION MAP Bellmead TEXAS '"'Vaco Galesville all McGregor Robinson , Lorena Moody 35 M.a Troy Georgetown San Saba Ki Copperas Cove -___NOlanviTemple Rote Lampasas —�,$elr�elton Salado Rogers Holland in Cameron Hearne Florence Llano Burnet Ban Damertram 35 �MUNICIPAL Buc a Kingsla } AIRPORT ockdale Bryan M FaIIsGEORGETOWN* Taylor W """ College Station Caldwell Cedar Park Round Rock Pflugerville Lexington Manor Elgin Somerville Fredericksburg Johnson City Austin 4 MD Cam' Dripping Sprin!'�' 35 Giddings � Brenham 0, Bastro Blanco Buda Smithville Comfort Kyl: as W Bellville 10 i San Marcos Lockhart La Grange Boerne Sealy New Braunfels Lulinr Columbus 9 Flatonia Schulenburg 10 r 10 f Helotes 410 35 McQueeney 10 Universal City Seguin Leon Valley Alamo Heights 10 Gonzales San Antonio Hallettsville Shiner 410 ` - 0 La Coste `1\�/ .Yoakum t �D LytleSornerset 'd Nixon Stockdale _ VICINITY MAPNA MUNICIPAL :{ AIRPORT"-� - �' 35 �o a 1F�' 1b ;Georgetown a ooA f �G Inventory - DRAFT 1-S Exhibit 1A r � LOCATION/VICINITY MAP GEORGETOWN _1*1 not itilr]P l AIRI'()k I AIRPORT MASTER PLxl7 Several taxi services operate in the area, and taxis will pick up passengers who have made prior arrange- ments. REGIONAL CLIMATE Weather conditions are important to the planning and development of an airport. Temperature is an important factor in determining runway length requirements, while wind direction and speed are used to determine optimum runway orientation. The need for navigational aids and lighting is determined by the percentage of time that visibility is impaired due to cloud coverage or other conditions. Georgetown has a humid subtropical climate with long, hot summers and cooler, mild winters. Over the course of a year, the monthly daily average temperature ranges from a low of 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in January to 96.2 degrees in August. The area receives 37.3 inches of rain during an average year. Snowfall is extremely rare, but it does average approximately one inch per year. Table 16 lists common climate data for Georgetown, Texas. Information pertaining to temperature and precipitation were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), while the wind speed, percent of time in instrument and visual flight rule conditions, and sky clear data was pulled from the automated weather observing system (AWOS). Visual flight rule (VFR) conditions are when pilots fly with visual reference, having a minimum of three -miles visibility and at least 1,000-foot cloud ceilings. Instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions are those times where either visibility or cloud heights fall below VFR conditions. TABLE 1B Historic Climate Data Georgetown Municipal Airport Period January Average Precip. 2.2 Average Snowfall 0.5 Average Daily High 60.3 Average Daily Low 35.6 Average Wind Speed (mph)' 7.37 Percent lFRz 11.82 Percent VFR 2 88.18 Percent Clear 61.76 February 2.5 0.3 63.7 39.2 8.14 13.72 86.28 56.15 March 3.1 0 70.8 46.8 8.33 10.64 89.36 53.38 April 2.7 0 .6 P85.1 54.4 8.53 7.05 92.95 56.20 May 4.4 0 63.3 7.92 5.36 94.64 56.08 June 4.7 0 90.9 68.9 7.59 2.33 97.67 71.76 July 2.1 0 95.0 71.6 6.82 3.42 96.58 74.99 August 2.2 0 96.2 71.4 6.73 1.39 98.61 86.42 September 3.8 0 89.6 65.6 5.43 4.33 95.67 74.8 October 4.2 0 80.8 56.1 6.39 6.82 93.18 68.11 November 3.0 0.1 70.2 46.6 6.70 9.94 90.06 61.64 December TOTAL 2.5 37.3 0.1 1.0 60.9 in 37.5 6.84 12.94 87.06 S4.91 'Source: NOAA - Chmotography of the U.S. (30-years of data from 1981-2010) as sourced from the on -airport automated weather observing system (AWOS) 'Source: On -airport A WOS; 161,604 observations from 1.1.2006 to 12.31.2015. Clear Sky is reported ceilings of 72,000 feet or greater. KEY: In. - Inches; MPH - Miles per hour; IFR - Instrument Flight Rule; VFR - Visual Flight Rule Page 30 of 588 GEORGETOWN W INICIPAI AIRN )KI AIRPORT MAS AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING ROLE Airport planning exists on many levels: national, state, and local. Each level has a different emphasis and purpose. On the national level, the Georgetown Municipal Airport is included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). On the regional and state levels, the airport is included in the Texas Airport System Plan (TASP). The most recent local planning document is the Airport Master Plan, which was last updated in 2005. FEDERAL AIRPORT PLANNING The role of the federal government in the development of airports cannot be overstated. Many of the nation's existing airports were either initially constructed by the federal government or their develop- ment and maintenance was partially funded through various federal grant-in-aid programs to local com- munities. The system of airports existing today is due, in large part, to the existence of federal policy that promotes the development of civil aviation. As part of a continuing effort to develop a national airport system to meet the needs of civil aviation and promote air commerce, the United States Congress has continually maintained a national plan for the development and maintenance of airports. On the national level, the Georgetown Municipal Airport Georgetown Municipal Airport is a is included in the NPIAS as a general aviation reliever air- port. The NPIAS identifies 3,331 existing airports which general aviation reliever airport. are considered significant to the national air transportation system. The NPIAS is published and used by the FAA in administering the AIP, which is the source of federal funds for airport improvement projects across the country. The AIP program is funded exclusively by user fees and taxes, such as those on aircraft fuel and airline tickets. The 2015-2019 NPIAS estimates that $33.5 billion of needed airport im- provements are eligible for AIP funding across the country over the next five years. An airport must be included in the NPIAS to be eligible for federal funding assistance through the AIP. The NPIAS supports the FAA's strategic goals for safety, system efficiency, and environmental compati- bility by identifying specific airport improvements. The current issue of the NPIAS identifies approxi- mately $8.1 million in development needs at Georgetown Municipal Airport for the five-year planning horizon. This figure is not a guarantee of federal funding; instead, this figure represents development needs as presented to the FAA by the airport administration in the annual airport capital improvement program. Airports that apply for and accept AIP grants must adhere to various grant assurances. These assurances include maintaining the airport facility safely and efficiently in accordance with specific conditions. The duration of the assurances depends on the type of airport, the useful life of the facility being developed, and other factors. Typically, the useful life for an airport development project is a minimum of 20 years. Thus, when an airport accepts AIP grants, they are obligated to maintain that facility in accordance with FAA standards for at least that long. The grant assurances are included in Appendix C. Page 31 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPMI AIRPORT MAS To distinguish the important and varied roles that general aviation airports serve, the FAA has completed two top -down reviews of the existing network of general aviation facilities included in the NPIAS. The results of these efforts are contained in the May 2012 report entitled, General Aviation Airports: A Na- tional Asset, and the March 2014 report entitled, ASSET 2: In -Depth Review of 497 Unclassified Airports. The purpose of the report is to further classify general aviation airports into four categories: national, regional, local, and basic airports. Of the 2,942 general aviation airports included in the study, 251 are currently unclassified due to types of activity and characteristics that did not provide for clear classifica- tion within one of the four groups. Exhibit 1B summarizes the composition of the National Airspace System, as well as the general aviation classifications and functions. With this report, which has been integrated into the NPIAS, the FAA is recognizing the important contri- bution that general aviation airports provide to the national aviation system and economy. General aviation contributed $38.8 billion in economic output in 2009. When factoring in manufacturing and visitor expenditures, general aviation accounted for an economic contribution of $76.5 billion. The new categories for general aviation airports are intended to help guide policymakers when making decisions regarding airports. The study recognized that categorizing all general aviation airports the same did not properly identify the important role of each airport within a community and the benefits of a large and diverse aviation system. Georgetown Municipal Airport is categorized as one of the 459 "regional" general aviation facilities. Ac- cording to the NPIAS, "regional" general aviation airports support regional economies by connecting communities to regional and national markets. These airports have high levels of activity with some jets and multiengine propeller aircraft. These airports average about 90 total based aircraft, including three jets. These airports are typically located near larger population centers, with many operations extending across state lines but typically within the region. According to the original asset study, regional airports account for 37 percent of total flying at general aviation airports and 42 percent of flying with flight plans. There is typically a substantial amount of charter (air taxi), jet flying, and helicopter flights at regional airports. Nearly all of the regional airports support air ambulance services. Approximately 11 percent have limited scheduled commercial service. REGIONAL SYSTEM PLANNING In more urban locales with multiple airports, regional planning agencies may elect to develop a regional aviation system plan. There is not a regional aviation plan that includes Georgetown Municipal Airport. STATE AIRPORT PLANNING The primary aviation planning document for the State of Texas is the Texas Airport System Plan (TASP- 2010). The plan provides the TxDOT—Aviation Division staff with a tool to assess the needs of the state's Inventory - DRAFT AW-178 Ell Page 32 of 588 GEORGETOWN `-*, _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER P -_ NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 2,950 Non -primary 2,564 GA 259 Relievers 89 530 1,261 813 256 3,332 Existing 129Non-primary CS National Regional local Basic nclassifie 3,255 Public Owned 77 Private Owned Georgetown Municipal Airport 382 Primary 30 31 72 249 3,340 Large Medium Small Non -hubs NPIAS Airports There are more than 19,536 aviation 2 Primary facilities in the United States, of which 5,136 are public use facilities. The National 8 Proposed Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 6 (NPIAS) includes 3,340 public use landing Non -primary 4GA facilities, of which 3,332 are existing and 8 2 Non -primary CS are proposed. The FAA estimates that 2017 32.5 over the next five years, 2015 33.5 2013 42.5 (2017-2021), there will be 2011 52.3 $32.5 billion of airport r o C 2009 49.7 infrastructure projects 2007 41.2 m 2005 39.5 eligible for Airport d r 2001 46.2 Improvement Program m a 1998 M 35.1 (AIP) funding. Q' 1993 29.7 1990 24 1984 18.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Development Cost ($Billions) $9,000 The 382 primary airports $8,000 account for 11.4% of the $7,000 airports and 60% of the total $6,000 development costs. The $5,000 2,950 non -primary airports $4,000 account for 88.3% of the 3 s $3,000 airports and 39.2% of total 4^ $2,000 development costs. $1,000 $0 Source: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 2017-2021 InventoryDRAFT Page 33 of 588 GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS GROUP` C_ DESCRIPTION FUNCTIONS (number o airports) (varies among individual airports) National VServes national - global markets Emergency (89) ery high levels of activity with many jets and multi -engine propeller aircraft Preparedness and Averaging about 200 total based aircraft, including 30 jets Response Regional (530) Local (1,261) Basic (813) Serves regional - national markets High levels of activity with some jets and multi -engine propeller aircraft Averaging about 90 total based aircraft, including 3 jets Serves local - regional markets Moderate levels of activity with some multi -engine propeller aircraft Averaging about 33 based propeller -driven aircraft and no jets Often serving critical aeronautical functions within local and regional Moderate - low levels of activity Averaging about 10 propeller -driven aircraft, and no jets Critical Community Access Other Aviation Specific Functions I Commercial, Industrial, and Economic Activities Destination and Special Functions The FAA has further categorized non -primary airports to help guide policy makers when making decisions regarding airport development. An additional 256 airports are currently unclassified. • Acromedical Flights • Law Fnforcenteni Wationa' Security Border Security 1# ®� Frncr•gency Emergency Response iu7`L� ..e..N Preparedness Aerial Fire Fighting Support and Response Emergency DiversionaryAirport • Disaster Relief and Search and Rescue • Critical Federal Functions Critical Remote Access Ser Communln� Chart r Atr Taxi/Charter Services ices WJI Access Essential Scheduled Air Service Cargo • Self -Piloted Business Flights • Corporate Other Flight Aviation Personal Flying Specific Charter Passenger Services 410 Functions Aircrall.-Wonics ManufacturingAtaintenance • Aircrati Storage • Aerospace Engineering�Research O 2015 2017 r-tom -0 7aN E _F O O J m tl L N o ro cu o Q Z Z cr 3 c y D Z Hub Type or Role Agricultural Support • Aerial Sur and Commercial. an Lan Launch Lowa-Chhit Space Launch and Landing -Orbit Space �ij 41 Industrial. Oil and Mineral Exploration Survey and Econorrtle Utility/Pipeline Control and Inspection Business Executive Flight Senice Activities Manufacturing and Distribution E30 • Express Delivery Service • Air Cargo Destination Tourism and Access to S tal Es'rnIS and Special Intemtodal Connections (rail ship) Events Special Aeronautical (skyd 'iue airshoas) General aviation airports provide important services for both local communities and the national aviation system. Category National Regional Local Basic Unclassified Total Percent Airports in the non- Safety $ 68 $ 68 $ 72 $ 38 $0 $ 246 0.76% primary categories Security 67 61 127 72 $0 $ 327 1.00% account for $12.9 Reconstruction 683 1,531 1,649 703 $6 $ 4,572 14.05% billion of the $32.5 Standards 728 1,894 2,744 1,181 $2 $ 6,549 20.12% billion in identified Environmental 2 17 16 13 $0 $ 48 0.15% development need Noise 44 17 2 0 $0 $ 63 0.19% over the next five years. Capacity 109 207 175 67 $0 $ 558 1.71% Terminal 2 39 56 25 $0 $ 122 0.37% Access 42 105 93 32 $0 $ 272 0.84% Other 3 29 48 26 $0 $ 106 0.33% New Airport 0 0 0 0 $0 $ 0 0.00% Total $1,747 $3,968 $4,984 $2,157 $8 $12,863 39.52% Note: Dollars in millions (2015) Percentage 5.4% 12.2% 15.3% 6.6% 0.03% 39.52% Source: General Aviation Airports: A National Asset (May 2012) This page intentionally left blank Page 34 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL' airports; help justify funding for airport improvements; and provide information to airport sponsors and others concerning the value, use, and needs of the state's public use airports. The TASP identifies five service levels Texas airports, which are defined as follows: Primary Commercial Service: These airports support scheduled passenger service by large and medium transport aircraft. Enplanements exceed 10,000 passengers annually. There are 26 primary commercial service airports in the TASP. Non -Primary Commercial Service: These airports support scheduled commercial service by smaller transport aircraft. Enplanements range between 2,500 and 10,000 annually. There is one non -primary commercial service airport included in the TASP (Victoria Regional Airport). Reliever: These airports provide congestion relief to commercial service airports by serving as an alter- nate landing facility for general aviation aircraft that might otherwise use the proximate commercial service airport. Georgetown Municipal Airport is a reliever to Austin -Bergstrom International Airport. Reliever airports are located within a major metropolitan area. There are 24 reliever airports in the TASP. These airports are intended to accommodate the full range of general aviation aircraft from the largest business jets to single engine piston aircraft. Reliever airports have or must be forecast to have 100 based aircraft or 25,000 annual itinerant operations. These airports generally serve population cen- ters with more than 250,000 people. General Aviation: These airports support aviation activity by general aviation operators. These airports do not have scheduled commercial service and experience less than 2,500 annual enplanements. There are three role classifications of general aviation airports: Business/Corporate: These airports provide access to turboprop and jet business aircraft in areas where there is sufficient economic activity. These airports are typically more than 30 minutes from the nearest commercial service or reliever airport. These airports have or are forecast to have at least 500 annual business/corporate operations or have at least two based jets. There are 67 Business/Corporate General Aviation Airports in the TASP. Community Service: These airports provide primary business access to smaller communities throughout the state. Community service airports are generally within a 30-minute drive of a commercial service, reliever or corporate/business aviation airport. These airports have or are forecast to have 20 based aircraft or 6,000 annual operations. There are 106 Community Service airports in the TASP. Basic Service: These airports typically have very low usage and provide additional convenience for clear weather flying and training operations. These airports are usually not projected to ex- pand significantly and represent the only public landing site for many miles. Heliports: There are two heliports in the TASP which accommodate helicopters used by individuals, corporations, air taxi services, and medical transport services. Scheduled passenger service may be avail- able if sufficient demand exists. Page 35 of 588 GEORGETOWN qqkk, -:aid MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS The TASP outlines specific minimum design standards for each airport classification with the exception of reliever airports. Generally, reliever airports should be designed to accommodate business jet type aircraft in airport reference code C/D-II. The minimum facility and service requirements for corpo- rate/business airports are listed in Table 1C. Generally, these requirements will apply to reliever airports as well. Georgetown Municipal Airport meets all of the objectives except for hangar availability and taxiway lighting (planned installation in 2018). TABLE 1C Facility and Service Target TASP - Business/Corporate and Reliever Airports Airport_q=V Objectives AIRSIDE C-II/D-II typ. Objective Yes Airport Reference Code Design Aircraft Business Jet Yes Runway Length 5,000 feet minimum Yes Runway Width 100 feet minimum Yes Runway Strength 30,000 lbs. SWL Yes Taxiway Full parallel Yes Instrument Approach Non -precision 250' cloud ceilings,''/. -mile visibility Yes Runway Lighting Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) Yes Taxiway Lighting Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL) No Visual Guidance Slope Indicator Both runway ends (or an ILS) (Runway 18-36) Yes Runway End Identification Lights Both runway ends (or ILS) (Runway 18-36) Yes Rotating Beacon Yes Yes Wind Indicator Yes (lighted) and supplemental as needed Yes RCO Facilities ATCT or RCO as needed Yes Weather Reporting Aids Yes (e.g., AWOS, ASOS) Yes Wind Coverage 1 95% combined coverage LANDSIDE Yes Covered Storage 100% of based aircraft No Overnight Transient Storage Yes - Based on demand Yes Aircraft Apron 100% of daily average transients Yes Terminal/Admin Building Yes Yes Paved Entry/Parking Lot Yes Yes Fuel Availability SERVICES 10OLL & Jet A (24-hour). Yes Attendance 18 hours. After hours on -call. Yes Ground Transportation Courtesy car/rental car Yes Good & Beverage Vending Yes Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Facility Pilot lounge, flight planning, flight training, rental aircraft, aircraft maintenance, charter aircraft. Yes Height Zoning PLANNING Yes Yes Comp Plan Define Land Uses Yes Yes Emergency Plan Yes Yes Airport Layout Plan Updated within last 8 years. Yes ATCT: Air Traffic Control Tower AWOS/ASOS: Automated Weather Observation System/Automated Surface Observation System FBO: Fixed Base Operator RCO: Remote Communications Outlet ILS: Instrument Landing System Source: TASP - Texas Airport System Plan 2010 Note: There are not specific design standards for reliever airports. Inventory -DRAFT 12 1- it GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1fthAWRAN LOCAL AIRPORT PLANNING The airport master plan is the primary local planning document. The master plan is intended to provide a 20-year vision for airport development based on aviation demand forecasts. The most recent update to the airport planning document is the 2005 Airport Master Plan. Over time, the forecast element of an airport master plan typically becomes less reliable due to changes in aviation activity and/or the econ- omy. Therefore, the FAA recommends that airports update their master plans every five to ten years, or as necessary to address any significant changes. Thus, this is an appropriate time to update the airport master plan and revisit the development assumptions from the previous planning study. PI IT! IRF Rn! F nF THE AIRPORT Georgetown Municipal Airport is a reliever general aviation airport as defined in the FAA National Avia- tion System. Neither the FAA nor the Texas Department of Transportation has indicated that this role is changing. The first baseline assumption, presented in the Introduction of this study, is that the role of the airport would not change from its current purpose. For the purpose of this planning effort, no consideration is being given related to any feasibility of com- mercial passenger service at the airport. The requirements to receive and maintain a commercial oper- ating certificate are extensive. The proximity of current commercial service providers in Austin, Killeen, and Waco would severely limit any potential service at Georgetown. Finally, the infrastructure costs for airport design changes, meeting new security protocols, emergency response requirements, and imple- menting the FAA Part 139 requirements are impractical. ECONOMIC IMPACT The most recent economic impact study done for the Airport was completed in 2011 by Center for Eco- nomic Development and Research at the University of North Texas. The study estimated that the Airport accounted for 227 jobs, $9.9 million in salary, wages, and benefits, and $23.7 million in total economic activity. AIRPORT PROPERTY In January 1942, the City of Georgetown purchased an area of land which includes the present-day air- port from the Hausenfluck estate for an agreed upon fee of $4,250.25. In subsequent years, adjacent land has been acquired with Federal grant funds, for the protection of aircraft operations to and from the airport. Most recently, the airport has acquired land that falls within the runway protection zones for Runways 11, 29, and 36. In total, the airport currently encompasses 533 acres. Dry - DRAFT Page 37 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1W1_ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORTMASTERPL' AREA LAND USE Land uses in the vicinity of the Airport can have an impact on Airport operations and growth potential. The following section identifies baseline information relating to both existing and future land uses in the vicinity of Georgetown Municipal Airport. By understanding the land use issues surrounding the Airport, more appropriate recommendations can be made for the future of the Airport. It is important to note the distinction between the primary land use concepts (existing land use, existing zoning, and general plan land use) used in evaluating development within the airport environs. Existing land use refers to property improvements as they exist today. Zoning is the primary regulatory tool for controlling development within a community. A community's zoning ordinance defines the type, size, and density of land uses allowed in the zones illustrated on the zoning map. Examples of zones include Airport, Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural. The general plan land use identifies the projected or future land use according to the locally adopted general plans. The general plan guides future development within the community planning area and provides the basis for zoning designations. In some cases, the land use allowed in the zoning ordinance or depicted in the general plan may differ from the existing land use. EXISTING LAND USE Exhibit 1C presents the current land uses in the vicinity of the Airport. To the north, west, and south are residential developments. To the east is commercial/industrial land uses. As can be seen, the Airport is nearly surrounded by development. FUTURE LAND USE Exhibit 1D presents the future land use map contained in the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plon. Areas to the north are designated as low density residential. Areas to the east and immediate south are designated as employment centers. Areas to the west are designated as low to moderate residential development. AREA ZONING Exhibit 1E presents the current zoning map in the airport environment. Noticeable on the zoning map are areas to the immediate north and south of the Airport which are not within the city limits of Georgetown and are therefore not currently zoned; however, both of these areas are fully developed with low density residential housing. The Airport property is zoned as industrial with a Planned Unit Development Overlay District. This es- sentially means that other, more specific documents provide the land use limitations. Other adjacent Page 38 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN LEGEND 66A Photo: Google EaM 2-3-16Airport Property Line r / •City/C•. K WILLIAMSON , Residential COUNTYRunway Public (e.g. church, school) Protection Z• t. `dt0I GETOWN WILLIAMSON CITY OF • "COUNTY _ GEORGETOWN - A Ys\• CITY OF 1 I l GEORGETO6VN J I * s "''��•. � 'III — •' \� TL \J Af I CITY OF k- r; a G-EORGETOWN y COUNT,.Y I a _ frTW 1� Inventory - DRAFT 1-15 Exhibit 1C EXISTING LAND USE i cj--rrnm }.......... '- : City Limits Boundary %uu.u.uf d` i 1 , E.T.I. Boundary Proposed .....: Ultimate Boundary Existing Collector Street 7- - - - - Proposed Collector Existing Minor Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial , Existing Major Arterial i • • • • Proposed Major Arterial Existing Freeway .... Proposed Freeway Proposed Commuter Rail Existing Railroad River/Stream Body of Water 0 ��Ar"•` Residential .v� Land Use Categorees [�P .,ae Agricultural/ -``.� Rural Residential �• Low Density Residential ��'v Moderate e• �s Density Residential S C R o S` • S'N O� G High Density Residential "A011114a� RO Commercial - Lend Use Categories: i - Community Commercial *1, Regional Commercial �. Mixed Use j Land Use Catrgnrie:: Mixed Use Community Vint�v F7 Mixed Use 1 i Neighborhood Center Specialty Area • Qr Mixed Use _ i o 3 Employment Center i Other Gmd Use Categories W UNIVERSITY AVE Institutional - \ Parks, Recreation, Protected Open Space Mining Source: Georgetown Future Land Use Plan - July 2016 I�0 r V,.TOf E�tV, 1-16 Exhibit 1D FUTURE LAND USE GEORGETOWN ■WA V� _, `7 Inventory - DRAFT 1-17 Exhibit 1E CURRENT AREA ZONING GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP IRi AIRPORT MASTERPL7C111111111LMMEL zoning includes agricultural lands to the east, local commercial zoning to the south, low density residen- tial zoning to the west and southeast, and an area of general commercial zoning to the southeast. Height and Hazard Zoning Chapter 12.36 of the City of Georgetown Municipal Code defines the Georgetown Airport Zoning Ordi- nance and is included in its entirety in Appendix D. The Code establishes and defines certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transition surfaces, horizontal surface, and conical surface. The various zones were developed following guidance provided by the FAA in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 - Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Part 77 defines various imaginary surfaces for airport sponsors and neighboring communities to proactively protect land uses surrounding airports. Exhibit 1F depicts the Airport Zoning Ordinance zones which are defined as follows: A. Approach Zone. Approach zone is established beneath the approach surface at each end of all runways on Georgetown Municipal Airport for non -precision instrument landings and take -offs. The approach zone shall have a width of 500 feet at a distance of 200 feet beyond each end of the runway, widening thereafter uniformly to a width of 3,500 feet at a horizontal distance of 10,200 feet beyond each end of the runway, its centerline being the continuation of the center- line of the runway. Height Limitation: One foot in height for each 34 feet in horizontal distance beginning at a point 200 feet from and at the elevation of the end of the runway and extending to a point 10,200feet from the end of the runway. B. Transition Zones. Transition zones are established beneath the transition surface adjacent to each runway and approach surface as indicated on the zoning map. Transition surfaces, sym- metrically located on either side of runways, have variable widths as shown on the zoning map. Transition surfaces extend outward from a line 250 feet on either side of the centerline of the runway, for the length of such runway plus 200 feet on each end. The line is parallel to and level with the runway centerlines. The transition surfaces along such runways slope upward and out- ward one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the point where they intersect the horizontal surface. Further, transition surfaces are established adjacent to approach surfaces for the entire length of the approach surfaces. These transition surfaces have variable widths, as shown on the zoning map. Such transition surfaces flare symmetrically with either side of the runway approach surfaces from the base of such surfaces and slope upward and outward at the rate of one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the points where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces. Inventory - DRAFT 1-18 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT -Alt LEGEND e� w._ Inventory - DRAFT r- �t 1 � h ♦ ` VVJJT i '• ' 777 ►` off o 000 ` i• Imagery Source: ESRI Baseri , ap Ima 2015 • —� 1-19 Exhibit 1F HEIGHT AND HAZARD ZONES GEORGETOWN _1*1 M INICIPAI AIRI'()kl AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1�M Height Limitation: One foot in height for each seven feet in horizontal distance beginning at any point 250 feet normal to and at the elevation of the centerline of runways extending 200 feet beyond each end thereof, extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation or a height of 937 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits of one -foot vertical height for each seven feet horizontal distance measured from the edges of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending up- ward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical surfaces. C. Horizontal Zones. The area beneath a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of 10,000 feet radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. Height Limitation: That area beneath the horizontal surface which is located 150 feet above the airport elevation, or a height of 937 feet above mean sea level. D. Conical Zone. The area beneath the conical surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. Height Limitation: That area beneath the conical surface which is one foot in height for each 20 feet of horizontal distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal surface extending to a height of 350 feet above the airport elevation. AIRFIELD FACILITIES Airfield facilities are those which facilitate aircraft movements between the air and ground. Generally, these facilities include runways, taxiways, airport lighting and markings, and navigational aids. Exhibit 1G summarizes and depicts airfield facility information atop an aerial photograph for visual reference. RUNWAYS Georgetown Municipal Airport is served by two runways which intersect. Runway 18-36 is the Airport's primary runway and Runway 11-29 is the crosswind runway. Primary Runway 18-36 Runway 18-36 is 5,004 feet long. Runway 11-29 is 4,099 feet long. Runway 18-36 is 5,004 feet long by 100 feet wide, oriented in a north to south manner. The pavement is constructed of asphalt and is reported as being in "good" condition by official FAA publications. Both runway ends have non -precision markings providing threshold bars, runway end designations, aiming point, centerline, and edge markings. InventoryDRAFT Page 44 of 588 GEORGETOWN ,'t•!'��- '•"� �.;� •..,. , t-Z- . •�'. '�� ' f � ' • !�; ;', '. ,tit ! � ��,r Airport Property Line •� �� �. ,� a�' >��•, �• ' �` F7-- Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) S jt; j-7.�.•s \A AL Designation Width Taxiway A 50' Taxiway Al 50' Taxiway B 50' Taxiway C 50' Taxiway D 50' Taxiway E 50' Taxiway F 50' Taxiway G 100, Taxiway J 50' Taxiway K 50' Taxiway L 50' -RW 36 Threshold 100, Taxiway M 50' Field Elevation Runway Length (feet) Runway Width (feet) Pavement Type Pavement Condition (FAA Reported) Gradient Runway Load Bearing Strength flbs.) Single Wheel (S) Runway Pavement Markings Lighting Edge Lights Centerline Lights Touchdown Point Traffic Pattern Global Positioning System (GPS) L N AV/VN AV RNAV (GPS) LNAV (GPS) LPV a Runway 18 Runway 36 Runway 1 1 Runway 29 790' Above Sea Level 5,004 4,099 100 75 -�' Asphalt Asphalt • �' Good Good 0.60% 0.60% ' 30,000 12,500 Nonprecision Nonprecision Nonprecision - Medium Intensity Medium Intensity , No No Yes, No Lights Yes, No Lights � : � �f t-' -:• Left Right Left RightINSTRUMENT APPROACHES '0 `• - �� .. Yes 0-mile) Yes (15/8-mile) ' Yes 0-mile) - Yes (I-mile)Yes (1-mile) Yes (1-mile)WEATHER AND NAVIGATIONAL Yes (1-mile) Yes 0-mile) Airport Beacon Lighted Wind Cone (1) Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) PAPI-4L PAPI-4L PAPI-2L (2018) PAPI-2L (2018) Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) - 512-869-3430 Visual Glide Angle 3.00' 3.00' 3.04' 3.04' CTAF - 120.225 Mhz Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) Yes Yes No No Universal Communication Frequency (UNICOM) - 123.0 Mhz InventoryDRAFT Page 45 of 588 F-• • :;sir .tLA_ t Y,. r or 7 'ee A IL * AWOS - Automated Weather Observing System PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator REIL - Runway End Identifier Lights RNAV/LNAV/VNAV/LPV/LP - Area Navigation (GPS variant) This page intentionally left blank Page 46 of 588 GEORGETOWN � M INICIP I IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL'x7 Runway 18-36 has a pavement strength of 30,000 pounds single wheel loading (S), which refers to the design of certain aircraft landing gear that has a single wheel on each main landing gear strut. The gra- dient of the runway is 0.6 percent with the high point being at the Runway 18 threshold. The elevation at the Runway 18 threshold is 786 feet, and 748 feet at the Runway 36 threshold. Runway 18-36 inter- sects the crosswind runway approximately 1,930 feet from the Runway 36 pavement end. Crosswind Runway 11-29 Oriented in a northwest -southeast manner, crosswind Runway 11-29 is 4,099 feet long and 75 feet wide. The runway is constructed of asphalt pavement and is reported in FAA publications to be in "good" con- dition. Runway 11-29 also has non -precision markings, which include threshold bars, runway end desig- nations, aiming point, and edge and centerline markings. The published pavement strength is 12,500 pounds S. The gradient of the runway is 0.6 percent with the high point being at the Runway 11 thresh- old. The elevation at the Runway 11 threshold is 789 feet, and at the Runway 29 threshold it is 759 feet. Runway 11-29 intersects the primary runway approximately 1,300 feet from the Runway 29 pavement end. TAXIWAYS The airfield has a variety of taxiways to provide access to all four runway ends and to provide for circu- lation. Taxiway A is 50 feet wide and it serves as the partial parallel taxiway to Runway 18-36. As noted previously, a major reconstruction project is currently underway which will shift the northern portion of Taxiway A to a uniform separation distance to the runway of 300 feet. Several new connecting taxiways are also part of the project. Other elements of the project include expansion of the terminal apron and installation of a new fuel farm in the terminal area. This project is being depicted as complete for pur- poses of this Master Plan. Taxiway Al is 50 feet wide and it provides access to the north side hangars and the terminal apron. Taxiway B is 50 feet wide and it is a bypass taxiway immediately south of threshold Taxiway A. Taxiway C is 50 feet wide and it provides access from the new parallel Taxiway A to the hangar areas north of the terminal area. Taxiway D is a new connecting taxiway from Runway 18-36 to the new parallel Taxiway A. Taxiway E and F are 50 feet wide and both provide a connection from the expanded terminal apron to Taxiway A. Taxiway G is a connecting taxiway to Runway 18-36 located between the runway and Taxiway L. This taxiway flares out to a width of 100 feet at the intersection with the runway. Page 47 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER P1''7CMl11ftTaa Taxiway J is 50 feet wide and it provides access from Taxiway A in proximity to the terminal apron to the Runway 11 threshold. It crosses Runway 18-36 at approximately the mid -point. Taxiway K is an angled taxiway exit from Runway 11-29 and connecting with Taxiway J. Taxiway K is 50 feet at its narrowest point. Taxiway L extends from the Runway 36 threshold to the terminal apron, thus serving as the parallel taxiway for the southern portion of Runway 18-36. At the Runway 36 threshold, Taxiway L is 100 feet wide. The parallel segment is 50 feet wide. Taxiway M is the threshold taxiway to Runway 29 and is 50 feet wide. Table ID summarizes the taxiway dimensions. PAVEMENT MARKINGS Both runways have non -precision markings. The hold lines on taxiways serving Runway 18-36 are 250 feet from the runway centerline. Hold lines on taxiways serving Runway 11-29 are 200 feet from the runway centerline. Taxiway and taxilane centerline markings are provided to assist pilots in maintaining proper clearance from pavement edges and objects near the taxiway/taxilane edges. PAVEMENT CONDITION Federally obligated airports are required to implement an effective pavement maintenance/management pro- gram. The purpose of the requirement (as outlined in Grand Assurance No. 11) is to preserve the useful life of any pavement sections constructed or improved with federal funding. A common method for assessing pavement condition is to hire a consultant specializing in pavement assess- ments to inspect and document the existing pavement condition. Typically, the report will provide a pavement condition index (PCI) rating for all pavement sections. The PCI rating ranks pavement condition on a scale from 0-100 with 100 representing new pavement. Typically, PCIs below 75 will need some relatively minor rehabili- tation, while PCIs below 50 are considered in need of reconstruction. Often there will be several PCI maps showing the projected deterioration of pavement con- dition over a 20-year timeframe. TABLE 1D Taxiway Dimensions Georeetown Municipal Airport Taxiway Taxiway A Width 50' Taxiway Al 50, Taxiway B 50' Taxiway C 50' Taxiway D 50' Taxiway E 50' Taxiway F 50' Taxiway G 100' Taxiway J 50' Taxiway K 50' Taxiway L 50' RW 36 Threshold 100' Taxiway M 50' Inventory - DRAFT Page 48 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPMI AIRPORT MAS There is not a PCI map for the Airport. Instead, visual inspections are performed by airport staff and the consulting engineer. A pavement maintenance schedule is included in the TxDOT Airport Development Worksheets (see Appendix B) for the Airport. AIRFIELD LIGHTING SYSTEMS Airfield lighting systems extend an airport's usefulness into periods of darkness and/or poor visibility. A variety of lighting systems are installed at the Airport for this purpose. These lighting systems, catego- rized by function, are summarized as follows. Identification Lighting: The location of the Airport at night is universally identified by a rotating beacon. The rotating beacon projects two beams of light, one white and one green, 180 degrees apart. The rotating beacon is located atop the control tower. The beacon operates sunset to sunrise. The beacon is owned and maintained by the Airport and is operated from the tower. Runway and Taxiway Lighting/Signage: Runway and taxiway edge lighting utilize light fixtures placed near the edge of the pavement to define the lateral limits of the pavement. This lighting is essential for safe operations during night and/or times of low visibility and to provide efficient access to and from the runways and aircraft parking areas. Both runways are equipped with medium intensity runway lights (MIRL). All taxiways are planned to have medium intensity taxiway edge lighting (MITL) installed in 2017. The Airport also has a runway/taxiway signage system. The presence of runway/taxiway signage is an essential component of a surface movement guidance control system necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the Airport. The signage system installed at the Airport includes runway and taxiway des- ignations, holding positions, routing/directional, and runway end and exits. All airfield signs are lighted for evening and night time operations. These lighting systems are owned and maintained by the Airport. Approach Lighting Systems (ALS): An approach lighting system such as a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) is required for instrument approach vis- ibility minimums of %-mile and recommended for %-mile. The lowest visibility minimums available at the Airport is 1-mile to both ends of Runway 18-36. The Airport does not currently have an approach lighting system and none is required. Visual Glide Slope Approach Aids: Both ends of Runway 18-36 are equipped with a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) system located on the left side of the runway approximately 1,000 feet from the landing thresholds. The system consists of four light boxes which shine red or white light that pilots interpret to determine if they are on the correct glide path to the runway. The approach slope is set to the standard of 3 degrees. The PAPIs on the Runway 18 end are owned and maintained by the Airport. The PAPIs on the Runway 36 end are owned and maintained by the FAA. The left side of both ends of Runway 11-29 are planned for installation of the two -box version of the PAPI system in 2018. These will be owned and maintained by the Airport. Page 49 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPni AIRI' I AIRPORT MASTERPL`Xilllkh Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL): Both ends of Runway 18-36 are equipped with REILs which are located adjacent to each side of the landing threshold. These flashing strobe lights provide rapid identi- fication of the runway threshold for a distance of up to 20 miles. Typically, REILs are installed on runway ends serving turboprop and jet aircraft where there is no approach lighting system. The REILs on the Runway 18 end are owned and maintained by the Airport. The REILS on the Runway 36 end are owned and maintained by the FAA. There are no REILS serving Runway 11-29. After -Hours Lighting: All airfield lights are turned off at night except the MIRL and PAPIs for Runway 18- 36, which is set to low intensity. Pilots can activate the airfield lights utilizing the pilot -controlled lighting (PCL) system via a series of clicks with their microphone transponder on the common traffic advisory channel (CTAF) frequency 120.225 MHz. The PCL will increase the intensity of the Runway 18-36 edge lights and activate the edge lights for Runway 11-29, taxiway edge lights (when available), airfield signs, and the Runway 18 REILs. The airfield lighting will time out after 15 minutes. WEATHER AND COMMUNICATION AIDS Wind Indicators: Georgetown Municipal Airport is equipped with one windsock. The windsock provides information to pilots regarding wind conditions, such as direction and intensity. The windsock is located in the center of the airfield, northwest of the runway intersection. The windsock is illuminated with floodlights. A segmented circle surrounds the windsock. Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS): Georgetown Municipal Airport has an AWOS which automatically records weather conditions, such as temperature, dew point, wind speed, altimeter set- ting, visibility, sky condition, and precipitation. The AWOS updates observations each minute, 24 hours a day, and this information is transmitted to pilots in the vicinity via a very high frequency (VHF) ground - to -air radio transmitter (118.6 MHz) or via a local telephone number (512-869-3430). The AWOS is cur- rently located 500 feet north of the terminal building, between Taxiway A and Al. Consideration is being given to relocating the AWOS to the infield area west of Runway 18-36 and north of Taxiway J in order to reduce effects of nearby structures. Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF): The Georgetown Municipal Airport CTAF radio frequency is 120.225 MHz. CTAF is used by pilots in the vicinity of an airport to communicate with each other about approaches to or departures from the airport, as well as for PCL. In addition, the UNICOM frequency is 123.0 MHz, which pilots can use to obtain information pertaining to the Airport and to communicate with the FBOs. Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS): ATIS is a continuous broadcast of recorded non -control aeronautical information in busier airspace. ATIS broadcasts essential information such as weather in- formation, which runways are active, available approaches, and NOTAMs. ATIS broadcasts can be re- ceived on 118.6 MHz. Inventory - DRAFTr ►. u Page 50 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAl Alkl'Ok I NW AIRPORT MASTER PL' AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL The Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1958 established the FAA as the responsible agency for the control and use of navigable airspace within the United States. The FAA has established the National Airspace System (NAS) to protect persons and property on the ground and to establish a safe and effi- cient airspace environment for civil, commercial, and military aviation. The NAS covers the common network of U.S. airspace, including: air navigation facilities; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts; associated rules, regulations, and procedures; technical information; and personnel and material. The system also includes components shared jointly with the military. AIRSPACE STRUCTURE Airspace within the United States is broadly classified as either "controlled" or "uncontrolled." The dif- ference between controlled and uncontrolled airspace relates primarily to requirements for pilot quali- fications, ground -to -air communications, navigation and air traffic services, and weather conditions. Six classes of airspace have been designated in the United States, as shown on Exhibit 1H. Airspace desig- nated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered controlled airspace. Aircraft operating within controlled airspace are subject to varying requirements for positive air traffic control. Class A Airspace: Class A airspace includes all airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to flight level (FL) 600 (60,000 feet MSL). This airspace is designated in FAR Part 71.193 for positive control of aircraft. The Positive Control Area (PCA) allows flights governed only under IFR operations. The aircraft must have special radio and navigation equipment, and the pilot must obtain clearance from an ATC facility to enter Class A airspace. In addition, the pilot must possess an instrument rating. Class B Airspace: Class B airspace has been designated around some of the country's busiest commercial service airports, such as the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Class B airspace is designed to regulate the flow of uncontrolled traffic, above, around, and below the arrival and departure airspace required for high-performance, passenger -carrying aircraft at busy commercial service airports. This airspace is the most restrictive controlled airspace encountered by pilots operating under VFR. In order to fly within Class B airspace, an aircraft must be equipped with special radio and navigation equipment and must obtain clearance from air traffic control. Moreover, a pilot must have at least a private pilot's certificate or be a student pilot who has met the requirements of F.A.R. Part 61.95, which requires special ground and flight training for Class B airspace. Helicopters do not need special naviga- tion equipment or a transponder if they operate at or below 1,000 feet and have made prior arrange- ments in the form of a Letter of Agreement with the FAA controlling agency. Aircraft are also required to have and utilize a Mode C transponder within a 30-nautical mile (NM) range of the center of Class B airspace. A Mode C transponder allows the ATCT to track the altitude of the aircraft. Class C Airspace: The FAA has established Class C airspace at 120 airports around the country as a means of regulating air traffic in these areas. Class C airspace is designed to regulate the flow of uncontrolled Inventory - DRAFT Page 51 of 588 GEORGETOWN M U N I C I I'A L A I K PO RT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN L— FL 600 L-18,000 MSL F-14,500 MSL KEY AGL - Above Ground Level FL - Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL - Mean Sea Level Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products;' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. �►Sal�i11'. CLASS C Nontowered Airport 100 AGL I DEFINITION OF AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATIONS Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600. Generally multi -layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports. Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with service by radar approach control. Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports. Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D. Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E. Page 52 of 588 Gooch Springs VORTAC < y LAMPA h BURNET CRADDOCK '00/ SUNRISE BEACH Hodd H ah� R \-'---Nood QQ ^ ND6 &OU AR, BERT;GRAY Y AIRFIELDO SKYLARK' t\ Gray''' r•� s VOR-DME,l 7 VOR f1ME DRAUGHT CENTRAL IRFI9I,D GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT se t _ � TAY 0 � �6 4 LAGO VISTA TX-ALLEN HORSESHOE 4 BAY eS -ICEWOOD USTIN ECUTIVE� LAKEWAY Centex AUSTIN 11BERGSTROM IN RNATIONAL �0 J HILLER AS REGIONAL .y O Airport with other than hard -surfaced Victor Airways N runway Class C Airspace Airport with hard -surfaced runways 1,500' to ------- Class D Airspace 8,069' in length Airports with hard -surfaced runways - - Class E Airspace greater Class E (sfc) Airspace with floor 700 ft. than 8,069' or some multiple runways less above surface that laterally abuts 1200 ft. than 8,069' or higher Class E airspace o Non -directional Radio Beacon (NDB) Military Training Route VORTAC _ Alert Area and MOA VOR-DME Prohibited, Restricted, and Warning Area Compass Rose Source: San Antonio Sectional Chart, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 4/28/16 • '• • �.� • A Exhibit 1H (continued) Page 53 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'Ok I AIRPORT MASTER P1_ traffic above, around, and below the arrival and departure airspace required for high-performance, pas- senger -carrying aircraft at some commercial service airports. In order to fly inside Class C airspace, the aircraft must have a two-way radio, an encoding transponder, and have established communication with the ATC. Aircraft may fly below the floor of the Class C airspace or above the Class C airspace ceiling without establishing communication with ATC. Class C airspace surrounds Austin -Bergstrom Interna- tional and San Antonio International Airports. Class D Airspace: Class D airspace is controlled airspace surrounding airports with an ATCT, such as at The Airport is in Class D airspace Georgetown Municipal Airport. The Class D airspace typ- ically constitutes a cylinder with a designated horizontal E when it is closed. radius from the airport, extending from the surface up to a designated vertical limit, above the airport elevation. If an airport has an instrument approach or departure, the Class D airspace sometimes extends along the approach or departure path. During peri- ods when the airport's ATCT is closed, Class D airspace typically reverts to Class E airspace. The Class D airspace surrounding Georgetown Municipal Airport extends from the surface to an altitude of 3,300 feet MSL within a S-mile radius. This airspace is in effect when the tower is open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. Class E Airspace: Class E airspace consists of controlled airspace designed to contain IFR operations near an airport and while aircraft are transitioning between the airport and en -route environments. Unless otherwise specified, Class E airspace terminates at the base of the overlying airspace. Only aircraft op- erating under IFR are required to be in contact with air traffic control when operating in Class E airspace. While aircraft conducting visual flights in Class E airspace are not required to be in radio communications with air traffic control facilities, visual flight can only be conducted if minimum visibility and cloud ceilings exist. Class G Airspace: Airspace not designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered uncontrolled, or Class G, airspace. Air traffic control does not have the authority or responsibility to exercise control over air traffic within this airspace. Class G airspace lies between the surface and the overlaying Class E airspace (700 to 1,200 feet above ground level [AGL]). Exhibit 1H shows the airspace structure surrounding Georgetown Municipal Airport. SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE Special use airspace is defined as airspace where activities must be confined because of their nature or where limitations are imposed on aircraft not taking part in those activities. The designation of special use airspace identifies for other users the areas where military activity occurs, provides for segregation of that activity from other fliers, and allows charting to keep airspace users informed. These areas are depicted on Exhibit 1H. Inventory - DRAFT M Page 54 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AitaPMI AIRPORT MASTERPL Military Operating Areas (MOAs): This special use airspace is established outside positive control areas to separate/segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted. MOAs are established to contain certain military activities, such as air combat maneuvers, air intercepts, acrobatics, etc. There are several MOAs in the vicinity of the Airport. To the north are the GRAY and HOOD MOAs, while several MOAS in proximity to the Ran- dolph Air Force Base are located to the south. Military Training Routes: Military training routes (MTRs) are designated airspace that has been gener- ally established for use by high performance military aircraft to train below 10,000 feet AGL and in excess of 250 knots. There are VR (visual) and IR (instrument) designated MTRs. MTRs with no segment above 1,500 feet AGL will be designated with the VR or IR, followed by a four -digit number (e.g., VR1257). MTRs with one or more segments above 1,500 feet AGL are identified by the route designation followed by a three -digit number (e.g., VR540). The arrows on the route show the direction of travel. The closest MTR to the Airport is VR142 to the east. Victor Airways: For aircraft arriving or departing the area using very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR) facilities, a system of Federal Airways, referred to as Victor Airways, has been established. Victor Airways are corridors of airspace eight miles wide that extend upward from 1,200 feet AGL to 18,000 feet MSL and extend between VOR navigational facilities. There are numerous Victor Airways leading to and from the CENTEX VORTAC facility located approximately 1S miles to the south of the Airport. AIRSPACE CONTROL An airport traffic control tower (ATCT) was constructed in 2007 at the Airport. The tower controls the Class D airspace surrounding the Airport. The ATCT can be contacted via 120.225 MHz. Ground control is available via 119.12 MHz. Houston Center is the local Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). ARTCCs primarily provide air traffic services to aircraft operating on IFR flight plans within controlled airspace and during the en route phase of flight. Approach and Departure control (119.0 MHz) is available from the Austin ATCT. When the ATCT at Georgetown is closed, Austin will also provide IFR clearance delivery (119.0 MHz). Flight Service Stations (FSS) are FAA facilities that provide information and services to pilots before, dur- ing, and after flights, but they are not responsible for giving instructions or clearances or providing air- craft separation. Typical services available from an FSS include weather briefings, notices to airmen (NOTAMs), filing, opening, and closing flight plans, and relaying instructions or clearances from air traffic control. The San Angelo is the local FSS. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Navigational aids are electronic devices that transmit radio frequencies, which pilots of properly equipped aircraft can translate into point-to-point guidance and position information. The types of elec- tronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from Georgetown Municipal Airport include a Page 55 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7Cmkbaa very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR) facility, the global positioning system (GPS), and a non - directional beacon (NDB). The VOR, in general, provides azimuth readings to pilots of properly equipped aircraft transmitting a radio signal at every degree to provide 360 individual navigational courses. Frequently, distance meas- uring equipment (DME) is combined with a VOR facility (VOR-DME) to provide distance as well as direc- tion information to the pilot. Military tactical air navigation aids (TACANs) and civil VORs are commonly combined to form a VORTAC. The VORTAC provides distance and direction information to both civil and military pilots. The Centex VORTAC is located approximately 23 miles to the southeast, near Austin Ex- ecutive Airport. GPS is an additional navigational aid for pilots. GPS was initially developed by the United States Depart- ment of Defense for military navigation around the world. GPS differs from a VOR, in that pilots are not required to navigate using a specific facility. GPS uses satellites placed in orbit around the earth to trans- mit electronic radio signals, which pilots of properly equipped aircraft use to determine altitude, speed, and other navigational information. With GPS, pilots can directly navigate to any airport in the country and are not required to navigate to a specific ground -based navigation facility. The NDB transmits non -directional radio signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction - finding equipment can determine their bearing to or from the NDB facility in order to track to the beacon station. The closest NDB is the Hood NDB located approximately 31 miles to the north of the airport. This facility can be used by pilots to track to the region, and then other aids would need to be utilized to track to the Airport. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers, established by the FAA, us- ing electronic navigational aids that assist pilots in locating and landing at an airport, especially during instrument flight conditions. There are currently (2017) four non -precision instrument approach proce- dures, which are shown on Exhibit 1J. Non -precision approaches provide course guidance to the pilot (precision instrument approaches provide both course and vertical guidance); however, relatively new GPS localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) approaches are currently categorized by the FAA as non -precision approaches even though it provides vertical guidance. The capability of an instrument approach procedure is defined by the visibility and cloud ceiling mini- mums associated with the approach. Visibility minimums define the horizontal distance the pilot must be able to see in order to complete the approach. Cloud ceilings define the lowest level a cloud layer (defined in feet above the ground) can be situated for the pilot to complete the approach. If the ob- served visibility or cloud ceilings are below the minimums prescribed for the approach, the pilot cannot complete the instrument approach. Page 56 of 588 �10vn. tE Ae5 VL m 15M fACRGCtGwN. 1I..AS Vu It" Iw01 A�s atlneep 'm RNAV (GPS) RWY 29 Aw co'sIDZI -,Ns 7-eo RNAV (GPS) RWY 11 Ap EI.. 7e0 GEORWMN w"(GTU) 116° !A,, El.. 790 GEoKuoWN mm(GTU) bA mw kwo ] NA W 6d rwry nd ntrwd. �d. w /DAY N D ] Nw ♦ w kw *- ♦ ntv.d. II„a.1a r:le a.•.. �a:e«»a Nw eD r.. jy„, uvrtrlmta sya•I r.m a.m.. aa:�.aw.�4. wns®Anlla�ol xe,.e nmll vn rw.A..mro yr��am.....w va NA .l�«rosaM r�av►r..e.0 bm Ar6 wv6M AIr CGN GEgCL10vnJ 10WER• GNO CON GNC DB 'WSM MKS {M[py w16 AUSiN A/r CCH 4EDIlGFIOwNRMH• GND CON dJC DFI A115M CDA: D[l IRROM tts ttao s7oae isDmelCiwil• fiat: pals 1 1seA ltee 11ao e70.ee 1Rasl6(C7Ar1• flats 11k8! nt.t tip -� Good wm w DAea '� ,yam\ '1+ a r.u.ew•NA b I �,•_.•A105] 48Ot •tea 'd AGI vW Iwl �ur AI462 hV7r IlGIA 1 _ ]NMb RwtV w jjlAn ,nAry A. Prl 115- I.SIA AI]ao k�S• / 3097 /•`� Ow�rt �wxr pl m A 1 7 swAo ' M'11m4 AIDS) WA rvli 6 BA4s .ODD K�GF71✓ Ib7A vK:A-11gk WA o j' n.r.. NAbsn.d furl j16A •r '�... 5� �^ .a vus.Drlo.�.r N►N � � �ueA1 ve]A •.ter Y oCvvavO W A177v nvltorz VYJO sas•wlw.d Alsw �`1.W 797J,y- RW112, rmv558 w.Awev bwnd IISI 7755 �v�' 'v A fav 790 toa 777 °•(8 .� 0EV 790 s0a 790 eA30 " CEMfa ® ® \•ba\\ � p c- � Cc IIPb el ,O CNR eW11 • CMAE fGIA ]ODO IAI(GIt DART[ 3000 NKd( RO1CY � J� �. 0 `. • g O � rcGue Y .. o ]° �]a• qq4 3000 �4 !!r >.a•�� *.,� 1 r�Ac. o .r ,', ' x/ rlaod.. rlm�w ' few 11 1 ••M nrn 2.WD iu ie00x•2b svn, fl t • 1760 1620 � O 31 ell ems. Q !v!!v IIIAV MM 118R1 .014DD11 AW r.�OD11�,.1 NA WAV s10A 120P1 AIOIwDI) .iD 11". NA IR G.r Ie• NaP ;s bu lr, -1 1. le]e• [KING 126D-1 WOOMII 1260-115 NA C711Os+G 1260,1 0049*11 1 Ih � sa M]e o0 SO01N A70 1' Alel ery.11M ud ltl le• GEGRcnaAx rw,s GEORGEIOMMM"(GTU) cxaremwN.Ip1AS GEORGETOV+N MUNI , I:TI.1 mA Oq I70" w9r.lw RNAV (GPS) "e 17pK0 S) RWY 29 G° 50•A1r.vr.lw RNAV (GPS) RWY 1 1 GEOAM0AM, 1ON6 N-5720AN Is34 G(CIIG[IOVM.171US uV24 VAN t3L. "620 Arrcas'D% e00e RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 """' A:cal a Ne D00' RNAV (GPS) RWY 36 CN ezua t.l1v rDa lee cN 7s73e ID21 7{6 W/M Ap FI.v 7e0 GFORGEIOWN AMIe (GTII) W3111 �° AY EI•. 790 GEORGEfOwN MUNI (CTU) Ie. un,..... w 5--, l . u+wvMuv NA b.b. IeY N71 w rw om.p.nvr.IlaevNAv Iruw. IrMVMaAV NA b.b. IeY (A•tl s dew SAY dN+•5AY 11 ]0•rl DbE/DNF srao]ru Nyl.1�'A'9 ••r 11, 7o ru wSsfOANso.a m.eb1300 11]Dsl DI.IE/ObFeMa3Nw Ny. b.s.v tv 11.7v NA "'Du°°°"c" ♦ 1vo-vluvrvOr NA.aw N.�e SF.MA rAId d+Nr..�q Wh.e i.rd ...,.Ime:quNmb]aao a., ♦ ..6a�m 1,.4.1.5At Nw bov7uv..a ory NA.A..,,esyl..11wa wr..rr�� eaaalwo"... dww...Ibq n.lr.a..d. w.9rbA rwN d+.r+Yv4a.d:osd DARK od l,dn a51... bav ar.rrv•arrrw.d.w5•1••'. rdialv.w l4WrilovdW dwb r.►.rrp ^d•••mm uul.r•raNweDl........I.w.vuvnN•vauwv esr..,d,dy.oAeDl,..„...m.w.INAvmuva�l.;d�.,.�1"I..Ivwvvc ]°°D°'•"°'un r coc '.m.l AU6IN AIICON GCOaGE1OA.+IOAt4• G^ND CON ONCDH •W.SM1t4t„O1„tJ1 C �I Il.00Ye wD5 AUSiNMCON GEOGETOUH IOMRR• GND COOK tRh119.0 370.ee OQ INICON 11ee 11a0 AO.M 12L2M IC1Ar7• 1W2 110./4 /Y7.7 f7D.0 •N`^� 1 „ kAv k ...... ._ wAsra ArcNru • A 3097 D�'F A105)� �AP�7 1.e2A - 5��AevAm$ P°.A A%3 1 b Se1N 11orAG A.... 3.3 rN b DAMt Y eM -1.uIFAn R t IM1U i�i ,� ACVEK NM b y� s A 3097 �u mle m � ee1 Ilwn SRyC� ! op�1u 5R2 ,uxA As. Y oea`p um Y ve3 tv Altn A.340 ew 790 roa 790 A wA taSlA b IllavE D` �• 81V 79(1 IDa 765 AW 1700 ]000 M 4 L__ -_ Ileldervlr" �� Wa ewle A I o.e1E n 11 BM HMI G NaWVF�"IUfYF AIYBI NMAG A BI /� 7AOo 3.1 wAb •Rwv.ly • 1 2w0 ].3- •N+vDvr • ms.o.7wA s lL4Q` 3�q .11nrA x IRWte .� • -�\ bmm • ♦y unDae. vw ' I w D Iv D ) uneaN v s vIN. c D w DA A TOM.% 2wr Nl NA 5 C • R w m 101sA 7w(w ,Q NA • OMv/IA 1036-% MrD 'U NA • INAv/ m 1244% O.(wo-N HA • INAV ACA 1120.1 3v1.011 vu M[.y le• 3a wAV A1M 122DI au10 1 �fi W1147 NA el; 1e.7,e• I'] - 12�1 12t 1 ih 1.1A A�•R 4.ry. 11 ]v pd lbM CMCIING 12�P1 1 lh Iy et, .w 1 A7D wDl sv0(IODINI / Aww0, .m 0mll SA xDD I'� rAsa 4r..,17o ed le 3e• GEOeC;tOVA., n1U3 GEQRGETOWNMUW (GTU1 TG'^'+.h GEORGF7OWN MUM (GTt7) MMl 1c is wlm» lm RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 +^a• Ixlcls w•onvrnw RNAV (GPS) RWY 36 Inventory - DRAFT J Exhibit 1.1 '• Page 57 of 588 INSTRUMENT PCEDURES GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRI'()kl AIRPORT MASTER PL`7IMM—� The instrument approach procedure with the lowest visibility minimum is the LPV GPS approach to both ends of Runway 18-36. These non -precision instrument approaches provide visibility minimums as low as %8-mile and cloud ceilings of 250 feet AGL. Instrument approaches based on the global positioning system (GPS) have become very common across the country. GPS is inexpensive, as it does not require a significant investment in ground -based systems by the airport or FAA. All four runway ends are served by GPS approaches. Table 1E summarizes the instrument approach data for the Airport. TABLE 1E Instrument Approach Data Georgetown Municipal Airport LPV DA WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT 250'/%s-mile TYPE LNAV/VNAV DA 250'/%e-mile LNAV MDA 334'/1-mile Circling 450'/1-mile 490'/1-mile 570'/1%2-mile LPV 250'/%8-mile LNAV/VNAV DA 476/1%-mile LNAV MDA 45571-mile 45571%-mile Circling 450'/1-mile 49U/1-mile 570'/1%:-mile LNAV MDA 41071-mile 410'/1'/<-mile Circling 47071-mile 47071%-mile LNAV MDA 40371-mile 403'/1'/<-mile Circling I 47071-mile 47071%-mile Aircraft categories are based on the approach speed of aircraft, which is determined as 1.3 times the stall speed in land- ing configuration. The approach categories are as follows: Category A: 0-90 knots (e.g., Cessna 172) Category B: 91-120 knots (e.g., Beechcraft KingAir) Category C: 121-140 knots (e.g., B-737, Regional Jets, Canadair Challenger) Category D: 141-166 knots (e.g., B-747, Gulfstream IV) Category E: Greater than 166 knots (e.g., Certain large military or cargo aircraft) Abbreviations: LOC — Localizer GPS - Global Positioning System LNAV/RNAV/VNAV - A technical variant of GPS (Lateral, Area, Vertical Navigation) DA - Decision Altitude (Used for vertically guided approaches) MDA - Minimum Descent Altitude (Used for non -precision approaches) Note: (xxx'/ x-mile) = Visibility (in feet)/Cloud ceiling height (in miles) Source: U.S. Terminal Procedures, South Central Region (Effective September 15, 2016) NOTE: As a result of the analysis in this master plan, the visibility minimums to both ends of Runway 18- 36 were recommended to be raised to 1-mile. The purpose of this recommendation was to provide a Page 58 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft greater degree of compatible land uses within the runway protection zones (RPZ). By raising the visibility minimums, the size of the RPZ changes and numerous incompatibilities, such as homes, are removed from the RPZs. On June 26, 2018, a NOTAM was published indicating the visibility minimums for both ends of Runway 18-36 have been raised to 1-mile. The approach plates are planned to be updated to reflect this change as well. Arrival and Departure Procedures There are five Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARS) that can be used by pilots in the vicinity of the Airport. A STAR is a published procedure utilized by pilots of aircraft on an IFR flight plan just before reaching a destination airport. A STAR is an ARC -coded arrival route established for arriving IFR traffic. There are five different STARS associated with arrivals at the Airport. There are seven published Departure Procedures (DPs) for the Airport. Departure Procedures are flight procedures followed by aircraft on an IFR flight plan immediately after takeoff from an airport. DPs are established at certain airports to simplify clearance delivery procedures. LOCAL CONDITIONS Various pilot information services identify potential obstructions in the vicinity of the Airport of which pilots should be aware. On the approach to Runway 18, there are 30-foot tall trees located approxi- mately 425 feet from the runway end and 280 feet to the right of centerline. A minimum 7:1 slope is necessary to clear the trees. The Airport also publishes several alerts for pilots which include the possibility of deer and other wildlife in the vicinity of the Airport. Pilots are also to be aware that portions of Taxiway F to the east are not visible from the ATCT. The airport also requests that military helicopters refrain from operations be- tween the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Airport has implemented voluntary noise abatement procedures which are advertised to pilots through a number of outlets. Exhibit 11K presents the map of the Fly Friendly program at the Airport. As can be seen, the residential areas in proximity to the Airport are considered noise -sensitive. Pilots are asked to adhere to the following procedures; however, at no time is operational safety to be compro- mised: • Avoid prolonged run -ups. • After takeoff, reduce climb power when safe and practical. • Fly traffic pattern as close as possible to the runways. • Avoid low flights over noise -sensitive areas. • Avoid low, dragged -in approaches with high power/prop settings. InventoryDR. Page 59 of 588 GEORGETOWN 7M MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FLY FRIENDLY PROGRAM (NOTE: AT NO TIME IS OPERATIONAL SAFETY TO BE COMPROMISED) NOISE ABATEMENT AND SAFETY PROCEDURES • Traffic Pattern Altitude Light Aircraft: 1000 Ft. AGL Turbine 1 Large Aircraft: 1500 Ft. AGL • Avoid prolonged run -ups. • After takeoff, reduce to climb power when safe and practical. • Light Aircraft: Climb initially at Vx until crossing airport boundary. then utilize Vy. • Turbine Aircraft: Follow manufacturers' noise abatement profile. when possible. Otherwise use FAA or NBAA profile. • Fly at published traffic pattern altitiudes as close to runways as possible • Avoid low flights over noise sensitive areas. • Avoid low, dragged -in approaches with high power/prop settings. • See and avoid other aircraft. Make proper radio calls. • Be considerate of neighborhoods during nighttime operations. NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS Inventory - DRAFT 1-36 GEORGETOWN _ MI �NICIPAI AIIZI' W I AIRPORT MAS RUNWAY USE AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS The Airport elevation is 790 feet above mean sea level. Runways 18 and 11 have standard left-hand traffic patterns. Runways 36 and 29 have non-standard right-hand traffic patterns. The appropriate traffic pattern is identified on the segmented circle. The purpose of the right-hand traffic pattern is to limit overflights of the residential neighborhoods to the west. The recommended traffic pattern for light aircraft is 1,000 feet AGL and for large/turbine aircraft, it is 1,500 feet AGL. Identification of the general runway use percentages by aircraft type aids in various environmental anal- ysis and in determining aircraft movement efficiency. Runway 18 is designated as the calm wind run- ways. Table 1F presents the runway use percentage as estimated by ATCT personnel. TABLE 1F Runway Use Percent Georgetown Municipal Airport Overall Operations 66% 20% 7% 7% Business Jets 73% 23% 2% 2% Turboprop 73% 23% 2% 2% Piston 65% 25% 5% 5% Helicopter 75% 25% 0% 0% Military 65% 25% 5% 5% Touch and Go 66% 20% 7% 7% Source: Interview ATCT on 12.6.16. LANDSIDE FACILITIES Landside facilities support the aircraft and pilot/passenger transition between air and ground. Typical landside facilities include the passenger terminal complex, on -airport buildings and hangars, general avi- ation facilities, and support facilities (i.e., fuel storage, vehicle parking, roadway access, snow removal equipment, and aircraft rescue and firefighting). AIRPORT BUSINESSES Georgetown Municipal Airport has a thriving aviation business community. There are three FBOs cater- ing to the needs of aviation users. There are also several aircraft repair and modification businesses. For those learning to fly or pursuing a career as a pilot, there are several flight schools at the airport. Table iG provides a summary of the aviation related businesses at the Airport. Page 61 of 588 GEORGETOWN � _ Mt iNI('II'Al Alkl'OK I Ill AIRPORT MASTER Pt:XW TABLE 1G Airport Businesses Georgetown Municipal Airport Full service FBO;1et fuel sales; Aircraft sales, Pilot/owner lounge; Rental Aerojet Center cars; Hotel services. • • s • Full service FBO; Jet fuel sales; Avgas fuel sales; pilot/owner lounge; rental GTU Jet cars; hotel services. • ' • • - Central Texas Avionics, Inc. Avionics Repair and installation/modifications for all major brands of avion- ics fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. ATP Flight training. Pilot Shop — charts, headsets, gleim, jeppensen, pilot supplies, aircraft Awesome Aviation rental and flight training. Genesis Flight Academy Part 141 flight school; Flight instruction; aircraft rental; Sightseeing tours and photography. • • IFR Flight Training School Flight school; Elite flight simulator; Aircraft Sales; Aircraft management; Pi- lot supplies; Aviation career counseling; Aviation art. Pilot's Choice Aviation Part 61 and FAA approved Part 141 flight school; Fleet of 18 aircraft for rental and instruction; pilot supplies. Veracity Aviation Specializing in helicopter training. Premier/APEX Part 141 flight training planned to commence in spring 2017 Maintenance (airframe and engine); Annuals; Phase Inspection; Specialize B&G Aviation, LLC in King Air's; Engine Modifications; Airframe Modifications; BLR winglets hot section inspection. Central Texas Avionics, Inc. Repairing and/or modifying turboprop, jet and piston aircraft. • • . - - Georgetown Turbine Services Maintenance for turboprop and jet aircraft with a special focus on King Air, Learjet, Challenger, and Cessna Citation airframes. Leather Specialties Complete aircraft interiors: vinyl, fabric, leather, carpet, seatbelts, cabinets. Corporate and general aviation repair and maintenance specializing in SR Aviation, Inc. Cessna Citations, Piper, and Beechcraft. Corsair Turbines Turbine engine repair and maintenance. Cannan Aviation Airplane sales and acquisitions. Cannon Aviation Group Helicopter sales and acquisitions. Charlie Bravo Aviation, LLC Airplane sales and acquisitions. Gantt Aviation Aircraft sales. Trinity Aviation Specializing in jet aircraft and helicopter sales. Wood Aviation Aircraft sales. • - Texas Aeronautical Enterprises Hangar leasing. • Source Helicopter High voltage power line inspection and maintenance. Source: http://0irport.georgetown.org and airport data. AIRPORT BUILDINGS AND HANGARS There are various buildings and hangars located on the Airport which are shown on Exhibit 1L. It is important to identify those hangars that may be used for storage/parking of active aircraft. By having a reasonable estimate of the baseline hangar capacity, a determination of future hangar needs can be made based upon forecast hangar demand (see Chapter Two — Forecasts). It is estimated that there is Inventory - DRAFT - $ Footage for 9 - Active Aircraft 42 "JT�erm Terminal a 1 2,800 0 0 Airport .I n ATCT 1,300 0 0 Airport Office 1,400 0 0 Airport O Storage 400 0 0 Airport k 11Q Conventional Hangar 9,700 8,600 6 Airport T -Hangar 6,000 6,000 5 Airport T-Hangar 7,700 7,700 7 Airport Executive Hangar 3,400 3,000 2 Airport T-Hangar 6,300 6,300 6 Airport T-Hangar 6,300 6,300 6 Airport (D T-Hangar 6,300 6,300 6 Land Lease kki Executive Hangar 3,200 3,200 1 Land Lease Executive Hangar 3,200 3,200 1 Land Lease Executive Hangar 3,200 3,200 1 Land Lease (E) Executive Hangar 3,200 3,200 1 Land Lease Executive Hangar 3,200 3,200 1 Land Lease mJ T-Hangar 13,500 13,500 12 Airport T-Hangar 7,400 7,400 7 Airport T-Hangar 7,400 7,400 7 Airport Executive Hangar 4,000 4,000 2 Land Lease OD) Executive Hangar 8,500 8,200 4 Land Lease % Executive Hangar 6,800 5,100 3 Airport Conventional Hangar 48,500 41,800 16 Airport Conventional Hangar 26,000 17,900 7 Land Lease T-Hangar 23,200 23,200 21 Airport T-Hangar 23,200 23,200 21 Airport T-Hangar 23,200 23,200 21 Airport Conventional Hangar 14,600 11,600 5 Land Lease ED 10,200 9,600 4 Land Lease Conventional Hangar Conventional Hangar 18,600 16,600 7 Airport 4: CD 20,200 Land Lease Conventional Hangar 18,000 7 T-Hangar 15,600 15,600 12 Airport CD T-Hangar 10,200 10,200 9 Airport Conventional Hangar 13,900 12,000 5 Land Lease 40 Land Lease Executive Hangar 7,300 7,000 3 Executive Hangar 6,400 6,000 2 Land Lease Executive Hangar 5,300 3,800 3 Land Lease CD Executive Hangar 6,400 6,000 2 Land Lease Conventional Hangar 24,900 19,800 8 Land Lease Conventional Hangar 47,100 40,800 16 Land Lease Conventional Hangar 15,000 13,000 5 Land Lease ,000 6 Conventional Hangar 20,000 18Land Lease mJ Conventional Hangar 25,300 22,000 9 Land Lease Executive Hangar 5,200 4,800 2 Land Lease Executive Hangar 4,100 4,100 2 Land Lease Executive Hangar 5,000 5,000 2 Land Lease Conventional Hangar 25,000 22,500 9 Airport 500 CD Local Fire Station 5,000 0 0 Airport •• TOTAL 564,600 501,500 282 SCALE IN FEET -M Airport Property Line 63 of 588 This page intentionally left blank Page 64 of 588 GEORGETOWN J MUNICIPAI AIRPM I RPORT MASTER PLXi�aa� approximately 501,500 square feet of hangar space at the Airport that could be utilized for storage/park- ing of active aircraft. It is additionally estimated that there are 282 enclosed hangar units. These estimates are based solely on the square footage footprint of the facility. Some hangars may house more aircraft and other may house less than their estimated capacity. For example, it is common for an aircraft owner to construct their own hangar and house a single aircraft even when there may be space available for additional aircraft. Table 1H presents a summary of the buildings and hangars at the Airport. The hangar mix includes large conventional hangars, executive hangars, and T-hangars (including connected box hangars). Conven- tional hangars typically can house multiple aircraft, while executive hangars are usually somewhat smaller but can house 2-4 aircraft. T-hangars are individual storage units intended for a single aircraft (typically a small single or multi -engine aircraft). Often a portion of larger conventional and execu- tive/box hangars have space dedicated for offices or other maintenance activity. TABLE 1H Hangar Inventory Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport Office/HangarType Total Footprint (s.f.) Aircraft Storage Conventional 319,000 272,200 46,800 110 Executive/Box 78,400 73,000 5,400 32 T-Hangars 156,300 156,300 NA 140 Total 553,700 501,500 52,200 282 'Estimate based on typical aircraft type for that hangar. 'Estimated maximum. ►_IPATO Mr. 016I&I Aircraft aprons provide space for local aircraft tie -downs, itinerant aircraft parking, and circulation. Once reconstructed, the terminal apron area will encompass approximately 36,000 square yards of pavement. This includes approximately 3,200 square yards in front of the terminal building, and 9,100 square yards on the south portion of the terminal apron. The remaining terminal apron areas are designated for taxilane circulation and for the aircraft fueling station. The east hangar area includes a 5,000 square yard apron utilized for aircraft tie -downs. There are several smaller apron areas located adjacent to FBO facilities and other private hangars. AIRCRAFT TIE -DOWN POSITIONS Aircraft apron area is an important feature of an Airport. Aprons provide access to facilities, circulation, and aircraft parking needs. Typically, the aircraft aprons are marked with tie -down positions to facilitate the orderly and efficient parking of aircraft. Georgetown Municipal Airport has a main terminal apron Page 65 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'()k I AIRPORT MASTER 1-MlliftTo— encompassing approximately 36,000 square yards of pavement. There are other smaller aprons encom- passing approximately 5,000 square yards for a total of 41,000 square yards of aircraft apron. Some airports will distinguish between transient aircraft parking and local aircraft parking needs. The transient parking is typically located in immediate proximity to short term services such as a fuel island or a terminal building. Local tie -down positions are typically located to the sides of the transient posi- tions. There are 31 marked aircraft tie -down positions on the main terminal apron. All tie -downs are sized for smaller single and multi -engine piston aircraft. Nine of these tie -downs are located in front of the ter- minal building and are designated for transient users. The remaining 22 tie -downs are on the south portion of the terminal apron and are available for both local and transient tie -down needs. In addition, the Airport has four aircraft parking positions in the grass east of T-Hangar #24 intended for transient users. Located on the east apron are 11 additional marked tie down positions that are leased by the FBOs. In total, there are 46 tie -down positions at the airport. SUPPORT FACILITIES The previous sections addressed airside and landside facilities. This section discusses other related fa- cilities that support airport operations. Terminal Building The terminal building is located at the east edge of the terminal area aircraft apron. The original struc- ture was constructed in the 1950s and has been added onto several times. The terminal building houses the administrative offices. Available services include a public lounge, conference room, pilot flight plan- ning room, vending machines, and restrooms. The terminal building is open from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Fire Protection As a general aviation reliever airport that is not certified for scheduled commercial service, the Airport is not required to have on -airport firefighting services. The closest fire station, however, is located on airport property in the northeast corner. Fire Station No. 4 is located at 4200 Airport Road and serves the Airport and north central areas of the City of Georgetown. While the fire station does not have direct access to the airfield, it is less than %-mile to the Airport entrance road, Terminal Drive. This station has the following apparatus: • Engine 4 - 2009 Pierce Engine • Truck 51— 2004 Sutphen 75' Aerial Ladder Truck • Brush Truck 3 — 1993 Type IV International Engine Page 66 of 588 GEORGETOWN notINICH'Al AIRP IRI AIRPORT MASTERPL7C1�aa In addition, Station No. 4 houses the Georgetown Safety and Fire Education Team (SAFE-T) trailer, which is a mobile fire education trailer as well as an antique 1922 triple combination pumper, also used for educational purposes. Airport Maintenance The airport does not have a dedicated maintenance equipment building. Currently, various mowers, weed -whackers, and weed control agents are stored in two of the City -owned T-hangar units. Fuel Storage The current fuel farm is underground in the terminal apron area. Both Jet A and Avgas are available. Jet A is sold at wholesale to FBOs for resale to customers. AvGas is available via City -owned self -serve pumps on the terminal apron or through the FBOs. As part of the Taxiway A/Apron project currently underway, a new above -ground fuel farm is planned. The new fuel farm will be located immediately to the north of the terminal building. The new fuel farm is planned with a 20,000-gallon Jet A tank and 15,000-gallon AvGas tank. An AvGas self -serve fuel island is planned to be located on the terminal apron. The same procedures are planned to remain in place, with the FBOs selling Jet A fuel purchased from the City, and AvGas available from both the City self - serve pump and the FBOs. Table U summarizes the total fuel capacity at the Airport. TABLE 1J Fuel Storage Capacity Georgetown Municipal Airport Static Fuel Tanks be constructed 2016/2017) Jet A 1 20,000 gallons AvGas Company.. Aerojet Center 15,000 gallons with self -serve pump Mobile . • of Fuel 2,500 gallons Jet A Aerojet Center 3,000 gallons Jet A GTU Jet 3,000 gallons Jet A GTU Jet 1,200 gallons AvGas GTU Jet 600 gallons AvGas Longhorn Jet Longhorn Jet 3,000 gallons Jet A 750 gallons AvGas , Jet A 31,500 gallons 17,550 gallons AvGas Source: Airport records Page 67 of 588 GEORGETOWN � _ Ml iNICIPAL AIKI'M I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Used Oil Recycling The Airport provides a 250-gallon above ground waste oil collection tank, located north of hangar build- ing No. 6 (see Exhibit 1L). It is a safe disposal station for used oils and lubricants generated from various maintenance activities at the airport. This oil is then recycled periodically. Security/Wildlife Fencing It is normal for general aviation airports located in more developed areas, such as Georgetown, to have full perimeter fencing. Deer and other wildlife are occasionally seen on and around the airfield, which poses a significant safety risk. To protect the safety of aircraft operations and to enhance overall airport security, an eight -foot high game fence was installed in 1991 along Airport Road and around the airfield. There are three remote -controlled vehicle gates providing access to the east side of the Airport. They are located at Aviation Drive to the north hangar areas; Terminal Drive, the main airport entrance road; and at Wright Brothers Drive, providing access to the south hangar areas. These three gates are on a timer and are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There is also a vehicle gate providing access to the hangar located on the west side of the airfield, closest to Runway 11. Additional wildlife/security fencing is planned as part of the current Taxiway A project. The new fencing is to be located beyond the Runway 29 end and will encompass the RPZ, as well as the RPZ beyond the Runway 11 end. Utilities Having an understanding of the source of various utilities and any issues surrounding the provision of utilities is an important factor in current and future development of the Airport. Primary utilities are provided by Georgetown Utility Systems. This includes water, electricity, wastewater, storm water drainage, garbage collection, and recycling. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Control Facilities The Airport is located on the Edwards Aquifer Discharger Zone and is required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to treat storm water runoff before it is discharged. Two storm water pollution prevention control facilities exist at the Airport (shown on Exhibit 1P). The first, a water quality pond, was installed in 1998 adjacent and north of Ter- minal Drive. The water quality pond was designed to capture and filter the first one-half inch of storm water runoff from the north T-hangar areas of approximately 16.2 acres. The treated storm water runoff is then discharged into the culverts underneath Terminal Drive. Inventory - DRAFT IM Page 68 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AitzPMI AIRPORT MAS -� The second facility is a detention pond, located at the southeast corner of the airport property. This facility captures storm water runoff from upstream and retains it for a period of time. It functions as a sedimentation and filtration structure, as well as a detention pond. As part of the current Taxiway A project, numerous improvements to airfield drainage are planned, in- cluding a linear feature adjacent Runway 18-36. AIRPORT DOCUMENTS There are a number of additional documents that the Airport maintains. The following briefly discusses each of these documents. Rules and Regulations: This document outlines the airport rules for administration and tenants. Minimum Standards: This document outlines the minimum requirements for potential tenants and business operators. The standards outlined in this document are intended to encourage and ensure the provision of adequate services and facilities, economic health, and orderly development of aviation and related aeronautical activities. Wildlife Hazard Management Program: The FAA's wildlife hazard management program has been in place for more than 50 years and focuses on mitigating wildlife hazards through habitat modification, harassment technology, and research. The FAA requires airport sponsors to maintain a safe operating environment, which means they must conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and prepare a Wild- life Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) when there has been a wildlife strike at an airport. The WHMP identifies the specific actions the airport will take to mitigate the risk of wildlife strikes on or near the airport. The FAA will provide funding assistance to conduct a WHA and a subsequent WHMP for airports that meet the following criteria: • Part 139 certificated commercial service airports; • General aviation (and reliever) airports with 100 or more based aircraft; and, • General aviation (and reliever) airports with 75,000 or more annual operations. While the original focus was on Part 139 certificated commercial service airports, the FAA has been en- couraging (and funding) WHA/WHMP plans for general aviation airports of all sizes. A search of the FAA Wildlife Strike Database indicates that there have been three incidents at Georgetown Municipal Airport, which are documented in Table 1K. Airport management and TxDOT have discussed the need for a WHA/WHMP and plan to undertake the studies when funding becomes available. Page 69 of 588 GEORGETOWN � _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTERPL' TABLE 1K Wildlife Strikes Georeetown M 1/30/2011 Socata TBM700 Turboprop Coyote NA 7/7/2010 Cessna 172 Piston Swallows None 5/3/2007 Aeros 350 Helicopter Unknown Bird - Medium Substantial Source: http://wildlife.foo.govldatabuse.aspx, accessed on 9.27.16. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan: This document provides guidance and regulations for the prevention and control of spills of potentially hazardous materials, particularly oil and fuel. It outlines procedures, including training, inspections, and storage requirements for spill prevention. It provides a methodology for reporting and responding to spills. Georgetown Airport Business Analysis (2013) The purpose of the Airport Business Analysis is to assist city and airport management in developing and operating the Airport in a manner that would be financially and operationally sustainable in the imme- diate and long term. The desired outcome of the Airport Business Analysis is to provide recommenda- tions as to the most effective and financially sustainable form of long term management for the Airport. In addition, the study made the following recommendations: • Undertake an Airport Master Plan Update (this current document); • Consider the case for a 500- or 1,000-foot extension of Runway 18-36, as an economic develop- ment benefit; • Develop an Airport vision statement and a marketing and branding strategy to potentially include changing the name of the Airport. Suggestions from the study included: Georgetown Executive Airport, Georgetown Business Airport, and North Austin Regional Airport at Georgetown; • Develop an Airport security plan; • Develop an Airport land use plan; • Update and improve existing and future lease agreements; • Administration reorganization including additional staff to allow the Airport Manager to focus more on business development opportunities; • Improve airport aesthetics through landscaping in order to appeal to high end users; and, • Consider attracting an on -airport restaurant. Terminal Development Plan (2013) This report describes the terminal area options for the open areas or areas designated for terminal re- development north of the Terminal Drive and east of Taxiway Alpha, existing and future. It evaluates the merits and deficiencies of each option and provides the technical basis necessary for determining a preferred or recommended development plan. There were four hangar development options consid- ered for each of the three development areas, for a total of 12 options. Exhibit 1M is a composite of the Page 70 of 588 1 cncNn — Proposed Pavement TOWApon: W.000 SF' TOW TWAW t 650 LF• (L&W SCe) ToW AL4o ParLmg SD.c; 52 - Proposed Pavenlem (Aa Side) 'EtMroted Proposed O"Mog Exr, g Un4ergroun0 E1001" LM Esn" Overhead Ekdr"Lm E,mtmg Seneery Sewer Lim • EseWp VLMr Late %'BO'a55 Hangar BS'v50' Hangar 3 }�rLDi0�0'Hargar �f �1l00 Hangr t001100 1200k60'IM 1501 t SP Hangr 200)c W Hangr �O 1 scuc 1•= 0' So 100' 200 LEQMD Total Apron. S4.000 SF' _ Proposed Pavavnan TOW Tardarie. 2.400 LP (Land Sdo) Proposed Ps. rn 'Eaarnaed (A. Soo) Proposed Buddeq Eaabrq WdcNrauW Ekdrrat Lne EmOng O—twad f7rwd Ebctrcal L— Ermrg Sanaary Sewer LnC F.rsnrq Water LM ..dons prOddaE OY P Ccwyct— G+S DeperOnerrl Server• Road _ AO 125)(505•Una T•Hrgar <O x50' e-Une T•Hergar 6-Une T•Har10a 5 .5V 7.Umt LHarpr 175 -M' f-Une SbVWSided T. Hanq.1 LEGENQ Tdel At— 60.000SF• Fee Tr -AA - T.I.l T-1— 5.OW LF' Proposed Pav " N AWO Parsrrg Spans 6t (Land Srde) - Proposed Pavement •Eurmaled (Arr Sid.) Proposed Budding E• sUnO a.rWOronnd ' EM .1 L— E.m) 0-1-1 El l Une I,,nr.V Emurg Sanaaiy $ewe( La+e _ Esnnrq Nbter L— UwM IOGa " powed t)y Googetown GIS Department I (� 160'z60' Hangar $ 7100160'Hangar {jx2( 1001100' Hanger a Source. Georgetown Municipal Airport Terminal Development Plan, Garver (2013 {)150'.+00' Hang. xa.e r•qe 0 60' 100' 200 l D' Bg' +oo' 200 Page 71 of 588 This page intentionally left blank Page 72 of 588 GEORGETOWN not INI(]P l AIRI'()u I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� three recommended development options. The recommended hangar development plan for this area of the Airport will be re-evaluated in the Alternatives chapter of this Master Plan. AIRPORT SERVICE AREA The initial step in determining the aviation demand for an airport is to define its generalized service area for various segments of aviation. The service area is determined primarily by evaluating the location and role of competing airports, their capabilities, their services, and their relative attraction and conven- ience. The service area for an airport is a geographic region from which an airport can be expected to attract the largest share of its activity. The definition of the service area can then be used to identify other factors, such as socioeconomic and demographic trends, which influence aviation demand at an airport. Aviation demand will be impacted by the proximity of competing airports, the surface transportation network, and the strength of commercial airline and/or general aviation services provided by an airport and competing airports. As in any business enterprise, the more attractive the facility is in terms of service and capabilities, the more competitive it will be in the market. If an airport's attractiveness increases in relation to nearby airports, so will the size of its service area. If facilities and services are adequate and/or competitive, some level of aviation activity might be attracted to an airport from more distant locales. Georgetown Municipal Airport serves a very important role in the regional aviation system. Only Austin Executive Airport provides a comparable level of service, and it is also extremely limited in hangar space. Table 1L presents information related to general aviation airports in proximity to Georgetown. TABLE 1L Regional Airports Airport Georgetown Municipal (GTU) Miles from GTU 0 Service Level GA-R Based Aircraft 287 Annual OperationsDriving 73,400 1 Longest 5,004 Lowest Minimum 1-mile Taylor Muni. (T74) 22 (SE) GA 52 21,900 4,000 %-mile Austin Executive (EDC) 24 (S) GA-R 93 17,900 6,025 %-mile Skylark Field - Killeen (ILE) 29 (N) GA 66 28,500 5,495 %-mile Lago Vista (RYW) 31 (SW) GA 14 5,100 3,808 1-mile Austin -Bergstrom (AUS) 39 (s) CS 209 183,200 12,250 Y:-mile Lakeway Airpark (3119) 40 (SW) GA 58 9,100 3,930 1-mile 'Military airport open to the public GA: General Aviation; GA-R: General Aviation - reliever; CS: Commercial Service Source: www.cirnay.com The general service for the Airport includes Williamson County and area beyond, especially towards Aus- tin. For this reason, the primary service area will also include Travis County. While some aircraft owners from farther away will utilize and, in some cases, base at the Airport, as a general matter, these two counties best represent the service area. Page 73 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml INICIPAI AIkl'()k I AIRPORT MASTER PCXN&& i As a check, the mailing address of all based aircraft Williamson and Travis Counties con - owners was analyzed. It was found that 69 percent of the based aircraft owners have a mailing address in stitute the primary airport service Williamson (43%) and Travis (26%) Counties. Another area. 14 percent have address in other Texas counties. The remaining 17 percent of based aircraft owners have mailing addresses outside the state with Delaware accounting for the greatest number with approximately seven percent of based aircraft. These figures confirm that Williamson and Travis county should be considered the primary airport service area. Exhibit 1N shows the generalized service area for Georgetown Municipal Airport. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS For an airport planning study, socioeconomic characteristics are collected and examined to derive an understanding of the dynamics of growth within the study area. Socioeconomic information related to the approximate airport service area is an important consideration in the master planning process. The historic trend in elements, such as population, employment, and income, provides insight into the long term socioeconomic condition of the region. This information is essential in determining aviation service level requirements, as well as forecasting aviation demand elements for airports. Aviation fore- casts are typically related to the population base, economic strength of the region, and the ability of the region to sustain a strong economic base over an extended period of time. Table 1M presents historical and forecast population data for the City of Georgetown, the extended Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), Williamson County, and Travis County. While additional socioeco- nomic data will be utilized in the forecast chapter, this table is intended to introduce to the reader the exceptional growth in population experienced since 2000 and forecast for the region through 2030. This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the country, and this growth will have a significant influence on aviation demand in the region. TABLE 1M City/County Population Estimates Year 2000 City Limits' 28,339 Percent Increase NA ETV 36,231 Percent Increase NA Williamson County' 255,379 Percent Increase NA Travis County' 819,692 Percent Increase NA 2005 37,870 25.2% 52,526 31.0% 332,169 23.1% 891,266 8.0% 2010 47,400 20.1% 68,821 23.7% 426,541 22.1% 1,030,443 13.5% 2015 54,689 13.3% 81,376 15.4% 504,088 15.4% 1,171,245 12.0% 2020 67,418 18.9% 98,689 17.5% 587,135 14.1% 1,281,126 8.6% 2025 81,239 1 17.0% 1 112,270 12.1% 682,830 14.0% 1 1,399,193 1 8.4% 2030 96,567 128,465 12.6% 792,107 1,524,267 8.2% CAGR2015 2030 ii 3.1% 3.1% ik 1.8% 'City of Georgetown Planning Department 'Woods & Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEEDS) 2016 CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate InventoryDRAFT IM me Page 74 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAl Alkl'Ok I NW AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY The Environmental Inventory addresses the existing conditions at Georgetown Municipal Airport and is intended to help identify relevant environmental issues that should be considered during preparation of the Airport Master Plan. The inventory is organized using the 14 resource categories contained in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures. However, categories which are part of the developed environment of the Airport, such as visual effects (light emissions), natural resources, and energy supply, have already been discussed previously. Available information regarding the existing en- vironmental conditions at the Airport has been derived from reliable internet resources, agency maps, and existing literature. AIR QUALITY Under the Clean Air Act, the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based on health risks for the following pollutants: • Carbon monoxide (CO) • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Sulfur dioxide (S02) • Lead (Pb) • Ozone (03) • Particulate matter (PM) measuring 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PMlo) • PM measuring two and one-half micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) An area with ambient air concentrations exceeding the NAAQS for a criteria pollutant is said to be a nonattainment area for the pollutant's NAAQS, while an area where ambient concentrations are below the NAAQS is considered to be an attainment area. EPA requires that areas designated as nonattainment demonstrate how they will attain the NAAQS by an established deadline. To accomplish this, states are required to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPS). SIPS are typically a comprehensive set of reduc- tion strategies and emissions budgets designed to bring the area into attainment. The Airport is located in Williamson County, Texas. According to the EPA's Green Book, Williamson County is in attainment for all of the NAAQS standards. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING FISH, WILDLIFE AND PLANTS) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is charged with overseeing the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), specifically Section 7, which sets forth requirements for consultation to determine if a proposed action "may affect" a federally endangered or threatened species. If an agency determines that an action "may affect" a federally protected species, then Section 7(a)(2) requires the agency to consult with USFWS to ensure that any action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened species, Page 76 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a species has been listed as a candidate species, Section 7(a)(4) states that each agency must confer with the USFWS. Additional federal laws protecting fish, wildlife, and plants include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META), which prohibits activities that would harm migratory birds, their eggs, or nests; and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits the take (defined as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb") of bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, without a permit. Executive Order (E.O.) 13312, Invasive Species, aims to prevent the introduction of invasive species as a result of a proposed action. (E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, is discussed under the Water Resources section of this report.) According to the USFWS, there are 12 threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Airport as shown in Table 1N, along with habitat information where each species is most commonly found. There are no critical habitats on airport property. TABLE 1N Species Protected Under the Endangered Species Act Williamson County, Texas Species p- English name Scientific name Status Habitat Amphibian Georgetown Salamander Eurycea nourfragia Threatened Springs of San Gabriel River; Cowan & Berry Creek drainages Amphibian Jollyville Plateau Sala- Eurycea tonkawoe Threatened Springs or spring runs mander Amphibian Salado Salamander Eurycea chisholmensis Threatened Salado Springs, Rob- ertson Springs Arachnid Bone Cave Harvestman Texello reyesi Endangered Caves Bird Black -capped Vireo Vireo articapilla Endangered Oak scrub, brushy hills, rocky canyons Bird Golden-cheeked Warbler Dendroica chrysoparia Endangered Junipers, oaks, streamside trees Bird Least Tern Sterna antillorum Endangered Beach, bays, large riv- ers, salt flats Bird Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Beach, tidal flats Bird Red Knot Coldris canutus rufa Threatened Tidal flats, shores Bird Whooping Crane Grus Americana Endangered Muskeg (summer), prairie pools, marshes Insect Coffin Cave Mold Beetle Batrisodes texanus Endangered Caves Insect Tooth Cave Ground Bee- Rhadine persephone Endangered Under rocks, deep & tle compact silt Source: Information for Planning and Conservation (USFWS), September 2016 Williamson County Habitat Conservation Plan (2008) Audubon Bird Guide, September 2016 InventoryDRAFT Page 77 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR1'0k1 AIRPORT MASTER P1''7CfliftZaa Karst Invertebrate Survey Report (2011) The Airport property was surveyed for karst (cave) features and found to have sites requiring excavation. Five sites were excavated which revealed two caves requiring biological monitoring. Three biological surveys were performed in each of the two caves that appeared to contain suitable habitat to support karst invertebrate communities. An immature eyeless Texella reyesi harvestman was observed in Willow the Wisp Cave. Due to the immaturity of the specimen collected, it is unknown if it represents popula- tions of the federally -listed endangered species or not. A supplemental survey was conducted in 2012 covering 4.7 acres near the northwest end of Runway 11 and 4.7 acres near the southeast end of Runway 29. One closed depression was observed; however, no karst invertebrate habitat was found. Much of the northwest search area consisted of fill material which could obscure underlying features. Due to this uncertainty, monitoring for karst voids during any exca- vation activities is recommended at this site. There are 21 species of migratory birds protected by the MBTA that could potentially be affected by activities in the airport environs listed in Table 1P. All birds listed, with the exception of the Least Bittern, are considered Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC). In the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, it is mandated that the USFWS identify species of migratory, nongame birds that, with- out additional conservation acts, are likely to become candidates under the ESA.' TABLE 1P Birds Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Williamson Countv. Texas Bald Eagle (Halioeetus leucocephalus) Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Orchard Oriole (Lcterus spurius) Dickcissel (Spiza Americana) Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) Fox Sparrow (Posserella iliaca) Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) Harris's Sparrow (Zonotrichia querula) Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica) Rufous -crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps) Lark Bunting (Colamospiza melanocorys) Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) Le Conte's Sparrow (Ammodromus leconteii) Short -eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Least Bittern (Lxobrychus exilis) Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Source: Information for Planning and Conservation (USFWS), September 2016 CLIMATE According to the EPA, U.S. aircraft are responsible for 11 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. transportation sector and three percent of the total U.S. GHG emissions.z While there is still 1 https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.ph 2 https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/documents/aviation/42Ofl5O23.pdf Page 78 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI nIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft some uncertainty on the exact impact the aviation industry has on climate change, a goal of reducing GHG emissions is a national priority.' GHGs are those emissions that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. They include: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hex- afluoride (SF6). GHGs are both naturally occurring and anthropogenic (man-made). Aircraft jet engines, similar to other vehicle engines, produce CO2, H2O, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulates, and other trace compounds. Due to its innate properties, CO2 is the most important GHG to monitor. It remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, causing both short- and long-term impacts, locally and internationally. Climate change impacts include increased air temperatures, sea level rise, and more frequent and intense storms. The FAA is currently leading or participating in several efforts intended to clarify the role that commercial aviation plays relative to GHGs and climate change. The most comprehensive and multi -year program geared towards quantifying the climate change effects of aviation is the Aviation Climate Change Re- search Initiative (ACCRI), funded by the FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACCRI hopes to reduce key scientific uncertainties in quantifying aviation -related climate im- pacts and to provide timely scientific input to inform policy -making decisions. The FAA also funds ASCENT, the Aviation Sustainability Center, also known as the Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment. The goal of ASCENT is to craft scientific solutions for the aviation industry's largest challenges, ranging from alternative jet fuel supply to altitude and speed op- timization.° Finally, the Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) project 02-06 published a guidebook on preparing airport GHG emission inventories in Septem- ber 2008. Federal regulations specific to the aviation sector under the Clean Air Act regarding the reduction of GHG emissions have yet to be approved, and there do not appear to be state -led policies in relation to climate change in Texas. COASTAL RESOURCES Federal activities involving or affecting coastal resources are governed by the Coastal Barriers Resource Act (CBRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and E.O. 13089, Coral Reef Protection. The Airport is not located near any coastal resources. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(f) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act), which was re -codified and renum- bered as Section 303(c) of Title 49 United State Code (USC), provides that the Secretary of Transportation 'https://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters offices/apl/environ policy guidance/policy/faa nepa or- der/desk ref/media/3-climate.pdf ° https://ascent.aero/ Page 79 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7I1� will not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a historic site, public park, recreation area, or waterfowl and wildlife refuge of national, state, regional, or local importance unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. The only protected properties in the vicinity of the airport are Emerald Springs Park, a public park ap- proximately three-quarters of a mile west of the airport and Georgetown Tennis Center, a City -owned recreation facility located adjacent to the northern airport property line (shown on Exhibit 1P). There are no recreation areas, wilderness areas, or wildlife refuges within two miles of the airport. Properties registered with the National Historic Preservation Act that are found within two miles of the airport are listed under the Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources category. FARMLANDS The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide or local im- portance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can also be forest land, pastureland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up land. Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service — Web Soil Survey (NRCS-WSS), 3.5 acres (less than one percent) of airport property is considered prime farmland (shown on Exhibit 1P). The remaining 530.3 acres of soil on airport property are not considered prime farmland. There are also no soils classified as unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance on airport property. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION Federal, state, and local laws, including the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Compre- hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended (also known as the Superfund), regulate hazardous materials use, storage, transport, and disposal. These laws may ex- tend to past and future landowners of properties containing these materials. Disturbing areas that con- tain hazardous materials or contaminates can cause significant impacts to soil, surface water, ground- water, air quality, and the organisms using these resources. According to the EPA's EJSCREEN website, there are no Superfund or Brownfield sites in proximity to the Airport. However, there are two hazardous waste facilities very close to the Airport. SBR Pumping, Inc. is located an Aviation Drive and operates a used oil program. The other facility, Nextus, Inc., is located on Halmar Cove and handles ignitable waste. These facilities are shown on Exhibit 1P. Inventory - DRAFT AIM Page 80 of 588 GEORGETOWN -,N, _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTERPIAN Vary Inventory - DRAFT 1-57 Exhibit 1P ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES GEORGETOWN _ MI �NICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MAS HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Determination of a project's environmental impact to historic and cultural resources is made under guid- ance in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the Archaeological and His- toric Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Na- tive American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. In addition, the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 also pro- tect historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources. Impacts may occur when the pro- posed project causes an adverse effect on a property which has been identified (or is unearthed during construction) as having historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. There are three places listed on the National Register of Historic Places located within three miles of the airport. • Imhoff House — 1.9 miles south of the airport • University Avenue -Elm Street Historic District — 2.7 miles south of the airport • Williamson County Courthouse Historical District — 2.1 miles south of the airport Historical Resources Survey In 2007, the City of Georgetown conducted an inventory of historical resources which was an update to a historic resources survey conducted in 1984. Phase I of the 2007 survey updated, located, docu- mented, and reevaluated all resources documented by the 1984 survey. The 1984 survey originally doc- umented all pre-1935 historic resources built within the city limits and the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Phase II of the 2007 survey located, documented, and evaluated buildings, structures, objects, and dis- tricts built by 1960 within the city limits of Georgetown. The City of Georgetown Planning and Develop- ment Department uses the historic resource survey to make informed decisions about local historic zon- ing overlays and to guide decisions about new development. Phase I of the 2007 survey identified 900 properties and Phase II identified an additional 665 for a total of 1,574 historic properties. Each property was assigned a preservation priority of LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH. Assignment of the priority ranking was undertaken by a group of historians, architectural histori- ans, and preservation specialists. Factors such as age, alterations, and level of local significance, were considered. Properties categorized as LOW are neither individually eligible for listing on the NRHP nor potentially contributing resources within a historic district. Properties categorized as MEDIUM are not individually eligible for listing on the NRHP; however, they likely would be a contributing resource if located within a historic district. Properties categorized as HIGH are either eligible for listing on the NRHP or designation as Registered Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs). InventoryDRAFT Page 82 of 588 GEORGETOWN �. II'Al AIRII(Wi AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Vraatl1 Four structures on the airport were added during the 2007 Phase II survey. Figure 1A presents the data from the survey. The control tower and the terminal building are categorized as LOW priority. The two hangars are categorized as MEDIUM priority. Exhibit 1P shows the location of each of these structures. !r 2007 Site ID No. 1323d Property Type Transportation Buildings I Aircraft 2007 LOW 1984 Site ID No. Form I Plan Type Control Toner 1984 NOT Address 408 Terminal Drive Stylistic Influence NJA RECORDED Construction Date ca 2000 2007 Site ID No. 1323a Property Type Transportation Buildings / Aircraft 2007 LOW -► 1984 Site ID No. Form I Plan Type Terminal Building yP g 1984 NOT Address 500 Terminal Drive Stylistic Influence Art Deco RECORDED Construction Date 1945 2007 Site ID No. 1323b Property Type Transportation Buildings % Aircraft 2007 KIED 1984 Site ID No. Form! Plan Type yP Hangar 1984 NOT Address Hangar Dnve. at intersection with Stylistic Influence NIA RECORDED Terminal Drive. northwest corner Construction Date ca. 1945 2007 Site ID No. 1323c Property Type Transportation Buildings Aircraft 2007 h1ED 1984 Site ID No. Form 1 Plan Type Hangar 1984 NOT Address 204 Hangar Drive Stylistic Influence NIA RECORDED Construction Date ca 1945 Figure 1A: On -airport structures of potential local significance LAND USE Compatible land use evaluations for airports must consider the land uses in the vicinity of an airport to ensure those uses do not adversely affect safe aircraft operations. In addition, if an airport action would result in impacts exceeding FAA thresholds of significance which have land use ramifications, such as disruption of communities, relocation of businesses or residences, and induced socioeconomic impacts, the effects of the land use impacts shall be discussed. Based on maps provided in the City of Georgetown's 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2009), the airport is considered an institutional land use. The airport is currently zoned as a planned unit development (PUD), with industrial as the underlying base district. Zoning the airport this way, along with implementing run- way protection zones, was intended to require appropriate buffers for residential uses near the airport. However, as seen on Exhibit 1P, residential development is found within one-half mile of the airport to the north, west, and south, many of which are adjacent to the airport property line. Residential uses north and south of the airport are not within City limits and, thus, are not subject to the Georgetown Zoning Code. Williamson County does not have zoning regulations, rendering land uses north and south of the airport unregulated by the City.5 In addition to residential uses, the airport is surrounded by va- cant/undeveloped parcels, open space, commercial, industrial, and parks and recreation uses. There are 5 http://www.wilco.org/CountyDepartments/Infrastructure/FAQs/tabid/476/language/en-US/Default.aspx GEORGETOWN _ i MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS also several aviation -based uses on airport property, as well as some nearby land uses that should be noted. Uses in view are shown on Exhibit 1P and listed in Table 1Q. TABLE 1Q Land Uses on and Near Airport Property Georgetown Municipal Airport of Location FBOs (Fixed Base Operators) Distance & Direction from .. AirportName Aircraft Repair Stations Aircraft Avionics Repair Flight Schools (Aircraft and Helicopter) Aircraft Sales Private Hangars City -Owned T-Hangars City -Owned Hangars Airport Terminal Georgetown Fire Department Fire Station #4 Residential Adjacent to property line north, west, and south' SBR Pumping, Inc. 0.04-mile east Nextus, Inc. 0.02-mile west Georgetown Charter Academy 0.04-mile northwest Pecan Branch Park 0.10-mile west The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 0.01-mile northwest Benold Middle School 0.16-mile west Georgetown Sleep Center 0.23-mile west Frost Elementary School 0.34-mile west Church on the Rock 0.38-mile southeast ' Note: residential uses north and south of the airport are not within City limits and do not adhere to City zon- ing standards. Source: Google Earth (2016) h ttps://airport. georgetown. org/land-use-map/ Section 12.32.520 of the Georgetown Zoning Code (2016)1 explains that property within the airport may be used only for aeronautical purposes, provided, however, that nothing herein prohibits a secondary non -aeronautical use of such land if: • The primary aeronautical need is not interfered with; • It is not in violation of FAA or TxDOT regulations; • Is specifically authorized by owner; and • If such secondary use will benefit the airport or provide better for its maintenance or develop- ment. ' https://www.municode.com/library/tx/Reorgetown/codes/code of ordinances Page 84 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUiNICIPAI nikPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Section 12.32.520 states that there are no allowable commercial activities on airport property unless approved by the City Council, but land leases are available on airport property for uses deemed compat- ible to airport operations (Section 12.32.501). Chapter 12.36 of the Georgetown Zoning Code, titled Georgetown Airport Zoning, outlines regulations related to the airport zones, height limitations, use re- strictions, nonconforming uses, permits, existing uses, variances, hazard marking and lighting, enforce- ment, the Board of Adjustment, appeals, judicial review, conflicting regulations, and violations. Land uses that are susceptible to aircraft noise are discussed in the Noise and Compatible Land Use section. NOISE AND COIAPAI ISLE LAND USE Noise is considered to be unwanted sound that can disrupt activities, like sleeping and student learning, in addition to causing annoyance. Aviation noise is caused primarily from aircraft operations, like depar- tures, arrivals, overflights, taxiing, and engine run -ups. Most often, it is rural and suburban residential areas that are affected by airport noise exposure due to their inherently low noise level, as compared to more urbanized areas. There are also special noise sensitivities regarding certain uses, like national parks.' Federal land use compatibility guidelines are established under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. According to 14 CFR 150, residential land uses and schools are not considered compatible with a 65 decibel (dB) Day -Night Sound Level (DNL) noise expo- sure contour or higher. Religious facilities, hospitals, or nursing homes located within a 65 dB DNL con- tour are generally compatible if an interior noise level reduction of 25 dB is incorporated into the design and construction of the structure.$ As previously mentioned, the airport zoning designation, brought about with the adoption of the Georgetown Municipal Airport Function Plan Element (adopted November 22, 2005)9, is intended to limit residential uses near the airport by requiring appropriate buffers. Section 1.12.050 of the Georgetown Zoning Code states that the purpose of this document is to direct City Council, staff, and/or commissions on the appropriate uses of the airport and surrounding property for the purpose of development, safety, and noise control. Chapter 12.36 of the Georgetown Zoning Code, which discusses the Georgetown Airport Zoning, does not contain any language regarding aviation noise. However, Section 8.16.030 'https://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters offices/apl/environ policy guidance/policy/faa nepa or- der/desk ref/media/11-noise.pdf 8 Noise -sensitive receptors are generally residences, churches/places of worship, hospitals and healthcare facilities, and ed- ucational facilities. Churches/places of worship are defined as permanently established facilities intended solely for use as places of worship and not meant to be converted to other potential uses. For a hospital/healthcare facility to be considered a noise -sensitive medical facility, it must provide for overnight stays or provide for longer recovery periods, where rest and relaxation are key considerations for use of the facility. Schools are facilities that provide full-time use for instruction and training to students. ' Copies of this document are available only in print at the office of the City Secretary and the Planning and Development Office. Page 85 of 588 GEORGETOWN M iNICIPnI nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PLXPlibW states maximum allowable decibel levels given the time of day and type of land use. The following are considered to be noise nuisances according to the Georgetown Zoning Code: • Noise exceeding 63 dB during the daytime or 56 dB during the nighttime in residential areas and all abutting right-of-way. • Noise exceeding 70 dB during the daytime or 63 dB during the nighttime on commercial or other business zoned property (as defined by the Georgetown Zoning Ordinance). • Noise exceeding 72 dB during the day or 65 dB during the nighttime on industrial zoned property (as defined by the Georgetown Zoning Ordinance). • Noise exceeding 72 dB during the daytime or 65 dB during the nighttime on any property which does not fit into any of the categories described previously. Land uses that are considered noise -sensitive in the vicinity of the airport include the following (uses in view are shown on Exhibit 113): • Residential — adjacent to airport property line to the north, west, and south • Georgetown Charter Academy — 0.04-mile northwest of the airport property line • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — 0.01-mile northwest of the airport property line • Benold Middle School — 0.16-mile west of the airport property line • Georgetown Sleep Center — 0.23-mile west of the airport property line • Frost Elementary School — 0.34-mile west of the airport property line • Church on the Rock — 0.38-mile southeast of the airport property line SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations, and the accompanying Presidential Memorandum, and Order DOT 5610.2, Environ- mental Justice, require FAA to provide for meaningful public involvement by minority and low-income populations, as well as analysis that identifies and addresses potential impacts on these populations that may be disproportionately high and adverse. The EPA's EJSCREEN online tool was consulted regarding the presence of environmental justice areas within the airport environs. Within a one -mile radius of the airport, the American Community Survey (2014) estimates there are 1,571 people, of which 441 (28 per- cent) are minority. It is also estimated that 32 percent of those residing around the airport are consid- ered low-income. VISUAL EFFECTS (INCLUDING LIGHT EMISSIONS) The City of Georgetown's Zoning Code has a Courthouse View Protection (CVP) Overlay District that is intended to preserve views of the Williamson County Courthouse from various locations along corridors Page 86 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL' in Georgetown (Chapter 4, Section 4.12). The airport is over two miles away from the CVP overlay dis- trict; thus, it should not interfere with any view sheds the district is intended to protect. WATER RESOURCES (INCLUDING WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, SURFACE WATERS, GROUNDWATER, AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS) Water resources are considered to be surface waters and groundwater that society relies upon for drink- ing, recreation, transportation, industry, agriculture, and aquatic ecosystems. Wetlands, surface waters, and floodplains operate as a single, integrated natural system, and disruption to any part can affect the entire system. This section will look at five primary water systems, including wetlands, floodplains, sur- face waters, groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Water resources in proximity to the airport are shown on Exhibit 1P. Wetlands The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are defined in Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, as "those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonably saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction." Wetlands can include swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, pot- holes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, natural ponds, estuarine areas, tidal overflows, and shallow lakes and ponds with emergent vegetation. Wetlands exhibit three characteristics: the soil is inundated or saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season (hydrology), has a popu- lation of plants able to tolerate various degrees of flooding or frequent saturation (hydrophytes), and soils that are saturated enough to develop anaerobic conditions during the growing season (hydric). According to the USFWS, which manages the National Wetlands Inventory on behalf of all federal agen- cies, there are no wetlands on airport property. According to the NRCS-WSS, there are no hydric soils on airport property. Floodplains Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, mini- mize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. Based on a review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps dated September 26, 2008 (map number 48491CO295E), there is a 100-year flood - plain present in Pecan Branch which flows onto the southwest corner of the airport property. DOT Order 5650.2 and EO 11988 prohibit encroachment into a floodplain unless no other practical alternative ex- ists. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator is required. Page 87 of 588 GEORGETOWN � Ml iNI IPAI. AIR130k I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� Surface Waters The Clean Water Act provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges, de- velop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent or minimize the loss of wetlands, and regulate other issues concerning water quality. Water quality concerns related to airport development most often concern the potential for surface runoff and soil erosion, as well as the storage and handling of fuel, petroleum products, solvents, etc. Examples of this include any in -water work resulting from expansion of an existing FAA facility adjacent to surface waters, or a withdrawal of water from a surface water for construction or operations. Additionally, Congress has mandated (under the Clean Water Act) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Through the use of permits, certain pro- cedures are required to prevent contamination of water bodies from stormwater runoff. Storm water compliance per TCEQ and EPA requirements are discussed earlier in Chapter One in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Control Facilities section. According to the EPA's MyWATERS Mapper, there are no impaired waters on or near airport property, nor are there any waters with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or sediment impairments (including clay, silt, and sand). Pecan Branch is the nearest stream, running south and west of the airport. The airport is in the Smith Branch -San Gabriel River Watershed (HUC12: 120702050501). Groundwater Groundwater is subsurface water that occupies the space between sand, clay, and rock formations. The term aquifer is used to describe the geologic layers that store or transmit groundwater, such as to wells, springs, and other water sources. Examples of direct impacts to groundwater could include withdrawal of groundwater for operational purposes, or reduction of infiltration or recharge area due to new imper- vious surfaces. The Edwards Aquifer II is the closest sole source aquifer, which is 32.6 miles south of the airport. According to the City of Georgetown's 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2009), it states that most of the City, including the airport property, sits within the designated protection zones of the Edwards Aq- uifer, which is a natural groundwater resource extending 180 miles along the Balcones Fault Zone. The City draws its water from Lake Georgetown, but the Edwards Aquifer provides water for many commu- nities, and thus is a resource the City aims to protect.lo National Wild and Scenic Rivers and National River Inventory The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created in 1968 to preserve certain rivers with outstand- ing natural, cultural, and recreational valued'. The Rio Grande is classified as a Wild and Scenic River. It is 251.3 miles west of the Airport and is the closest such resource. io City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Plan established in 2008; amendments adopted May 11, 2009) 11 http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php Page 88 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1W1 M INICIP I AIRPr iu i AIRPORT MASTER Pff7 The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service. The NRI contains more than 3,400 rivers in the U.S. that are believed to have one or more natural or cultural characteristics deemed to be of more than local or regional importance 12. Lo- cated 29.7 miles southwest of the Airport, Pedernales River is the closest resource in the NRI. DOCUMENT SOURCES A variety of sources were used during the inventory process. The following listing reflects a partial com- pilation of these sources. In addition, considerable information was provided directly to the consultant by Georgetown Municipal Airport staff. Airport/Facility Directory South Central U.S., U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Admin- istration, National Aeronautical Charting Office. Effective September 15, 2016. San Antonio Sectional Chart, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Na- tional Aeronautical Charting Office. Effective April 26, 2016. U.S. Terminal Procedures, South Central U.S., U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Ad- ministration, National Aeronautical Charting Office. Effective September 15, 2016. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 2015-2019. Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan Update —Final Report, 2005. Prepared by GRW-Willis. A number of internet websites were also used to collect information for the inventory chapter. These include the following: Georgetown Municipal Airport: https://airport.georgetown.org/ Texas Department of Transportation - Division of Aviation: htto://www.Texasdot.Rov/aviation/index.html Various Official Websites: Historical FAA Grants: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant histories/ " http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html Inventory - DRAFT 1-6 J. •• GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'OK I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Terminal Area Forecast: http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSQ: https://aspm.faa.gov/tfms/sVs/main.asp FAA 5010 Data: htto://www.airnay.com and htto://www.ecrl.com/501OWeb U.S. Census Bureau: htto://www.census.Rov U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov City of Georgetown: https://georgetown.org/ Williamson County: https://www.wilco.org/ Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization http://www.campotexas.org/ EPA, Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oagps/greenbk/ancl3.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information, Planning, and Conservation System: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ FEMA Map Service Center: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/ EPA MyWATERS Mapper: http://watersgeo.epa.gov/ Page 90 of 588 EST-1848 G EORGETOWN TEXAS CHAPTER TWO AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS Page 91 of 588 The definition of demand that may reasonably be expected to occur during the useful life of an airport's key components (e.g., runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, etc.) is an important factor in facility plan- ning. In airport master planning, this involves projecting potential aviation activity for at least a 20-year timeframe. Aviation demand forecasting for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (Airport) will primarily consider based aircraft, aircraft operations, and peak activity periods. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has oversight responsibility to review and approve aviation forecasts developed in conjunction with airport planning studies. As a block -grant state, TxDOT has the authority to review aviation demand forecasts for general aviation airports. Typically, TxDOT will review and approve aviation forecasts following FAA guidance. TxDOT will review individual airport forecasts with the objective of comparing them to its Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) and the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Even though the TAF is updated annually, in the past there was almost always a disparity between the TAF and master planning forecasts. This was primarily because the TAF forecasts are the result of a top -down model that does not consider local conditions or recent trends. While the TAF forecasts are to be a point of comparison for master plan forecasts, they serve other purposes, such as asset allocation by the FAA. When reviewing a sponsor's forecast (from the master plan), TxDOT must ensure that the forecast is based on reasonable planning assumptions, uses current data, and is developed using appropriate fore- cast methods. As stated in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), forecasts should be: 7EAMINAL WI - w Page 92 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM 1 AIRPORT MASTER PEW • Realistic; • Based on the latest available data; • Reflective of current conditions at the airport (as a baseline); • Supported by information in the study; and • Able to provide adequate justification for airport planning and development. The forecast process for an airport master plan consists of a series of basic steps that vary in complexity depending upon the issues to be addressed and the level of effort required. The steps include a review of previous forecasts, determination of data needs, identification of data sources, collection of data, selection of forecast methods, preparation of the forecasts, and evaluation and documentation of the results. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-6C, Airport Master Plans, outlines seven standard steps involved in the forecast process, including: 1) Identify Aviation Activity Measures: The level and type of aviation activities likely to impact facility needs. For general aviation, this typically includes based aircraft and operations. 2) Review Previous Airport Forecasts: May include the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, state or regional system plans, and previous master plans. 3) Gather Data: Determine what data are required to prepare the forecasts, identify data sources, and collect historical and forecast data. 4) Select Forecast Methods: There are several appropriate methodologies and techniques available, including regression analysis, trend analysis, market share or ratio analysis, exponential smoothing, econometric modeling, comparison with other airports, survey techniques, cohort analysis, choice and distribution models, range projections, and professional judgment. 5) Apply Forecast Methods and Evaluate Results: Prepare the actual forecasts and evaluate for rea- sonableness. 6) Summarize and Document Results: Provide supporting text and tables as necessary. 7) Compare Forecast Results with FAA's TAF: For general aviation airports such as Georgetown Mu- nicipal Airport, forecasts for based aircraft and total operations are considered consistent with the TAF if they meet the following criteria: • Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5-year forecast period, and 15 percent in the 10-year forecast period, or • Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project, or • Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Order 5090.3, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national levels, making it virtually impossible to predict year-to-year fluctuations of activity over 20 years with any certainty. Therefore, it is important to remember that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible enough to respond to a range of unforeseen developments. The following forecast analysis for the Airport was produced following these basic guidelines. Existing forecasts are examined and compared against current and historic activity. The historical aviation activ- ity is then examined along with other factors and trends that can affect demand. The intent is to provide Page 93 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'()k I AIRPORT MASTER PLX1 aii an updated set of aviation demand projections for the Airport that will permit airport management to make planning adjustments as necessary to maintain a viable, efficient, and cost-effective facility. SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS Local and regional forecasts of key socioeconomic variables, such as population, employment, and in- come, provide an indication of the potential for growth in aviation activities at an airport. Exhibit 2A summarizes the socioeconomic history and projections for four distinct areas: Williamson County, Travis County, the State of Texas, and the five -county Austin -Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Those counties are Williamson, Travis, Hays, Caldwell and Bastrop. As noted previously, the primary airport service area is considered to include Williamson and Travis counties. The data for the state and for the MSA is included as a data point for comparison. In 2016, the population of Williamson County was estimated at 519,746. It is forecast to grow at an annual rate of more than 3.0 percent, reaching 940,516 people by 2036. The forecast growth rate, while substantial, is approximately half of what was experienced between 1970 and 2010. Travis County pop- ulation is forecast to increase from 1,192,546 in 2016 to 1,678,408 by 2036. This is an additional 486,000 people, an increase of 40 percent. Employment is growing in both Williamson and Travis counites at an average annual rate of nearly 3.0 percent. This growth rate exceeds that of the five -county MSA and the state of Texas. Income is also growing at a substantial rate, with Travis County exceeding that of the MSA and the state of Texas. Wil- liamson County income is slightly lower than that of the MSA and the state which is not unexpected for a commuter/bedroom community. NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS Each year, the FAA updates and publishes a national aviation forecast. Included in this publication are forecasts for the large air carriers, regional/commuter air carriers, general aviation, and FAA workload measures. The forecasts are prepared to the meet budget and planning needs of the FAA and to provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the general public. The current edition when this chapter was prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecasts — Fiscal Years 2016- 2036, published in March 2016. The FAA primarily uses the economic performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook for aviation growth in international markets. The following discussion is summarized from the FAA Aer- ospace Forecasts. Since its deregulation in 1978, the U.S. commercial air carrier industry has been characterized by boom - to -bust cycles. The volatility that was associated with these cycles was thought by many to be a structural feature of an industry that was capital intensive but cash poor. However, the Great Recession of 2008- Page 94 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL7C111111111111111111111aa 09 marked a fundamental change in the operations and finances of U.S. airlines. Air carriers fine-tuned their business models to minimize losses by lowering operating costs, eliminating unprofitable routes, and grounding older, less fuel -efficient aircraft. To increase operating revenues, carriers initiated new services that customers were willing to purchase and started charging separately for services that were historically bundled in the price of a ticket. The industry experienced an unprecedented period of con- solidation with four major mergers in five years. These changes, along with capacity discipline exhibited by carriers, have resulted in a fifth consecutive year of profitability for the industry in 2015. Looking ahead, there is optimism that the industry has been transformed from that of a boom -to -bust cycle to one of sustainable profits. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMEN According to the FAA forecast report, as the economy recovers from the most serious economic down- turn since the Great Depression and slow recovery, aviation will continue to grow over the long run. Fundamentally, demand for aviation is driven by economic activity. As economic growth picks up, so will growth in aviation activity. Employee wages in 2015 continued to stagnate, household income growth was weak, the housing mar- ket's recovery was patchy across the country, and government spending at the federal and local levels remained stagnant and are projected to remain so for the next few years. Despite these dire statistics, the unemployment rate fell, consumer spending was up, and many urban housing markets have been revived strongly. U.S. economic performance in 2015 is estimated to have grown in real GDP to 16.3 trillion (inflation adjusted to 2009 dollars) and is forecast to grow at an average annual growth rate of 2.3 percent through 2036. Oil prices should remain below $50 per barrel through 2016, but are projected to grow at an annual average growth rate of 4.8 percent, reaching over $150 per barrel by 2036. Al- though the U.S. economy has managed to avoid a recession, a prolonged period of faster economic growth (e.g., > 3.0 percent) may not be forthcoming. FAA GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS The FAA forecasts the fleet mix and hours flown for single engine piston aircraft, multi -engine piston aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others (gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts "active aircraft," not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one that is flown at least one hour during the year. From 2010 through 2013, the FAA undertook an effort to have all aircraft owners re -register their aircraft. This effort resulted in a 10.S percent decrease in the number of active general aviation aircraft, mostly in the piston category. The long-term outlook for general aviation is favorable, led by gains in turbine aircraft activity. The active general aviation fleet is forecast to increase 0.2 percent a year between 2015 and 2036, equating to an absolute increase in the fleet of about 7,000 units. While steady growth in both GDP and corporate Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT Texas 11,258,475 14,337,818 17,056,755 20,944,499 25,245,717 2.04% 25,657,477 26,094,422 26,505,637 26,956,958 27,370,346 27,811,299 1.39% 30,127,388 32,624,041 35,272,724 37,988,744 1.57% Austin -Round Rock MSA' 402,939 589,651 851,898 1,264,950 1,727,743 3.71% 1,782,089 1,836,149 1,885,803 1,943,299 1,982,665 2,024,340 2.29% 2,245,826 2,489,573 2,754,382 3,034,379 2.04% Williamson County 37,740 77,658 140,570 255,379 426,541 6.25% 442,482 456,593 471,225 489,250 504,088 519,746 2.86% 605,221 703,575 815,579 940,516 3.01% Travis County 1 298,436 1 422,016 1 581,024 819,692 1 1,030,443 1 3.15% 1 1,062,609 1,097,104 1,122,748 1 1,151,145 1 1,171,245 1 1,192,546 1 2.11 % 1 1,304,096 1 1,423,699 1 1,549,835 1 1,678,408 1.72% Texas 5,045,480 7,495,949 9,242,894 12,139,164 14,291,032 2.64% 14,719,187 15,126,531 15,563,453 15,981,821 16,333,786 16,683,175 2.24% 18,425,339 20,231,603 22,081,828 23,968,203 1.83% Austin -Round Rock MSA' 184,371 322,222 512,916 849,771 1,076,924 4.51% 1,114,869 1,152,354 1,208,017 1,252,927 1,285,315 1,317,668 2.92% 1,482,125 1,656,951 1,840,939 2,033,804 2.19% Williamson County 13,781 25,290 46,515 103,160 173,271 6.53% 177,195 183,601 192,694 199,662 206,250 212,874 2.98% 247,292 285,557 327,991 374,950 2.87% Travis County 147,496 263,762 419,753 666,437 786,256 4.27% 816,807 843,298 884,177 917,569 940,496 963,397 2.95% 1,079,658 1,202,329 1,330,054 1,462,169 2.11% Texas $16,844 $22,621 $25,750 $34,121 $37,659 2.03% $39,592 $40,995 $40,724 $41,857 $42,641 $43,342 2.03% $46,915 $50,635 $54,181 $57,644 1.44% Austin -Round Rock MSA' $16,284 $22,728 $28,913 $39,777 $39,358 2.23% $40,722 $42,707 $42,211 $43,102 $43,999 $44,696 1.83% $48,169 $51,733 $55,154 $58,538 1.36% Williamson County $14,231 $21,683 $24,120 $37,441 $35,245 2.29% $35,422 $34,992 $34,868 $35,688 $36,907 $37,401 0.85% $39,709 $42,036 $44,236 $46,396 1.08% Travis County $17,572 $22,728 $28,913 $43,432 $43,679 2.30% $45,700 $49,270 $48,577 $49,627 $50,637 $51,493 2.38% $55,882 $60,496 $65,072 $69,744 1.53% 3.5 3 0 2.5 E c 2 z O Q 1.5 J d O a 1 0.5 2.5 2 0.5 O.010 doo op 111213141516 1112131415'16 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021 2026 2031 2036 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021 2026 2031 2036 Travis County Williamson County Austin -Round Rock MSA' - - Travis County Williamson County - Austin -Round Rock MSA' 'Williamson, Travis, Hays, Caldwell and Bastrop Counties MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area PCPI - Per Capita Personal Income CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate 80 70 Va N s 60 c 50 0 0 rn 40 0 0 N a 30 V a w 2 20 O V z 10 111213141516 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021 2026 2031 2036 Travis County Williamson County Austin -Round Rock MSA' Texas Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 2-5 This page intentionally left blank Page 97 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRI'Okl AIRPORT MAS profits results in continued growth of the turbine and rotorcraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet — fixed -wing piston aircraft - continues to shrink over the FAA's forecast. In 2015, the general aviation industry experienced its first decline in aircraft deliveries since 2010. While the single engine piston aircraft deliveries by U.S. manufacturers continued to grow and business jet deliveries recorded a very modest increase compared to the previous year, turboprop deliveries declined by 10 percent, and the much smaller category of multi -engine piston deliveries declined 40 percent. In 2015, the FAA estimated there were 138,135 piston -powered aircraft in the national fleet. The total number of piston -powered aircraft in the fleet is forecast to decline by 0.7 percent from 2015-2036, resulting in 118,855 by 2036. This includes a decline of 0.7 percent annually for single engine pistons and -0.5 percent for multi -engine pistons. Total turbine aircraft are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 2.1 percent through 2036. The FAA estimates there were 29,040 turbine -powered aircraft in the national fleet in 2015, and there will be 44,65S by 2036. This includes annual growth rates of 1.3 percent for turboprops, 2.5 percent for business jets, and 2.3 percent for turbine helicopters. While comprising a much smaller portion of the general aviation fleet, experimental aircraft, typically identified as home -built aircraft, are projected to grow annually by 0.9 percent through 2036. The FAA estimates there were 26,435 experimental aircraft in 2016, and these are projected to grow to 31,640 by 2036. Sport aircraft are forecast to grow 4.5 percent annually through the long term, growing from 2,410 in 2015 to 6,100 by 2036. Exhibit 2B presents the historical and forecast U.S. active general avia- tion aircraft. The FAA also forecasts total operations based upon activity at control towers across the U.S. Operations are categorized as air carrier, air taxi/commuter, general aviation, and military. General aviation operations, both local and itinerant, declined significantly as a result of the 2008-2009 recession and subsequent slow recovery. Through 2036, total general aviation operations are forecast to grow 0.3 percent annually. Air taxi/commuter operations are forecast to decline by 3.4 percent through 2025, and then increase slightly through the remainder of the forecast period. Overall, air taxi/commuter operations are forecast to decline by 1.1 percent annually from 2015 through 2036. General Aviation Aircraft Shipments and Revenue As previously discussed, the 2008-2009 economic recession had a negative impact on general aviation aircraft production, and the industry has been slow to recover. Aircraft manufacturing declined for three straight years from 2008 through 2010. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), there is optimism that aircraft manufacturing will stabilize and return to growth, which has been evidenced since 2011; however, total production did see a slight decline in 2015. Table 2A presents historical data related to general aviation aircraft shipments. Page 98 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAL AIKI'Ok I AIRPORT MASTER PCAI�.� TABLE 2A Annual General Aviation Airplane Shipments Manufactured Worldwide and Factory Net Billines 1994 1,132 544 77 233 278 3,749 1995 1,251 605 61 285 300 4,294 1996 1,437 731 70 320 316 4,936 1997 1,840 1043 80 279 438 7,170 1998 2,457 1508 98 336 515 8,604 1999 2,808 1689 112 340 667 11,560 2000 3,147 1,877 103 415 752 13,496 2001 2,998 1,645 147 422 784 13,868 2002 2,677 1,591 130 280 676 11,778 2003 2,686 1,825 71 272 518 9,998 2004 2,962 1,999 52 319 592 12,093 2005 3,590 2,326 139 375 750 15,156 2006 4,054 2,513 242 412 887 18,815 2007 4,277 2,417 258 465 1,137 21,837 2008 3,974 1,943 176 538 1,317 24,846 2009 2,283 893 70 446 874 19,474 2010 2,024 781 108 368 767 19,715 2011 2,120 761 137 526 696 19,042 2012 2,164 817 91 584 672 18,895 2013 2,353 908 122 645 678 23,450 2014 2,454 986 143 603 722 24,499 2015 2,331 946 110 557 718 24,120 SEP - Single Engine Piston; MEP - Multi -Engine Piston; TP - Turboprop;l - Turbofan/Turbojet Source: General Aviation Manufacturers Association 2015 General Aviation Statistical Databook & 20161ndustry Outlook Worldwide shipments of general aviation airplanes decreased in 2015 with a total of 2,331 units deliv- ered around the globe compared to 2,454 units in 2014. Worldwide general aviation billings were also lower than the previous year. In 2015, $24 billion in new general aviation aircraft were shipped, but yearend results were mixed across the market segments. Results were impacted by economic uncer- tainty in key markets, including Brazil, Europe, and China; however, the U.S. experienced stronger deliv- ery numbers, which is cause for cautious optimism. Business Jets: General aviation manufacturers delivered 718 business jets in 2015, as compared to 722 units in 2014. The industry's continued investment in new products helped maintain the delivery rate for business jets. Turboprops: In 2015, 557 turboprop airplanes were delivered to customers around the world, a decline from the 603 delivered in 2014. Overall, the turboprop market is still significantly stronger over the past five years compared to years prior to 2011. Pistons: Piston deliveries declined from 1,129 units during 2014 to 1,056 in 2015. Two-thirds of piston shipments were to North American customers, a significant increase from the 2014 North American mar- ket share of 55.1 percent. Page 99 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Piston Single Engine Multi -Engine Turbine Turboprop Turbojet iotorcraft Piston Turbine 125,050 119,585 13,085 12,760 9,570 9,215 12,475 13,975 3,245 3,770 6,995 8,215 26,435 27,690 2,410 3,490 4,615 4,525 115,045 107,160 12,480 11,695 9,775 12,635 15,735 20,770 4,170 5,005 9,185 11,250 28,735 31,640 4,410 =MIN 6,100 4,495 4,440 -0.7% -0.5% 1.3% 2.5% 2.1 % 2.3% 0.9% 4.5% -0.2% 300 Historical 250 - m O 200 to 3 O Y 150 �•�`-� uc w v 100 L Q 50 2001 2006 2011 152016 2021 2026 2031 2036 Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year. Source: FAA Aerospace Foreast - Fiscal Years 2016-2036 50 O 40 E 30 N O 20 v a O 10 001.111 Itinerant 15tA - C 6 O •- 10 _ c X r3 Q 5 2006 2011 152016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2001 2006 2011 152016 2021 2026 2031 2036 Page 100 of 588 This page intentionally left blank Page 101 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRM W I NWIL AIRPORT MASTER PL' FORECASTING APPROACH The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A series of mathematical relationships is tested to establish statistical logic and rationale for projected growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation, is important in the final determination of the preferred forecast. The most reliable approach to estimating aviation demand is through the utili- zation of more than one analytical technique. Methodologies frequently considered include trend line/time-series projections, correlation/regression analysis, and market share analysis. Trend line/time-series projections are probably the simplest and most familiar of the forecasting tech- niques. By fitting growth curves to historical data, then extending them into the future, a basic trend line projection is produced. A basic assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be, the trend line projection does serve as a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections. Correlation analysis provides a measure of direct relationship between two separate sets of historical data. Should there be a reasonable correlation between the data sets, further evaluation using regres- sion analysis may be employed. Regression analysis measures statistical relationships between dependent and independent variables, yielding a "correlation coefficient." The correlation coefficient (Pearson's'Y') measures association be- tween the changes in the dependent variable and the independent variable(s). If the "r21, value (coeffi- cient determination) is greater than 0.9S, it indicates good predictive reliability. A value less than 0.9S may be used, but with the understanding that the predictive reliability is lower. Market share analysis involves a historical review of the airport activity as a percentage, or share, of a larger regional, state, or national aviation market. A historical market share trend is determined, provid- ing an expected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the larger geographical area to produce a market share projection. This method has the same limitations as trend line projections, but can provide a useful check on the validity of other forecasting techniques. Forecasts will age and the further one is from the base year, the less reliable a forecast may become, particularly due to changing local and national conditions. Nonetheless, the FAA indicates that a Master Plan include a 20-year forecast for an airport. Facility and financial planning usually require at least a ten-year view, since it often takes more than five years to complete a major facility development pro- gram. However, it is important to use forecasts which do not overestimate revenue -generating capabil- ities or understate demand for facilities needed to meet public (user) needs. A wide range of factors is known to influence the aviation industry and can have significant impacts on the extent and nature of aviation activity in both the local and national markets. Historically, the nature and trend of the national economy has had a direct impact on the level of aviation activity. Recessionary periods have been closely followed by declines in aviation activity. Nonetheless, over time, trends emerge and provide the basis for airport planning. Page 102 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPOR-1 RT MAS Future facility requirements, such as hangar and apron needs, are derived from projections of various aviation demand indicators. Using a broad spectrum of local, regional, and national socioeconomic and aviation information, and analyzing the most current aviation trends, forecasts are presented for the following aviation demand indicators: • Based Aircraft • Based Aircraft Fleet Mix • General Aviation Operations • Air Taxi and Military Operations • Operational Peaks This forecasting effort was completed in January 2017, with a base year of 2016. FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST (TAF) On an annual basis, the FAA publishes the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for each airport included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The TAF is a generalized forecast of airport activity used by FAA for internal planning purposes. It is available to airports and consultants to use as a baseline projection and important point of comparison while developing local forecasts. Table 213 presents the 2016 TAF for the Airport. As can be seen, the TAF forecast for operations and based aircraft shows modest growth. Itinerant operations are forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 0.49 percent, while local operations grow at a rate of 0.43 percent. Based aircraft are forecast to grow at an annual rate of 2.25 percent. TABLE 2B 2016 FAA Terminal Area Forecast Georgetown Municipal Airport ITINERANT OPERATIONS General Aviation 2016 37,018 2021 37,953 i 38,912 39,897 40,903 0.50% Air Taxi 639 639 639 639 639 0.00% Military 131 131 131 131 131 0.00% Total Itinerant LOCALOPERATIONS 37,788 38,723 39,682 40,667 41,673 0.49% General Aviation 40,040 40,903 41,785 42,685 43,603 0.43% Military 207 207 207 207 207 0.00% Total Local 40,247 41,110 41,992 42,892 43,810 0.43% Total Operations 78,035 79,833 81,674 83,559 85,483 0.46% Based Aircraft 198 223 249 276 309 F 2.25% CAGR: Compound annual growth rate Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast (Jan. 2016) Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 2-12 GEORGETOWN � _ MUNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PU The FAA TAF is an aviation forecast for the Airport developed at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C., using a top -down distribution method. One of the purposes of the TAF is to distribute overall aviation activity to all airports so that the FAA can better plan workload measures. The TAF forecast for commer- cial service airports considers many variables, while the TAF for most general aviation airports take into consideration few, if any, local factors. For these reasons, the TAF is only one data point, and it is used as a point of comparison for evaluating the reasonableness of the master plan forecasts. One area of concern is the 2016 based aircraft count of 198 included in the TAF. It is known that there are 318 aircraft based at the airport currently. This count is included in the FAA's based aircraft database (www.basedaircraft.com), which is updated by the Airport and verified by the FAA. It is likely that the 2016 based aircraft numbers simply have not been transferred to the TAF. The historical total operations counts, however, are accurate, because there is a control tower at the Airport which provides opera- tional counts included in FAA databases. GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS General aviation encompasses all portions of civil aviation except commercial service and military oper- ations. To determine the types and sizes of facilities that should be planned to accommodate general aviation activity at the Airport, certain elements of this activity must be forecast. These indicators of general aviation demand include based aircraft, aircraft fleet mix, operations, and peak periods. RFG[STFR.FP AIRCRAFT FORFCAST The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general aviation demand. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft for the Airport, other demand indicators can be projected. The process of developing forecasts of based aircraft begins with an analysis of aircraft ownership in the primary general aviation service area through a review of historical aircraft registrations. The area that most represents the general aviation service area is Williamson and Travis counties. Cer- tainly, some aviation activity and based aircraft will originate from outside this area but generally, most based aircraft will come from this area. Aircraft ownership trends for the service area are typically an indicator of the based aircraft trends for an airport. Table 2C presents the history of registered aircraft in the two -county service area from 1993 through 2016. These figures are derived from the FAA aircraft registration database that categorizes registered aircraft by county based on the zip code of the registered aircraft. Although this information generally provides a correlation to based aircraft, it is not uncommon for some aircraft to be registered in a specific county but based at an airport outside the county or vice versa. In 2016, there were 1,318 aircraft registered in the two -county area, which is the fourth consecutive year of year -over -year growth. The previous high for registered aircraft was 1,375 in 2011, which was followed by two consecutive years of decline. The decline in registered aircraft is attributable to two primary factors; the impact of the 2008-2009 recession and FAA's re -registration process between 2010 Page 104 of 588 GEORGETOWN qqkk,_ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS and 2013 saw an overall 10.5 percent decline in active aircraft. This decline appears to be represented in the registered aircraft figures for the two -county area. Now that the actual number of registered aircraft has been identified, several projections of future registered aircraft are considered for the 20- year planning horizon. TABLE 2C Historical Registered Aircraft Williamson and Travis Counties • Total 1993 642 109 41 29 23 67 911 1994 650 103 39 27 31 70 920 1995 669 94 37 26 27 71 924 1996 694 95 43 23 25 73 953 1997 703 100 44 33 30 69 979 1998 716 94 39 37 34 71 991 1999 757 102 49 35 43 80 1,066 2000 799 120 41 30 47 84 1,121 2001 836 97 75 31 49 88 1,176 2002 842 96 71 32 41 90 1,172 2003 817 80 110 33 41 88 1,169 2004 840 80 110 44 38 90 1,202 2005 839 79 107 49 39 79 1,192 2006 891 111 38 37 40 79 1,196 2007 969 104 36 33 45 108 1,295 2008 959 97 50 41 44 109 1,300 2009 958 94 48 43 51 116 1,310 2010 973 93 48 45 55 127 1,341 2011 1017 85 49 47 53 124 1,375 2012 950 71 68 54 54 105 1,302 2013 916 67 64 58 53 109 1,267 2014 939 65 47 65 54 99 1,269 2015 932 63 50 64 79 106 1,294 2016 967 63 57 67 55 109 1,318 SEP - Single Engine Piston; MEP - Multi -Engine Piston; TP - Turboprop; J - Jet; H - Helicopter; O - Other (Bal- loons, gliders, gyroplane, etc.) Source: FAA aircraft reaistration database. Time Series and Regression Analysis A time -series and several regression analyses were considered. Time -series analysis is a statistical pro- cess that essentially "fits" a line over historical data, in this case registered aircraft, and extends that line into the future. The time -series analysis results in 1,404 registered aircraft by 2021, 1,461 by 2026, and 1,577 by 2026. The r2 value was 0.643 indicating a low degree of reliability. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN _ i MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS The regression analysis conducted considered the following independent variables: Year, U.S. active aircraft as projected by the FAA, and population, employment, and income for the two -county area. Seventeen years of data was analyzed for a period from the year 2000 through 2016. Table 2D presents the results of this analysis. TABLE 2D Registered Aircraft Forecasts (Top 10 Regression Analysis and Time -Series) Georgetown Municipal Airport 2016 Registered Aircraft: 1,318 Year- Time Series r2 1 0.643 2021 1 1,404 FORECAST 2026 1 1,461 1 1,577 2016-2036 1 0.90% REGRESSION Year, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp., Income 0.951 1,323 1,394 1,662 1.17% Year, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp. 0.944 1,328 1,401 1,660 1.16% Year, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Income 0.939 1,332 1,405 1,680 1.22% US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp., Income 0.906 1,355 1,419 1,594 0.96% US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp. 0.906 1,355 1,419 1,595 0.96% US Active Aircraft, Pop., Income 0.890 1,366 1,432 1,611 1.01% Year, US Active Aircraft, Pop. 0.864 1,386 1,473 1,718 1.33% US Active Aircraft, Pop. 0.854 1,473 1,473 1,674 1.20% Year, US Active Aircraft, Emp., Income 0.853 1,378 1,443 1,598 0.97% Year, US Active Aircraft, Income 0.851 1,378 1,442 1,589 0.94% Notes: Analysis conducted with 2000-2016 annual data. CAGR = Compound annual growth rate Pop., Emp., Income = Combined Williamson and Travis County The regression that considered all five variables resulted in an r2 value above 0.95, which indicates a relatively high degree of reliability. The next four regressions had r2 values above 0.90, which provides a medium to high level of correlation. The remaining five regressions has r2 values between 0.85 and 0.90, which provides a moderate level of correlation. The five -variable regression will be carried forward for further analysis of reasonableness through market share comparative analysis. Appendix E shows the actual calculations of the regressions and other forecast related documentation. Market Share Analysis Table 2E presents several market share projections of registered aircraft for the two -county service area. The first projection considers the relationship between U.S. active aircraft, as projected by the FAA, to registered aircraft in the two -county area. In 2016, the number of registered aircraft in the two -county area represented 0.6479 percent of active aircraft in the U.S. By maintaining this ratio as a constant share, a long-term forecast emerges which results in a low growth rate of 0.18 percent. This is likely a low -end projection as the growth rate in registered aircraft since 2000 has been 0.96 percent. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIVAI, AIRPOR1 AIRPORT MAS The market share projection considers the number of registered aircraft in relation to the two -county population. In 2016, there were 0.7697 registered aircraft in the two -county service area per 1,000 people. By maintaining this ratio at a constant level through the 20-year planning period, a long-term forecast results with an annual growth rate of 2.15 percent. With population growing at a very high rate, this is likely a high -end projection. TABLE ZE Market Share Registered Aircraft Projections Georeetown Municipal Airoort Year Two -County U.S. Active Market Share of Two -County Aircraft Per 000 Aircraft' Active Aircraft Population'Registrations' 2006 1,196 221,942 0.5389% 1,277,121 0.9365 2007 1,295 231,606 0.5591% 1,329,122 0.9743 2008 1,300 228,664 0.5685% 1,376,136 0.9447 2009 1,310 223,876 0.5851% 1,417,303 0.9243 2010 1,341 223,370 0.6003% 1,456,984 0.9204 2011 1,375 220,453 0.6237% 11505,091 0.9136 2012 1,302 209,034 0.6229% 1,553,697 0.8380 2013 1,267 199,927 0.6337% 1,593,973 0.7949 2014 1,269 204,408 0.6208% 1,640,395 0.7736 2015 1,294 203,880 0.6347% 1,675,333 0.7724 2016 1,318 203,425 0.6479% 1,712,292 0.7697 Constant Market Share of U.S. Active Aircraft Projection (CAGR = 0.18%) 2021 1,317 203,225 0.6479% 1,909,317 0.6896 2026 1,322 204,030 0.6479% 2,127,274 0.6214 2036 1,365 210,695 0.6479% 2,618,924 0.5212 Constant o of Aircraft per 1,000 2021 1,470 203,225 0.7232% 1,909,317 0.7697 2026 1,637 204,030 0.8025% 2,127,274 0.7697 2036 2,016 210,695 0.9568% 2,618,924 0.7697 i 2021 1,382 203,225 0.6807% 1,909,317 0.7238 2026 1,450 E 204,030 0.710% 2,127,274 0.6816 2036 1,595 210,695 0.7570% 2,618,924 0.6090 2021 1,323 203,225 0.6510% 1,909,317 0.6929 2026 1,394 204,030 0.6832% 2,127,274 0.6553 2036 1,662 210,695 0.7888% 2,618,924 0.6346 Selected Registered Aircraft Forecast (CAGR - 0.91%) 2021 1,360 203,225 0.6692% 1,909,317 0.7123 2026 1,420 204,030 0.6960% 2,127,274 0.6675 2036 1,580 210,695 0.7499% 2,618,924 0.6033 'Combined Williamson and Travis County Aircraft Registrations from FAA Aircraft Registration Database 'U.S. Active Aircraft from FAA Aerospace Forecasts - Fiscal Years 2016-2036 'Williamson and Travis Counties population from Woods & Poole Economics (CEDDS 2016) CAGR: Compound annual growth rate Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 2-1 GEORGETOWN _ noUNICIPAI AIRP iu I AIRPORT MAS The next market share projection applies the average annual growth rate of registered aircraft since the year 2000 (0.96 percent) and extends that into the future. This results in a reasonable forecast of future registered aircraft in line with historical trends. As a share of U.S. active aircraft, this forecast shows an increasing trend (in line with historical) and as a share of aircraft per 1,000 people, this forecast shows a decreasing trend. The last market share projection is a check on the reasonableness of the regression analysis considered previously. By utilizing the regression with the highest correlation (rz value of 0.951), one can examine if the resulting market share of U.S. active aircraft and the two -county population is reasonable. The market share percent of U.S. active aircraft increases moderately over time, while the population to registered aircraft ratio decreases moderately. These are consistent with historical trends. Selected Registered Aircraft Forecast The final step in the forecasting process is to apply the experience and judgement of the forecast analyst. Even the most mathematical and statistically sound forecast methodology must be considered for its reasonableness. The statistically reliable regression forecast results in the addition of only five new reg- istered aircraft in the two -county area over the next five years. With growing national and local econo- mies and a rapidly growing local population, this short-term growth seems quite low. The long-term regression forecast is more reasonable; however, it is above the 17-year growth trend. Exhibit 2C and Table 2F present several registered aircraft forecasts which together form a reasonable planning envelope. Over time, it is difficult to predict what may influence trends in registered aircraft but it reasonable to consider a selected planning forecast within the planning envelope. As required in airport master plans, a specific 20-year forecast must be identified. While the airport service area is growing in regard to several aviation demand indicators, the fact that aircraft ownership is somewhat stagnant nationally lends to a somewhat tempered forecast as compared to the regression projection and the 17-year growth trend. The following forecast of registered aircraft for the two -county area will be used as a data point for development of the based aircraft forecast: • 2021— 1,360 Service Area Registered Aircraft • 2026 — 1,420 Service Area Registered Aircraft • 2036 — 1,580 Service Area Registered Aircraft TABLE 2F Registered Aircraft Summary Georeetown Municipal Airport Method Time -Series i 1 1,404 1,461 1,577 0.90% Highest Correlation Regression (rZ=0.951) 1,323 1,394 1,662 1.17% 17-year Growth Rate 1,382 1,394 1,595 0.96% Market Share of US Active Aircraft (Constant) 1,317 1,322 1,365 0.18% Market Share of Population to Registered Aircraft (Constant) 1,470 1,637 2,016 2.15% Selected Registered Aircraft Forecast 1,360 1,420 1,580 0.91% Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 71- 2500 2000 F— LL 1500 a oc v cc 0 W I= W H N a Wcc 1000 500 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '17 '18 19 '20 '22 '23 '24 '25 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 2000 2010 2016 2021 2026 2036 YEAR Source: FAA aircraft registration database Williamson and Travis Counties GEORGETOWN I MUNICIPAI A I N W 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1bLMbaa BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST Forecasts of based aircraft may directly influence needed facilities and the applicable design standards. The needed facilities may include hangars, aprons, taxilanes, etc. The applicable design standards may include separation distances and object clearing surfaces. The size and type of based aircraft are also an important consideration. The addition of numerous small aircraft may have no effect on design stand- ards, while the addition of a few larger business jets can have a substantial impact on applicable design standards. Because of the numerous variables known to influence aviation demand, several separate forecasts of based aircraft are developed. Each of the forecasts is then examined for reasonableness and any outliers are discarded or given less weight. The remaining forecasts collectively will create a planning envelope. A single planning forecast is then selected for use in developing facility needs for the Airport. The se- lected forecast of based aircraft can be one of the several forecasts developed or, based on the experi- ence and judgement of the forecaster, it can be a blend of the forecasts. Based Aircraft History Documentation of the historical number of based aircraft at the Airport has been somewhat intermit- tent. For many years, FAA did not require airports to report the number of based aircraft. It is only in recent years that the FAA has established a based aircraft inventory in which it is possible to cross refer- ence based aircraft claimed by one airport with other airports. The FAA is now utilizing this based aircraft inventory as a baseline for determining how many, and what type of aircraft are based at any individual airport. This database evolves daily as aircraft are added or removed, and it does not provide an annual history of based aircraft. It is the responsibility of the sponsor (owner) of each airport to input based aircraft information into the FAA database (www.basedaircraft.com). In 2016, there were 318 based aircraft for the Airport included in the database. NOTE: The forecasts were completed in the fall of 2016. As of February 22, 2018, the www.basedair- craft.com database indicated there were 288 validated based aircraft at the Airport. Historical Growth Rate Forecast The number of aircraft based at the Airport has grown from 256 in 2005 to 318 in 2016. This is an average annual growth rate of 1.99 percent. By applying this growth rate, a forecast of 351 based aircraft by 2021, 387 by 2026, and 472 by 2036 emerges. It should be noted that two regional airports closed in the 1998-1999 timeframe and, as a result, the number of aircraft based at Georgetown Municipal Airport increased sharply from 133 in 1998 to 268 by the year 2000. By 2005, movement of aircraft due to the closure of other airports had settled back to a more normal trend. Therefore, the historic growth rate is considered from 2005 to 2016. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 2-19. GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IAIRPORT MASTER P°V� Time -Series and Regression Analysis Forecast Time -series analysis is a statistical process that essentially "fits" a line over historical data, in this case based aircraft, and extends that line into the future. The time -series analysis results in 327 based aircraft by 2021, 346 by 2026, and 384 by 2036, which is an annual growth rate of 1.94 percent. The rz value was 0.830 indicating a moderate degree of reliability. A series of statistical regressions were done which considered the variables of time (year), registered aircraft (as projected in the previous section), U.S. active aircraft (as forecast by FAA), and population, employment, and income (for the two -county area). The top ten of these resulted in r2 values higher than 0.95, which indicated a high degree of reliability. Table 2G presents a summary of the regression analysis and detail of the methodology is presented in Appendix E. TABLE 2G Based Aircraft Forecasts - Top 10 Regressions and Time -Series Georeetown Municipal Airport Year- Time Series 0.830 327 FORECAST 346 384 2016-2036 0.94% REGRESSION Year, Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp., Income 0.968 337 358 402 1.18% Year, Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Emp., Income 0.968 337 358 403 1.19% Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp., Income 0.968 337 358 399 1.14% Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Emp., Income 0.965 336 357 398 1.13% Year, Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Emp. 0.964 336 358 403 1.20% Year, Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Income 0.964 336 357 405 1.21% Year, Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Income 0.964 335 356 400 1.15% Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Pop., Income 0.963 336 356 397 1.11% Year, Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Income 0.962 336 356 396 1.10% Registered Aircraft, US Active Aircraft, Income 0.962 335 356 396 1.10% Notes: Analysis conducted with 2000-2016 annual data. CAGR = Compound annual growth rate Pop., Emp., Income = Combined Williamson and Travis County Market Share Forecast Several market share forecasts of based aircraft have been developed. The first considers the relation- ship between historical based aircraft and registered aircraft in the two -county airport service area. Cur- rently, the number of based aircraft at the Airport accounts for 24.1 percent of the two -county registered aircraft. By maintaining this ratio as a constant, a projection of based aircraft emerges, as shown on Table 2H. The next market share forecast considers the relationship between based aircraft and population. In 2016, there were 0.1898 based aircraft at the Airport per 1,000 people in the two -county service area. Page 111 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ _ MUNICIPAI AIRPORT -AIRPORT MAS When maintaining this ratio as a constant into the future, a forecast results, as shown in Table 2H. It is more common for this ratio to decrease as population increases; therefore, this forecast is considered a high -range forecast. Table 2H also includes a methodology for checking the reasonableness of 11-year growth rate and re- gression forecasts previously presented. When performing this check, the key indicators are the pro- jected trend in the market share of registered aircraft and population per based aircraft. As shown the projected trends appear reasonable for an unconstrained forecast and are considered as part of the overall planning envelope. Table 2H Market Share Based Aircraft Forecast Georl;etown Municipal Airport Two -County Two -County Based Aircraft Per Year Based Aircraft Market Share Registered Aircraft' Population' 1,000 Population 2005 1,192 256 21.5% 1,223,435 0.2092 2016 1,318 1 318 24.1% 1,675,333 0.1898 Constant Share of Two -County Registered Aircraft (CAGR i 2021 1,360 I 328 24.1% 1,909,317 0.1719 2026 1,420 343 24.1% 2,127,274 0.1611 2036 1,580 381 24.1% 2,618,924 0.1456 Constant Share of Population 2021 1,360 362 26.6% 1,909,317 0.1898 2026 1,420 404 28.4% 2,127,274 0.1898 2036 1,580 497 31.5% 2,618,924 0.1898 2021 1,360 351 25.8% 1,909,317 0.1838 2026 1,420 387 27.3% 2,127,274 0.1819 2036 1,580 472 29.9% 2,618,924 0.1802 2021 1,360 337 24.8% I 1,909,317 0.1765 2026 1,420 3S8 25.2% 2,127,274 0.1683 2036 1,580 402 25.4% 2,618,924 0.1535 Selected Based Aircraft Forecast (CAGR = 1.15%) 2021 1,360 340 25.0% 1,909,317 0.1781 2026 1,420 370 26.1% 2,127,274 0.1739 2036 1,580 400 25.3% 2,618,924 0.1527 'Williamson and Travis Counties CAGR: Compound annual growth rate Selected Based Aircraft Forecast Exhibit 2D and Table 2.1 present the based aircraft forecasts developed to create the planning envelope for consideration. A selected forecast is also included in the graph. It is at this point that the judgement of the forecast analyst is considered when selecting a preferred forecast. Page 112 of 588 m 500 M H LL Q OC V 300 Q 0 LN LA Q m 200 100 '95'96'97'98'99 '01'02'03'04 '06'07'08'09 11'12'13'14'15 '17'18'19'20 '22'23'24'25 '27'28'29'30 '32'33134,35 1994 2000 2005 2010 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 YEAR GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX11111111111h An unconstrained forecast of aviation demand is commonly used for Master Plans so that airport man- agement can prepare and plan for a range of possibilities. For example, some of the based aircraft fore- casts indicate a long-term potential for nearly 500 based aircraft. Many local factors, such as growth in population, employment, and income growth, may lead to a selected forecast on the higher range of the planning envelope. In addition, there is a current wait list of 180+ aircraft owners, which would indicate a high demand for more hangars and, thus, more based aircraft. However, at Georgetown Municipal Airport, there are constraining factors that cannot be ignored. There are challenges to constructing enough hangars to accommodate the demand primarily due to the cost of construction and the time for a builder to amortize their investment. Much of the developable land may also require additional infrastructure, such as utilities, access roads, and potentially environ- mental remediation. Some City policies related to the Airport also indicate a local desire to limit unfet- tered aviation growth. For example, in 1996, City Council passed a resolution indicating no desire to extend either runway in the future (which can be changed by future councils). These factors are consid- ered by the analyst in tempering the long-range forecast. The short and intermediate planning horizons (years 1-10) are projected to fall in the mid -range of the planning envelope; however, in the long term (years 11-20), the forecast has been tempered somewhat to indicate that the Airport will begin approaching a point where development opportunities become noticeably constrained. For purposes of this Master Plan, the following based aircraft forecasts will be utilized to determine future facility needs. • 2021— 340 Based Aircraft • 2026 — 370 Based Aircraft • 2036 — 400 Based Aircraft TABLE 21 Based Aircraft Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport Method Time -Series 327 346 384 0.94% Highest Correlation Regression (r2=0.968) 337 358 402 1.18% 11-year Growth Rate 351 387 472 1.99% Market Share of County Registered Aircraft (Constant) 328 343 381 0.91% Market Share of Population to Registered Aircraft (Constant) 362 404 497 2.26% Selected Based Aircraft Forecast 340 370 400 1.15% CAGR: Compound annual Frowth rate BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX FORECAST It is important to have an understanding of the current and projected based aircraft fleet mix at an air- port to ensure the planning of proper facilities in the future. For example, the addition of one or several larger turboprop or business jet aircraft to the airfield can have a significant impact on the separation requirements and the various obstacle clearing surfaces. Page 114 of 588 GEORGETOWN MLWCIPAI AIRPORT AIRPORT 011111KAN The current based aircraft fleet mix consists of 251 single engine piston aircraft, 24 multi -engine piston aircraft, 20 turboprops, 15 business jets, and eight helicopters. The role of the Airport is expected to remain as a general aviation reliever facility; therefore, a significant departure from the current fleet mix is not anticipated. The future fleet mix is expected to continue to be dominated by single engine piston aircraft with moderate increases in turboprops, jets, and helicopters. Multi -engine piston aircraft are projected to increase slightly but decline as a percentage of total based aircraft. These forecast growth trends in the based aircraft mix are consistent with FAA projections of the national general aviation fleet mix. Table 2K presents the forecast fleet mix for based aircraft at Georgetown Municipal Airport. TABLE 2K Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Forecast Georgetown Municipal Airport EXISTING' FORECAST Single Engine P 251 78.93% 267 78.53% 290 78.38% 311 77.75% Multi -Engine P 24 7.55% 25 7.35% 26 7.03% 26 6.50% Turboprop 20 6.29% 22 6.47% 24 6.49% 28 7.00% Jet 15 4.72% 17 5.00% 19 5.14% 22 5.50% Helicopter 8 1 2.52% 9 1 2.65% 11 2.97% 13 3.25% Is Is sum'00.00% 370 100.00% 400 100.00% 'Airport Records/www.basedaircraft.com �I 1 � :Ell 11 DI ► &W01:7 14(15.1 1 General aviation operations include a wide range of activity from recreational use to business and cor- porate uses. Military operations include those operations conducted by various branches of the U.S. military. Air taxi operations are those conducted by aircraft operating under FAR Part 135, otherwise known as "for -hire" or "on -demand" activity. Air taxi operations typically include commuter, air cargo, air ambulance, and many fractional ownership operations. Aircraft operations are further classified as local and itinerant. A local operation is a takeoff or landing performed by an aircraft that operates within sight of an airport, or which executes simulated ap- proaches or touch-and-go operations at an airport. Generally, local operations are characterized by training activity. Itinerant operations are those performed by aircraft with a specific origin or destination away from an airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and commercial use since business aircraft are used primarily to transport passengers from one location to another. The following sections present several new general aviation operations forecasts. Once a forecast of general aviation operations has been selected, they will be combined with air taxi and military operations to provide a total operations forecast for use in determining facility requirements for the Airport. Several methods for determining general aviation operations have been employed to develop a reasonable plan- ning envelope. GEORGETOWN _1W1_ Ml iNICIPAL AIR130k I AIRPORT MASTER PI_ Historical Operations Georgetown Municipal Airport has had an airport traffic control tower since 2007. Tower personnel collect operational data when the tower is open between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. Table 2L presents the historical operations at the Airport. In 2008, the first full year of tower operations, there were 75,407 operations. The next year operations declined to approximately 59,103, primarily due to the national recession. Since 2009, operations have steadily increased every year, closely following the slow but steady improvement of the national economy. Between 2015 and 2016, operations increased significantly from 75,941 to 97,346. The increase can be attributed to the addition of two flight schools to the airport and the improving economy. TABLE 2L Operations History Georgetown Municipal Airport I Year 2008 Air Taxi 1,448 Itinerant General Aviation 37,220 Military 260 Total General Aviation 38,928 35,961 Local Military 518 Total 36,479 Grand Total 75,407 2009 966 32,619 155 33,740 25,153 210 25,363 59,103 2010 940 33,549 240 34,729 25,066 301 25,367 60,096 2011 530 34,192 336 35,058 28,579 156 28,735 63,793 2012 387 33,166 117 33,670 34,632 89 34,721 68,391 2013 343 33,915 75 34,333 36,015 84 36,099 70,432 2014 539 34,278 81 34,898 37,697 97 37,794 72,692 2015 656 35,492 153 36,301 39,426 214 39,640 75,941 2016 811 45,006 207 46,024 50,972 350 51,322 97,346 CAGR 2.13% 1.88 1 3.95% 3.87% 2.88% CAGR: Compound annual growth rate Source: FAA airport operations count (excluding overflights) from Operations Network (OPSNET) Local General Aviation Operations Forecast Local general aviation operations are associated with training activity or touch-and-go activity. This seg- ment of activity has been growing steadily over the past eight years at the Airport. Nationally, the FAA forecasts local general aviation activity to grow at an annual average rate of 0.42 percent. Local general aviation operations at the Airport have grown 3.95 percent annually since 2008 and 9.23 percent annu- ally since 2009. From 2008-2015, total operations were relatively flat. The sharp increase in 2016 is attributable to the addition of two flight schools to the Airport as well as the improving economy. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN M iNICIIIAi nIRPOu-r ART MAS _ Time -Series and Regression Analysis For regression analysis, nine years of data may be considered a somewhat limited data set so the results must be examined with some caution. Both a time -series and multi -variable regression analysis were conducted and are presented in Table 2M. TABLE 2M GA Local Operations Forecasts - Time -Series and Regression Analysis Georgetown Municipal Airport Operations:2016 GA Local Year- Time Series 0.588 2016-2036 2.83% 55,168 FORECAST 66,464 89,058 REGRESSION Year, FAA Local GA Ops., Pop., Emp., Income 0.959 77,343 103,399 149,266 5.52% Year, FAA Local GA Ops., Emp., Income 0.959 77,058 102,553 146,514 5.42% Year, FAA Local GA Ops., Pop., Income 0.952 69,205 83,603 94,344 3.13% Year, FAA Local GA Ops., Emp. 0.951 80,619 108,587 157,006 5.79% Year, Pop., Emp., Income 0.946 66,524 76,627 73,559 1.85% FAA Local GA Ops., Pop., Emp., Income 0.943 76,788 110,977 193,915 6.91% FAA Local GA Ops., Pop., Emp. 0.941 73,579 103,989 176,508 6.41% Year, FAA Local GA Ops., Income 0.931 64,359 81,944 116,822 4.23% Year, Pop., Income 0.927 68,039 77,554 67,447 1.41% FAA Local GA Ops., Pop., Income 0.924 62,864 80,441 118,024 4.29% Notes: Analysis conducted with 2008-2016 annual data. Pop., Emp., Income = Combined Williamson and Travis County CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate As noted previously, time -series analysis is statistically "fitting" a line over historical data and extending that line into future years. For local operations, this resulted in a low statistical reliability with an rZ value of 0.588. This is likely due to the 30 percent decline from 2008 to 2009 and the 23 percent increase from 2015 to 2016. Such variations tend to negatively impact the statistical reliability (r2 value) of the results. Because of the low statistical reliability, the time series forecast is not considered further. For the regression analysis, the independent variables considered were the year, the FAA forecast of local general aviation operations, population, employment and income for the two -county area. The top ten results of the multi -variable analysis indicate a relatively high degree of statistical reliability. Market Share Analysis Market share analysis compares several known historical data points. Local general aviation operations are sourced from the control tower data since 2008. Total local general aviation operations in the U.S. Page 117 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111h are sourced from the FAA forecasts. The number of based aircraft at the Airport is sourced from histor- ical Airport data (as interpolated). Table 2N presents a summary of the market share forecasts. TABLE 2N General Aviation Local Operations Forecast Georgetown Municipal Airport GTU Local GA U.S. ATCT GA Local GTU Market GTU Based Local GA Ops per Year •. Operations2 Share Aircraft Based Aircraft 2008 35,961 14,081,000 0.2554% 272 132 2009 25,153 12,448,000 0.2021% 277 91 2010 25,066 11,716,000 0.2139% 283 I 89 2011 28,579 11,437,000 0.2499% 288 99 2012 34,632 11,608,000 0.2983% 294 118 2013 36,01S 11,688,000 0.3081% 300 120 2014 37,697 11,675,000 0.3229% 306 123 2015 39,426 11,691,000 0.3372% 312 126 2016 50,972 11,776,000 0.4328% 318 160 Constant Market Share of National Local GA •. - 2021 51,989 12,011,000 0.4328% 340 I 153 2026 53,045 12,255,000 0.4328% 370 143 2036 55,283 12,772,000 0.4328% 400 138 Market Share of National OperationsIncreasing Local GA 2021 65,406 11,688,000 0.5596% 340 192 2026 80,133 11,675,000 0.6864% 370 217 2036 109,881 11,691,000 0.9399% 400 275 Local OperationsConstant GA 2021 12,011,000 0.4537% 340 160 54,498 2026 S9,307 12,255,000 0.4839% 370 160 2036 64,116 12,772,000 0.5020% 400 160 Itinerant GA OperationsIncreasing 2021 S6,100 0.4800% 340 165 11,688,000 2026 64,750 11,675,000 0.5546% 370 175 2036 78,000 11,691,000 0.6672% 400 195 'Tower operations 2FAA Aerospace Forecasts — Fiscal Years 2016-2036 GTU = Georgetown Municipal Airport; GA = General Aviation; ATCT = Airport Traffic Control Tower CAGR: Compound annual growth rate The first market share forecast considers the Airport maintaining a constant share of the local general aviation operations nationally (0.4348 percent). This results in 51,989 local general aviation operations by 2021, 53,045 by 2026, and 55,283 by 2036. The average annual growth rate is 0.42 percent. Consid- ering the fact that local general aviation operations have been growing steadily at the Airport since 2009 and they increased by 23 percent from 2015 and 2016, this is considered a low -end forecast. The next market share forecast considers the Airport realizing an increasing share of national local gen- eral aviation operations following the actual trend at the Airport since 2008. This results in 65,406 local Page 118 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PI - general aviation operations by 2021, 80,133 by 2026, and 109,881 by 2036 for an average annual growth rate of 3.92 percent. The next market share forecast considered the historical relationship between local general aviation op- erations and based aircraft. In 2008, there were an estimated 273 based aircraft, which equated to 132 local general aviation operations per based aircraft. In 2016, there were 318 based aircraft and 160 operations per based aircraft. Since 2009, when there were 91 local general aviation operations per based aircraft, there has been an increase of 69 local general aviation operations per based aircraft. By maintaining a constant 160 local general aviation operations per based aircraft, a forecast emerges. This results in 54,498 local general aviation operations by 2021, 59,307 by 2026, and 64,116 by 2036 for an average annual growth rate of 1.15 percent. The last market share forecast considers an increasing number of local operations per based aircraft, which has been the trend for the last nine years. This results in S6,100 local general aviation operations by 2021, 64,750 by 2026, and 78,000 by 2036 for an average annual growth rate of 2.15 percent. Additional Local General Aviation Forecasts The FAA forecasts local general aviation operations nationally to grow at 0.4 percent annually through 2036. By applying this growth factor, a forecast emerges of 52,051 by 2021, 53,154 by 2026, and 55,429 by 2036. A final forecast applies the growth trend in local general aviation operations at the Airport since 2008, which is 3.95 percent annually. This forecast is 61,866 by 2021, 75,089 by 2026, and 110,617 by 2036. Sustaining the current growth rate for the next 20 years seems unlikely due to constraints at the Airport, such as limited developable land, but it is shown to provide the reader the range of possibilities. Local General Aviation Operations Forecast Summary Table 2P presents the seven forecasts of local general aviation operations that comprise the planning envelope. From the planning envelope, a forecast is selected. While there is a case to be made for local operations continuing to increase at or near rates experienced since the tower opened in 2007, there are several potential constraining factors that are taken into consideration when selecting a preferred forecast of local general aviation operations. For example, it may not be financially feasible for either the airport or the private sector to construct all the hangars needed to meet demand. The selected forecast considers mid -range growth rate through 2026, which then begins to become con- strained in years 10-20. Between 2016 and 2026, the annual growth rate is 3.00 percent and from 2026 through 2036, it is 0.97 percent. The selected forecast for local general aviation operations is 58,000 by 2021, 67,200 by 2026, and 74,000 by 2036. Exhibit 2E presents the local general aviation operations forecast in graphic form. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 160 140 120 VN ZO 80 Q W m O J 60 V 0 am LEGEND CAGR Highest Correlation Regression (rZ=0.959) 5.5 %° — — National Growth Trend Forecast 0.42% 9-Year Airport Growth Trend 3.95% Market Share of US Local GA Operations (Constant) 0.41 % Market Share of US Local GA Operations (Increasing) 3.92% i Operations per Based Aircraft (Constant) 1.15% Operations per Based Aircraft (Increasing) 2.15% — — Selected Local General Aviation Operations Forecast 1 1.88% 50,972 �.� 40 67,200 74,00 OOP 58,000 i � !1� 109 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '17 '18 '19 '20 '22 '23 '24 '25 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 2008 2010 2016 2021 2026 2036 YEAR 10( LEGEND CAGR Selected Itinerant General Aviation Operations Forecast 1.28°% FAA TAF 2016 0.50% Operations per Based Aircraft (Increasing) 2.38% Operations per Based Aircraft (Constant) 1.15°% Market Share of US Itinerant GA Operations (Increasing) 3.17°% Market Share of US Itinerant GA Operations (Constant) 0.29% 9-Year Airport Growth Trend 2.12% — National Growth Trend Forecast 0.28% 57,5( S�O0 r rr r rrr / ,m 20 2008 2010 � r �2016. v .. �2021�r ��r2026 �v �. �. �r� rr rrr2036 YEAR This page intentionally left blank Page 121 of 588 GEOR_ GETOWN M NI IPAI Alkl'( NZ i AIRPORT MASTER PL7CR�a TABLE 2P Local General Aviation Operations Planning Forecast Envelope Georgetown Municipal Airport Method Highest Correlation Regression (r2=0.959) 77,343 103,399 149,266 5.52% National Growth Trend Forecast 52,051 53,154 55,429 0.42% 9-Year Airport Growth Trend 61,866 75,089 110,617 3.95% Market Share of US Local GA Operations (Constant) 51,989 53,045 55,283 0.41% Market Share of US Local GA Operations (Increasing) 65,406 80,133 109,881 3.92% Operations per Based Aircraft (Constant) 54,498 59,307 64,116 1.15% Operations per Based Aircraft (Increasing) 56,100 64,750 78,000 2.15% Selected Local General Aviation Operations Forecast S8,000 67,200 74,000 1.88% CAGR = Compound annual growth rate 2016-2036 General Aviation Itinerant Operations Forecast Itinerant operations are associated with aircraft arriving from or departing to another airport. Itinerant operations do not include training or touch-and-go operations. This segment of activity has been grow- ing at the Airport at a more moderate rate than local operations. Nationally, the FAA forecasts itinerant general aviation activity to grow at an annual average rate of 0.3 percent. Since 2008, itinerant opera- tions have increased by an average annual rate of 2.02 percent and since 2009, the average annual growth rate has been 3.98 percent. Time -Series and Regression Analysis Both a time series and regression analysis were conducted for itinerant general aviation operations. None of these resulted in an r2 value above 0.91, which indicates a moderate level of statistical reliability. These results are presented in Table 2Q. As noted previously, time -series analysis is statistically "fitting" a line over historical data and extending that line into future years. For itinerant operations, this resulted in a low statistical reliability with an rZ value of 0.240. For the regression analysis, the independent variables considered were the year, the FAA forecast of itinerant general aviation operations, population, employment, and income for the two -county area. The top ten results of the multi -variable analysis are also shown in Table 2Q and they indicate a moder- ate to low degree of statistical reliability. Because of the low statistical reliability of both the time series and regression analysis, neither were considered when determining a planning forecast for itinerant general aviation operations. They are only included for comparative purposes. q" Page 122 of 588 GEORGETOWN 4 MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - AIRPORT MASAWAN TABLE ZQ GA Itinerant Operations Forecasts - Time -Series and Regression Analysis Georeetown Municipal Airport 2016 GA Itinerant •. •0. Year- Time Series 0.240 41,635 FORECAST 45,047 2016-2036 51,871 0.71% REGRESSION Year, FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Pop., Emp., Income 0.907 80,089 116,683 193,351 7.56% Year, FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Emp., Income 0.904 75,340 104,363 157,408 6.46% FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Pop., Emp., Income 0.879 89,999 144,845 281,586 9.60% Year, FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Pop., Emp. 0.877 65,007 78,837 85,917 3.29% Year, FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Pop., Income 0.854 59,108 65,410 51,741 0.70% Year, FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Pop. 0.847 60,103 68,927 64,650 1.83% Year, Pop., Emp., Income 0.840 56,200 57,716 28,649 -2.23% Year, Pop., Income 0.832 56,671 58,004 26,747 -2.57% Year, FAA Itinerant GA Ops., Emp. 0.753 63,568 83,358 118,374 4.95% Year, Pop., Emp. 0.742 53,574 55,734 35,721 -1.15% Notes: Analysis conducted with 2008-2016 annual data. Pop., Emp., Income = Combined Williamson and Travis County CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate Market Share Analysis The market share analysis compares several known historical data points. Itinerant general aviation operations are sourced from the tower data since 2008. Total itinerant general aviation operations in the U.S. is sourced from the FAA forecasts. The number of based aircraft at the Airport is sourced from historical Airport data (as interpolated). Table 2R presents the market share forecasts. The first market share forecast considers the Airport maintaining a constant share of national itinerant general aviation operations (0.3237 percent). This results in 4S,6S3 itinerant general aviation operations by 2021, 46,320 by 2026, and 47,722 by 2036. The average annual growth rate is 0.29 percent. Consid- ering the fact that itinerant general aviation operations have been growing steadily at the Airport since 2009, this is considered a low -end forecast. The next market share forecast considers the Airport realizing an increasing share of national itinerant general aviation operations following the actual trend at the Airport. This results in 54,346 itinerant general aviation operations by 2021, 63,959 by 2026, and 84,067 by 2036 for an average annual growth rate of 3.17 percent. Page 123 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL- ik,; The next market share forecast considered the historical relationship between itinerant general aviation operations and based aircraft. In 2008, there were an estimated 273 based aircraft, which equated to 137 itinerant general aviation operations per based aircraft. In 2016, there were 318 based aircraft, which equated to 142 operations per based aircraft. By maintaining a constant 142 itinerant general aviation operations per based aircraft, a forecast emerges. This results in 48,120 itinerant general avia- tion operations by 2021, S2,365 by 2026, and 56,611 by 2036 for an average annual growth rate of 1.1S percent. The last market share forecast considers an increasing number of itinerant operations per based aircraft which has been the trend for the last nine years. This results in S1,000 local general aviation operations by 2021, 59,200 by 2026, and 72,000 by 2036 for an average annual growth rate of 2.38 percent. TABLE 211 Itinerant General Aviation Operations - Market Share Forecasts Georgetown Municipal Airport GTU Itinerant GA U.S. ATCT Itinerant GTU Market GTU Based Itinerant GA •. Year •. Operations' 2008 37,220 17,493,000 0.2128% 272 137 2009 32,619 15,571,000 0.2095% 277 118 2010 33,549 14,864,000 0.2257% 283 119 2011 34,192 14,528,000 0.2354% 288 119 2012 33,166 14,522,000 0.2284% 294 113 2013 33,915 14,117,000 0.2402% 300 113 2014 I 34,278 13,979,000 0.2452% 306 112 2015 35,492 13,887,000 0.2556% 312 114 2016 45,006 1 13,903,000 1 0.3237% 1 318 142 Constant Market Share of Operations 2021 45,653 14,103,000 0.3237% 340 134 2026 46,320 14,309,000 0.3237% 370 125 2036 47,722 14,742,000 0.3237% 400 119 OperationsIncreasing Market Share of National Itinerant GA 2021 54,346 14,103,000 0.3853% 340 160 2026 63,959 14,309,000 0.4470% 370 173 2036 84,067 14,742,000 0.5703% 400 210 OperationsConstant Itinerant GA 2021 48,120 14,103,000 0.3412% 340 142 2026 52,365 14,309,000 0.3660% 370 142 2036 56,611 14,742,000 0.3840% 400 142 OperationsIncreasing Itinerant GA 150 2021 51,000 14,103,000 0.3616% 340 2026 59,200 14,309,000 0.4137% 370 160 2036 72,000 14,742,000 1 0.4884% 400 180 'Tower operations 2FAA Aerospace Forecasts — Fiscal Years 2016-2036 GTU = Georgetown Municipal Airport; GA = General Aviation; ATCT = Airport Traffic Control Tower CAGR: Comoound annual erowth rate Page 124 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS Additional Itinerant General Aviation Forecasts The FAA forecasts itinerant general aviation operations nationally to grow at 0.28 percent annually through 2036. By applying this growth factor, a forecast emerges of 45,640 by 2021, 46,282 by 2026, and 47,595 by 2036. A final forecast applies the growth trend in itinerant general aviation operations at the Airport since 2008, which is 2.12 percent annually. This forecast is 49,983 by 2021, 55,511 by 2026, and 68,468 by 2036. General Aviation Itinerant Operations Forecast Summary Table 2S presents a summary of the six forecasts of itinerant general aviation operations which comprise the planning envelope. Exhibit 2E presents these forecasts in graphic form. While there is a case to be made for itinerant operations continuing to increase at or near historical rates, there are several potential constraining factors that are taken into consideration when selecting a preferred forecast. For example, there is limited developable space at the Airport so the introduction of new businesses that would cater to itinerant operators may be somewhat limited, especially in the longer term. TABLE 2S Itinerant General Aviation Operations Planning Forecast Envelope Georgetown Municipal Airport Method National Growth Trend Forecast 2021 45,640 2026 46,282 2036 47,595 CAGIR 0.28% 9-Year Airport Growth Trend 49,983 55,511 68,468 2.12% Market Share of US Itinerant GA Operations (Constant) 45,653 46,320 47,722 0.29% Market Share of US Itinerant GA Operations (Increasing) 54,346 63,959 84,067 3.17% Operations per Based Aircraft (Constant) 48,120 52,365 56,611 1.15% Operations per Based Aircraft (Increasing) 51,000 59,200 72,000 2.38% Selected Itinerant General Aviation Operations Forecast 48,700 1 S3,400 S7,S00 1.28% CAGR = Compound annual growth rate The selected forecast considers an average growth rate through 2026, which then begins to become constrained in years 10-20. Between 2016 and 2026, the annual growth rate is 1.72 percent and from 2026 through 2036, it is 0.74 percent. The selected forecast for itinerant general aviation operations is 48,700 by 2021, 53,400 by 2026, and 57,500 by 2036. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT - GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAL AIRIX)R I AIRPORT MASTER PL-XIft — Air Taxi and Military Operations Forecast Air taxi operations are those with authority to provide "on -demand" or "for -hire" transportation of per- sons or property via aircraft with fewer than 60 passenger seats. Air taxi includes a broad range of op- erations, including some smaller commercial service aircraft, some charter aircraft, air cargo aircraft, many fractional ownership aircraft, and air ambulance services. Air taxi operations at the Airport declined each year from 2009 through 2013. This was common at airports across the country as there was a national recession from 2008-2009 and the recovery was rel- atively slow historically. Air taxi operations have increased at the Airport each year since 2014. Table 2T presents the air taxi operations forecast which consider the Airport's market share of national air taxi operations as forecast by the FAA. The FAA forecast shows a decline in air taxi operations na- tionally through 2026 and then a return to growth thereafter. The Airport is already seeing growth in air taxi operations today; therefore, a constant market share forecast is not the selected forecast. The sec- ond forecast shows an increasing share, which is certainly possible considering other regional growth indicators, such as population and employment. The selected forecast considers the Airport recapturing the level of air taxi operations experienced in 2008. TABLE 2T Air Taxi Operations Forecast Georgetown Municipal Airport OperationsYear GTU Air Taxi 2008 1,428 11,032,000 0.01294% 2009 961 9,521,000 0.01009% 2010 934 9,410,000 0.00993% 2011 527 9,279,000 0.00568% 2012 387 8,994,000 0.00430% 2013 343 8,803,000 0.00390% 2014 539 8,440,000 0.00639% 2015 656 7,895,000 0.00831% 2016 811 7,499,000 0.01081% Share of National Air Taxi OperationsConstant 2021 681 6,294,000 0.01081% 2026 609 5,631,000 7 0.01081% 2036 670 6,199,000 0.01081% Share OperationsIncreasing of National Air Taxi 2021 944 6,294,000 0.01500% 2026 1,126 5,631,000 0.02000% 2036 1,860 6,199,000 0.03000% Recapture 00: High Level of Air Taxi Operations/Selected 6,294,000 0.01271% 2021 800 2026 1,100 5,631,000 0.01953% 2036 1,500 6,199,000 0.02420% 'FAA Aeronautical Forecasts 2016-2036 CAGR: Compound annual srowth rate Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 2-35 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT N AIRPORT MAS Military aircraft can and do utilize civilian airports across the country. Georgetown Municipal Airport does on occasion have activity by military aircraft. Forecasts of military activity are inherently difficult to predict because of the national security nature of their operations and the fact that their missions can change without notice. Thus, it is typical for the FAA to plug in a flat line number for military operations. For Georgetown Municipal Airport, the FAA TAF has 338 annual military operations for every year. For consideration in this master plan, a flat 400 military operations will be projected for each year through 2036. Total Operations Forecast Summary The selected total operations forecast to be used for planning purposes is as follows: • 2021— 107,900 total operations • 2026 — 122,100 total operations • 2036 — 133,400 total operations Table 2U presents the classification of the selected operations forecast. The Airport experiences a mix of operation types, including general aviation, air taxi, and military. The TAF estimates that local general aviation operations account for 52 percent of total operations with itinerant operations representing 48 percent. These percentages are applied to the planning forecast for general aviation operations. TABLE 2U Total Operations Forecast Georgetown Municipal Airport CAGR = Compound annual P-rowth rate PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Many aspects of facility planning relate to levels of peaking activity — times when an airport is busiest. For example, the appropriate size of terminal facilities can be estimated by determining the number of people that could reasonably be expected to use the facility at a given time. The following planning definitions apply to the peak periods: Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN 4 MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS110119LAN • Peak Month -- The calendar month when peak aircraft operations occur. • Design Day -- The average day in the peak month. • Busy Day -- The busy day of a typical week in the peak month. • Design Hour -- The peak hour within the design day. The peak month is an absolute peak within a given year. All other peak periods will be exceeded at various times during the year. The peak period forecasts represent reasonable planning standards that can be applied without overbuilding or being too restrictive. Tower records at the Airport were examined for this analysis. The most recent peak month for opera- tions over a 12-month period was June 2016 when there were 9,868 operations, which accounted for 12.82 percent of total annual operations. Hourly operations data for June 2016 are presented in Table 2V. In June 2016, the peak operational hour was between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., which accounted for 10.3 percent of total operations during that month. TABLE 2V Operations by Hour (June 2016) Georgetown Municipal Airport Hour 7-8 am AT 2 Itinerant GA 95 MIL 0 Local GA MIL 88 0 Total Operations 185 Percent 1.87% 8-9 am 8 181 2 140 8 339 3.44% 9-10 am 9 326 0 296 0 631 6.39% 10-11 am 2 414 0 542 6 964 9.77% 11-12 am 5 392 2 392 14 805 8.16% 12-1 pm 6 382 2 408 8 806 8.17% 1-2 pm 5 399 0 456 6 866 8.78% 2-3 pm 5 403 0 606 2 1,016 10.30% 3-4 pm 6 323 4 550 0 883 8.95% 4-5 pm 3 358 0 490 2 853 8.64% 5-6 pm 6 335 0 440 2 783 7.93% 6-7 pm 5 271 0 462 0 738 7.48% 7-8 pm 5 194 2 228 18 447 4.53% 8-9 pm 2 111 0 148 0 261 2.64% 9-10 pm 2 119 0 170 0 291 2.95% Total 71 4,303 12 5,416 66 9,868 100.00% AT - Air Taxi; GA - General Aviation; MIL - Military Source: Georgetown Air Traffic Control Tower Table 2W presents the operational peaking characteristics at the Airport. The design day is calculated by dividing the peak month operations by 30. The busy day is determined by averaging the four busiest days of each week of the peak month and applying that factor (1.34) to the design day. Design hour operations were calculated at 10.3 percent of design day operations. Page 128 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIP I AIRPOKI MAIMM--09 TABLE 2W Peak Total Operations Georgetown Municipal Airport 2016 2021 i Annual 97,346 107,900 122,100 133,400 Peak Month (10.14%) 9,868 442 13,833 618 15,653 699 17,102 764 Busy Day Design Day 329 461 522 570 Design Hour (10.3%) 34 47 54 59 Note: Baseline peak month is June 2016. Source: Coffman Associates analysis of ATCT records Currently, the operational design hour is 34, which means facility planning that considers this variable, such as airfield capacity, should be designed to this level. By 2036, the design hour is projected to in- crease to 59. OPERATIONS BY FLEET MIX Developing an understanding of the operational fleet mix, including the approximate volume of opera- tions by aircraft type, is utilized in airfield capacity analysis, fuel storage capacity analysis, and pavement utilization determination. The FAA Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) database captures a portion of operations by aircraft type utilizing flight plan data. However, most flights are not required to file a flight plan and, therefore, this database represents a minimum level of activity. Operators of jet aircraft tend to file flight plans at a higher rate than others. In visual conditions, it is common for some turboprops, and most piston and helicopter operators, to not file a flight plan. Table 2Y presents unadjusted TFMSC data for the Airport for the last 11 years. The jet and turboprop raw data is used as a starting point for estimating the operating fleet mix at the Airport. TABLE 2Y Unadjusted TFMSC Operations by Aircraft Type Georgetown Municipal Airport Year 2006 Piston 3,522 Turboprop 1,584 Jet 1,480 Helicopter 2 2007 4,242 1,680 1,642 4 2008 6,108 2,108 1,790 34 2009 6,310 1,778 1,702 44 2010 6,028 1,886 1,782 14 2011 4,958 1,828 1,764 2 2012 4,656 1,726 1,178 6 2013 6,508 1,750 1,276 0 2014 6,394 2,046 1,502 4 2015 7,638 2,132 1,418 4 2016 5,226 2,262 1,494 8 TFMSC: Traffic Flow Management System Count (FAA Database) Page 129 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ i MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS Jet operations have consistently been above 1,100 annually and were above 1,700 for several years in a row from 2008 to 2011. Turboprop operations have consistently been above 1,500 annually and have exceeded 2,000 for the last three years in a row. Table 2Z presents the fleet mix operations forecast for the Airport. TABLE 2Z Fleet Mix Operations Forecast Georgetown Municipal Airport Local Operations Piston I 46,762 53,128 61,608 67,592 Multi -Piston 2,496 2,600 2,704 2,704 Turboprop 400 600 800 1,200 Helicopter 1,664 1,872 2,288 2,704 Total Local OperationsItinerant Single Piston 51,322 38,084 58,200 41,072 67,400 45,192 74,200 48,508 Multi -Piston 2,304 2,400 2,496 2,496 Turboprop 2,500 2,700 2,900 3,300 Jet 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,400 Helicopters 1,536 1,728 2,112 2,496 Total Itinerant 46,024 49,700 54,700 59,200 Total Operations (rounded) 97,346 107,900 122,100 133,400 Source: Coffman Associates analvsis ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES An instrument approach, as defined by the FAA, is "an approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude." To qualify as an instrument approach, aircraft must land at the airport after following one of the published instrument approach procedures in less than visual conditions. Forecasts of annual instrument approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in determining an airport's requirements for navigational aid facilities, such as an in- strument landing system. Practice or training approaches do not count as AIAs nor do IFR approaches in visual conditions. During poor weather conditions, pilots are less likely to fly and rarely would perform training operations. As a result, an estimate of the total number of AIAs can be made based on a percent of itinerant opera- tions. Generally, AIAs total between three and seven percent of itinerant operations. An estimate of five percent of itinerant operations is utilized to forecast AIAs at the Airport. This results in a 2016 esti- mate of 2,301 AIAs and 2,485, 2,735, 2,960 in years 2021, 2026, and 2036, respectively. Page 130 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIP I AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa FORECAST SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the plan- ning period. Exhibit 2F presents a summary of the aviation forecasts prepared in this chapter. Actual activity is included for 2016, which was the base year for these forecasts. The primary aviation demand indicators forecast are based aircraft and operations. Based aircraft are forecast to increase from 318 in 2016 to 400 by 2036. Total operations are forecast to increase from 97,346 in 2016 to 133,400 by 2036. Several forecasts for each aviation demand indica- tor were developed to create a planning envelope, or a range of reasonable forecasts. The selected forecast for both based aircraft and operations considers a relatively unconstrained average growth for the first 10 years. In years 10-20, the forecasts have been tempered somewhat to reflect the local con- straints to growth at the Airport, most notably, the limited land available for development. Projections of aviation demand will be influenced by unforeseen factors and events in the future. In the recent past, events such as terrorist attacks and economic recession, have impacted aviation demand. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that future demand will follow the exact projection line but over time, forecasts of aviation demand tend to fall within the planning envelope. The forecasts devel- oped for this master planning effort are considered reasonable for planning purposes. The need for additional facilities will be based upon these forecasts; however, if demand does not materialize as pro- jected, then implementation of facility construction can be slowed. Likewise, if demand exceeds these forecast, then implementation of facility construction can be accelerated. Appendix E provides supplemental forecasts information including the input data for each of the regres- sion models, the forecast comparison sheet, and the 2018 Terminal Area Forecast. AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION The FAA has established several aircraft classification systems that group aircraft types based on their performance (approach speed in landing configuration) and design characteristics (wingspan and landing gear configuration). These classification systems are used to determine the appropriate airport design standards for specific airport elements, such as runways, taxiways, taxilanes, and aprons. AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using or are expected to use an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The design aircraft may be a single aircraft type or a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft with similar characteristics. The design aircraft is classified by three parameters: Aircraft Approach Cat- egory (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Page 131 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLA Itinerant Operations Air Taxi 811 800 1,100 1,500 3.12% General Aviation 45,006 48,700 53,400 57,500 1.23% Military 207 200 200 200 -0.17% Total Itinerant Operations 46,024 49,700 54,700 59,200 7.27% Local Operations General Aviation 50,972 58,000 67,200 74,000 1.88% Military 350 200 200 200 -2.76% Total Local Operations 51,322 58,200 67,400 74,200 1.86% Single Engine 251 267 290 311 1.08% Multi -engine 24 25 26 26 0.40% Turboprop 20 22 24 28 1.70% Business Jet 15 17 19 22 1.93% Helicopter 8 9 11 13 2.46% TOTALi AIRCRAFT 318 340 370 400 Peak Month 9,868 13,833 15,653 17,102 2.79% Design Day 329 461 522 570 2.79% Design Hour 34 47 54 59 2.79% •CAGR - Compound Average Growth Rate OPERATIONS 140 120 N I: 100 Q V1 0 80 N ZO 60 Q a 40 20 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 — — — Local — — Itinerant Total BASED AIRCRAFT 500 400 I.— U. 300 V Q G twit 200 Q m 100 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 Based Aircraft GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL'XZ= Airport Design, describes the following airplane classification systems, the parameters of which are pre- sented on Exhibit 2G. Aircraft Approach Category (AACJ: A grouping of aircraft based on a reference landing speed (VREF), if specified, or If VRFF is not specified, 1.3 times stall speed (Vso) at the maximum certificated landing weight. VRFF, Vso, and the maximum certificated landing weight are those values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. The AAC generally refers to the approach speed of an aircraft in landing configuration. The higher the approach speed, the more restrictive the applicable design standards. The AAC, depicted by a letter A through E, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational charac- teristics). The AAC generally applies to runways and runway -related facilities, such as runway width, runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway protection zone (RPZ), and separation standards. Airplane Design Group (ADG): The ADG, depicted by a Roman numeral I through VI, is a classification of aircraft which relates to aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics). When the aircraft wingspan and tail height fall in different groups, the higher group is used. The ADG influences design standards for taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway object free (TOFA), taxilane object free area, apron wingtip clearance, and various separation distances. Taxiway Design Group (TDG): A classification of airplanes based on outer -to -outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance. The TDG relates to the undercarriage dimensions of the design aircraft. The TDG is classified by an alphanumeric system: 1A, 16, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The taxiway design elements determined by the application of the TDG include the taxiway width, taxiway edge safety margin, taxiway shoulder width, taxiway fillet dimensions, and, in some cases, the separation distance between parallel taxiways/taxilanes. Other taxiway elements, such as the taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway/taxilane object free area (TOFA), taxiway/taxilane separation to parallel taxiway/taxilanes or fixed or movable objects, and taxiway/taxilane wingtip clearances, are determined solely based on the wingspan (ADG) of the design aircraft utilizing those surfaces. It is appropriate for taxiways to be planned and built to different TDG standards based on expected use. Exhibit 2H summarizes the classification of the most common aircraft in operation today. Generally, recreational and business piston and turboprop aircraft will fall in AAC A and B and ADG I and II. Business jets typically fall in ACC B and C, while the larger commercial aircraft will fall in AAC C and D. AIRPORT AND RUNWAY CLASSIFICATIONS Airport and runway classifications, along with the aircraft classifications defined previously, are used to determine the appropriate FAA design standards to which the airfield facilities are to be designed and built. Page 133 of 588 GEORGETOWN Category AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY (AAC) Approach Speed AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG) Tail Height (ft) Wingspan (ft) IV .0 .0.. vi .. :0 214-<262 VISIBILITY MINIMUMS RV Flight Visibility Category (statute miles) � TDG-6 Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT A2-43-M Exhibit 2G AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT -AIRPORT ' • Beech Baron 55 • Cessna Citation X (750) • Beech Bonanza • Gulfstream 100, .� • Cessna 150 200,300 • Cessna 172 t • Challenger 300/600 • Cessna Citation Mustang r • ERJ-135, 140, 145 .� • Eclipse 500/550 • CRJ-200/700 Y - • Piper Archer • Embroer Regional let • Piper Seneca • Lockheed JetStor • Hawker 800 Jk • Beech Baron 58 s s 1 h � •ERJ 170 • Beech King Air A90/100 • CRJ 705, 900 • Cessna 402 � • Falcon 7X - •Cessna 421 i •Gulfstream 500, •Piper Navajo -�� •• ONE` 550, 650 •Piper Cheyenne "tr" �t °! • Global Express, Global 5000 • Swearingen Metroliner • 0.400 • Cessna Citation 1(525) _ • Super King Air 200 • ERJ-90 • Cessna 441 Boeing Business Jet • DHC Twin Otter B-727 ,�.r s �_ • Super King Air 350 B-737-300, 700, 800 �'F • Beech 1900 �= MD-80, DC-9 �, • Citation Excel (560), • A319, A320 Sovereign (680) ,� _ • Falcon 50, 900, 2000 • Citation Bravo (550) • Embroer 120 _'-J. 7�*V� a- • DHC Dash 7 • B-757 • DHC Dash 8 • B-767 • DC-3 • C-130 Hercules • Convair 580 • DC-8.70 • Fairchild F-27 • MD-11 • ATR 72 • ATP • Beech 400 • B-747-400 • Lear 31, 35, 45, 60 • B-777 • Israeli Westwind • B-787 ,/' • A-330, A-340 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAl. AIKI'Ok l AIRPORT MAS Runway Design Code (RDC): A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. The RDC is based upon planned development and has no operational component. The AAC, ADG, and runway visual range (RVR) are combined to form the RDC of a particular runway. The RDC provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply. The first com- ponent, depicted by a letter, is the AAC and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteris- tics). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the ADG and relates to either the aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics), whichever is most restrictive. The third component relates to the available instrument approach visibility minimums expressed by RVR values in feet of 1,200 (A -mile), 1,600 (%-mile), 2,400 (%-mile), 4,000 (%-mile), and 5,000 (1-mile). The RVR values approximate standard visibility minimums for instrument approaches to the runways. The third component reads "VIS" for runways designed for visual approach use only. Approach Reference Code (APRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway with regard to landing operations. Like the RDC, the APRC is composed of the same three components: the AAC, ADG, and RVR. The APRC describes the current operational capabilities of a runway under particular meteorological conditions where no special operating proce- dures are necessary, as opposed to the RDC, which is based upon planned development with no opera- tional component. The APRC for a runway is established based upon the minimum runway to taxiway centerline separation. Departure Reference Code (DPRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway with regard to takeoff operations. The DPRC represents those aircraft that can takeoff from a runway while any aircraft are present on adjacent taxiways, under particular meteorological conditions with no special operating conditions. The DPRC is similar to the APRC, but is composed of two components, ACC and ADG. A runway may have more than one DPRC depending on the parallel taxiway separation distance. Airport Reference Code (ARC): An airport designation that signifies the airport's highest Runway Design Code (RDC), minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely at an airport. The current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Airport, which will be updated as part of this master planning effort, identifies an ARC of C-III currently and in the future. CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using or are expected to use an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The design aircraft may be a single aircraft or a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft classi- fied by the three parameters: AAC, ADG, and TDG. In the case of an airport with multiple runways, a design aircraft is selected for each runway. Page 136 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER P1-:xwbb= The first consideration is the safe operation of aircraft likely to use an airport. Any operation of an air- craft that exceeds design criteria of an airport may result in a lesser safety margin; however, it is not the usual practice to base the airport design on an aircraft that uses the airport infrequently. The design aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft type, or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics, that make regular use of the airport. Regular use is 500 annual operations, excluding touch-and-go operations. Planning for future aircraft use is of particular importance since the design standards are used to plan separation distances between facilities. These future standards must be con- sidered now to ensure that short term development does not preclude the reasonable long range po- tential needs of the airport. According to FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, "airport designs based only on existing aircraft can severely limit the ability to expand the airport to meet future requirements for larger, more demanding aircraft. Airport designs that are based on large aircraft never likely to be served by the airport are not economical." Selection of the current and future critical design aircraft must be realistic in nature and supported by current data and realistic projections. AIRPORT DESIGN AIRCRAFT The FAA maintains the Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) database which documents cer- tain aircraft operations at airports. Information is added to the TFMSC database when pilots file flight plans and/or when flights are detected by the National Airspace System, usually via radar. It includes documentation of commercial traffic (air carrier and air taxi), general aviation, and military aircraft. Due to factors such as incomplete flight plans, limited radar coverage, and VFR operations, TFMSC data does not account for all aircraft activity at an airport by a given aircraft type. Georgetown does have overhead radar coverage; thus, most flight plans that are closed prior to landing will still be captured. Therefore, the TFMSC does provide a reasonably accurate reflection of IFR activity by those operators most likely to file an IFR flight plan (turboprops and jets). Exhibit 2.1 presents the TFMSC annual activity for jets from 2006 through 2015. Each year from 2006 through 2011, aircraft in AAC C exceeded the 500 operations threshold. From 2012 through 2015, op- erations in ACC C were below the 500 operations threshold. This was a common trend at similar general aviation airports and can be attributed to the relatively slow economic recovery following the national recession in 2008-2009. Operations by aircraft in ADG II have consistently been above the 500 operations threshold. Aircraft classified in AAC D/E and in ADG III/IV do occasionally operate at the Airport, but total combined opera- tions by these aircraft have not reached the FAA's critical aircraft threshold for the past ten years. The previous airport layout plan identifies the Falcon 50 business jet, a C-II aircraft, as being representa- tive of the critical design aircraft. Airfield facilities have historically been designed and constructed to C- II standards. It is typical to maintain the existing design standards unless there has been a prolonged change in the nature of operations at an airport that is not expected to reverse. A primary reason is to Page 137 of 588 Cessna Citation Mustang Eclipse 400/500 Beechjet 400 Cessna Citation I/SP Cessna CJ1 Dassault Falcon 10 Embraer Phenom 100 Hawker 400/MU-300 Raytheon Premier I Other B-11 Cessna Citation Bravo/SP Cessna Citation Excel/XLS Cessna Citation III/VIN11 Cessna Citation Sovereign Cessna Citation V/Encore/Ultra Cessna 02, CJ3, 04 Dassault Falcon 20/50 Embraer Phenom 300 Other BAE HS 125-1/2/3/125/400/600 IN 1124/1125 Westwind Learjet 20 Series Learjet 30 Series Learjet 40/45/60 Learjet 55 Bombardier CRJ All Series Cessna Citation X Challenger 300/600 Embraer ERJ 135/140/145/Legacy Gulfstream 300 Hawker 800/1000/4000 IN 1126 Galaxy Bombardier Global 5000 Dassault Falcon 7X Embraer 170/190 Series Gulfstream G550/650 0 0 8 70 116 102 110 74 30 12 Learjet 70 Series 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 38 22 22 8 12 10 24 Military Fighters and Trainers 0 2 6 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 26 108 138 124 118 86 40 36 38 56 78 28 78 56 44 138 168 108 Gulfstream 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 110 84 46 174 154 86 12 16 6 24 Gulfstream 200/400 20 8 22 22 36 24 8 8 2 8 62 64 50 106 86 74 78 84 132 72 Gulfstream G-150 0 6 8 2 12 14 2 14 8 8 6 8 6 2 0 18 6 6 0 28 - 0 0 0 6 12 10 2 14 14 20 Example: Gulfstream V 2 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 52 34 8 78 64 40 34 18 8 4 . �- 48 48 22 32 26 14 22 10 38 18 2 6 2 0 0 4 2 2 2 0 ARC SUMMARY 18 00 212 426 420 302 200 124 180 96 66 80 72 88 88 112 126 A-1 0 0 26 108 138 124 118 86 40 36 116 200 218 172 146 280 90 42 58 62 24 32 26 30 36 30 24 50 108 102 B-1 318 300 212 426 420 302 200 288 368 274 18 18 32 2 28 16 20 14 20 20 B-11 616 818 732 506 466 594 490 586 750 772 208 290 196 128 98 90 120 150 130 170 C-1 426 382 602 566 610 622 314 224 198 288 16 34 64 34 40 72 112 192 280 232 C-II 86 104 162 52 78 78 44 52 116 24 88 52 88 68 18 22 6 26 10 22 C-111 12 22 14 12 18 6 0 12 14 6 0 0 0 0 4 2 12 14 28 28 D-1 0 2 10 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 22 12 12 6 16 10 18 10 4 10 D-11 20 14 30 24 48 38 10 28 16 18 D-III 2 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 116 • 0. 90 84 70 152 194 244 342 222 74 54 22 64 82 90 42 114 44 8 0 30 18 54 10 10 8 80 44 2 42 4 46 APPROACH CATEGORY 132 150 146 80 84 106 36 70 42 110 78 64 198 242 66 54 40 36 58 92 A 0 0 26 108 138 124 118 86 40 36 14 6 6 0 22 32 6 2 10 0 B 934 1,118 944 932 886 896 690 874 1,118 1,046 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 524 508 778 630 706 706 358 288 328 318 14 22 28 20 16 12 2 6 14 8 D 22 16 42 32 50 38 12 28 16 18 66 56 58 18 42 42 16 30 42 16 TOTAL 1,480 64 901,702 80 64 0 2 2 0 8 16 20 0 0 0 0 18 2 0 0 6 2 14 46 0 DESIGN GROUP 0 4 68 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 $111. I 1 4 2 2 6 12 2 4 0 14 0 1 744 684 850 1,102 720 168 1,048 634 598 606 598 86 '' II 722 936 924 582592 710 544 666 882 814 8 22 14 12 18 4 0 0 0 0 III 14 22 16 18 6 0 12 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ;� �, .� ;� •, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 12 6 ARC: Aircraft Reference Code DG: Design Group TFMSC:Traffic Flow Management System Count (FAA database) Page 139 of 589 This page intentionally left blank Page 139 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS preserve investments already made in the Airport and to be in a position to accommodate more restric- tive design standards once the activity in the design category returns. A decision on physical changes to the runway and taxiway systems becomes necessary when reconstruction is needed. There is not a compelling interest in pursuing changes in advance of that based on short-term fluctuations. NOTE: In the spring of 2018, FAA Headquarters reviewed the critical aircraft determination in this Master Plan. They determined that the critical aircraft are those that fall in ARC B-II because the num- ber of operations by C-II aircraft had fallen below the 500 operations threshold for several consecutive years. Therefore, the current critical aircraft and airport reference code is B-II. This is a change from the current ALP that identifies C-II as the current ARC. Fleet Mix by ARC The operational fleet mix for an airport can also be categorized by aircraft reference code for use in helping to identify the future design standards to be applied to the airport. Table 2AA presents the forecast operational fleet mix by ARC. Over the past four years, the airport has had fewer than 500 operations by aircraft in AAC C. However, the six years prior to that there more than 500 AAC C opera- tions. The fleet mix presented below indicates that the airport could transition back to a C-II critical aircraft within the 20-year planning period; however, that transition is not forecast until the long-term planning period. TABLE 2AA Civilian Jet Operations Forecast by Design Category Georgetown Municipal Airport Desig2006n CategoriesShort Approach Category A/B 934 63% 1,082 76% 1,400 Inter. 1 1,550 Long 1,850 Long Percent 77% Approach Category C/D 546 37% 336 24% 400 450 1 550 23% Total 1,480 100% 1,418 100% 1,800 2,000 2,400 100% Airplane Design Group 1 744 51% 598 42% 720 760 864 36% Airplane Design Group II 722 49% 814 58% 1,080 1,240 1,536 64% Total 1,466 100% 1,412 100% 1,800 2,000 2,400 100% 'Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) - FAA activity database. The current design aircraft for the airport is characterized as B-II-2. Business jet operations in B-II ex- ceed the 500 operations threshold. A representative aircraft would be the Cessna Citation 560XL. The TDG of this business jet is 1B. To determine if '1B' is the critical TDG for the airport, the TFMSC data was examined for turboprop operations because many turboprops have wider wheel bases. The King Air 200, with a TDG of '2', currently operates more than 500 times annually. Therefore, the B-II-2 critical aircraft is a composite of these two aircraft. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRI'MI AIRPORT MASTER PI_ The future critical aircraft considers the possibility of C-11 business jets once again exceeding the 500 operations threshold. A representative aircraft is the Challenger 300. The Challenger 300 has a TDG of 113; therefore, the King Air 200 will still represent the critical TDG. The future critical aircraft designation is C-II-2 and is a composite of the Challenger 300 (C-II-113) and the King Air 200 (B-II-2). RUNWAY DESIGN CODI Each runway is assigned an RDC. The RDC relates to specific FAA design standards that should be met in relation to each runway. The RDC takes into consideration the AAC, ADG, and the RVR. In most cases, the critical design aircraft will also be the RDC for the primary runway. Current RDC Runway 18-36 is the primary runway and should be designed to accommodate the current and future critical design aircraft. This runway is 5,004 feet long and 100 feet wide and has instrument approaches with visibility minimums as low as 1-mile to both ends. Based on the current ALP and forecast of oper- ations by aircraft type, the applicable RDC is B-II-5000. Runway 11-29 is the crosswind runway measuring 4,099 feet long and 75 feet wide. Both ends of the runway have a non -precision instrument approach with visibility minimums of 1-mile. The current ALP for the airport classifies this as a B-1 runway. This is the appropriate designation for a crosswind runway at Georgetown Municipal Airport because this runway is primarily intended for small aircraft. The RDC for Runway 11-29 is B-I(s)-5000. The (s) designation indicates that this runway is planned for aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Future RDC The RDC for Runway 18-36 could transition back to C-II within the 20-year planning period. Therefore, the future RDC for this runway is C-II-5000. The operational mix utilizing crosswind Runway 11-29 is not planned to change over the next 20 years; therefore, the future RDC is B-I(s)-5000. APPROACH AND DFPARTURF RFFFRFNC_F COnFS The approach and departure reference codes (APRC and DPRC) describe the current operational capa- bilities of each runway and the adjacent parallel taxiways, where no special operating procedures are Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT GEORGETOWN _1W1 not INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER fffl� necessary. Essentially, the APRC and DPRC describe the current conditions at an airport in runway clas- sification terms when considering the parallel taxiway. Taxiway A is 300 feet from Runway 18-36 and Taxiway J is 375 feet from the Runway 11-29, centerline to centerline. Both ends of Runway 18-36 have non -precision instrument approaches with 1-mile visi- bility minimums. Both ends of Runway 11-29 have visibility minimums of 1-mile. The APRC for Runway 18-36 is B-III-5000/D-II-5000. The DPRC for Runway 18-36 is B-III/D-11. The APRC for Runway 11-29 is B- III-5000. The DPRC for Runway 11-29 is B-III/D-II. CRITICAL AIRCRAFT SUMMARY Table 266 summarizes the airport and runway classification currently and in the future. Operations at the airport by aircraft in ARC C-II have dropped below 500 annually since 2012. Therefore, the critical aircraft is now defined by those aircraft in ARC B-II-5000. In the future, the airport could transition back to ARC C-II, and the long-term plan will consider those design standards. The RDC of crosswind Runway 11-29 is planned to remain B-I(s)-5000. The RVR value for both runways may change in the future based on subsequent analysis in this Master Plan or by determination of FAA Flight Procedures. TABLE 2BB Airport and Runway Classifications Georgetown Municipal Airport Airport Reference Code (ARC) Airport Design Aircraft Composite Aircraft Runway 18-36 Runway 11-29 Runway 18-36 Runway 11-29 B-11 B-11-2 Cessna Citation 560XL/King Air 200 B-II-5000 B-I(s)-5000 B-111-5000/D-11-5000 B-III-5000 C-11 C-I1-2 Challenger 300/King Air 200 C-11-5000 Same Same Same Runway 18-36 I B-III/D-11 I Same Runway 11-29 B-III/D-11 Same Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the plan- ning period, as well as the critical design aircraft for the Airport. Based aircraft are forecast to grow from Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 751 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PLXflihW 318 in 2016 to 400 by 2036 for an annual compound growth rate of 1.15 percent. Operations are fore- cast to grow from 97,346 in 2016 to 133,400 by 2036 for an annual compound growth rate of 1.51 per- cent. It is typical to examine aviation demand in an unconstrained environment so that airport management understands the type of growth that may be possible and how to plan for it. However, the constraints at Georgetown are significant enough to warrant limiting the demand in the intermediate to long term. The primary constraint is the current cost to develop facilities, hangars in particular. As a result, the forecasts for both based aircraft and operations follow statistical growth curves in the short term and then have been tempered for the outlying years. The critical design aircraft for the Airport was determined by examining the FAA TFMSC database of flight plans to and from the Airport. The current critical design aircraft is described as B-II-2 and is best repre- sented by a small -sized business jets, such as the Cessna Citation 560XL and the King Air 200. The future design aircraft is planned transition to C-II-2 and is best represented by the Challenger 300 and King Air 200. The next step in the planning process is to assess the capabilities of the existing facilities to determine what upgrades may be necessary to meet future demands. The range of forecasts developed here will be taken forward in the next chapter as planning horizon activity levels that will serve as milestones or activity benchmarks in evaluating facility requirements. Aviation Demand Forecasts - DRAFT 2-52 EST 1848 GEORGETOWN TEXAS CHAPTER THREE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Page 144 of 588 To properly plan for the future of the Georgetown Municipal Airport, it is necessary to translate forecast aviation demand into the specific types and quantities of facilities that can adequately serve the identi- fied demand. This chapter uses the results of the forecasts presented in Chapter Two, as well as estab- lished planning criteria, to determine the airside (i.e., runways, taxiways, navigational aids, marking and lighting) and landside (i.e., hangars, aircraft parking apron, and automobile parking) facility require- ments. The objective of this effort is to identify the adequacy of existing airport facilities and outline what new facilities may be needed, and when these may be needed, to accommodate forecast demands. Having established these facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities will be evaluated in the next chapter. The facility requirements at Georgetown Municipal Airport were evaluated using guidance contained in several Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publications, including the following: • Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design • AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay • AC 150/5325-413, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design • Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace • FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) "a -,.as Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN A11 NI( II IA] AIhl' W I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN PLANNING HORIZONS An updated set of aviation demand forecasts for the Airport has been established, with a summary of the primary forecasting elements presented previously on Exhibit 2F. These activity forecasts include annual operations, based aircraft, fleet mix, and peak periods. With this information, specific compo- nents of the airfield and landside systems can be evaluated to determine their capacity to accommodate future demand. Cost-effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand rather than on a time -based forecast figure. In order to develop a master plan that is demand -based rather than time -based, a series of planning horizon milestones has been established that take into con- sideration the reasonable range of aviation demand projections. The planning horizons presented in Table 3A are segmented as the Short Term (approximately years 1-5), the Intermediate Term (approxi- mately years 6-10), and the Long Term (years 11-20 and possibly beyond). TABLE 3A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Georgetown Municipal Airport Source: Coffman Associates analysis It is important to consider that actual activity at the Airport may be higher or lower than what the annu- alized forecast portrays. By planning according to activity milestones, the resultant plan can accommo- date unexpected shifts or changes in the area's aviation demand. It is important for the plan to accom- modate these changes so that Airport officials can respond in a timely fashion. The most important reason for utilizing milestones is it allows airport management the flexibility to make decisions and develop facilities according to needs generated by actual demand levels. The demand - based schedule provides flexibility in development, as development schedules can be slowed or expe- dited according to demand at any given time over the planning period. The resultant plan provides air- port officials with a financially responsible and needs -based program. GEORGETOWN � Ml iNICIPAl Alkl'Ok I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� AIRFIELD CAPACITY An airfield's capacity is expressed in terms of its annual service volume (ASV). ASV is a reasonable esti- mate of the maximum level of aircraft operations that can be accommodated in a year without incurring significant delay factors. As operations near, or surpass, the ASV, delay factors increase exponentially. The Airport's ASV was examined utilizing the FAA's Advisory Circular (AC) 150/S060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. FACTORS AFFECTING ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME This analysis takes into account specific factors about the airfield in order to calculate the Airport's ASV. These various factors are depicted in Exhibit 3A. The following describes the input factors as they relate to the Airport and include airfield layout, weather conditions, aircraft mix, and operations. Runway Configuration — The Airport has a two -runway configuration with primary Runway 18- 36 and crosswind Runway 11-29. The runways intersect approximately 1,900 feet from the Run- way 36 end and 1,300 feet from the Runway 29 end. Runway 18-36 is 100 feet wide and Runway 11-29 is 75 feet wide. All four runway ends have non -precision instrument approach capability. Both ends of Runway 18-36 have GPS/LPV approaches with visibility minimums as low as 1-mile. Both ends of Runway 11-29 have GPS/LNAV approaches with not lower than 1-mile visibility min- imums. • Runway Use — Runway usage is affected by several factors. Safe operations are the highest pri- ority, so the runway's ability to accommodate a variety of aircraft is first and foremost. For ex- ample, at 4,099 feet in length, Runway 11-29 will not be as capable of accommodating the full variety of aircraft that operate at the Airport as will Runway 18-36 at 5,004 feet in length. Wind direction is another operational factor for runway selection. The location of the runway in prox- imity to services and hangars is also a factor to runway use. During active periods when delay may be a factor, air traffic control will operate runway combinations that can safely provide ad- equate capacity to minimize delays. Runway 18-36 is the primary runway providing adequate wind coverage 98.64 percent of the time. Runway 18 is the designated calm wind runway and it is used approximately nine months of the year. Exit Taxiways— Based upon the aircraft mix using the Airport, taxiways located between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from the landing threshold, and separated by at least 750 feet, are factored in the exit rating for the airfield. Runway 18-36 has two qualifying exits and Runway 11-29 has one qualifying taxiway exit. The greater the number of taxiway exits that are appropriately spaced, the lower the runway occupancy time for an aircraft, which contributes to a higher overall capac- ity for the airfield. Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. Runway Configuration Runway Use WEATHERCONDITIONS VMC (VFR) IMC (IFR) Visual Meteorological Conditions Category A & B Aircraft Instrument Meteorological Conditions Category C Aircraft OPERATIONS Arrivals Departures Touch -and -Go Operations Number of Exits W i PVC Poor Visibility Conditions Category D Aircraft Total Annual Operations Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-4 Exhibit 3A AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS GEORGETOWN M INICIPni AIR13 ki AIRPORT MASTERPQMh • Weather Conditions — Visual meteorological conditions are defined as conditions when cloud ceilings are 1,000 feet or above and/or visibility is at least three statute miles (also referred to as visual flight rules [VFR]). Instrument meteorological conditions occur when cloud ceilings are between 500 and 1,000 feet and visibility is between one and three statute miles (also referred to as instrument flight rules [IFR]). Poor visibility conditions (PVC) apply for minimums below 500 feet and one mile. As shown in Table 3B, weather data indicates that the Airport is in VFR approximately 92.52 per- cent of the year, IFR approximately 4.54 percent of the year, and PVC 2.94 percent of the year. TABLE 3B Annual Weather Conditions Georeetown Municipal Airport Condition Cloud Ceiling Visual (VFR) >1,000' Instrument (IFR) <_ 1,000' and > 500' Poor Visibility (PVC) <_ 500' TOTAL Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) AWOS from January 1, 2006-December 31, 2015. • Aircraft Mix - Descriptions of the classifications and the percentage mix for 2016 and long term planning horizon are presented in Table 3C. This classification system is based on aircraft weight and not the aircraft approach speed as used in the critical aircraft determination. The vast ma- jority of operations are forecast to be by aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. This includes most small business jets. The C category includes medium and large business jets and large turbo- props. The D category of aircraft is not expected to impact capacity at the Airport. > 3 mi. 149,508 92.52% <_ 3 mi. and Vis > 1 mi. 7,340 4.54% <_ 1 mi. 4 756 2.94% 161,604 100.00% Ten years of data from the on -airport TABLE 3C Aircraft Operational Mix for Capacity Georgetown Municipal Airport 7.1% 2.9% 2016 Short Term 7.3% 797.1% 2.7% Intermediate Term 2.9% Long Term 96.9% 3.1% A&B - 12,500 pounds or less (Includes heli- copters) C - 12500 to 300,000 pounds D - Over 300,000 pounds Source: FAA AC 15015060, Airport Capacity and Delay • Percent Arrivals - The percentage of arrivals as they relate to total operations at the Airport is important in determining airfield capacity. Under most circumstances, the lower the percentage of arrivals, the higher the hourly capacity. The aircraft arrival -departure percentage split is typi- cally 50/50, which is the case at the Airport. • Touch -and -Go Activity — A touch-and-go operation involves an aircraft making a landing and then an immediate takeoff without coming to a full stop or exiting the runway. A high percentage of touch-and-go traffic normally results in a higher operational capacity because one landing and Page 149 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER one takeoff occurs within a shorter time period than individual operations. Touch-and-go oper- ations at the Airport have historically averaged approximately 46.5 percent of total annual oper- ations. This is forecast to progressively increase to 49.2 percent by the long-term planning pe- riod. • Operational Levels — For the airfield capacity analysis, average daily operations and average peak hour operations during the peak month are utilized. Typical operations activity is important in the calculation of an airport's ASV as "peak demand" levels occur sporadically. The peak periods used in the capacity analysis are representative of normal operational activity and can be ex- ceeded at various times throughout the year. At Georgetown Municipal Airport, the peak periods typically occur during the spring and summer months. ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME The following formula is used to determine the annual service volume: C = weighted hourly capacity D = ratio of annual demand to the average daily demand during the peak month H = ratio of average daily demand to the design hour demand during the peak month Following this formula, the current ASV for Georgetown Municipal Airport has been calculated at ap- proximately 293,000 operations. By the long-term planning period, the ASV would decrease slightly to 290,000 annual operations as shown in Table 3D. By the long-term planning horizon, total operations are forecast to represent 47.38 percent of the ASV. The ASV is the point at which delay grows exponen- tially, thereby constraining capacity. TABLE 3D Airfield Demand/Capacity Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport Annual* 100,250 111,125 125,751 137,390 Design Hour 35 39 44 48 Annual Service Volume 293,000 293,000 290,000 290,000 Percent Capacity 34.2% 37.9% 43.4% 47.4% Weighted Hourly Capacity 102 102 101 101 Per Operation (Seconds) 24 27 30 36 Total Annual (Hours) 668 833 1,048 1,374 *Includes 3% nighttime increase for general aviation and air taxi operations. Source: FAA AC 15015060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay Page 150 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL`7I11111111111ho An additional capacity analysis was undertaken to examine what the ASV would be if only Runway 18- 36 were considered. The estimated ASV under this condition is 292,000 operations currently, decreasing to 283,000 by the long-term planning period. AIRCRAFT DELAY As the number of annual aircraft operations approaches the airfield's capacity, increasing amounts of delay to aircraft operations begin to occur. Delays occur to arriving and departing aircraft in all weather conditions. Arriving aircraft delays may result in aircraft holding outside of the airport traffic area. De- parting aircraft delays result in aircraft holding at the runway end until released by air traffic control. Annual delay at the Airport now and into the forecast planning horizons is negligible. Over the course of a year, it is estimated that a total of 668 hours of delay are experienced. This equates to approximately 24 seconds per operation. In the future, approximately 36 seconds of delay per operations may be an- ticipated. Some individual operations may experience a significant delay but overall delay as a result of airfield capacity constraint is a minor factor at the Airport. CAPACITY ANJAI_vStS CONCLUSION According to FAA Order S090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), consideration should be given to projects specifically designed to increase overall airfield capacity when op - Projects specifically designed to im- prove overall capacity, such as addi- tional taxiway exits and additional runways beyond current planned projects, are not necessary. erations reach 60-75 percent of the ASV. Since this range is not anticipated to be reached at the Airport, capacity improvement projects, such as additional taxiway exits and additional runways, beyond current planned projects, are not necessary over the course of the planning horizons. AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS As indicated earlier, airport facilities include both airfield and landside components. Airfield facilities are those related to the arrival, departure, and ground movement of aircraft. The FAA has established vari- ous dimensional design standards related to the airfield to ensure the safe operations of aircraft. The FAA design standards impact the design of each of the airfield components to be analyzed. The following airfield components are analyzed for compliance to FAA design standards in detail: • Runway Configuration • Runway Design Standards • Runways • Taxiways • Navigational and Weather Aids • Instrument Approaches Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1fthmnfiiiid RUNWAY CONFIGURATION The Airport's airfield system has two runways. Primary Runway 18-36 is oriented in a north/south man- ner. Crosswind Runway 11-29 is oriented in a northwest/southeast manner. The runways intersect ap- proximately 1,900 feet from the Runway 36 end and 1,300 feet from the Runway 29 end. Runway 18- 36 is 5,004 feet in length and 100 feet wide. Runway 11-29 is 4,099 feet long and 75 feet wide. A crosswind runway configuration is very common in locations with variable wind patterns. A crosswind configuration is generally required to meet local wind conditions as detailed below. For the operational safety and efficiency of an airport, it is desirable for the primary runway to be oriented as close as pos- sible to the direction of the prevailing winds. This reduces the impact of wind components perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off. FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, recommends that a crosswind runway be made available when the primary runway orientation provides for less than 95 percent wind coverage for specific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on the basis of not exceeding a 10.S-knot (12 mph) component for runway design code (RDC) A-1 and B-I, 13-knot (15 mph) component for RDC A-11 and B-II, 16-knot (18 mph) component for RDC A -III, B-III, C-I through C-III, and D-I through D-III, and 20 knots for larger wingspans. Exhibit 3B presents both an all-weather and IFR wind rose. A wind rose is a graphic tool that gives a succinct view of how wind speed and direction are historically distributed at a particular location. The table at the top of the wind rose indicates the percent of wind coverage for each runway at specific wind intensity. As can be seen, Runway 18-36 provides greater than 95 percent wind coverage for both all-weather and IFR conditions. Runway 11-29 does not meet the 95 percent threshold at 10.5 knots but it does for all other wind intensity levels. If wind were the only consideration, then there would not be justification for FAA/TxDOT financial participation in Runway 11-29; however, many busy airports will maintain a second runway in order to remain open during times when the primary runway is closed or to increase operational efficiency. Runway closures may be related to planned construction/resurfacing or for emergencies. As a busy general aviation reliever airport, Georgetown Municipal Airport should consider maintaining a two -runway system. The wind data for Georgetown Municipal Airport was further analyzed on a monthly and seasonal basis. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there are monthly or seasonal wind patterns that would favor use of Runway 11-29. Wind patterns were found to be fairly consistent throughout the year. The peak time winds favor Runway 11-29 is in the spring (March, April, May) when approximately 4.5 percent of the time crosswinds exceed 10.5 knots, thus indicating that Runway 11-29 would be the optimal run- way. All other months were below four percent of the time. Therefore, there is not a seasonal justifica- tion for Runway 11-29 as a crosswind runway. Facility Requirements - DRAFT -3-8 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE Runways 10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots Runway 18-36 98.64% 99.37%, 99.81% 99.95% Runway 11-29 90.100/0 95.25% 99.0391, 99 84% All Runways 97.19% 99.95% 99.990/0 100.00% Magnetic Declination 03° 59' 00" East (Aug 2016) Annual Rate of Change 00° 07' 00" West (Aug 2016) SOURCE: NOAA National Climatic Center Asheville, North Carolina Georgetown Municipal Airport Georgetown, TX OBSERVATIONS: 161,604 All Weather Observations Jan. 1, 2006 - Dec, 31 2015 Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-9 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IFR COVERAGE Runways 10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots Runway 18-36 99.420/0 99.68% 99.88% 99.%% Run way 11-29 92.46% 96.17% 99.37% 99.88% \11 Runways 99.83% 99.94% 99.98% 99.990/0 e ' / /--� z N =270tW i 7 Magnetic Declination 03° 59' 00" East (Aug 2016) Annual Rate of Change 00° 07' 00" West (Aug 2016) — 20 KNOTS —16 KNOTS —13 KNOTS M. c K HOTS AN 360 N oR o 0 N OJ C W O O O� � Jf oohs ;gT J A 0.0, 0.02 0 0-6 on 0.01 o. KNOTS 0 55.75% ° s yo o. o 0 Ci 190 ISO 4L i 36 -10.5 KNOTS - -13 KNOTS - -16 KNOTS - - 20 KNOTS — V6 `11 E h� �y S �� >O p SOURCE: NOAA National Climatic Center Asheville, North Carolina Georgetown Municipal Airport Georgetown, TX OBSERVATIONS: 12,096 IFR Observations Jan. 1, 2006 - Dec, 31 2015 154 of 58 GEORGETOWN not INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft According to FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Handbook, only one runway at any NPIAS air- port is eligible for ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation funding unless the FAA Airport District Office has made a specific determination that an additional runway is justified. A runway that is not a primary runway, a secondary runway, or a crosswind runway is considered to be an additional runway. It is not unusual for a two -runway airport to have a primary runway and an additional runway, and no secondary or crosswind runway. Table 3E presents the eligibility requirements for runway types. TABLE 3E Runwav Elieibility Forthe following Must meet all of the following criteria... And is... runway type... Primary 1. A single runway at an airport is eligible for development consistent with Eligible Runway FAA design and engineering standards. Eligible if Crosswind 1. The wind coverage on the primary runway is less than 95% Runway justified 1. There is more than one runway at the airport. Secondary 2. The non -primary runway is not a crosswind runway. Eligible if Runway 3. Either of the following: justified a) The primary runway is operating at 60% or more of its annual capacity. b) FAA has made a specific determination that the runway is required. Additional 1. There is more than one runway at the airport. Runway 2. The non -primary runway is not a crosswind runway. Ineligible 3. The non -primary runway is not a secondary runway. Source: FAA Order 5100.38D, AIP Handbook Runway 11-29 falls in the category of "additional runway" and is therefore not eligible for FAA/TxDOT funding unless specifically determined to be eligible by FAA/TxDOT. Runway 11-29 is considered an 'ad- ditional runway' for the following reasons: • It is not a crosswind runway since the primary runway has greater than 95 percent wind cover- age; • It is not a secondary runway because the primary runway is operating at less than 60 percent of capacity; • The FAA/TxDOT has not yet made a special determination that the runway is required. As a busy reliever general aviation airport with a significant level of flight training, the airport sponsor may make an appeal to the FAA that the runway is necessary. That effort should take place prior to the need for a significant investment in the runway. Interviews with control tower personnel has indi- cated that Runway 11-29 is vital to their ability to coordinate, sequence, and otherwise control aircraft operating at the airport. Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PM1qn°1MMsmM RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS The FAA has established several design standards to pro- tect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect their safe operation. These include the runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (OFZ), and run- way protection zone (RPZ). The FAA has established several design standards to protect air- craft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect their safe operation. The entire RSA, ROFA, and ROFZ should be under the direct ownership of the airport sponsor to ensure these areas remain free of obstacles and can be readily accessed by maintenance and emergency per- sonnel. The RPZ for each runway end should also be under airport ownership. An alternative to outright ownership of the RPZ is the purchase of avigation easements (acquiring control of designated airspace within the RPZ) or having sufficient land use control measures in place which ensure the RPZ remains free of incompatible development. Dimensional standards for the various safety areas associated with the runways are a function of the type of aircraft expected to use the runways, as well as the instrument approach capability. Exhibit 3C presents the dimensional design standards for both runways at the Air- port. As discussed in the previous chapter the applicable design standards are primarily based upon the critical design aircraft and the instrument approach visibility minimums. The critical design aircraft is that air- craft or group of aircraft with similar characteristics, accounting for 500 or more annual operations. Run- way 18-36 has long been designed to meet C-II standards. However, in the last four years, C-II operations have been below the 500 operations threshold; therefore, the currently applicable design standards are B-II. Future planning will consider a return to C-II standards. Runway 11-29 has been designed to B-I(s) standards. This design standard is planned to be maintained through the planning period. Operational levels will fluctuate from year to year, and at times fall below the 500 operations threshold for a variety of reasons (as is the case for C-II operations at the Airport). A decision on physical changes to the runway and taxiway systems becomes necessary when reconstruction is needed. There is not a compelling interest in pursuing changes in advance of that based on short-term fluctuations in opera- tions. Runway Safety Area (RSA) The RSA is defined in FAA Advisory Circu- The current design standards to be applied are: lar (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, as Runway 18-36 — ARC B-ll a "surface surrounding the runway pre- Runway 11-29 — ARC B-I(s) pared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway." The RSA is centered on the runway and dimensioned in accordance to the approach speed of the critical design aircraft using the runway. The FAA requires the RSA to be cleared and graded, drained by grading or Page 156 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ jMUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN �Var■ Design Aircraft Runway Design Code Visibility Minimums RUNWAY DESIGN Runway Width Runway Shoulder Width B-1-1 B B-1-5000 1-mile 60 (75) 10 B-11-2 B-II-5000 1-mile 75 (100) 10 C-II-2 C-II-5000 1-mile 100 10 PROTECTIONRUNWAY Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 120 150(400) 400 Length Beyond Departure End 240 300 (1,000) 1,000 Length Prior to Threshold 240 300 (1,000) 600 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Width 400 500(800) 800 Length Beyond Departure End 240 300 (1,000) 1,000 Length Prior to Threshold 240 300 (1,000) 600 Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Width 250 400 400 Length Beyond End 200 200 200 Approach Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Length 1,000 1,000 1,700 Inner Width 500 500 500 Outer Width 700 700 1,010 Departure Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Length 1,000 1,000 1,700 Inner Width 500 500 500 Outer Width 700 700 1,010 RUNWAY SEPARATION Runway Centerline to: Holding Position 200 (156) 200 (250) 250 Parallel Taxiway 225 (375) 240 (300) 300 Aircraft Parking Area 200 250 (400) 400 P-�S-v ME �Ir mmeS7..� • ! r , GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL' storm sewers, capable of accommodating the design aircraft and fire and rescue vehicles, and free of obstacles not fixed by navigational purpose, such as runway edge lights or approach lights. The B-II RSA for Runway 18-36 is 150 feet wide, extending 300 feet beyond the runway ends. The RSA meets standard and should be maintained. The RSA for Runway 18-36 has historically been maintained to The RSA for both runways C-II standards. The standard width for a C-II RSA is 500 feet; meets standard. however, it is permissible for the RSA to be 400 feet wide. This is the case at the Airport where a 400-foot wide RSA is utilized because of recent drainage design considerations. Improvements to the drainage system for the Airport necessitated locating culverts on both sides of Taxiway A. By utilizing a 400-foot wide RSA, the culverts remain outside the RSA. The C-II RSA extends 1,000 feet beyond the runway ends. In a future condition, the C-II RSA meets design standards. Airport management has indicated that it is their intent to maintain the more restrictive C-II RSA in order to provide an additional safety margin. The RSA for Runway 11-29 is 120 feet wide, as centered on the runway, and it extends 240 feet beyond the runway end. This RSA meets standard and should be maintained. Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) The ROFA is "a two-dimensional ground area surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield lighting)." The ROFA does not have to be graded and level like the RSA; instead, the primary requirement for the The ROFA for both runways meets ROFA is that no object in the ROFA penetrates standards. the lateral elevation of the RSA. The ROFA is centered on the runway, extending out in accordance to the critical design aircraft utilizing the runway. The B-II ROFA surrounding Runway 18-36 is 500 feet wide, extending 300 feet beyond the runway ends. The B-II ROFA meets standard and should be maintained. Future planning considers a return to C-II standards. The C-II ROFA for Runway 18-36 is 800 feet wide and it extends 1,000 feet beyond the runway end. The northwest side of the ROFA extends approxi- mately 200 feet beyond the lateral edge of the Runway 18 threshold where it then crosses the airport property line. It extends for an additional 800 feet off the airport, encompassing all or part of seven residential property parcels. The southeast corner of the C-II ROFA extends off airport property and extends across Lakeway Drive. A return to C-II design standards would require consideration of a clear ROFA through property acquisition. The ROFA for Runway 11-29 is 250 feet wide and it extends 240 feet beyond the runway ends. The ROFA for Runway 11-29 meets standard and should be maintained. Page 158 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR13 ki AIRPORT MASTER Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) The OFZ is an imaginary volume of airspace which precludes object penetrations, including taxiing and parked aircraft. The only allowance for ROFZ obstructions is navigational aids mounted on frangible bases which are fixed in their location by function, such as airfield signs. The OFZ is established to ensure the safety of aircraft operations. If the OFZ is obstructed, the airport's approaches could be removed or approach minimums could be increased. The OFZ for Runway 18-36 is 400 feet wide and it extends 200 feet beyond the runway ends. The OFZ for Runway 11-29 is 250 feet wide and it extends 200 feet beyond the runway ends. The OFZ for both runways meet current design standards. Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) The RPZ is a trapezoidal area centered on the runway, typically beginning 200 feet beyond the runway end. The RPZ has been established by the FAA to provide an area clear of obstructions and incompatible land uses in order to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is com- prised of the central portion of the RPZ and the controlled activity area. The central portion of the RPZ extends from the beginning to the end of the RPZ, is centered on the runway, and is the width of the ROFA. The controlled activity area is any remaining portions of the RPZ. The dimensions of the RPZ vary according to the visibility minimums serving the runway and the type of aircraft (design aircraft) operat- ing on the runway. While the RPZ is intended to be clear of incompatible objects or land uses, some uses are permitted with conditions and other land uses are prohibited. According to FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, the following land uses are permissible within the RPZ: • Farming that meets the minimum buffer requirements; • Irrigation channels as long as they do not attract birds; • Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are directly controlled by the air- port operator; • Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria, such as RSA requirements, as applicable; and • Unstaffed navigational aids (NAVAIDs) and facilities, such as required for airport facilities that are fixed by function in regard to the RPZ. Any other land uses considered within RPZ land owned by the airport sponsor must be evaluated and approved by the FAA Office of Airports. The FAA has published Interim Guidance on Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone (9.27.2012), which identifies several potential land uses that must be evaluated and approved prior to implementation. The specific land uses requiring FAA evaluation and approval include: Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-1. GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRPMI AIRPORT MAS • Buildings and structures (examples include, but are not limited to: residences, schools, churches, hospitals or other medical care facilities, commercial/industrial buildings, etc.) • Recreational land use (examples include, but are not limited to: golf courses, sports fields, amusement parks, other places of public assembly, etc.) • Transportation facilities. Examples include, but are not limited to: - Rail facilities - light or heavy, passenger or freight - Public roads/highways - Vehicular parking facilities • Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground) • Hazardous material storage (above and below ground) • Wastewater treatment facilities • Above -ground utility infrastructure (i.e., electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations. The Interim Guidance states, "RPZ land use compatibility also is often complicated by ownership consid- erations. Airport owner control over the RPZ land is emphasized to achieve the desired protection of people and property on the ground. Although the FAA recognizes that in certain situations the airport sponsor may not fully control land within the RPZ, the FAA expects airport sponsors to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incompatible land uses." Currently, the RPZ review standards are applicable to any new or modified RPZ. The following actions or events could alter the size of an RPZ, potentially introducing an incompatibility: • An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift), • A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ dimensions, • A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the size of the RPZ, and/or • A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or reconfigured). Since the Interim Guidance only addresses new or modified RPZs, existing incompatibilities are generally (but not always) grandfathered. While it is still necessary for the airport sponsor to take all rea- The introduction of new or additional RPZ sonable actions to meet the RPZ design stand- land use incompatibilities may require FAA ard, FAA funding priority for certain actions, such as relocating roads or acquiring land and headquarters' review. structures, are typically determined on a case - by -case basis. Table 3F presents detail about the existing RPZs at the Airport. Because the approach RPZs to each runway end encompass the departure RPZs as well, the following discussion addresses only the approach RPZs. The Airport owns 100 percent of the Runway 18 RPZ land. The Airport owns approximately 86.6 percent of the Runway 36 RPZ land. Lakeway Drive is the only incompatible land use which traverses the end of the Runway 36 RPZ. The Airport owns an avigation easement over Lakeway Drive. Page 160 of 588 GEORGETOWN M 1NICIP I AIRI'()u I AIRPORT MASTER PL The Airport owns 86.4 percent of the Runway 11 RPZ. Northwest Boulevard crosses the RPZ and is con- sidered an incompatible land use. The Airport owns 85.6 percent of the Runway 29 RPZ. A residential home and Lakeway Drive are existing incompatibilities. TABLE 3F Runway Protection Zone Detail Georgetown Municipal Airport 18 RPZ Dimensions (ft.) Inner Width: 500 RPZ Size (ac.) 13.77 Owned in 13.7 100% IncompatibilitiesRunway Existing None Outer Width: 700 Length: 1,000 36 Inner Width: 500 13.77 11.92ac/ 86.56% Lakeway Dr. (City Owned) Outer Width: 700 Length: 1,000 11 Inner Width: 250 8.04 6.95ac/ 86.4% Northwest Blvd. (City Owned) Outer Width: 450 Length: 1,000 29 Inner Width: 250 8.04 / 5.6 85.6% 1 Residential Structure Outer Width: 450 Lakeway Dr. (City Owned) Length: 1,000 In the Alternatives chapter of this Master Plan, consideration will be given to mitigating existing RPZ incompatibilities. When this Master Plan began (August 2016), the visibility minimum to both ends of Runway 18-36 was N-mile. The associated RPZs were much larger, encompassing numerous incompati- ble land uses including 40 homes and numerous residential streets. The Runway 36 RPZ encompassed eight (8) homes and Lakeway Drive. An analysis of the operational impact of raising the visibility mini- mums to 1-mile indicated that over the last 10 years, aircraft would have encountered visibility mini- mums between 3,8-mile and 1-mile 0.155 percent of the time. Because of the minimal operational impact, it was recommended, later in this master plan, to raise the visibility minimums to 1-mile to reduce the incompatible land uses in the RPZs. On June 26, 2018, FAA Flight Procedures issued a NOTAM indicating that the lowest minimum to both ends of Runway 18-36 is 1-mile. Ultimately, new instrument approach plates will be developed and published by FAA. RUNWAY SEPARATION STANDARDS There are several other standards related to separation distances from runways. Each of these is de- signed to enhance the safety of the airfield. Runway/Taxiway Separation The design standard for the separation between runways and parallel taxiways is a function of the critical design aircraft and the instrument approach visibility minimums. Currently, Taxiway A is 300 feet from Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP IRi AIRPORT MASTERP1-:Xk the Runway 18-36 centerline. Taxiway J is the partial parallel taxiway to Runway 11-29 and is 375 feet from the runway centerline. By design standard, the parallel taxiway segments for Runway 18-36 should be at least 240 feet for B-II and 300 feet for C-II, centerline to centerline. For Runway 11-29, the parallel taxiway segments should be at least 225 feet. The separation distance for the parallel taxiway segments meets the design standards and should be maintained. Hold Line Separation The hold lines on taxiways leading to Runway 18-36 are 250 feet from the runway centerline which meets C-II standard. The B-II standard is 200 feet. The hold lines on taxiways leading to Runway 11-29 are 200 feet from the runway centerline, which meets standard. The location of the hold lines should be main- tained. Aircraft Parking Area Separation The minimum standard distance from the Runway 18-36 centerline to aircraft parking areas is 250 feet for B-II and 400 feet for C-II. The airport meets the C-II standards currently. Aircraft parking areas should be no closer than 200 feet from the Runway 11-29 centerline. All aircraft parking areas meet this standard. Runway Visibility Zone The RVZ is an area formed by imaginary lines connecting the line -of -sight points of intersecting runways. The purpose of the RVZ is to facilitate coordination among aircraft and between aircraft and vehicles that are operating on active runways. Having a clear line -of -sight allows departing aircraft and arriving aircraft to verify the location and actions of other aircraft and vehicles on the ground that could create a conflict. Within the RVZ, any point five feet above the runway centerline must be mutually visible with any other point five feet above the centerline of the crossing runway. There are some trees on the west side of the Airport within the RVZ which may obstruct the view between Runway 11 and Runway 36. Building Restriction Line (BRL) The BRL identifies suitable building area locations on an airport. The BRL encompasses the RPZs, the ROFA, navigational aid critical areas, areas required for terminal instrument procedures, and other areas necessary for meeting airport line -of -sight criteria, such as the RVZ. Two primary factors contribute to the determination of the BRL: type of runway (utility or other -than - utility) and the capability of the instrument approaches. Runway 11-29 is considered a "utility" runway because it has a pavement strength of 12,500 pounds. Runway 18-36 is considered an "other -than - Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN M iNICIP I nIRP k i AIRPORT MASTER PLXflihW utility" runway because it has a pavement strength above 12,500 pounds. Both runways have non -pre- cision instrument approaches. The BRL is the product of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 transitional surface clearance requirements. These requirements stipulate that no object be located in the primary surface, defined as being 500 feet wide for both runways. From the primary surface, the transitional surface extends upward and outward at a slope of one vertical foot for every seven horizontal feet. Therefore, The BRL line represents an elevation that the BRL is a sloping surface with variable height structures should remain below. restrictions based upon the distance from the edge of the primary surface. Common practice is to depict a BRL as a single line; however, this is frequently misinterpreted to mean that no structures can be located in front (closer to the runway) of the BRL. Instead, the BRL line repre- sents an elevation that structures should remain below. The 35-foot BRL for both runways is 495 feet from the runway centerline. All structures at the airport are clear of the BRL. The adequacy of the existing runway system at Georgetown Municipal Airport has been analyzed from a number of perspectives, including runway orientation and adherence to safety area standards. From this information, requirements for runway improvements will be determined for the Airport. Runway elements, such as length, width, and strength, are now presented. Runway Length FAA AC 150/5325-46, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides guidance for determin- ing runway length needs. A draft revision of this AC is currently available (150/532S-4C). This runway length analysis will consider the recommendations from both versions. There is not a direct relationship between the classification of the design aircraft (e.g., B-II, C-II, C-III) and runway length as airplanes operate on a wide variety of available runway lengths. The suitability of the runway length is governed by many factors, including elevation, temperature, wind, aircraft weight, wing flap settings, runway condition (wet or dry), runway gradient, vicinity airspace obstructions, useful load, and any special operating procedures. Airport sponsors can pursue policies that can maximize the suitability of the runway length. Policies, such as area zoning and height and hazard restrictions, can protect an airport's runway length. Airport ownership (fee simple or easement) of land leading to the runway ends can reduce the possibility of natural growth or man-made obstructions. Planning of runways should include an evaluation of aircraft types expected to use the airport, or a particular runway now and in the future. Future plans should be Page 163 of 588 GEORGETOWN J MUNICIPAI AIkPOk l AIRPORT MASTER PLXi�aa� realistic and supported by the FAA -approved forecasts and should be based on the critical design aircraft (or family of aircraft). FAA AC 150/5325-46, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides guidance for determin- ing runway length needs. The AC provides a general formula for determining runway length needs for general aviation aircraft weighing up to 60,000 pounds. Individual aircraft flight planning manuals are to be utilized for aircraft weighing more than 60,000 pounds. The determination of runway length requirements is based on five primary factors: • Mean maximum temperature of the hottest month • Airport elevation • Runway gradient • Critical aircraft type expected to use the runway • Stage length of the longest nonstop destination (specific to larger aircraft) Aircraft performance declines as elevation, temperature, and runway gradient factors increase. For the Airport, the mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month is 96.2 degrees Fahrenheit (F), which occurs in August. The Airport elevation is 790 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The gradient of Runway 18-36 is 0.76 percent and for Runway 11-29 it is 0.75 percent, both of which conform to FAA design standards for gradient. The RDC for Runway 18-36 is B-II-5000 and for Runway 11-29, it is B-1- 5000. Aircraft stage lengths can vary, but for planning purposes it is common to utilize increments of 500 miles. The AC provides a distinction between runway length TABLE 3G needs for small aircraft of 12,500 pounds or less and Small Aircraft Runway Length Requirements those between 12,500 pounds and 60,000 pounds. Ta- Georgetown Municipal Airport ble 3G presents the minimum runway length requireSmall Aircraft Fleet Runway Length - ments for small aircraft. Mix Category 710+ of small aircraft 3,400' Table 3H presents the runway length recommendations % of small aircraft 4,100' for general aviation jet aircraft weighing between Passenger Seats 4,400' 12,500 pounds and 60,000 pounds, which includes most Source: FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway small- and medium-sized business jets. Two categories Length Requirements for Airport Design of general aviation jet aircraft are identified: those mak- ing up 75 percent of the national fleet and those making up 100 percent of the national fleet. The 75 percent category includes most small- and some medium-sized business jets. Examples include Cessna Citation jets (models 500, 510, 525, 550, 560, 650), Learjets (models 31, 35, 45), Beechjet 400, and Falcon jets (models 10, 20, 50). The 100 percent category includes the remaining medium and most larger business jets (those under 60,000 pounds). Examples include Cessna Citation jets (models 650, 680, X), Learjets (models 55, 60), Hawker jets (models 800XP, 1000, 4000), and Challenger 600s. Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-2. GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRI'()u i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft To accommodate 75 percent of the general aviation jet fleet at 60 percent useful load, a runway length of 5,500 feet is recommended. To accommodate 100 percent at 60 percent useful load, a runway length of 6,400 feet is recommended. To accommodate 75 percent of the general aviation jet fleet at 90 per- cent useful load, a runway length of 7,600 feet is recommended, and for 100 percent at 90 percent useful load, a length of 9,900 feet is recommended. The FAA typically would only consider the 90 percent useful load categories if there was an identified specific need, such as air cargo activity or specific operators flying heavy loads long distances. TABLE 3H Runway Length Requirements Georgetown Municipal Airport Airport Elevation 790' feet above mean sea level Average High Monthly Temp. 96.2 degrees (August) Runwav Gradient 0.76% Runwav 18-36/0.75% Runwav 11-29 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,879' 5,261' 5,500' 5,500' 100% of fleet at 60% useful load 5,964' 6,346' 5,500' 6,400' 75% of fleet at 90% useful load 7,196' 7,578' 7,000' 7,600' 100% of fleet at 90% useful load 9,506' 9,888' 7,000' 9,900' *Max 5,500' for 60% useful load and max 7,000' for 90% useful load in wet conditions Source: FAA AC 15015325-48, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. The vast majority of operations by business jets fall into the zero-75 percent category. On occasion, the Airport will have operations by business jets in the 75-100 percent category but the total combined op- erations by these aircraft is well below the 500 operations threshold. Therefore, a minimum recom- mended runway length for the Airport would be 5,S00 feet. At 5,004 feet in length, primary Runway 18- 36 is approximately 500 feet shorter than would normally be recommended. In addition to using the general runway length categories listed in Table 3H, an analysis of the flight planning manuals for common business jets has been prepared. This method for determining runway length requirements follows FAA Draft AC 150/5325-4C, Runway Length Requirements for Airport De- sign. Exhibit 3D presents the takeoff and landing length requirements for the most common business jets in the national fleet, many of which operate at the Airport. The calculations are based on a maximum takeoff and landing weight; therefore, these lengths are the most conservative for each aircraft. The takeoff and landing lengths highlighted in red indicate a runway length requirement that exceeds 5,004 feet, which is the length of the longest runway at the Airport. Other than the smallest business jets, most would be weight -restricted to some degree under heavy loading conditions. Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-21 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX11111111111ft Business jets may operate under different regulations depending on the type of flight being conducted. These regulations may impact the calculated runway length available for landing. An analysis of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 91k and Part 135 landing length restrictions was conducted. Title 14 CFR Part 91k refers to operations conducted via fractional ownership, and Part 135 refers to com- muter/on-demand (charter) operations. Both operation types are required to meet specific landing length standards for safety purposes. Fractional operations must be capable of landing within 80 percent of the landing distance available (LDA), and commuter/on-demand operations must be capable of land- ing within 60 percent of the LDA. Operations conducted under CFR Part 25 are general aviation opera- tions conducted by private owners, including companies. The landing length requirements for the select business jets, under both dry and wet conditions, are also presented in Exhibit 3D. All the business jets listed are capable of landing at the Airport in dry conditions regardless of the CFR type restrictions. In wet conditions, we begin to see limitations on landing length but it should be understood that aircraft typically weigh less when landing, as aircraft burn fuel during flight thereby reducing their weight. When factoring the Part 135 and Part 91 flight restrictions in wet conditions, more of the business jet fleet would be weight -restricted for landing. Nearly all the business jets considered are capable of landing within the 5,004-foot length of Runway 18- 36 in dry conditions. When operating under CFR Part 91k and CFR 135, more runway length is necessary. Generally, a runway length of 5,500 feet is considered reasonable to accommodate business jet activity at the Airport. Council Resolution on Runway Length In the early 1990s, the primary runway at the Airport was extended from 4,100 feet to 5,000 feet in length to accommodate and facilitate economic development. According to Resolution 960123-JJ, dated January 23, 1996, the City Council "accepted the recommendation of a Citizens' Advisory Committee that the Century Plan (Comprehensive Plan name at the time) objectives which state that the north/south runway shall be extended to 5,000 feet is to be interpreted as setting a maximum length". The resolution is a local determination and is not directed by any Federal agency or policy, nor is it based on aviation demand or economic development. Current and/or future Councils may choose to maintain the runway length limitation or make a different determination based on economic development needs of the City and region. Runway Length Conclusion In an unconstrained environment, the minimum recommended primary runway length for Georgetown Municipal Airport would be approximately 5,500 feet. At 5,004 feet, Runway 18-36 is shorter than the recommended length. The approximate 500-foot difference does negatively impact some users, partic- ularly operators of medium-sized business jets intending to travel longer distances. The impacts would Page 166 of 588 •' • MUNICIPAL Alkl'OkT AIRFIELD PARAMETERS Elevation: 790' MSL Temp: 96.2*F Gradient: 0.76% PARAMETERS - AIRPORT MASTER PLAN (38.2') Landing Length Requirements Take-offRUNWAY . I ... for C.F.R. Part 25 Part 135 Part . Dry Wet Dry Wet Runway Condition Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet - • �� Beechjet 400A 5,865 7,550 80.6 Off Chart 3,718 5,377 6,197 8,962 4,648 6,721 U1 No Data No Data No Data No Data 2,951 3,989 4,918 6,648 3,689 4,986 •,,. , 02 4,778 5,086 100.0 97.7 3,644 5,266 6,073 8,777 4,555 6,583 K 03 3,956 4,383 100.0 100.0 3,454 4,731 5,757 7,885 4,318 5,914 .... �, Citation ISP 4,289 4,993 100.0 100.0 2,482 2,854 4,137 4,757 3,103 3,568 s •• Citation Bravo 5,827 6,032 79.4 77.0 4,112 6,482 6,853 10,803 5,140 8,103 Citation Encore/Ultra (Encore) 5,060 5,373 98.8 91.5 3,478 5,281 5,797 8,802 4,348 6,601 _ y Citation Excel/XLS (XLS) 5,259 5,259 87.0 87.0 3,800 6,000 6,333 10,000 4,750 7,500 Citation Sovereign 4,782 5,053 100.0 89.2 3,294 4,303 5,490 7,172 4,118 5,379 Citation X 7,934 8,642 50.9 Off Chart 4,444 6,424 7,407 10,707 5,555 8,030 ,... - Falcon 10 4,580* 4,970* 72.6 72.6 2,807 3,228 4,678 5,380 3,509 4,035 Falcon 20/50 (50) 6,899* 7,444* 64.6 Off Chart 2,974 3,420 4,957 5,700 3,718 4,275 Lear 35 8,092� No Data 45.6 No Data 3,332 4,665 5,553 7,775 4,165 5,831 Lear 45 8,091 8,176 57.5 Off Chart 2,925 3,780 4,875 6,300 3,656 4,725 Lear 55 Off Chart Off Chart Off Chart Off Chart 3,455 5,529 5,758 9,215 4,319 6,911 Lear60 8,728 9,616 44.7 34.3 3,707 5,060 6,178 8,433 4,634 6,325 Challenger 300/600 (300) 7,064 7,064 60.1 47.4 2,646 5,071 4,410 8,452 3,308 6,339 Gulfstream IV 6,697' 7,657* 64.5 45.7 3,674 7,043 6,123 11,738 4,593 8,804 Gulfstream V (550) 8,245 8,257 61.2 58.3 2,817 5,490 4,695 9,150 3,521 6,863 Red Numbers: Indicate the length exceeds 5,004 feet. MSL - Mean Sea Level MTOW - Maximum takeoff weight CFR - Code of Federal Regulations No Data - No Ultranav calculation available; "Weight limited due to climb performance CFR Part 25: Standard unfactored landing lengths. CFR Part 135: 60%factored landing length as required CFR Part 91 k: 80%factored as required Off Chart - Calculator result out of limits for aircraft Source: Aircraft operating manuals. by commuter/on-demand operators. by fractional operators. Page 167 of 588 This page intentionally left blank Page 168 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1*1 M INICIP I AIRI' ik i AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1 include the need to take on less fuel, baggage, and passengers, and potentially make an intermediate stop to refuel before proceeding on to a final destination. There are several reasons that extending Runway 18-36 to 5,500 feet may be challenging. The previously cited council resolution from January 23, 1996 indicates that 5,000 feet is the maximum length. Extend- ing the runway may require road relocations and significant property acquisition. Significant political and community support to successfully extend the runway would be needed. It is recommended that, at a minimum, the Airport maintain the existing minimum runway length of 5,004 feet. At least one option will be presented in the Alternatives chapter that considers the impacts to extending Runway 18- 36 to 5,500 feet. Runway Width Runway 18-36 is currently 100 feet wide. The B-II design standard is 75 feet wide. The design standard for a RDC C-II runway is 100 feet, regardless of the visibility minimums. This existing width should be maintained because the Airport could transition back to C-II in the future. At the time of the next recon- struction of the runway (likely more than 20 years out), an analysis of the applicable RDC will need to be made. If the RDC were determined to still be B-II, then the applicable design standard is 75 feet (100 feet for Y2-mile visibility minimums). A full benefit -cost analysis should be undertaken at that time, which will determine if narrowing the runway and moving the edge lights is less expensive than maintaining the existing width. Runway 11-29 is currently 75 feet wide. The runway width design standard for RDC B-1 is 60 feet (100 feet for %-mile visibility minimums). At the time of the next major reconstruction, a determination will need to be made whether to maintain the 75-foot width or reduce it to 60 feet. For purposes of this Master Plan, the runway is planned to be maintained at its current width. Runway Strength An important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand repeated use by aircraft. The current pavement rating of Runway 18-36 is 30,000 pounds (S) and for Runway 11-29, it is 12,500 pounds (S). Additional engineering studies associated with future runway rehabilitation projects will determine the necessary pavement strength to accommodate the useful life of the pavement utilizing the fleet mix operations forecast. TAXIWAYS The design standards associated with taxiways are determined by the ADG of the critical design aircraft and the taxiway design group (TDG). Since all aircraft can and do access all taxiways and both runways, the taxiway design standards to be applied should be the most restrictive based on airport design air- craft. Page 169 of 588 GEORGETOWN N6_ Ml iNI IPAI AIKPORI AIRPORT MASTER PC Table 3.1 presents the taxiway design standards. The standards based on wingspan apply to all taxiways at the Airport as all taxiways are utilized by all aircraft types. Standards based on the TDG indicate the standard taxiway width. The current and future TDG for operations at the airport is 7 which is deter- mined by the more than 500 annual operations by the King Air 200 turboprop. As noted in Chapter One — Inventory, all taxiways are 50 feet wide except for Taxiway G and that portion of Taxiway L that serves as the threshold to Runway 36, both of which are 100 feet wide. At the time of the next major rehabili- tation of any of the taxiways, a determination will need to be made whether to apply the 35-foot TDG '2' standard or the 50-foot TDG '3' standard. TABLE 3.1 Taxiway Dimensions and Standards ADG: Airplane Design Group TDG: Taxiway Design Group Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design Taxiway Design Considerations FAA AC 1S0/S300-13A, Airport Design, provides guidance on recommended taxiway and taxilane layouts to enhance safety by avoiding runway incursions. A runway incursion is defined as "any occurrence at an airport involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft." The taxiway system at the Airport generally provides for the efficient movement of aircraft; however, recently published FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, provides recommendations for taxiway design. Page 170 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP ki AIRPORT MASTERP1-:Xk The following is a list of the taxiway design guidelines and the basic rationale behind each recommenda- tion: 1. Taxi Method: Taxiways are designed for "cockpit over centerline" taxiing with pavement being sufficiently wide to allow a certain amount of wander. On turns, sufficient pavement should be provided to maintain the edge safety margin from the landing gear. When constructing new taxiways, upgrading existing intersections should be undertaken to eliminate "judgmental over - steering," which is where the pilot must intentionally steer the cockpit outside the marked cen- terline in order to assure the aircraft remains on the taxiway pavement. 2. Steering Angle: Taxiways should be designed such that the nose gear steering angle is no more than 50 degrees, the generally accepted value to prevent excessive tire scrubbing. 3. Three -Node Concept: To maintain pilot situational awareness, taxiway intersections should pro- vide a pilot a maximum of three choices of travel. Ideally, these are right- and left -angle turns and a continuation straight ahead. 4. Intersection Angles: Design turns to be 90 degrees wherever possible. For acute -angle intersec- tions, standard angles of 30, 45, 60, 120, 135, and 150 degrees are preferred. 5. Runway Incursions: Design taxiways to reduce the probability of runway incursions. - Increase Pilot Situational Awareness: A pilot who knows where he/she is on the airport is less likely to enter a runway improperly. Complexity leads to confusion. Keep taxiway systems simple using the "three -node" concept. - Avoid Wide Expanses of Pavement: Wide pavements require placement of signs far from a pilot's eye. This is especially critical at runway entrance points. Where a wide expanse of pavement is necessary, avoid direct access to a runway. - Limit Runway Crossings: The taxiway layout can reduce the opportunity for human error. The benefits are twofold — through simple reduction in the number of occurrences, and through a reduction in air traffic controller workload. - Avoid "High -Energy" Intersections: These are intersections in the middle third of runways. By limiting runway crossings to the first and last thirds of the runway, the portion of the run- way where a pilot can least maneuver to avoid a collision is kept clear. - Increase Visibility: Right-angle intersections, both between taxiways and runways, provide the best visibility. Acute -angle runway exits provide for greater efficiency in runway usage, but should not be used as runway entrance or crossing points. A right-angle turn at the end of a parallel taxiway is a clear indication of approaching a runway. - Avoid "Dual Purpose" Pavements: Runways used as taxiways and taxiways used as runways can lead to confusion. A runway should always be clearly identified as a runway and only a runway. - Indirect Access: Do not design taxiways to lead directly from an apron to a runway. Such configurations can lead to confusion when a pilot typically expects to encounter a parallel taxiway. - Hot Spots: Confusing intersections near runways are more likely to contribute to runway incursions. These intersections must be redesigned when the associated runway is subject to reconstruction or rehabilitation. Other "hot spots" should be corrected as soon as practi- cable. Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR130k1 AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1�� 6. Runway/Taxiway Intersections: - Right -Angle: Right-angle intersections are the standard for all runway/taxiway intersections, except where there is a need for a high-speed exit. Right-angle taxiways provide the best visual perspective to a pilot approaching an intersection with the runway to observe aircraft in both the left and right directions. They also provide optimal orientation of the runway holding position signs so they are visible to pilots. - Acute -Angle: Acute angles should not be larger than 45 degrees from the runway centerline. A 30-degree taxiway layout should be reserved for high-speed exits. The use of multiple in- tersecting taxiways with acute angles creates pilot confusion and improper positioning of tax- iway signage. - Large Expanses of Pavement: Taxiways must never coincide with the intersection of two run- ways. Taxiway configurations with multiple taxiway and runway intersections in a single area create large expanses of pavement, making it difficult to provide proper signage, marking, and lighting. 7. Taxiway/Runway/Apron Incursion Prevention: Apron locations that allow direct access into a runway should be avoided. Increase pilot situational awareness by designing taxiways in such a manner that forces pilots to consciously make turns. Taxiways originating from aprons and form- ing a straight line across runways at mid -span should be avoided. 8. Wide Throat Taxiways: Wide throat taxiway entrances should be avoided. Such large expanses of pavement may cause pilot confusion and makes lighting and marking more difficult. 9. Direct Access from Apron to a Runway: Avoid taxiway connectors that cross over a parallel tax- iway and directly onto a runway. Consider a staggered taxiway layout that forces pilots to make a conscious decision to turn. 10. Apron to Parallel Taxiway End: Avoid direct connection from an apron to a parallel taxiway at the end of a runway. FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, states that, "existing taxiway geometry should be improved whenever feasible." To the extent practicable, the removal of existing pavement may be necessary to correct confusing layouts. Exhibit 3E identifies all airfield areas of concern. Exhibit 3E also highlights the location of the "high-energy" portion of each runway (middle third). As noted above, FAA airfield geometry standards indicate that taxiways crossing a runway in the high-en- ergy area should be avoided. Taxiway J crosses Runway 18-36 within the "high-energy" portion of the runway. All entrance/exit taxiways should interface the runway to allow aircraft to hold at a 90-degree orienta- tion with the runway centerline. This allows the pilot full operational view of the runway in both direc- tions. Access to runways is preferred to be at a 90-degree angle, unless a high-speed exit is needed. Both Taxiways K and L intersect Runway 11-29 at an angle. Options will be considered in the Alternatives chapter to provide taxiways that allow aircraft to hold at a 90-degree angle to the runway. Taxiway G and the threshold portion of Taxiway L are both 100 feet wide, thus being a wide expanse of pavement. These should be narrowed to the 50-foot design standard. Analysis in the following chapter will outline options for correcting the nonstandard taxiway alignments. Page 172 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Q ' � r -�F] s, 1t ►.. "'- t Angled Taxiway AAwbw 4144 ttanway 18-36 (5,0=x 100') j J Cross at "Hi porth >r • • 4r.. � .• �t • .ter Y�� . ♦� �-;-,� '�, , 29 ,�•� _lli . t►. yip i.. 1 � � `�4. � ., y1 l � � � ` � AL • Facility Requirements - DRAFT 1 3-29 A •R� AIRP RT MA ER LAI � • t Width exceeds standard +t •. . ,; E a ".. t in RPZ v . �I ' '� It � ._ •�S �';1t• ;: '? Is It 4. J Angled Taxiway' i 1 �► X. n rthwestwk BIB ?A �t `• ' 800 �V '`` ' r• �� 7- SCALE IN FEET 11MCIVIIII -;i�;AerialPfY'oto:•tiooglel�2-3-16 Exhibit 3E GEOMETRY AND DESIGN STANDARD -AREAS OF INTEREST This page intentionally left blank Page 174 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1W1 MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTERPL�1�a HOLDING BAYS Holding bays are locations on the airfield where aircraft pull to the side of primary taxiways to perform pre-flight checks, run -ups, and to await departure clearance. FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, suggests that hold bays should be provided when runway operations reach a level of 30 per hour. Anal- ysis in Chapter Two, Forecasts, presented the operational peaking characteristics in which it was deter- mined that the current design hour is 34, increasing to 59 by the long-term planning period. Develop- ment of hold bays at the airport will be considered in the Alternatives chapter of this Master Plan. The most advantageous location for hold bays is adjacent to the taxiway serving the runway end. Hold bays must be designed in such a manner to keep aircraft out of the RSA and OFZ. They should also be designed such that the TOFA is clear and aircraft can safely pass aircraft positioned in the hold bay. There are hold bays at the end of the taxiways serving all four runway ends. These hold bays are on the "inside" of the taxiways between the taxiway and the runway. This layout is typically only supported in constrained environments. Taxiway C has been widened to 150 feet to accommodate holding aircraft to each side of the taxiway. Taxiway B serves as a bypass taxiway however only one aircraft can hold at a time. Options for redesigning and relocating the hold bays will be considered in the Alternatives chap- ter. INSTRUMENT APPROACH CAPABILITY Instrument approaches are classified as either precision or non -precision. Precision instrument ap- proaches provide both vertical and horizontal guidance. Currently, precision approaches require an in- strument landing system (ILS); however, advances in GPS technology may soon make precision ap- proaches available without costly ground -based equipment, such as a localizer and glide slope antenna. Precision approaches typically provide for visibility minimums of %-mile or lower and cloud ceiling mini- mums of 200 feet. This is typically the lowest visibility minimums available to general aviation airports and is common at reliever airports. Non -precision instrument approaches typically provide only horizontal guidance; however, relatively new non -precision GPS localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) approaches do provide both horizontal and vertical guidance. Non -precision instrument approaches typically have visibility mini- mums of greater than %-mile and cloud ceiling minimums higher than 200 feet. Several design requirements are associated with the instrumentation of a runway. Visibility minimums of Y2-mile require an approach lighting system (ALS) and they are recommended for %-mile. Visibility minimums above Y4-mile do not need an ALS. The size of the RPZs can change based on the visibility minimums. At Georgetown Municipal Airport, all four runway ends have non -precision instrument ap- proaches with 1-mile visibility minimums. Facility Requirements - DRAFT - GEORGETOWN � M INICIP I IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER fffll� NOTE: At the beginning of this Master Plan project (August 2016), the visibility minimums to both ends of Runway 18-36 were %8-mile. The following discussion makes the case for raising the visibility mini- mums to 1-mile. On June 26, 2018, the minimums were raised to 1-mile. For Runway 18-36, %8-mile visibility minimums are excellent; however, there are impacts that should be considered. The size of the RPZ associated with the 3/8-mile visibility minimums is approximately 50 acres, while the size of an RPZ associated with a 1-mile visibility minimum is approximately 30 acres. The larger RPZ, which exists today for both ends of Runway 18-36, encompasses numerous homes and roads. There are 40 homes in the Runway 18 RPZ and seven in the Runway 36 RPZ. If the visibility minimums The visibility minimums for Runway 18-36 were 1-mile, then there would be 17 homes in were raised from %-mile to 1-m►le in June the Runway 18 RPZ and five in the Runway 36 2018 RPZ. There is one home in the Runway 29 RPZ. The wind observation data for the Airport was analyzed to determine what the operational difference would be if the visibility minimums for Runway 18-36 were raised from %8-mile to 1-mile. Over the last 10 years, there were a total of 161,604 weather observations made by the on -airport AWOS. Of this total, 215 or 0.155 percent were observations of a visibility minimum within this range. This is a very small number and likely had very limited or no impact to actual operations. Consideration will be given to increasing the visibility minimums on Runway 18-36 to 1-mile. As a crosswind runway, the non -precision instrument approaches with 1-mile visibility minimums are appropriate and should be maintained. A variety of options will be considered in the Alternatives chapter to increase the compatibility of RPZ lands, including the possibility of raising visibility minimums. Visibility minimums that are lower than what is available today are not considered feasible. The location of the airport at night is universally indicated by a rotating beacon, which is located on top of the control tower. The beacon should be maintained through the planning period. Both ends of Runway 18-36 are equipped with precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights. This visual approach lighting system should be maintained through the long-term planning period. PAPIs are planned for Runway 11-29 in 2018. Runway end identification lights (REIL) are strobe lights set to either side of the runway. These lights provide rapid identification of the runway threshold. REILs should be installed at runway ends not cur- rently providing an approach lighting system but supporting instrument operations. REILs are currently available for both ends of Runway 18-36 and should be considered for Runway 11-29, which has instru- ment approach capability. Facility Requirements - DRAFT GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRN W I 0 AIRPORT MASTER PL' AIRFIELD LIGHTING, MARKING, AND SIGNAGE Airfield lighting, signage, and markings aids pilots when navigating the airport environment. Runway and Taxiway Lighting Runway lighting provides the pilot with positive identification of the runway and its alignment. Both runways are equipped with medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL). This is the appropriate intensity for the Airport and the edge lighting should be maintained. Taxiway edge lighting provides for safe and efficient ground movements at night and at times of poor visibility. All taxiways are planned to have medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) installed in 2018. These should be maintained through the long-term planning period. Pavement Markings Runway markings are typically designed to the type of instrument approach available on the runway. FAA AC 150/5340-1K, Standards for Airport Markings, provides guidance necessary to design airport markings. All runways are served by non -precision markings. These are the appropriate runway mark- ings and should be maintained through the long-term planning period. Airfield Signs Airfield identification signs assist pilots in identifying their location on the airfield and directing them to their desired location. Lighted signs are installed on the runway and taxiway systems on the airfield. The signage system includes runway and taxiway designations, holding positions, routing/directional, and runway exits. All these signs should be maintained throughout the planning period. Consideration should be given to installing distance remaining signage for the primary runways. These lighted signs alert pilots to how much runway length remains in 1,000-foot increments. WEATHER AND COMMUNICATION AIDS Georgetown Municipal Airport has a lighted windsock centrally located on the airfield. Because wind patterns can vary and change rapidly, it is common to provide supplemental windsocks. It is recom- mended that a supplemental windsock be installed in proximity to the four runway ends. Georgetown Municipal Airport is equipped with an Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS). This is an important system that automatically records weather conditions, such as wind speed, wind gust, Page 177 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PUX�ai� wind direction, temperature, dew point, altimeter setting, visibility, fog/haze condition, precipitation, and cloud height. This information can be accessed by pilots and individuals via an automated voice recording on a published telephone number. This system should be maintained through the planning period. Originally, the AWOS was to be relocated as part of the current parallel taxiway/apron project. This would have several benefits, including opening up additional apron construction space and providing an unobstructed area around the sensors. In the future, the AWOS should be planned to be relocated. AIRSIDE SUMMARY The Georgetown Municipal Airport is an asset to the community and the region. It is also important to the National Airspace System as a designated reliever airport. It is an important economic development engine for the region. Runway 18-36, at 5,004 feet in length, is approximately 500 feet shorter than what would be recom- mended in an unconstrained environment. At least one option for extending the runway will be consid- ered in the Alternatives chapter; however, considering the known constraints (i.e., surrounding devel- oped land, homes, roads, etc.), it may be a challenge to implement. Runway 11-29 is designed to accommodate small aircraft, those less than 12,500 pounds. At 4,099 feet in length, it can fully accommodate small aircraft. Analysis of 10 years of wind data at the Airport indi- cated that a crosswind runway is not required; however, at a busy airport like Georgetown, it should be maintained. Eligibility for continued maintenance and rehabilitation funding will need to be determined by the FAA. The availability of Runway 11-29 allows the airport to remain operational when the primary runway is closed (typically due to a construction project or an emergency) and it provides a safer landing option when winds dictate. Tower staff have also indicated that Runway 11-29 is critical to aircraft se- quencing and ground movement efficiency. The FAA places a high priority on airports having control over land uses within RPZs. The RPZs at the Airport have incompatible land uses within them. It is the responsibility of the Airport to have a plan in place to meet RPZ land use standards to the greatest degree feasible; however, it is often a function of funding availability that determines when a mitigating solution can be pursued. The FAA is also placing a high priority on mitigating or eliminating through redesign, potentially confusing geometry at airports. Several taxiways do not meet current geometric design standards. The long-term plan for the airport will consider implementation of taxiway geometry that meets standards. The airport has available non -precision instrument approaches to all runway ends. This is an important feature that extends the availability of the airport to times of poor visibility conditions. The instrument approaches to Runway 11-29 provide for 1-mile visibility minimums, which is appropriate for this run- way. The approaches should be maintained. Facility Requirements - DRAFT - GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PQMh m - Both ends of Runway 18-36 have non -precision instrument approaches with visibility minimums of 1- mile. As discussed previously in this chapter, the visibility minimums to Runway 18-36 were raised to 1- mile as recommended in this Master Plan. A summary of the airside needs at Georgetown Municipal Airport is presented on Exhibit 3F. LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS Landside facilities are those necessary for handling aircraft and passengers while on the ground. These facilities provide the essential interface between the air and ground transportation modes. The capaci- ties of the various components of each area were examined in relation to projected demand to identify future landside facility needs. This analysis is focused on the needs to support general aviation activity, which includes recreational flying, business aviation, charter, military, and some portions of air cargo and air ambulance activity. The landside components include: • Aircraft Hangars • Aircraft Parking Apron • Auto Parking and Access • General Aviation Terminal Building Services AIRCRAFT HANrARS Owning an aircraft represents a significant financial investment. Most aircraft owners prefer to store their aircraft in an enclosed hangar space as opposed to utilizing outside aircraft tie -down positions. In more mild climates, such as central Texas, some owners will prefer a less expensive outside tie -down position. Enclosed hangar space provides protection from the elements and an increased level of secu- rity. It is estimated that 85 percent of based aircraft are stored in hangars. This is forecast to increase to approximately 90 percent by the long-term planning period. There are three general types of aircraft storage hangars: T-hangars, box hangars, and conventional hangars. T-hangars are similar in size and will typically house a single engine piston -powered aircraft. Some multi -engine aircraft owners may elect to utilize these facilities as well. There are typically many T-hangar units "nested" within a single structure. Box hangars are larger open space hangars typically used to store somewhat larger personal/business aircraft and/or to house aviation businesses. Conven- tional hangars are the familiar large hangars with open floor plans that can store several aircraft. Calculations of current and future hangar needs by hangar type have been developed. Currently, there is approximately 156,300 square feet of T-hangar aircraft storage space at the Airport. Future estimates are based on providing 1,400 square feet per T-hangar unit. Approximately 130,700 square feet of ad- ditional T-hangar space is needed to meet the short-term demand. By the long-term planning horizon, a total of 334,000 square feet of T-hangar space is estimated to be needed. Page 179 of 588 RDC: B-II-5000 Runway length/width Pavement strength: 30,000 lbs. single wheel 'RSA: 400' wide x 1,000' beyond runway ends 'ROFA: 800' wide x 1,000' beyond runway ends OFZ: 400' wide x 200' beyond runway ends RPZ ownership: partial ownership RPZ Incompatibilities: roads Non -precision markings Medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL) Runway length/width: 4,099' x 75' Pavement strength: 12,500 lbs. single wheel Standard RSA, OFA, OFZ RPZ ownership: partial ownership RPZ Incompatibilities: Roads, homes Non -precision marking TDG-2 Centerline markings Width standard is 35 feet Medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) Taxiway layout/geometry deficiencies AWOS Beacon 1 Windsock mile non -precision GPS None REILS Consider extension to 5,500' but no less than the current length Engineering Design Study determination Meets standard - maintain Non-standard: ROFA extends over homes on the northwest, examine solutions Meets standard - maintain Acquire if feasible. Remove RPZ incompatibilities if feasible Meets standard - Maintain Meets standard - Maintain Maintain (width exceeds 60' standard) Maintain Meets standard - Maintain Acquire if feasible. Remove RPZ incompatibilities if feasible Meets standard - Maintain Meets standard - maintain Meets standard - maintain Implement uniform 35' taxiway width Unavailable - MITL planned for 2018 Redesign taxiway layout/geometry Maintain system - consider relocation Maintain Add supplemental windsocks near runway ends Consider increasing to 1-mile' PAPI-2L planned for 2018 Maintain AWOS - Automated Weather Observing System PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator RPZ - Runway Protection Zone MIRUHIRL - Medium/High Intensity Runway Lighting RDC - Runway Design Code RSA - Runway Safety Area MITL - Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting REIL - Runway End Identification Lights TDG -Taxiway Design Code OFZ - Obstacle Free Zone ROFA - Runway Obiect Free Area GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'Ok l AIRPORT MAS Executive/box hangars are a popular storage option. Estimates of future needs are based on providing 2,200 square feet per aircraft. There is a current need for approximately 28,000 square feet of execu- tive/box hangar space. By the long-term planning period, there is a total need for 119,000 square feet. Conventional hangar aircraft parking space is estimated by providing 2,500 square feet per aircraft. The calculations indicate that the current supply of conventional hangars is adequate through the long-term planning period. An additional 220,500 square feet of hangar space is needed. Table 3K presents aircraft storage needs based on the demand forecasts. Estimates indicate a long term need for an additional 220,500 square feet of aircraft storage space to accommodate the forecast growth at the Airport. TABLE 3K Hangar Needs Georgetown Municipal Airport Available 318 Short Term 340 Intermediate Term 370 Long Term 400 Total Need Less SupplyCurrently Current Based Aircraft Aircraft to be Hangared 273 296 326 360 87 T-Hangar Positions 140 20S 223 238 98 Box Hangar Positions 32 46 50 54 22 Conventional Hangar Positions 110 89 98 108 -2 Hangar Area Requirements T-Hangar Area 156,300 287,000 312,000 334,000 177,700 Box Hangar Area 73,000 101,000 109,000 119,000 46,000 Conventional Hangar Area 272,200 223,000 244,000 269,000 -3,200 Maintenance Area 52,200 60,000 65,000 1 70,000 1 17,800 Source: Coffman Associates analysis. Most hangars will have some space dedicated for non -aircraft storage purposes. This may include an office or lounge area. Active airports with a significant general aviation presence, such as Georgetown Municipal Airport, will also have a variety of aviation businesses on the airfield. These operators typically dedicate hangar space for this purpose, rather than storage. Future office/maintenance hangar space needs are calculated at 175 square feet per based aircraft. This shows that there is a need for approxi- mately 17,800 square feet of additional office/maintenance hangar space by the long term. Hangar requirements are general in nature and are based on standard hangar size estimates and typical user preferences. If a private developer desires to construct or lease a large hangar to house one plane, any extra space in that hangar may not be available for other aircraft. The actual hangar area needs will be dependent on the usage within each hangar. Requirements - DRAFT_ Page 181 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT APRON Aircraft aprons are paved areas utilized for access, circulation, and aircraft parking needs. Calculations of future aircraft apron needs takes into consideration the space necessary to meet these needs. The main terminal apron encompasses approximately 36,000 square yards of pavement. There are nine dedicated transient positions in front of the terminal building and 22 marked positions for local and transient needs on the south portion of the main apron (considered local for planning purposes). The east apron has a 5,000-square-yard pavement area with 11 marked tie -down positions. In addition, there are four transient positions located in the grass east of the T-hangar building #24 (which are not included in apron need calculations). There is a total of 42 aircraft tie -down positions at the Airport, not including the grass positions. An important consideration when planning aircraft apron demand is to distinguish between the space needed for small and large aircraft. Small aircraft space is needed for both transient and local aircraft. Large aircraft space is needed for transient operators as based large aircraft, such as business jets and turboprops, are rarely stored outside at a tie -down position. Therefore, two separate calculations are employed to determine local and transient apron needs and transient apron needs are further classified for small and large aircraft. Currently, all aircraft tie -down positions are sized for smaller single and multi -engine piston aircraft. Transient Apron Requirements FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, suggests a methodology by which transient apron requirements can be determined from knowledge of busy -day operations. At the Airport, the number of transient spaces required is estimated at 15 percent of the busy -day transient general aviation/other air taxi op- erations. Busy day operations are calculated by multiplying the design day by 1.34 (derived from analysis of tower operations). This results in a current need for 31 transient aircraft positions and a long term need for 51 positions. A planning criterion of 800 square yards per small aircraft and 1,600 square yards for large aircraft was applied to determine current and future transient apron area requirements. These area estimates in- clude circulation areas and take into account the higher frequency of ground movements by transient aircraft. Small aircraft are estimated to account for 80 percent of transient operations and larger busi- ness jets and turboprops account for the remaining 20 percent. There is a current need for a total of 25 transient positions for small aircraft. By the long-term planning period, there is a forecast need for a total of 51 positions for small aircraft. There is a current need for six large aircraft positions and by the long term, a need for 10 large aircraft transient positions. When considering existing capacity, there is a long term need for 36 small aircraft and 10 large aircraft transient positions. Transient apron needs have also been calculated in terms of area requirements. Existing transient apron area is estimated at 17,100 square yards. The current need is for 30,100 square yards and the Additional aircraft apron is needed, espe- long-term need is for 48,800 square yards. cially for transient operators. Page 182 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PL'WNEUM When considering what is currently available, there is a long-term need for an additional 31,700 square yards of transient apron. Local Apron Requirements Local tie -down positions are assumed to be utilized by owners of small single engine aircraft and, there- fore, a planning criterion of 350 square yards per aircraft is utilized. An additional 10 spaces are planned to accommodate temporary usage by local users. Future local tie -down apron needs are estimated based on an increasing number of aircraft owners desiring to have a hangar. Currently, approximately 86 percent of based aircraft are stored in hangars. Over time, this is forecast to increase to 90 percent. Because of the relatively warm climate, there will always be a demand for local tie -down positions to some degree. Currently, there are 27 local tie -down positions and a calculated need for 55. By the long term, there is a need for 50 local tie -down positions. While based aircraft are forecast to increase, the need for local tie -down positions is forecast to decrease slightly based on the assumption that aircraft owners would rent a hangar if one were available. In terms of apron area needed to accommodate local tie -down needs, there is currently a supply of 23,900 square yards and a long term need for 32,500 square yards. Aircraft Apron Summary There is currently 41,000 square feet of aircraft apron space available at the Airport and a long term need for 81,300 square yards. While the forecast distinguishes between local and transient apron, op- erationally it is common for pilots to utilize an available space. Table 3L summarizes the aircraft apron needs at the Airport. TABLE 3L Aircraft Apron Requirements Georgetown Municipal Airport Local Apron Positions Local Apron Area (s.y.) 27 55 23,900 24,500 54 54 50 35,200 35,400 32,500 Transient Apron Positions 15 31 43 47 51 Piston Transient Positions 15 25 34 38 41 Turbine Transient Positions 0 6 9 9 10 Transient Apron Area (s.y.) 17,100 30,100 41,000 45,100 48,800 Source: Coffman Associates analvsis Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-39 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNK II'Al AIf N )R I AIRPORT MASTER PL GENERAL AVIATION VEHICLE ACCESS AND PARKING General aviation parking needs are attributable to locally based users, transient airport users, and avia- tion businesses. Locally based users primarily include those attending to their based aircraft. As with many airports that cater to general aviation, most based aircraft owners at the Airport will park their vehicles in or adjacent to their hangar when attending to or flying their aircraft. Current planning stand- ards suggest that dedicated vehicle parking lots and access roads be made available to hangar own- ers/occupants. This has the positive effect of removing vehicular traffic from aircraft movement areas. Vehicle parking needs for locally based aircraft operators is estimated at half of the total number of based aircraft. If feasible, future hangar development should consider dedicated road access and park- ing lots. Transient users will require vehicle parking lots as they may be passengers on a private aircraft. This space is typically provided by airport FBOs, although some spaces may be available at a terminal building. Calculations of future transient vehicle parking needs are a function of the number of potential general aviation passengers during the design hour. The number of design hour itinerant passengers is multi- plied by 1.9 (average vehicle occupants), which results in a total number of vehicle parking spaces needed. Calculations of vehicle parking area (in square feet) needed are estimated at 315 square feet per parking space. It is estimated that there are 216 vehicle parking spaces available at the FBOs and other airport busi- nesses and 38 spaces at the terminal building, for a total of 254 transient spaces. The estimate of future needs indicates that the available transient vehicle parking needs are met at the Airport through the short-term planning period. By the intermediate and long term, additional parking may be needed. Generally, as new hangars are constructed, associated vehicle parking should also be included. Table 3M presents the vehicle parking estimates. TABLE 3M GA Vehicle Parking Requirements Georgetown Municipal Airport Existing Short Intermediate Long Term Term Term Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 31 43 51 60 GA Itinerant Spaces 254 82 97 114 GA Based Spaces 170 185 200 GA Itinerant Parking Area 80,010 26,000 30,000 I 36,000 GA Based Parking Area im54,000 58,000 63,000 Source: Coffman Associates analysis Facility Requirements - DRAFT 3-40 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICES Typically, certain services will be made available to general aviation users. This may include a pilot's lounge, flight planning station, line services, conference room, and restrooms. These facilities may be provided by a dedicated terminal building and/or shared with FBO facilities. At Georgetown Municipal Airport, these services are shared among the FBOs and the City -operated terminal building. It is esti- mated that pilot service functions currently account for approximately 1,000 square feet in the main terminal building with an additional 6,000 square feet of space estimated to be available at the FBOs. General aviation terminal needs are a function of the average number of general aviation passengers that may use the facilities during the design hour. It is estimated that there is a need to accommodate up to 31 people at any one time in the short term and 60 by the long term. Calculating 120 square feet of space per person results in the general aviation terminal building space requirements of 5,200 square feet, 6,100 square feet, and 7,200 square feet in the short, intermediate and long-term planning hori- zons, respectively, as shown on Table 3N. The Airport has adequate space for general aviation services through the long-term planning period; however, FBO operators will determine their own business needs for additional general aviation terminal space. TABLE 3N General Aviation Terminal Area Facilities Georgetown Municipal Airport Existing Short Term 34 47 Intermediate Term 54 Long Term 59 Design Hour Operations Design Hour Itinerant Operations 16 22 24 26 Multiplier 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 Total Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 31 43 51 60 Terminal Building Public Space (s.f.) 1,000 780 915 1080 FBO GA Services Space (s.f.) 6,000 4,420 5,185 6,120 Total Terminal Building Space (s.f.) 7,000 5,200 6,100 7,200 Source: Coffman Associates analysis LANDSIDE SUMMARY An analysis of the required landside facilities necessary to meet projected demand has been presented. Currently, it is estimated that there is approximately 501,500 square feet of aircraft storage space in existing hangars. By the long-term planning period, an additional 220,500 square feet is forecast to be needed. General aviation aircraft apron requirements are shown to be deficient currently. There is approximately 41,000 square yards of general aviation apron area and the current need has been calculated at 54,600 square yards. By the long term, a total of 81,300 square yards is required. When adding apron space, consideration should be given to segmenting it between local and transient users. Both are needed but transient space is a pressing issue. In addition, dedicated spaces for larger aircraft should be identified. Page 185 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRI'()u i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft The need for vehicle parking space was analyzed for both locally based users and transient users. At the terminal building, there are approximately 38 spaces and the FBOs provide an additional 216 for a total of 254. This meets the estimated need in the short term. Additional parking will be needed as additional hangars are constructed. While many locally based aircraft owners will park their vehicle in their hangar when utilizing their aircraft, it is preferred to have dedicated parking for these users. Planning for future hangars will include the feasibility of providing dedicated parking. Those landside facilities necessary to meet current and future demand should be maintained to a high standard. The Airport has a maintenance priority list that is updated regularly. Exhibit 3G presents a summary of the landside requirements, as well as the support requirements that are discussed in the next section. AIRPORT SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS Various facilities that do not logically fall within classifications of airside or landside facilities have also been identified. These other areas provide certain support functions related to the overall operation of the Airport. AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING (ARFF) FACILITIES Since the Airport is not a Part 139 commercial service airport, it is not required to have on -site ARFF. However, it is a busy general aviation airport and does benefit from having Fire Station No. 4 physically located on the north side of Airport property. Currently, direct access to the runway/taxiway system is not available. Future considerations will be given to providing a route for firefighters to access the air- field more directly. MAINTENANCE BUILDING Currently, Airport maintenance equipment, such as mowers and agents, are stored in two City -owned T- hangars. These T-hangars would be better utilized as leasable aircraft hangar space. For a general avia- tion airport, a maintenance facility encompassing approximately 5,000 square feet would meet the long- term needs. Consideration will be given to properly locating a dedicated maintenance facility on the Airport. FUEL STORAGE The Airport owns the newly constructed fuel farm located just north of the terminal building. Two above -ground fuel tanks are available, one dedicated to Jet A (20,000-gallon capacity) and the other to Page 186 of 588 T-Hangars 140 205 223 238 Executive/Box Hangars 32 46 50 54 Conventional Hangar Positions 110 89 98 108 -Van.. T-Hangars 156,300 287,000 312,000 334,000 Executive/Box Hangars 272,200 223,000 244,000 269,000 Conventional Hangar (s.f.) 73,000 101,000 109,000 119,000 Total Hangar Area (s..f) 501,500 611,000 665,000 722,000 Maintenance Area (s.f.) 52,200 60,000 65,000 70,000 Parking Positions GA Local Positions 27 54 54 50 GA Transient Piston Positions 15 34 38 41 GA Transient Business Jet Positions 0 9 9 10 Aircraft Parking Apron GA Local Apron Area (s.y.) 23,900 35,200 35,400 32,500 GA Transient Apron Area (s.y.) 17,100 41,000 45,100 48,800 GA Total Apron (s.y.) 41,000 76,200 80,500 81,300 OQAM�,Il Total GA Parking Spaces 254 252 282 314 GA Total Parking Area (s.f.) 80,010 80,000 88,000 99,000 GA Terminal Building Area (s.f.) 7,000 Above Ground 5,200 Maintain 6,100 Maintain 7,200 Maintain . .. Storage Type Jet A Capacity (Static Tank) 20,000 gal. Maintain Add 12,000 gal. tank Maintain Jet A Capacity (Trucks) 11,500 gal. Add as needed Add as needed Add as needed AvGas Capacity (Static Tank) 15,000 gal. Maintain Maintain Add 8,000 gal. tank AvGas Capacity (Truck) 2,550 gal. Add as needed Add as needed Add as needed Perimeter Fencing Linear Feet 23,000 Maintain and Replace As Needed Page 187 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ _ MUNIQI'AI. AIRPOR-1 AIRPORT MAS AvGas (15,000-gallon capacity) fuel. The FBOs own and operate fuel trucks. Jet A fuel trucks have a total capacity of 11,500 gallons and AvGas trucks have a capacity of 2,550 gallons. Additional fuel storage capacity should be planned when the Airport is unable to maintain an adequate supply and reserve. A 14-day reserve is common; however, more frequent deliveries can be arranged to make up for times when reserves are low. When additional capacity is needed, it should be planned in 10,000- to 12,000-gallon increments, which can accommodate common fuel tanker trucks that typi- cally have an 8,000-gallon capacity. Fuel storage requirements can vary based upon individual supplier and distributor policies. Projections of future fuel supply needs are a function of the aircraft fleet mix operations at the Airport. Assumptions of fuel usage are based upon historical averages. It is forecast that the Airport may need additional Jet A fuel storage capacity by the intermediate planning horizon, if they are to maintain a 14- day supply. By the long-term planning period, an additional AvGas tank may be needed. Table 3P pre- sents the fuel storage requirements. TABLE 3P Fuel Storage Requirements Georgetown Municipal Airport Annual Usage (gal.) 511,418 564,200 644,800 756,400 Daily Usage (gal.) 1,401 1,546 1,767 2,072 14-Day Storage (gal.) 19,616 21,641 24,732 29,013 Annual Usage (gal.) 301,502 296,400 335,100 363,600 Daily Usage (gal.) 826 812 918 996 14-Day Storage (gal.) 11,564 11,369 12,853 13,946 Assumptions: Jet A 62 gallons per operation by jet/turbo engine. Avgas 3 gallons per operation by AvGas engine. Source: 'Airport fuel report; Coffman Associates analysis PERIMETER FENCING Perimeter fencing is used at airports primarily to secure the aircraft operational area. The physical bar- rier of perimeter fencing has the following functions: • Gives notice of the legal boundary of the outermost limits of a facility or security -sensitive area. • Assists in controlling and screening authorized entries into a secured area by deterring entry elsewhere along the boundary. Page 188 of 588 GEORGETOWN \ W v11( 111A 1 A I R I'(W i AIRPORT MASTER PLAN • Supports surveillance, detection, assessment, and other security functions by providing a zone for installing intrusion -detection equipment and closed-circuit television (CCTV), if necessary. • Deters casual intruders from penetrating a secured area by presenting a barrier that requires an overt action to enter. • Demonstrates the intent of an intruder by their overt action of gaining entry. • Causes a delay to obtain access to a facility, thereby increasing the possibility of detection. • Creates a psychological deterrent. • Optimizes the use of security personnel, while enhancing the capabilities for detection and ap- prehension of unauthorized individuals. • Demonstrates a corporate concern for facility security. • Limits inadvertent access to the aircraft operations area by wildlife. The Airport is served by perimeter fencing. The fencing serves to provide both operational security, as well as a deterrent to wildlife accessing the airfield movement areas. Areas of the Airport with public visibility have 8-foot high security/wildlife fencing. Interior areas have 3-foot high chain -link. It is esti- mated that there is over 23,000 linear feet of fencing. General aviation airports are not required to have full perimeter security fencing. Those airports located in more urban areas will often prioritize security fencing. Full perimeter security/wildlife fencing is rec- ommended for Georgetown Municipal Airport and the existing fencing should be maintained. SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the facilities required to meet potential aviation demands projected for the Airport for the next 20 years. The next chapter, Chapter Four - Alternatives, examines potential improve- ments to the airfield system and the landside area. Most of the discussion focuses on those capital improvements that would be eligible for federal grant funds as administered by TxDOT. Other projects of local concern will be considered on a limited basis. Several facility layouts that meet the forecast demands over the next 20 years are presented and an overall ALP that presents a long-term vision will ultimately be developed. EST 1848 GEORGETOWN TEXAS CHAPTER FOUR ALTERNATIVES Page 190 of 588 In the previous chapter, airside and landside facilities required to satisfy aviation demand through the long range planning period were identified. In addition, the various FAA design standards, were dis- cussed. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate reasonable ways these facilities can be provided and the design standards can be met. There can be numerous combinations of design alterna- tives, but the alternatives presented here are those with the perceived greatest potential for implemen- tation. Any development proposed for a master plan is evolved from an analysis of projected needs for a set period of time. Though the needs were determined by utilizing industry -accepted statistical methodol- ogies, unforeseen future events could impact the timing of the needs identified. The master planning process attempts to develop a viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected demands for the next 20 years. However, no plan of action should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future goals and objectives of the City of Georgetown and its citizens, as represented through elected officials, who have a vested interest in the development and operation of the airport. PLANNING OBJECTIVES A set of basic planning objectives has been established to guide the alternatives development process. It is the goal of this master planning effort to produce a development plan for the Airport that addresses forecast aviation demand and to meet FAA design standards to the greatest degree possible. As owner and operator, the City of Georgetown provides the overall guidance for the operation and development of the Airport. It is of primary concern that the Airport is marketed, developed, and operated for the betterment of the community and its users. The following basic planning objectives have been defined for this planning effort: Alternatives DRAFT - Page 191 of 588 GEORGETOWN _I*I M INICIP I AIRP(iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1 • To develop a safe, attractive, and efficient aviation facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. • To develop a facility that is responsive to the current and long term needs of all aviation users. • To be reflective and supportive of the long term planning efforts currently applicable to the region. • To develop a facility with a focus on self-sufficiency in both operational and developmental cost re- covery. • To ensure that future development is environmentally compatible. • To preserve and protect public and private investments in existing airport facilities. Exhibit 4A presents a summary of the primary planning considerations for the alternatives analysis. These include non -development options, airside considerations, and landside considerations. The non - development alternatives include a no -build option, a replacement airport option, and a transfer services option. All three would ultimately lead to the closure of the airport; however, the last two are specifically designed for closure of the existing facility. The airside considerations relate to those airfield/airspace elements that contribute to the safe and ef- ficient transition of aircraft and passengers from air transportation to the landside facilities at an airport. This includes consideration of the established design standard for the airport, the instrument approach capability, the capacity of the airfield, the length and strength of the runways, navigational aids, and the layout of the taxiways and aprons. Each of these elements was introduced in previous chapters and various needs established. The landside considerations relate to those facilities providing support to the aviation function of an airport. This includes terminal services, hangars, and fueling. The previous chapter introduced these elements and identified specific needs based on the forecast future aviation demand. The goal now is to identify alternatives for locating these facilities. Each functional area (airside and landside) interrelates and affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas are examined individually and then coordinated to ensure the final plan is functional, efficient, and cost-effective. The total impact of all these factors on the existing airport must be evaluated to determine if the investment in Georgetown Municipal Airport will meet the needs of the community, both during and beyond the 20-year planning period. The alternatives considered are compared using environmental, economic, and aviation factors to de- termine which of the alternatives will best fulfill the local aviation needs. With this information, as well as input from various airport stakeholders, a final airport concept can evolve into a realistic development plan. Not all airside or landside elements will require a detailed alternatives' analysis. The alternatives analysis is reserved for presenting viable solutions to specific problems or challenges. For those airside or land - side elements where only one solution is reasonable or where no alternative is necessary, an explanatory narrative is provided. DRAFTAlternatives - Page 192 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNVIPAI /AIRPORT NON -DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS • Identify locations for additional hangars • Maximize aircraft apron space • Provide fire station access directly to the airport • Redevelopment of dilapidated hangars Alternatives - DRAFT 4-3 Exhibit 4A PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRPORR I NVIL AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa NON -DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Prior to the presentation of development alternatives for the existing Georgetown Municipal Airport, the following non -development options are considered: • No -Build: This alternative considers stopping all new investments at the Airport except for rou- tine maintenance and safety -related projects. • Relocate Airport: This alternative considers constructing a new airport and closing the existing facility. • Transfer Services: This alternative considers transferring all services to another existing airport and closing the existing facility. While the non -development alternatives are being introduced in this master plan, TxDOT, the airport sponsor (City of Georgetown), and the consulting team, are all contractually obligated to complete this master plan for the existing airport. If the airport sponsor desired to pursue one of the non -development alternatives, then additional and separate planning studies would need to be undertaken after comple- tion of this master plan. AIRPORT CLOSURE HISTORY In October 2002, the Airport Advisory Board (AAB) at that time issued a report that focused on the im- pacts of closing the existing airport and possibly replacing it with another airport in the immediate area. The report focused on providing answers to the following three basic questions: 1. What would closing the Georgetown Municipal Airport cost the city and citizens of Georgetown from an economic standpoint? 2. Given the current FAA grant assurance obligations, can the Georgetown Municipal Airport be closed or moved? 3. What would the cost be to move and/or build another airport to serve the Georgetown area? Question No. 1: The cost to the city included elements, such as repayment of certificates of obligation, repayment of government grants, buyout of current ground leases, potential and expected lawsuits from existing tenants, businesses, and state and federal governments. The cost to citizens included issuing new bonds (including the "hidden cost" of impacting the city credit rating) and increasing property taxes. Other costs included loss of property taxes associated with on -airport property, potential impact to busi- nesses (on -and off -airport) that use the airport, and potential loss of new businesses to the region. Fi- nally, the overall loss of the economic benefits directly attributable to the presence of the airport, was a negative. Question No. 2: When accepting a grant offer from TxDOT and/or the FAA, the city agrees to certain grant assurances which are legally binding contractual obligations. These include maintaining the useful life of the facilities developed, operating the airport as an airport unless a change is approved by the Page 194 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP IRi AIRPORT MASTERPL''7CMkftTaa Secretary of Transportation, and making the airport available for public use without discrimination or artificial limitations. The report states, "...the city could replace the current airport, but federal funds would only be available for costs in excess of the value of the current airport. Further, however, the order states that AIP funds are not assured for the development of a new airport when the community willfully disposes of an adequate functioning public airport upon the termination of its legal obligation to maintain it. Therefore, even though certain grant assurances may be satisfied, there is the distinct possibility that federal funds would not be available for a new airport." This statement remains true more than a decade later where the FAA's grant funding priority ranking system generally values new airport construction lower than the threshold used to fund projects. Question No. 3: This section considered many costs associated with constructing a new airport. These included the physical construction of runways, taxiways, apron, and property acquisition. Other costs, such as roads, utilities, hangars, and relocation fees for existing tenants, were not included in the cost estimate presented. A separate line item for the cost of buying out existing leases was included. Summary The AAB reached out to TxDOT and FAA officials regarding the possibility of closing the existing Georgetown Municipal Airport. Both replied in writing in opposition to releasing the airport of their grant obligations. In a letter received from TxDOT — Aviation Director, David Fulton, dated July 16, 2002, they state, "It is extremely unlikely that either FAA or TxDOT would agree to closure of the existing air- port." In a letter from the FAA relating to the question of repaying a prorated amount of grant funds in order to be released from grant assurances, the FAA said, "federal legislation does not specifically pro- vide for the release of a sponsor's obligations upon simply repayment of those grants. The city is obli- gated to operate the airport throughout the term of the city's obligation." The report speculated that "perhaps the best solution to building a new airport to serve Georgetown would be to encourage the proposed Central Texas Regional Airport being located near Georgetown. This proposed airport never came to fruition. The report concluded that closing the existing Georgetown Municipal Airport and replacing it with a new airport could probably be done, but it would be an expensive and lengthy process. The report indicates that most of the tax burden for closing or moving the airport would be borne by Georgetown citizens who are not impacted directly by the airport for the benefit of a relatively small city population which reside near the airport. The last question the report leaves the reader with is, "Will all the citizens of Georgetown agree to the city spending the time, money, and effort it will take in order to pay for closing and replacing an existing airport that currently costs them little to support?" FACTORS AND PROCFM 1RA1 RMUIRFMFNITS RFI ATM TO AIRpnRT C! OcURF Federal and state airport aid grant obligations have done more to preserve public -use airports in the United States than any other single factor. There are over 4,000 publicly owned public -use Page 195 of 588 GEORGETOWN J Ml iNICIPAI AIRPOk I AIRPORT MASTER PtxX airports in the United States, and most are subject to one or more federal and/or state aid grant obligations that either temporarily (or permanently) protect the public -use airports from potential closure. It is FAA policy to fully enforce its airport aid grant obligations and the FAA will go to court if necessary to do so. Pursuant to FAA grant assurances for airport sponsors, the airport sponsor may not "sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other interests in the property shown on Exhibit A... for the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances in this grant agree- ment without approval of the Secretary. For land purchased under a grant for airport development purposes (other than noise compatibility), it will, when the land is no longer needed for airport purposes, dispose of such land at fair market value or make available to the Secretary an amount equal to the United States' proportionate share of the fair market value of the land." Land shall be considered to be needed for airport purposes under the assurances if it may be needed for aeronautical purposes (including runway protection zones) or serve as noise buffer land. The FAA regulations distinguish between thetreatment ofgrantsforthe purchase of real property and those for airport development or improvement purposes. With respect to facilities developed or equipment obtained with federal funds, the assurances remain in effect only for the useful life of the facilities developed orequipment acquired, although the period maynot exceed 20yearsfrom the date the grant offer was accepted. Therefore, airport closure would require 1) approval ofthe Secre- tary of Transportation, 2) establishing that the land is no longer needed for aviation purposes, 3) payment of the FAA's proportionate share ofthe fair market value of all real property acquired with federal funds, and 4) coordination with the FAA with respect to the disposition of grants made for air- port development or improvement. According to Exhibit A (property map) for Georgetown Municipal Airport, dated 2004, federal funds were used to purchase approximately 32.4 acres of land. Since 2004, an additional 23.8 acres of land have been purchased with federal funds. All the land purchases are subject to the grant assurances and con- ditions outlined in the preceding paragraphs. Since 2001, approximately $17 million in federal funds have been expended for airport improvements, including more than $10 million in the last few years (see Table 1A). These funds, as well as various state grants, remain grant- encumbered. The procedural requirements involved in a request of release from federal obligations include: 1) written request by the sponsor, and 2) facts and circumstances justifying the request. The FAA will take into consideration factors such as: 1) the past and present owner's compliance record under all its airport agreements and its actions to make available a safe and usable airport for maximum aeronautical use by the public, 2) evidence that the owner has taken or agreed to take all actions possible to correct non- compliance situations at the airport, 3) the reasonableness and practicality of the owner's request in terms of aeronautical facilities which are needed and the priority of need, 4) the net benefit to be derived by civil aviation and the compatibility of the proposal with the needs of civil aviation, and 5) consistency with the guidelines for specific types of releases. Environmental documentation may also be required. Alternatives - DRAFT GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIkl'()k l AIRPORT MASTER P' Moreover, the FAA must also make at least one of several policy determinations, including 1) that the public purpose which a term, condition, or covenant of an agreement, or the agreement itself, was in- tended to serve is no longer applicable, or 2) that the release, modification, reformation, or amendment of an applicable agreement will not prevent accomplishment of the public purposes for which the airport or its facilities were obligated, and such action is necessary to protect or advance the interest of the United States in civil aviation, or 3) the release, modification, reformation or amendment will conform the rights and obligation of the owner to the statutes of the United States and the intent of Congress consistent with applicable law. For facilities, other than land, the FAA must find that 1) the grant agree- ment involved has expired, 2) the facility in question is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was developed, or 3) the useful life of the facility in question has expired. A successful argument must be made with the FAA that closure will benefit the national air transportation system, and that the funds derived from the sale and closure of the facility will be a benefit for the development of other airports in the system. One of the most recent examples in which a sizable general aviation airport was deactivated and closed, and FAA granted the sponsor a release from federal obligations, was Richards-Gebaur Airport in Kansas City, Missouri. Richards-Gebaur Airport was built in 1941 on land owned by the City of Kansas City. In 1955, the City deeded the property to the United States Air Force for use as a permanent military base. The Air Force deactivated the base in 1976, at which time it returned to civilian general aviation use, and was conveyed back to Kansas City in 1985. Between 1986 and 1994, the City accepted $12.2 million in federal grant funds for airport development, and each grant required the normal grant obligations. For many years, the City subsidized the airport operation. In 1997, in an effort to pursue redevelopment of the property for a new intermodal rail -truck freight distribution center, the City submitted an appli- cation to the FAA requesting permission to close the airport, seeking to be released from its federal obligations and assurances to maintain the property for public aeronautical use. The FAA and City of Kansas City negotiated a memorandum agreement in 1998, in which the FAA concluded that the terms it attached to the release and closure would result in a net benefit to aviation. The FAA found that the airport was only able to serve general aviation needs with subsidies from the City, which were draining funds from the other airports operated by the City. The FAA found that this financial burden was not necessary in a metropolitan area served by several other airports that remained open to general avia- tion. The memorandum agreement required the City of Kansas City to deposit $5 million into an escrow account to be dispersed by the FAA for federally eligible projects at other airports in the Kansas City area. The City also agreed that for 20 years, it would deposit all net proceeds from the projected lease of the property into its aviation account for use solely on general aviation projects. It agreed to notify the FAA of each disbursement from the net proceeds account and to permit the FAA to audit the account. In early 1999, the Kansas City Council approved a 50-year lease for development of the facility by the Kansas City Southern Railway Company. In late 1999, the FAA released Kansas City from its federal obli- gations to maintain the property as an airport, allowing the City to close the airport and maintain the property as non -aeronautical, revenue -producing property for the Kansas City Aviation Department. The FAA issued an environmental categorical exclusion (Cat Ex) document on the same date as the letter re- leasing the airport property. Alternatives - D•. 49 1111111 Page 197 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PU The FAA decision was challenged in court by several groups, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the order of the FAA releasing the City of Kansas City from its federal obligations to maintain the property for aero- nautical use. All pending motions to supplement the record were denied. The AOPA'soffice ofairportadvocacyworks aggressively to keepgeneral aviation airports open and has been successful in keeping many airports across the country open to the public. Airport advocacy groups spend much of their time educating interested parties, recruiting allies, and finding coopera- tive solutions to closure issues. In a recent case in the Midwest, the AOPA assisted with the organ- ization of a local group to purchase a municipally -owned general aviation airport (with 40 based air- craft), at the appraised value, keeping the facility operational as a privately owned, public -use air- port. However, without public sponsorship, the airport will have added difficulty in maintaining or improving airport infrastructure. There is a definite relationship between the magnitude and condition of an airport's infrastructure and its probable future vitality, and perhaps its survival. Airports with better facilities (e.g., longer runways, newer hangars, better instrument approaches, etc.) and a very active demand base (such as that at GTU) have somewhat less chance of closure. Airports without deficiencies can serve a broader segment of the general aviation market and generate revenues by selling more products or services. Federal and state grant funding, which are essential to airport development projects, also provide the greatest long- term protection from airport closure. 1. NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE The no -build alternative essentially considers making no new capital investments in the Airport. Limited maintenance and upkeep would continue so that the Airport remains safe for aviation activity. No new hangars or apron area would be planned to be built by the City; however, this would not and could not include the prohibition of same by a private entity. The obvious result of the no -build alternative is that the Airport would be unable to meet the current and forecast demand for aviation services in the area. There is currently a substantial aircraft owner wait list (approximately 180) whose need for hangar space would never be satisfied at this Airport. The City of Georgetown and the surrounding region has experienced strong growth in all socioeconomic categories over the past several decades. Forecasts indicate this trend will continue throughout and beyond the long term planning horizon. The City of Georgetown has a vested interest in maintaining and improving airport facilities for both recreational and business users. Without a commitment to on- going improvement of the Airport, users of the airport will be constrained from taking full advantage of the airport's air transportation capabilities. The unavoidable consequence of the no -build alternative would involve the airport's inability to accom- modate potential airport users. Corporate aviation plays a major role in the transportation of business leaders and key employees. Thus, airports are often the first impression many corporate and business leaders will have of the community. If the airport does not have the capability to meet hangar, apron, Page 198 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PLX1�a�i or airfield needs of potential users, the region's ability to attract the businesses will be diminished. This is especially true for businesses that utilize private aviation as a means to increase productivity. The long term consequences of the no -build alternative would be to reduce the quality of the existing airport facilities over time, producing undesirable results. This scenario would result in overcrowded conditions and unnecessary delays and an overall unpleasant experience for regular users and visitors. Georgetown Municipal Airport is part of a system of airports in the region. Each airport provides a cer- tain level of service and economic stimuli. To pursue the no -build alternative would place a burden on other airports in the region. Over time, many users of the airport may relocate to other airports and businesses, both on the airport and in the region, would experience negative economic impacts and new businesses may look elsewhere. The no -build alternative is also inconsistent with the development ob- jectives outlined previously. As outlined in Table 1A previously, the Airport has received more than $17 million in development grants since 2001. These grants represent a direct economic stimulus that has lasting positive economic im- pacts. The no -build alternative means that the City of Georgetown would forgo future grants for airport development, which would have a negative economic impact which, over time, would become more noticeable. The primary reason a community might choose a no -build alternative is to ultimately not be bound by the grant assurances (See Appendix C) associated with the acceptance of airport development grants. Grant assurances are part of the grant package contract that the airport sponsor commits to when ac- cepting a development grant from TxDOT. As such, airport sponsors are bound to maintain the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment acquired for an airport development project. Useful life is a term not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date of acceptance of a grant offer of federal (TxDOT) funds for a project. There is no limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with re- spect to real property acquired with federal (TxDOT) funds. 2. RELOCATE AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE This option considers constructing a new airport to replace the existing Georgetown Municipal Airport. The new airport would have to be completed prior to closure of the existing airport. Additional study beyond the scope of this master plan would be required. These would include a feasibility study, a site selection study, a master plan for the replacement site, and appropriate environmental documentation of the new site (typically an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)). In the late 1990s, Robert Mueller Municipal Airport and Austin Executive Airpark were closed, leaving over 420 aircraft owners with a challenge to find a new location for their aircraft. Commercial service was transferred from Robert Mueller to Austin -Bergstrom International Airport. In 2003, TxDOT — Avia- tion undertook the Central Texas Airport Phase I Feasibility Study with the intent to identify a location for a new general aviation airport to serve the existing and growing demand in the region. A location in Bastrop County was considered; however, this project never came to fruition. In 2006, a group of private Page 199 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL. AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS investors considered developing an airport to fill the void. Austin Executive Airport was opened in 2009 at the site of the former Bird's Nest Airport. This is a privately owned, public use airport that caters to higher end business aviation users. An important consideration is the potential cost associated with both constructing a new airport and closing the existing airport. Table 4A presents broad estimates of associated costs based on knowledge of current construction costs in central Texas and on costs associated with various federal regulations, such as the Uniform Act, which provides minimum standards for federally funded projects that require property acquisition or displacing persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. It is estimated that it would cost up to $321 million to construct a new airport with similar capabilities as the existing airport. TABLE 4A Replacement Airport Initial Cost Estimate Element Land QuantityProject 500 ac $50,000 $25,000,000 Earthworks/Drainage 2,000,000 cy $5 $10,000,000 Runway Pavement (6,000 ft. x 100 ft.) 66,700 sy $150 $10,005,000 Taxiway Pavement 211,111 sy $150 $31,666,667 Taxilane Pavement 80,000 sy $130 $10,400,000 Apron 50,000 sy $150 $7,500,000 Runway Edge Lighting 60 Unit $2,500 $150,000 Taxiway Edge Lighting 140 Unit $2,500 $350,000 Signage 40 Unit $7,000 $280,000 Marking 30,000 If $15 $450,000 MALSR 1 Unit $1,500,000 $1,500,000 PAPI, REIL 3 Unit $120,000 $360,000 AWOS 1 Unit $200,000 $200,000 Terminal Building 1 Unit $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Roads/Utilities (On Airport) 1 Unit $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Hangars/Relocation Costs 500,000 sf $200 $100,000,000 Subtotal $208,861,667 Engineering, Design (12%) $25,063,400 Construction Inspection, Admin. (13%) $27,152,017 Contingency (15%) $31,329,250 Roads/Utilities (Off-Airport) 1 Unit $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Planning Studies 1 Unit $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Environmental — EA/EIS 1 Unit $1,500,000 $1,500,000 TOTAL $320,906,000 ' Not elieible for federal fund A more detailed analysis would need to be undertaken to identify an acceptable site and to refine the project cost estimates. A large portion of the development costs would be eligible for TxDOT/FAA grant funding. Typically, non -revenue producing facilities to be located within the airport property line are eligible for funding. Elements outside the property line, such as utility extension and surface roads, are not eligible for funding. Page 200 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ M INICIPAI AIR130k1 ' AIRPORT MASTER P - Disposal of Existing Land Most of the existing Airport land was purchased by the City of Georgetown from the Hausenfluck estate in 1942. The City of Georgetown then entered into an agreement with the federal government to allow them (the U.S. Government) to construct the airport and to utilize it for WWII pilot training. In exchange for the improvements (i.e., construction of the original airport), the city agreed to operate the facility as an airport, and for no other purpose, and for the benefit of the public, for the useful life of the improve- ments. Presumably, after 72 years, the useful life of the original improvements has expired. Airport land that is acquired with federal funds is obligated for airport purposes in perpetuity. If the federally acquired land is no longer necessary for airport purposes, it may be released from obligation and used for other non -aviation purposes, if agreed to by the federal government (FAA). All future rev- enue generated on the land goes to the airport fund. In some cases, airport land may be sold, with the revenue returning to the airport or the federal government. Approximately 56 of the 533 acres of the existing airport was acquired with federal funds for purposes of an airport. If an airport no longer exists, and the land is sold, the proceeds for the S6 acres must be returned to the federal government. 3. TRANSFER OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVE This alternative considers the feasibility of transferring aviation services and activity to other existing airports in the region. This would involve closing the existing airport, thus leaving hundreds of aircraft owners, and multiple businesses, to find other locations from which to base and operate. A significant challenge to this approach is the fact that other airports are already capacity -constrained, lacking the facilities, hangars, and services to accommodate an influx of new aircraft. Other airports already have aviation businesses and an FBO, thus those at the existing airport may simply go out of business. Most aircraft owners will choose an airport at which to base their aircraft or business based on proximity to their home or business. Transferring services to another airport would place an undesirable burden on those aircraft owners and businesses. The capability of other airports is also a limiting factor to transferring services from Georgetown Munic- ipal Airport. The proximate airports were previously identified on Table 1L and all of them are more than 20 miles away. Taylor Municipal is a smaller general aviation airport with a 4,000-foot long runway. Austin Executive has adequate runway length; however, it is privately owned and caters to operators of larger business jets. Skylark Field in Killeen is a general aviation airport with a 5,495-foot runway. The runway at Lago Vista Airport is only 3,808 feet long and is strength -rated for small general aviation air- craft only. Austin -Bergstrom is a commercial service airport and is not intended for increased general aviation traffic to the degree of accommodating all the GTU demand. Lakeway Airpark, also privately owned, has a runway length of less than 4,000 feet and is for smaller general aviation aircraft. Some of these airports may be able to absorb some aircraft from Georgetown; however, proper planning and development of hangars and other facilities would be required at a significant cost. Alternatives - D•. 49 Page 201 of 588 GEORGETOWN � M INICIP I IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL'x7 An important consideration is the impact to the overall aviation system in the region and state. If Georgetown Municipal Airport were to close, there would be a void in the continuity of the aviation system. One of the fastest growing regions of the country would be without one of its most important aviation facilities. As discussed in the previous alternative of constructing a replacement airport, if Georgetown Municipal Airport were to close and transfer services and activity, the city would be responsible for a significant reimbursement for development grants already received. Any grant received in the previous 20 years for facility development would be subject to a prorated reimbursement. Land acquired for airport pur- poses with grant funds, approximately 56 acres, would have to be sold with the proceeds going back to the grant agency. Closing the airport would mean the loss of a substantial investment in a sizable transportation facility. In a situation where public funds are limited, the replacement of a functional airport facility would rep- resent an unjustifiable loss of significant public investment. Many private investments have also been made at the airport. To abandon these investments and transfer aviation services to another airport would result in an investment with little or no return. NON-DFVFLOPMENT ALTFRNA.TIVES SUMMARY The purpose of this master plan is to examine aviation needs at the Georgetown Municipal Airport over the course of the next 20 years. Therefore, this master plan will examine the needs of the existing airport and will present a program of needed capital improvement projects to cover the scope of the plan. Nonetheless, various non -development alternatives may be considered by the airport sponsor. Information pertaining to the three most common non -development alternatives has been presented. These are the no -build, replacement, and transfer of services alternatives. This section is not intended as a recommendation to pursue one of these alternatives; instead, it is for informational purposes only. If the airport sponsor were to pursue one of these alternatives, additional study beyond the scope of this master plan would be required. Two of the three non -development alternatives would lead to the closure of the existing airport. There is a lengthy process to obtain approval for this course of action. An example of such a process was given for an airport in the Kansas City region that was closed in 1999. Certainly, the circumstances were dif- ferent, but the example shows that airport closure is feasible under appropriate conditions. Often the primary hindrance to considering airport closure is the fact that airports that have accepted federal development grants agree to certain grant assurances, one of which is to maintain the improve- ment for its useful life (20 years). If an airport is closed in the interim, then the sponsor must refund to the federal government a prorated amount. For Georgetown Municipal Airport, which has accepted $17 million since 2001, including more than $10 million in recent years, this would be a significant cost. IM Page 202 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRM M I NML AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS AIRPORT PLAN The last master plan was completed in 2005. A variety of projects were identified as part of that master plan. The following summarizes those projects. • Construct Airport Traffic Control Tower (completed). • Construct new Taxiway A parallel to Runway 18-36 (partially completed). • Expand aircraft parking apron (partially completed). • Construct taxilane pavement in terminal area for new hangars (completed). • Relocate fuel farm (completed). • Construct taxiway from south apron to Taxiway J. • Relocate AWOS, segmented circle, windcone. • Construct emergency access road from fire station to airfield. • Construct taxilanes in north area for new hangar development. • Acquire land (6.9 acres) and homes (seven) in Runway Object Free Area (Rwy 18-36). The Airport Layout Plan for the Airport, which is largely based on the previous master plan, has been updated with minor changes over the years. Exhibit 4B presents the Airport Layout Plan as of 2014 as a point of reference. The major improvements planned are highlighted with color and labels. The analysis to follow in this alternatives chapter will consider the recommendations presented in the previous mas- ter plan, in addition to presenting new alternatives based on current standards. Some elements from the previous master plan may be carried over to this master plan and others may be removed from future consideration. AIRPORT LAND USE The objective of airport land use planning is to coordinate future uses of the airport property in a manner that is both functional with the design of the airport and compatible with the airport environs. There are two primary considerations for on -airport land use planning. The first is to secure those areas es- sential to the safe and efficient operation of the airport. The second is to determine compatible land uses for the balance of the property which would be most economically advantageous to the airport and the community. Prior to presenting development alternatives, it is important to have a basic understanding of the land use guidelines. With this understanding, facilities can be located to ensure the highest and best use of airport property. There are also certain design standards that affect facility location options. For exam- ple, future structures should be planned so that they don't compromise safe and efficient aircraft oper- ations. The FAA requires that all federally obligated airports utilize property for aviation purposes first and fore- most. If an airport has land that is unlikely to be utilized for aviation purposes because it exceeds that which is forecast to be needed or is inaccessible by aircraft, then these lands may be considered for Page 203 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL' compatible, non -aviation revenue support development. The revenue from these activities would pro- vide supplemental funds to the airport with the goal of improving an airport's overall financial position. By categorizing the entirety of airport property, Airport management can plan and direct any develop- ment proposals to the appropriate locations. There are three major land use categories on an airport: airfield operations, aviation development, and non -aviation revenue support. The non -aviation revenue support category is only available to those airports with property that is unlikely to be needed for airfield operations or aviation development, or cannot be utilized for those purposes. Often these categories are further subdivided to provide a better understanding of current or intended uses of airport property. Exhibit 4C presents the land use classification for the Airport. This classification is intended only to guide the alternatives analysis. Once a long term plan for the airport is established in subsequent chapters, a formal land use plan will be developed and included in the Airport Layout Plan set. AIRFIELD OPERATIONS Airfield operations is that portion of airport property that encompasses the major airside elements, such as the runways, taxiways, runway safety area, runway object free area, runway obstacle free zone, run- way protection zone (on airport property), taxiway safety area, taxiway object free area, navigational aid critical areas, and the runway visibility zone. Airfield operations are intended for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft to and from the airfield. This land use designation includes the various object clearing areas and only elements necessary for aircraft navigation can be located here. AVIATION DEVELOPMENT The Aviation Development land use category includes those areas that should be reserved for develop- ment that requires access to the airfield operations area. This might include aircraft hangars and trans- portation terminals. Any aviation business needing access to the runway and taxiway system could lo- cate in these areas. A rule of thumb is that all land immediately adjacent to the runway and taxiway system should be reserved for aviation development. For undeveloped areas in this classification, a depth of approximately 1,200 feet from the runway centerline is ideal as it allows for future taxiways, taxilanes, aprons, hangars, and access roads. This land use category has been further subdivided as follows: High Activity: This category designates space that should be reserved for high activity aviation busi- nesses, such as FBOs, maintenance and repair stations, bulk aircraft storage, etc. Low Activity: This area is generally set back from the flight line and the high activity area. Typical uses in this area is hangar development, such as T-hangars and box hangars. DRAFTAlternatives - Page 204 of 588 ' 1 Now \ — Ago Y 1 RPx (tN) T SOD % "wV X I,Too* ALD LEGEND FEATURE EMSONG ULTIMATE RUNWAY/TAMWAV OUnUNE RUNWAY/TAMWAY TO BE REMOVE' SUI DINGS/TACuTIES A4PORT PROPERTY L.F— A+IPORI PROPERTY LINE •/FENCE - — IENCE LINE BUEDMG RESTRICTION LINE (0k) —.••— AIRPORT REFERENCl POINT 1 Q .NO CONE W SEGMENTED C'IPCLC TIIRLS OLD VC-S • RW END IDENTIFIER LNANIS (NEILS) + CAG BEACON * {E NOLO POSITION A" SON .... ASOS/AIMOS ■ PALS MO SACS MARKERS e GROUND CONTOURS 9GFRICANT COACT LOCATION O TnES/BRU91 IIOHMRECII N. BEACON (NOB) Ze RUNWAY 16 END (EN) EL 2659 250 mzF ME. PE/U (EN) AW05 Ew TICµ AREA (E) TOOO' RADIUS RUNG SENSOR IV ABOK ANY ODSIRUC TION AWDS MTICAL AREA (E) 500' 1 SENSOR 15' V Rw -Mm INN,, r O AWOS CRI nc& AREA IT) �J IOW RADIUS M90U11 SENSOR IV 1EDETATKIN YAPMIY HEN T ti e RUNWAY 36 mZE (EN) EL 764 T' 25V L AIRPORT DATA TABLE EXISTING ULTIMATE AIRPORT ELEVATION (YSl) 76T 7 799 AIRPORT HAMGATMN AIDS NUB, GPS LPV FPS PLAN MAX TEMP (NOt1Aat YmTN T) 92T on AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC) C-, C-n TAXIWAY YAKKING Sm SID IAMWAY U11TIAG NONE YITL 30'AO's3.71x' N FIO'A3.213' N AIRPORT REFERENCE PONT COORDINATES 9r40'45.76r W 97`40'45.270' W NOTES OATw COORONATE SYSTEMS - HMZONTAI. DATUM NAG_196J_SI01•PTmA_M1.OA_CmVtl_PIPS!ZOJ1A•l, KRTIC.M DATUM NAVD66 NO OFZ OGACT PENFORATIONS CAIJI w ZONE LIOITS PRESENT FOR BOTH RUNWAYS AIRf IELD MONUMENTS N0. TYPE I DE.A. I LATacs LONG GECRGEPORT Y]v0'A15 6B' NSACSIDA A AO'S3 lY WMA AN VA 1 dN AIN NA t fa wry 9P _ 500 (x I' 500' 010' N 1,700' • t i `P L� ra ` \\ •\ yp0' i 70p i `,DOG 50 / � T3a-h AA2wA. ; TIME BEAR04 163.Sr EL TS6.9' RPZ (E) ° 270' i A5p' i 1,000 \ r � • x9 [No r RUNWY 0' EL 259 (EN) \ \ LOW POINT (EN) �I RUNNAr ]6 np ([N) ii EL. (m) LOW Pawl (EN) P / AILN25 CRIOCµ RAOVS WINO SENSOR 'l \ IV ABOK ANY OBS,RUCRON •\ t AWTJS CRIIICAI AREA (U) SOD' RADW5 - WMG SENSOR \ . $ • 5' •BOYS MY OBSTRUCTION 1 %I •\ .e ANDS CRITICAL AREA (U) TOO' RADIUS MSIBILI TY SENSOR ^ ' - 3. 1Or KGETAnON MAXIMUM WIGNI �r •.- ?' RUNWAY 29 TDZE ([N) r TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION DIVISION •/ µP APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC ISO/5J00 NIA CHANGE I PLUS THE REOUIREMENTS (T A rAVI-KC ♦f—"NIENTµ FICRIC ANDFAA WA STUDY PRIOR / 0 THE START OF ANY LAND ACOwS m OR CMSTRUCT" ON —111 PRDPLRir 'L COPYRIGNi x01A TXpOI ANANON pNSON. AAL RK9TI3 rT ENO (EN) ,�. / RESCRKO E 7@R EL T69.r y TDZIE(EAU) /• ' FK. � HAG1R POtllr (EN) / ` / . M.I.. IKRFIPL .•.,BI, P.... A.R r / ° PREPARED BY. GARNER Soto lU IE 19a "I (IT SOON' % )00' X 1,0pp' ,...} 0-T� II^ r�RISCO. TEXAS iW NORTHWEST BEM) I(^ `—'.T l LwA 7I APz (EN) AIRPORT SPONSOR CURRENT AND NTURE DEKLOPLIENI DEPICTED T . IIIS ALP IS APPROVED AND SUPPDRICO BY AIRPORT SPONSOR SPONSOR ACKNOKEEOGLS APPROVAL OT ALP BY TXDOT DOES NOT CONSTPUTE A COMMITMENT T' rUNM"O d A we.nol. I 250' X Aw % I.00V M.oEIKwLVM„p. •I.T IY,,., AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 0 3DD B� 910G GEORGETOWN, TEXAS (GTU) GRAPMC SCAIC t9tMR A.v.w n�nl�m SNEET 1 OF E Alternatives - DRAFT This page intentionally left blank Page 206 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PL r` LEGEND AirportProperty Runway Protection Zone .. • VisibilityRunway Object Free Area (ROFA) Runway ,I 4 � Airfield Operations AviationDevelopment • 1' Aviation Development • r� Aviation Development/Revenue Suppor 0 1000 SCALE IN FEE_ T pp i roan, I 001 � 1 �' fir` .• r' l r r - � "jam ~ f 'R t � } ``Jt'•�-!r' - I yi Alternatives - DRAFT 4-17_jlllr Exhibit 4C ON -AIRPORT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION GEORGETOWN _ Ml �NIC l'Al A I N W 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL' NON -AVIATION REVENUE SUPPORT This land use classification includes development that is compatible with aviation activities but is unlikely to require access to the runway and taxiway system. Typically, it is preferable that activities in these areas will complement airport activities to some degree, but that is not required. Examples of potential uses include research facilities, laboratories, manufacturing and processing facilities, warehouses, and other facilities compatible with an airport environment. AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVES Generally, airside issues relate to those airport elements that contribute to the safe and efficient transi- tion of aircraft and passengers from air transportation to the landside facilities at an airport. This in- cludes runways, taxiways, aprons, hold bays, instrument approaches, and navigational aids. Each of these elements was introduced in previous chapters. This chapter will examine several airside issues specific to the Airport and present several alternatives. Exhibit 4A presents a summary of the major airside considerations. DESIGN STANDARDS CONSIDERATION The applicable design standards for each runway was previously determined in Chapter Two — Forecasts. Runway 18-36 has a current Runway Design Code (RDC) of B-II-5000 and a planned future RDC of C-II- 5000. Runway 11-29 has a current and future RDC of B-1-5000. The determination of the applicable RDC is a function of actual activity at an airport. As stated in Chapter Two — Forecasts, the design aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft type, or grouping of air- craft with similar characteristics, that make regular use of the airport. Regular use is 500 annual opera- tions, excluding touch-and-go operations. Exhibit 2.1, presented previously, documented operations by aircraft type as sourced from the Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC), an FAA database. Aircraft classified as C-II accounted for more than 500 operations in six of the last 10 years; however, the airport has fallen below this threshold in each of the last four years (2013-2016). The TFMSC database does not capture all operations, but it has a high degree of reliability for capturing instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic, and larger business jets operators file IFR nearly all the time. Airports across the country experienced a decline in activity, especially by larger corporate type aircraft (C-II), during and after the recession of 2008-2009. Operations by these types of aircraft are beginning to return to normal growth patterns now that the economy is more stable. Activity by larger corporate aircraft is projected to increase and once again exceed the 500 operations threshold at the Airport in the long-term. Table 4B shows the applicable design standards for Runway 18-36 for both the current B-II condition and the planned future C-II condition. Exhibit 4D graphically depicts both the B-II and the C-II standards overlaid onto an aerial image of the airport. The B-II condition shows the RPZ associated with an increase Page 208 of 588 GEORGETOWN ` MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRP RT MA ER LAI .� e ' ` � ,� & r —MM 3� \ { 1 �- / �/ • .r� . � {� t `'4• _ �» - , � i;� lye.•+. , �' �• � �, .� ' 'x.� re 1-mile I `i w ,�� _ ` �``` i t; •;. l RPZ All ' r. dr • , a v = Runway 18-36 (5,004 x 100') -MM-- =,4 „"�' ` a �' r•' - 1 a�•.. 3 `7. - Ad r , - �.f{ �, , ... .. i , • • . ;4. _ r ,'...- t { �.� LEGEND Airport Property Line -- i � _t � �{ +_ `�Y• ' a '. ,�,•. y� V' - � Yy.. -,:ti •� ., ) �. 4 ' L d•. �- _►. �i/•. `, , 'Off C-11 Runway Safety Area (RSA) St rthwe J, — — — C-11 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) C-11 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) ED y It, Ii;� i:. 1 '11 74. t l C ♦ 1 f �' .j I C-11 Footp rint tir L• / 4 ` 1y .. i b NORTH - 44. -11 Runway Safety Area (RSA) R { Y '•�.. A. I# - i fit At B-11 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) 800 1 600 `7�1J(J' • ..yr� j r I . - r- 11 ` ` Y1S Y,, Protection one• • 777777 j `,- ►� e • • a ° SCALE IN FEET +%S`a,AesiOi, oogie 2-16 Alternatives - DRAFT 4-19 Exhibit 4D C-II AND B-II DESIGN STANDARDS Q This page intentionally left blank Page 210 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS in the visibility minimums from 3,s-mile to 1-mile. The RPZs become much smaller. On the Runway 18 end, the 1-mile RPZ is fully contained on airport property. On the Runway 36 end, only a small portion of the far end of the RPZ crosses Lakeway Drive. Neither of these B-II (1-mile) RPZs contain homes. It is not the usual practice of TxDOT or the FAA to change the existing design standards for an airport unless there is a clear indication of a trend. The FAA has indicated that B-II standards should apply to the current condition at Georgetown. TABLE 4B C-II to B-II Impacts Georgetown Municipal Airport StandardsParameters Future .. . Design Aircraft C-11-2 B-11-2 Runway Design Code C-II-5000 B-II-5000 Visibility Minimums 1-mile 1-mile RUNWAYS Runway Width 100 75 Runway Shoulder Width 10 10 Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 500 150 Length Beyond Departure End 1,000 300 Length Prior to Threshold 600 300 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Width 800 1,000 500 300 Length Beyond Departure End Length Prior to Threshold 600 300 Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Width 400 400 Length Beyond End 200 200 Approach Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Length 1,700 1,000 Inner Width 500 500 Outer Width 1,010 700 Departure Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Length Inner Width Outer Width 1,700 1,000 500 500 1,010 700 Runway Centerline to: Holding Position 250 200 Parallel Taxiway 300 240 Aircraft Parking Area 400 250 TAXIWAYS Taxiway Design Group 2 2 Width 35 35 Note: All dimensions in feet Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design M Page 211 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) The ROFA clearing standard requires clearing the ROFA of objects protruding above the nearest elevation point of the RSA. Only frangible navigational aids, such as edge lights and airfield signs, may protrude into the ROFA. The ROFA dimensions are based on the Runway Design Code (RDC) of the runway. For Runway 18-36, the current RDC is B-II-5000, which translates to an ROFA width of 500 feet and a length beyond the runway end of 300 feet. The future RDC is C-II-5000, which has an ROFA width of 800 feet and a length beyond the runway end of 1,000 feet. The current ROFA meets standard. The future ROFA would have object penetrations that are addressed in the following sections. Runway 18-36 ROFA - North End The northwest corner of the future ROFA surrounding Runway 18-36 extends beyond the airport prop- erty line, crossing the perimeter fence and encompassing all or part of seven private residential proper- ties. A total of 1.9 acres of the ROFA is outside the airport property line in this location. Three alterna- tives are presented on the top half of Exhibit 4E to mitigate this future non-standard ROFA. Existing Condition: As a B-II runway, the ROFA does not currently extend beyond airport property. This condition meets the current ROFA standard. The three options below only apply if the airport were to revert to a C-II designation, which means the ROFA widens from 500 feet to 800 feet. ROFA North Alternative 1: The first option that should always be considered is to examine simply im- proving the situation to meet standard. In this case, that would involve acquiring seven residential prop- erties, razing all structures, and reinstalling the perimeter fence to be outside the ROFA. This is the solution depicted on the current ALP. ROFA North Alternative 2: The next option would be to obtain FAA approval of a Modification of Stand- ard (MOS) for the non-standard ROFA. To obtain such approval, the airport sponsor would have to sub- mit a formal request to TxDOT in which the following must be addressed in detail: Explain why the standard cannot be met; Discuss viable alternatives; and State why modification would provide acceptable level of safety, economy, durability, and work- manship. FAA guidance suggests that the airport sponsor should keep the narrative simple and stick to the facts. Personal opinions and justification without substance should be avoided. Example wording to avoid includes: it's cheaper; it's local; it's green; it's easier, etc. When granted, MOS are not permanent and are to be reviewed periodically. The FAA suggests MOS review at least every five years or when there is a project under consideration that may impact the MOS, or when ongoing planning efforts may address the MOS (such as in a master plan update). Alternatives - DRAFT - 2 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER P NORTH END 7 properties J, ;�• y� in ROFA f ; -- (2.8 acres) Potential �. Existing B-II /+ C-II 1 mile 1-mile RPZ �•"'�'' � '. f K Ik >' { �♦ j i �' ,, �'• 75 ,,-Challenger 300 v' N M I — -- •_ r _ --- Shorten by 820' safety ilable spat, eetsof ROFAnt nt BI EXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE 1: ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: Meet standard by acquiring property Modification of standard Shorten runway or Declared Distances SOUTH END ,t" ' :`' = `.Jo,,. iK �' ' \ � •r� III Acquire '" , 1 ROFA fully 0.14 acres Safety intent on airport Existing B II ti' ,.. /� ' '� OFA is met 1-mile RPZ u" - / \z Re-routes road it '/ • EXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE 1: ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: Meet standard by acquiring property Modification of standard Shorten runway or Declared Distances ' •• ' ••- •• - '• ••- • •- • III i -• Alternatives - DRAFT 4-23 Exhibit 4E ROFA RUNWAY 18-36 FUTURE C-II ALTERNATIVES This page intentionally left blank Page 214 of 588 GEORGETOWN J Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL''X�ai� The reason the C-II ROFA standard cannot be met is that the airport does not own the land. The safety intent of the ROFA is to protect any part of an aircraft (e.g., wing, nose, tail) within the runway safety area (RSA), from colliding with a penetration in the ROFA. The future RDC is C-II-5000, which includes aircraft with wingspans up to 118 feet (total length of C-II aircraft is under 100 feet). Therefore, the ROFA must, at a minimum, be clear for a distance of 59 feet from the edge of the RSA. The closest point from the edge of the RSA to the perimeter fence is 75 feet. Therefore, the existing condition would meet the safety intent of the C-II ROM ROFA North Alternative 3: The third option is to shorten the runway so that the ROFA no longer extends beyond the airport property line and the perimeter fence. This would require that Runway 18-36 be shortened by 820 feet, leaving a total runway length of 4,184 feet. As discussed in the previous chapter, the recommended minimum runway length for the airport is 5,S00 feet. Clearly, shortening the runway would have a substantial negative impact to current airport operators. It is not the goal of the FAA design standards to hinder operations at an airport; therefore, other alternatives should be considered. Runway 18-36 ROFA - South End The future C-II ROFA on the south end of the runway is would be non-standard in that it would extend through the perimeter fence and over Lakeway Drive. The degree of penetration of the ROFA is a factor when considering alternatives. The ROFA beyond the perimeter fence is 0.14 acres. The distance from the lateral edge of the RSA is 40 feet. Therefore, if an aircraft were to stop at the very end of the RSA, it would be closer than 59 feet (half the width of the maximum wingspan of aircraft in Airplane Design Group II). The bottom half of Exhibit 4E shows three alternatives for mitigating a future non-standard C-II ROFA on the Runway 36 end. ROFA South Alternative 1: The first option that should always be considered is to examine simply im- proving the situation to meet standard. In this case, that would involve acquiring the 0.14 acres of ROFA land outside the airport property line and re-routing the perimeter fence. Since the ROFA encroaches upon Lakeway Drive, the road would have to be shifted outside the ROFA as well. When Lakeway Drive was originally shifted to accommodate extension of the runway to the south, this condition was presum- ably acceptable to the agency engineer in charge (TxDOT); otherwise, it would not have been con- structed. Therefore, it is not considered reasonable to reroute the road again. ROFA South Alternative 2: The next option would be to petition TxDOT for a MOS for the ROFA penetra- tion. The procedures outlined in ROFA North Alternative 2 would be applicable in this case. A case would have to be made that the ROFA standard cannot be met. Essentially, the benefit gained from moving the road would have to outweigh other alternatives. ROFA South Alternative 3: The third alternative is to shorten the runway so that the ROFA does not extend beyond the airport property line and the perimeter fence. This would require that Runway 18- 36 be shortened by 90 feet, leaving a total runway length of 4,914 feet. As discussed in the previous chapter, the recommended minimum runway length for the airport is 5,500 feet. Shortening the runway Page 215 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRPMI AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1�� would place further constraints on current airport operators. It is not the goal of the FAA design stand- ards to hinder operations at an airport; therefore, other alternatives should be considered. An alternative to shortening the runway is implementing declared distances, which is described in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design. With FAA approval, the runway length can be declared (published) shorter for certain operations to provide the necessary safety areas and/or RPZ land use compatibility. The AC describes declared distances as follows: "Declared distances represent the maximum length available and suitable for meeting takeoff, rejected takeoff, and landing distance performance require- ments for turbine -powered aircraft." The declared distances are defined by the FAA as: • Takeoff run available (TORA) - The distance to accelerate from brake release to lift-off, plus safety factors. • Takeoff distance available (TODA) - The distance from brake release past lift-off to start of takeoff climb, plus safety factors. • Accelerate -stop distance available (ASDA) - The distance to accelerate from brake release to takeoff decision speed (Vi), and then decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. • Landing distance available (LDA) - The distance from the threshold to complete the approach, touch- down, and decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. Implementation of declared distances, in order to provide full ROFA south of Runway 36, does not re- quire any changes to the physical runway pavement. Instead, operational runway length available to pilots for calculation of available runway length are published. All operations to/from Runway 36 would be unaffected. The full 5,004 feet would be available. Landings and take -offs to/from Runway 18 would be reduced by 90 feet, leaving 4,914 feet available for those operations. Table 4C presents the declared distances that would be required. When declared distances are implemented, the departure RPZ may not be entirely contained within the approach RPZ, which is the case when the runway end and pavement end are the same. TABLE 4C Declared Distances Alternative Georgetown Municipal Airport Parameters Takeoff Run Available (TORA)' Runway18 5,004' Runway 36 5,004' Takeoff Distance Available (TODA)' 5,004' 5,004' Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA)3 4,914' 5,004' Landing Distance Available (LDA)3 4,914' 5,004' ' Departure RPZ begins 200 feet from the end of the TORA. z TORA cannot be longer than TODA. Departure surface is set on TODA. TODA can be shortened to mitigate departure surface penetrations; if so, TORA is shortened, too. 3 Available runway length plus RSA. Approach RPZ set 200 feet from the landing threshold. Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design Alternatives - DRAFT 4-26 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I � AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES Runway protection zones are trapezoidal areas beginning 200 feet from the runway end. The standard for RPZs is that they be clear of height obstructions and incompatible land uses, in order to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. Essentially any place where people can gather is con- sidered an incompatible land use, such as homes. A detailed description of the RPZ standards was pre- viously presented in Chapter Three — Facility Requirements. RPZs frequently have incompatible land uses and it is the responsibility of the local airport sponsor to consider options for meeting the standards. This is complicated by the fact that RPZ lands are often privately owned, so airports may have limited options with regard to land uses in RPZ. In 2012, FAA issued Interim Guidance on Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone. Since 2012, the FAA (and TxDOT) has referenced the Interim Guidance when analyzing potential new incompatible land uses within an RPZ. New incompatible land uses may be introduced as a result of: • An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift), • A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ dimensions, • A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the size of the RPZ, and/or • A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or reconfigured). While the airport sponsor may have control over an airfield project or a development proposal, they often do not have control over a change in the critical design aircraft (which is the result of actual activity that the airport cannot limit), or an instrument approach change (which the FAA frequently updates independent of other FAA lines of business or the airport sponsor). Therefore, there are limits to what airports can do to meet RPZ design standards. Runway 18-36 RPZs The FAA lowered the visibility minimums to both ends of Runway 18-36 from 1-mile to %8-mile within the last few years. This had the effect of increasing the size of the RPZs from 29.5 acres to 48.9 acres. The larger RPZ introduced 40 residential properties to the RPZ where there were previously 17 residential properties. Following recommendations in this Master Plan, the Airport administration requested that the FAA raise the visibility minimums back to 1-mile to reduce the number of residential properties in the RPZ. This is the RPZ size shown on the current ALP. Further guidance from FAA Headquarters (ref- erence FAA chapter review dated 2.8.18) directed the Airport to change the current airport reference code (ARC) to B-II from C-II. When applying this change, the RPZ for Runway 18 becomes shorter and smaller (13,77 acres) and is contained entirely on Airport property. Thus, there are now no incompatible land uses in the Runway 18 RPZ. The forecast chapter, previously presented, indicates that the Airport may, once again, experience more than 500 operations by aircraft in ARC C-II. This would necessarily require the larger C-II RPZ, which would encompass 17 residential properties. Exhibit 4F shows RPZ alternatives for the Runway 18 end. Alternatives - DRAFT M Page 217 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX11111111111ft Alternative 1 — B-11 RPZ with 1-Mile Visibility Minimums: The left pane of the exhibit shows the existing condition with the current RPZ contained entirely on Airport property. As noted, this is a significant change from the previous ALP, where the longer C-II RPZ (1-mile visibility minimums) contained 17 resi- dential properties. Alternative 2 — C-11 RPZ with %-Mile Visibility Minimums: This condition existed prior to this Master Plan and, if the visibility minimums were ever lowered to below 1-mile, would exist again. Visibility minimums lower than 1-mile introduce 40 residential properties in this RPZ (applies to both B-II and C-II). The resi- dential properties are an incompatible land use which would likely require acquisition if the Airport were to transition back to lower than 1-mile visibility minimums. Because of the introduction of numerous incompatible land uses, this option is not considered feasible and should not be pursued. All future visibility minimums are recommended to be at 1-mile or above. Alternative 3 — C-11 RPZ with 1-Mile Visibility Minimums: If the Airport were to transition back to C-II and maintain 1-mile visibility minimums, then 17 residential properties would be introduced to the RPZ. Fol- lowing the 2012 Interim Guidance on RPZs, the Airport would likely have to acquire the residential prop- erty to fully meet C-II RPZ standards. Exhibit 4G shows the RPZ alternatives on the Runway 36 end. Alternative 1 — B-11 RPZ with 1-Mile Visibility Minimums: The left pane of the exhibit shows the existing condition with the current RPZ. A portion of Lakeway Drive traverses the south end of the RPZ and is considered an incompatible land use. Alternative 2 — C-11 RPZ with Vs -Mile Visibility Minimums: This condition existed prior to this Master Plan and, if the visibility minimums were ever lowered to below 1-mile, would exist again. Visibility minimums lower than 1-mile introduce seven residential properties in this RPZ (applies to both B-II and C-II). The residential properties are an incompatible land use which would likely require acquisition if the Airport were to transition back to lower than 1-mile visibility minimums. Because of the introduction of numer- ous incompatible land uses, this option is not considered feasible and should not be pursued. All future visibility minimums are recommended to be at 1-mile or above. Alternative 3 — C-11 RPZ with 1-Mile Visibility Minimums: If the Airport were to transition back to C-II and maintain 1-mile visibility minimums, then five residential properties would be introduced to the RPZ. Following the 2012 Interim Guidance on RPZs, the Airport would likely have to acquire the residential property to fully meet C-II RPZ standards. Runway 11-29 RPZs The RPZ for Runway 11 has compatible land uses except for the existing presence of Northwest Boule- vard. No immediate action is necessary to remove the road from the RPZ as this condition existed prior to publication of the 2012 Interim Guidance on RPZs. Airport management should monitor any plans for development in the portions of the RPZ that are not owned by the airport. The City of Georgetown Page 218 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER P ALTERNATIVE 1: ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: Existing B-II RPZ' (1-mile) Potential Future C-II 7/8-mile Potential Future C-II 1-mile RPZ O Q I I' p � 0 p .r _ p i 1 O O -- , Q t p ' ' Y+!'Z � �y. w f _ it i+!`' O O •,.�n�' � i v+ S. r ,• O p . . r l• � p o II .tea y* AMI 1 1 Ae hoto: GoogIe Earth 2-3 16 ~+t - Alternatives - DRAFT 4-29 Exhibit 4F RPZ RUNWAY 18 ALTERNATIVES This page intentionally left blank Page 220 of 588 GEORGETOWN •R MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1: ALTERNATIVE2: ALTERNATIVE3: Existin B-II RPZ' (1-mile) Potential Future C-II 7/8-mile RPZ Potential Future C-II 1-mile RPZ El -42 36IL IIIIII�I " , I I / I I / ' r• - Existing B-II 1-mile RPZ CgkP�Qy / . `pke�YO i �QfrP1,i,QJp _ pre rile '• •1 / - r��P - r T O r T 4 f } w •*i w .M• w riri Alternatives - DRAFT 4-31 Exhibit 4G RPZ ALTERNATIVES RUNWAY 36 This page intentionally left blank Page 222 of 588 GEORGETOWN M iNICIPnI AIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� should consider opportunities to acquire RPZ land not currently owned. If feasible, future considerations should be given to removing the road from the RPZ. The RPZ on the Runway 29 end encompasses one home and Lakeway Drive. If the home and other private property in the RPZ becomes available, the airport should consider buying the property if finan- cially feasible. Purchase of real property within RPZs is eligible for reimbursement from TxDOT. No immediate action is necessary to remove the road from the RPZ. If future plans by the city include relo- cating the road outside the RPZ, the airport should be supportive of that effort. APPROACH SURFACE ANALYSIS The Approach Surface is designed to protect the use of the runway in both visual and instrument condi- tions near the airport. The Approach Surface typically has a trapezoidal shape that extends away from the runway along the centerline and at a specific slope, expressed in horizontal feet by vertical feet. The specific size, slope, and starting point of the approach slope is a function of the visibility minimums and the approach category of the critical design aircraft (currently category B). The Approach Surface is commonly referred to as the Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) in order to distinguish it from the Part 77 Approach Surface (see Appendix C - Airport Layout Plan). Penetrations to the TSS can have a significant impact on the capability of a runway. When penetrations exist, there are four primary courses of action that the FAA may take: 1. Threshold displacement; 3. Loss of instrument approach procedure; or 2. Increased visibility minimums; 4. Lighting of the obstacle. Exhibit 4H shows the TSS on both ends of Runway 18-36 and the elevation clearance available at certain locations in the TSS. An existing TSS associated with an AAC B critical aircraft and one for AAC C is shown. The existing TSS surface is based on category A and B aircraft regardless of the instrument approach capability. This is the TSS that applies today. This TSS has a 400-foot inner width, 3,800-foot outer width, a 10,000-foot length, and a 20:1 slope. The point at which the existing TSS reaches the property line, the highest allowable object or natural growth is 33 feet. The potential future AAC C TSS on the Runway 18 end begins 200 feet from the landing threshold. The inner width is 800 feet, the outer width is 3,800 feet, the length is 10,000 feet, and it slopes up and away from the runway at a 20:1 ratio. The inner width of the TSS crosses the airport property line. The allow- able elevation at this point is zero; therefore, there would be a penetration to the TSS on the Runway 18 end if the airport transitions back to AAC C. Several other elevation points are noted on the exhibit indicating there may be other future penetrations to the TSS. The TSS on the Runway 36 end is clear of obstructions. Alternatives - DRAFT 4-33, GEORGETOWN MUNIC IPA[ /AIRl'()RT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN - ;INSE — INSET INSET i Loil 11 r 54 56 r� 33 , A_s , El s o A* p ' B f�* l �� INSET 2 SCALE IN FEET I I. � ! II •� 21 INSET 2 �17 48' I / f 1200 1 ' , ALE IN FEET f I - + * • LEGEND AirportProperty Line Runway • . a s a TSS Clearance TSS • • Siting Surface Exhibit 4H Alternatives - DRAFT 4-34 THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE ALTERNATIVES GEORGETOWN , _ Ml �NICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PC TAXIWAY GEOMETRY The FAA has placed a greater emphasis on taxiway geometry in recent years. As noted in the Facility Requirements chapter, there are several locations on the airfield where the taxiway geometry does not meet current design standards. The non-standard taxiway geometries are as follows: • Taxiway J crosses the high-energy portion of Runway 18-36. • Taxiway L is at an acute angle to Runway 11-29. • Taxiway G is wider than the 50-foot standard. • Taxiway L at the Runway 36 threshold is wider than the 50-foot standard. • Taxiway K is at an acute angle to Runway 11-29. • The south portion of Taxiway L is 400 feet from Runway 18-36, which exceeds the current standard of 300 feet. • Taxiway A is not a true parallel taxiway in that it ends at Taxiway F, which connects to Taxiway L to provide access to the Runway 36 threshold. • Taxiway J is 375 feet from Runway 11-29 where the standard is 240 feet. • Intersection of Taxiways A, Al, and B is a wide expanse of pavement. Each of these non-standard taxiway geometries are planned to be redesigned to current design stand- ards. The alternatives include the application of the new taxiway geometries. HOLD BAYS Hold bays are pavement features on an airfield where pilots can pull their aircraft off an active taxiway to allow other pilots to safely pass them. This is a very common practice, especially for pilots of smaller piston -powered aircraft. These pilots routinely perform various pre-flight checks, including engine run - ups, which can take several minutes. Pilots of jet -powered aircraft typically don't need to do engine run - ups and will perform preflight checks prior to entering the taxiway system. Therefore, it is beneficial for capacity purposes to provide hold bays. There are designated hold bays on the airfield currently located near the threshold of Runways 36, 11, and 29. These hold bays are located between the parallel taxiways and the runway. During construction of the Taxiway A/Apron project, the hold bay near the Runway 18 threshold was replaced with a bypass taxiway, which allows for one holding aircraft. The ability to accommodate multiple holding aircraft was reduced, causing congestion during peak times. To address the reduction in aircraft holding capacity, Taxiway C, which connects Taxiways A and Al, was subsequently widened from 50 feet to 1S0 feet in order to serve as an additional hold bay. Hold bays should be in proximity to the runway end, thus allowing for immediate departure when the pilot has completed their preflight checks and when cleared by the control tower. Current design stand- ards discourage locating hold bays between runways and taxiways because holding aircraft can obstruct the views of other aircraft. Exhibit 4.1 presents two alternatives that address taxiways and hold bays. Page 225 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRPMI AIRPORT MASTER Alternative 1 — Hold Bays and Taxiways The grassy area between Taxiways Al, A, C, and the terminal apron, is planned to be paved to serve a dual purpose as a hold bay and as additional aircraft tie down positions. The AWOS weather sensor located in this area is planned to be relocated to the west of Runway 18-36. Near the Runway 36 end, a new hold bay is planned. This hold bay meets the current design standards by segmenting the entry access point and the individual hold bays. As shown, the hold bay can accom- modate four aircraft, two at the hold lines and two behind those holding aircraft. If more hold bays are needed, this design can be replicated. A new hold bay near the Runway 11 threshold is planned to replace the existing interior hold bay. As this is the lower utility crosswind runway, a hold bay to accommodate a single aircraft is considered. The location of this hold bay is not quite at the runway threshold in order to preserve the existing taxiways that serve the existing west side hangar. On the Runway 29 end, the interior hold bay is planned to be removed. Aircraft would then utilize a portion of existing adjacent pavement for holding purposes. Two taxiway adjustments are also considered in this alternative. First Taxiways A and Al converge to form a wide -expanse -of -pavement, which is not the optimal geometry. They are planned to be sepa- rated to provide a distinction between the two taxiways. A new connecting taxiway is planned between Taxiways A and Al so that access is maintained. Taxiway K enters Runway 11-29 at a non-standard angle. Current design standards call for exit/entrance taxiways to be at 90 degrees, unless high speed exits are needed (they are not needed at Georgetown). Therefore, Taxiway K is planned to be replaced with a standard 90-degree taxiway. Alternative 2 — Hold Bays and Taxiways The next alternative for hold bays and taxiways presents some adjustments to the first alternative. On the Runway 18 end, the revised geometry is the same as Alternative 1. Taxiways A and Al are planned to be separated to provide a distinction between the two. A new connecting taxiway is planned between Taxiways A and Al so that access is maintained. The location of the planned hold bay on the Runway 36 end is shifted to the end of Taxiway L. In this alternative, the hold bay would extend slightly beyond airport property. This property, to a distance of at least 80 feet, would have to be acquired by the Airport. Again, additional hold bays can be added following this design standard. On the Runway 11 end, a hold bay located outside the taxiway is planned to replace the existing interior hold bay. The location of this hold bay would require an adjustment to the hangar access taxilane as taxilanes should not terminate at a hold apron. The landside development alternatives for this location will consider further how to maintain the taxilane access. Page 226 of 588 GEORGETOWN ' MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT A TER P 0 800 1600 LEGEND - t a G � _ _ • • Line SCALE IN FEET • t' ' • • • • - rty Runway Protection Z• •. 1 _ I!O•FN- Future • • rt Pavement TTTTTi� To Be Removed „� ,•�1 Aerial Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16, _ . iq ' ,,,; � • � `' t ,'i-.-'mil T ; ' } � •I , ' «' oe ' INSET { ` Sam = Runway 18-36 (5,004' x 100') '►�J Hold Bay/ 1 Tie -downs Aw It, 4. . • - + S, • .� Hold Bay s " . �. 6j NSET / r - SCALE IN FEET iL�Mt ? *"T d:.b �i :"wt~', 3 ! • C j. • 97' 97 9i� ��+i•�S ti. i-'• .�'-.Y.f , -i . JMA , D, l i • v . � j /� _ �• ^ , r i _• _.,.p>r: :� , �: - �� - ' f , - , x '�'''' ✓ 7 ,� 65.5' vp ILI TS •tip J � .�' -.w• i■ - ~'ILA .� - / � ti 1. .> • '� ;r'• ��" i�� - 7. . �� }- I ■ jam'•:` `,' i• ,i lS� t ♦-q A •' (} r y'•1 i1� ,+fir Alternatives - DRAFT 4-37 ' Exhibit 41 TAXIWAY/HOLD APRON ALTERNATIVE: GEORGETOWN ' MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN o aoo ieoo LEGEND _ _ • - Line SCALE IN FEET Y •� Air• • • • erty Runway Protection Z• • . Future ` 1t NORIi, • • rt Pavement To Be Removed Aerial Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16. ti Hold Bay ��•,� r Air :+� �• �--� ,t t.�' '4 �4 � - �;. '. -� `fig ,;.. Potential Land Acquisition .. ' lv.}", ,`, ; •.y _ 1 �` - � , 4 INSET dT • t •, JJ /� Oi I I • Runway 18-36 (5,004'x 100') I I t• ;� Hold Bay/ Tie -downs Relocate Windsock/ Segmented Circle Jew • + S-4.,°` --� '' I N SE o aoo ' a Hold Bay • ` ^ •+� �+ �•4 a �. f IS SCALE IN FEET ine 65.5 t f _ �,� ♦ � `� �. w . y�.+ ` aril i ♦ �� 1� ♦��A•111� r1♦ 70' v.: , _ *' �.- �. y � r ��N _ .g ` f• ,Illy 11�, .51 Ilk %.* : , JIM,: f 'r r. d. Alternatives - DRAFT 4-38 Exhibit 4.1 (continued) TAXIWAY/HOLD APRON ALTERNATIVE 2 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7Cmkbaa On the Runway 29 end, the interior hold bay is planned to be removed. A portion of the adjacent existing pavement, as well as an extension of this pavement, is planned to be the new hold bay serving Runway 29. The primary taxiway geometry consideration in Alternative 2 is to plan for the parallel taxiways serving both runways to be a uniform distance from the runways. This is the more traditional and familiar ge- ometry and will help reduce potential pilot confusion when traversing the taxiways. 10111Z MSADMIMIRIUIi.I_1>yi . ZY-AVRAM Analysis in the previous chapter indicated that a recommended minimum runway length for this airport is 5,500 feet; therefore, it is necessary to examine if that is feasible. A runway extension can be situated on either runway end or it can be split between both ends to achieve the desired length. The runway extension alternatives to follow only consider design standards associated with a runway design code of C-II-5000 because it is the larger business jets in C-II that would need the additional length. When TxDOT and FAA consider major runway projects, their default position is that all design standards must be met. Therefore, airport ownership of the RSA, ROFA, and RPZ is considered a minimum requirement. Runway Extension Alternative 1: The first alternative considers extending the runway to the north by 496 feet, bringing the total runway length to 5,500 feet. A total of 24 properties and 21 acres would need to be acquired. Numerous residential streets would also have to be closed or rerouted. Runway Extension Alternative 2: This alternative considers extending the runway to the south by 496 feet for a total runway length of 5,500 feet. Included within the object clearing surfaces (RSA, ROFA, and RPZ) is nine homes and a total of 20 acres of land. Lakeway Drive would have to be closed or tunneled and several other residential streets would be impacted. Runway Extension Alternative 3: A third alternative is considered that would extend the runway 260 feet to the north and 236 feet to the south. This alternative takes advantage of the 260 feet north of the end of the C-II RSA that is on airport property. Therefore, property would not have to be acquired for RSA, but would for ROFA and RPZ. Runway Extension Alternative 4: This alternative considers adding 496 feet of runway pavement to both ends of the runway to provide additional take -off length however, the pavement would not be available for landing calculations. This alternative would require implementation of declared distances as shown in Table 4D. There would be no changes to the current location of the landing thresholds. Essentially, this alternative considers additional runway length that can only be used for takeoff calcula- tions in one direction. Exhibit 4K shows this alternative. Alternatives - DRAFT GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTER PEW TABLE 4D Declared Distances Runway Extension Alternative 4 Georgetown Municipal Airport Parameters Takeoff Run Available (TORA)' Runway 18 5,500' Runway 36 5,500' Takeoff Distance Available (TODA)' 5,500' 5,500' Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA)3 5,500' 5,500' Landing Distance Available (LDA)3 5,004' S,004' ' Departure RPZ begins 200 feet from the end of the TORA. Z TORA cannot be longer than TODA. Departure surface is set on TODA. TODA can be shortened to mitigate departure surface penetrations; if so, TORA is shortened, too. s Available runway length plus RSA. Approach RPZ set 200 feet from the landing threshold. Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design Under this alternative, none of the applicable design standards would change. The RSA, ROFA, OFZ, and RPZ size and location would remain fixed. The far ends of the runway, used for pilot takeoff calculations, would remain the same as they are today. The additional 496 feet of pavement could only be used by pilots to begin their takeoff run. It cannot be used to calculate additional length on approach, departure beyond the far end of the runway or on landing roll -out. Extension Summary: The current length of 5,004 feet is less than the minimum recommendation of 5,500 feet. Alternative 4, presented above, provides a solution that would allow for an additional 496 feet to be made available for takeoff calculations in both directions. This alternative considers adding 496 feet of pavement to each end of Runway 18-36; however, the new pavement would only be available for takeoff and declared distances would be implemented. The use of declared distances, as docu- mented in Table 4D, would limit the extent of the C-II RPZs to the location they occupied on the current ALP, prior to the visibility minimums being lowered to'N-mile (raised to 1-mile in June 2018). Under this scenario, 14 homes would fall in the Runway 18 RPZ and would be recommended for acquisition. The land to be acquired is approximately 13 acres of RPZ land and 3 acres of land to accommodate the ROFA. Landing length would remain at the current length of 5,004 feet. Runway extension alternatives 1-3 considered adding runway length that would be available for use on both takeoff and landing. This would also change the location of the various protection surfaces includ- ing the RSA, ROFA, and RPZ. This could trigger a need to acquire the lands under which any of these protection surfaces fall. To accomplish this, homes and property would have to be acquired and roads closed (or tunneled), including Lakeway Drive, which is a major arterial street. The cost to purchase the homes and land would likely run into the tens of millions. There are local factors that make extending the runway challenging. As discussed in the previous chap- ter, 1996 City Council Resolution 960123-JJ indicates that the last extension of the runway to 5,000 feet was to be interpreted as setting a maximum length that the City Council would support. A future council would have to rescind this resolution prior to moving forward on an extension. It is likely there would be public opposition to any further extension of the runway. Page 230 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN �• •• DECLARED DISTANCES 17'+^; 1. j •� RUNWAY 18 RUNWAY 36 •� . _ j -_ _- • • • • - -lot,. •_ TODA -Takeoff Distance Available TORA -Takeoff Run Available lip LIDA - Landing Distance Available iUlti a Property Line risk•., .� ��;. 7 t ' a �,. •\ �- -, +•ti:'SL�.` ,- ��. � �' i� ❑o '„'� 1�L7� + -, .t•` Runway 18 36 (6,000' x 100') �• - •+ <lt496' E extext Sion �i96 Extension SN r A f `•,9M �i► ` 71.LIT 4. 4r+ . r J LEGEND N / Ironwes t. . , . Airport Property Line 4 a} v Runway Safety Area (RSA) IF '" - ( `i� i.. .1� 1• •• NORTHObstacle• - 4 4;." Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) AL / • .'-•�J y .- a ^` a _ - 'y _ b • �,� t`r / • 4' " _},�jj + `� • • 800 600, Runway Protection Z• • • !� �{,A kit •i erialPhoto;Google 2-316 SCALE IN FEET A Alternatives - DRAFT 4-41 Exhibit 4K DECLARED DISTANCE/RUNWAY EXTENSION This page intentionally left blank Page 232 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRM W I NW AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES Generally, landside issues relate to those airport facilities necessary, or desired, for the safe and efficient parking and storage of aircraft, movement of passengers and pilots to and from aircraft, and overall revenue support functions. In addition, elements, such as fueling capability, availability of services, and emergency response, are also considered in the landside functions. Landside planning issues, summarized on Exhibit 4A, will focus on facility locating strategies following a strategy of separating activity levels. To maximize airport efficiency, it is important to locate facilities intended to serve similar functions close together. For example, larger hangars supporting airport busi- nesses should be centrally located, while smaller box and T-hangars should be set farther to the sides. Allowing new facilities to be constructed haphazardly on the next available spot at the airport may pre- clude the highest and best use of limited and valuable airport land. It is also important to plan for facil- ities that airport users desire and to group those facilities together, whether they are T-hangars, box hangars, or larger conventional hangars. The orderly development of the airport terminal area (those areas parallel to the runway and along the flight line) can be the most critical, and probably the most difficult, development to control on the air- port. A development approach of "taking the path of least resistance" can have a significant effect on the long term viability of an airport. Allowing development without regard to a functional plan can result in a haphazard array of buildings and small ramp areas, which will eventually preclude the most efficient use of valuable space along the flight line. Activity in development areas should be divided into three categories at an airport. The high activity area should be planned and developed as the areas providing aviation services on the airport. An exam- ple of a high activity area is the aircraft parking apron, which provides outside storage and circulation of aircraft. Large conventional hangars housing fixed base operators (FBOs), other airport businesses, or those used for bulk aircraft storage would be considered high activity uses. A conventional hangar struc- ture in the high activity area should be a minimum of 6,400 square feet (80 feet by 80 feet). If space is available, it is more common to plan these hangars for up to 200 feet by 200 feet. The best location for high activity areas is along the flight line near midfield, for ease of access to all areas of the airfield. The medium activity category defines the next level of airport use and primarily includes corporate air- craft operators that may desire their own box or conventional hangar storage on the airport. A hangar in the medium activity use area should be at least 50 feet by 50 feet, or a minimum of 2,500 square feet. The best location for medium activity use is off the immediate flight line, but still with ready access to the runway/taxiway system. Typically, these areas will be adjacent to the high activity areas. Parking and utilities, such as water and sewer, should also be provided in this area. The low activity use category defines the area for storage of smaller single and twin -engine aircraft. Low activity users are personal or small business aircraft owners who prefer individual space in T-hangars or small box hangars. Low activity areas should be in less conspicuous areas or to the ends of the flight line. This use category will require electricity, but may not require water or sewer utilities. Page 233 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1llfth= In addition to the functional compatibility of the terminal area, the proposed development concept should provide a first-class appearance for Georgetown Municipal Airport. Consideration to aesthetics should be given high priority in all public areas, as many times the airport can serve as the first impression a visitor may have of the community. Generally, the existing development at the Airport has followed the strategy of separating activity levels. Larger conventional hangars are located centrally to the main apron areas. Somewhat smaller hangars are located farther from the center. Future development along the active aprons should be restricted to larger hangars intended to support aviation -related businesses. The number of potential landside alternatives can be infinite. The following alternatives are those that best meet design standards, while maximizing the efficiency of aircraft storage and movement. The landside element of the recommended master plan concept, to be presented in the next chapter, may be one of these alternatives or, more likely, is a combination of elements from each of them. Input from the planning advisory committee (PAC) and the public is integral to determining the landside vision for the Airport. HANGAR DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Analysis presented in the Facility Requirements chapter indicates a current and growing demand for a variety of facilities. Chief among these are aircraft hangars and aircraft apron space. With a current wait list of approximately 180 aircraft owners, there is an immediate need for hangar space. There are approximately 282 existing aircraft parking positions. Within the next 20 years, it is estimated there will be a need for approximately 400 hangar positions or an additional 118 positions. Another method of assessing hangar needs is to examine total square -footage needs. There is approximately 501,500 square feet of existing aircraft hangar space. Within the next 20 years, it is estimated that a total of 722,000 square feet will be needed. There are several distinct locations on the airport that are suitable for aviation development as shown on Exhibit 4L. Some of these areas are undeveloped parcels within the east development areas. These parcels would be the easiest to develop because of the existing access to the runway/taxiway system, and the proximity of utilities, both of which contribute to a reduced cost to develop as compared to west side land. TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 Area One (1), immediately north of the terminal area, currently has several hangar structures, including two T-hangar structures and one box hangar. This location encompasses approximately 3.5 acres and is considered for redevelopment as the hangars are well past their useful life. Having T-hangars in this location does not follow the strategy of situating high activity conventional hangars on the flight line. Page 234 of 588 GEORGETOWN I _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT A IASTER PLAN LEGEND O- ----Airport Property Line A Runway Protection Zone (RP Aerial Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16 0 600 i1200 SCALE IN FEET OW © �• y t� ;. 16.8 a c ,, / :, yr" ' , k '.: 4. i E Q y M = m Runway 18-36 (5 004' x 100') t t L,1 rs �_ ' � - :C•r. III �'.•, ` O 104.5 ac ♦i ` ^ 1. l.• 1 v (• } ak Y�r •> U.. — .� + •j_ •:ate ,. ram-y tea I '�.. 49 Sir � -• y ` � / � �a► � ,j., + �, ^N ''� � 11, r .'' y ' 4 e • —A, n 5ourc Airport/Faci ry - Central U.S>(Effective September 15, 2016); Airport records. Alternatives - DRAFT 4-45 Exhibit 4L DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS This page intentionally left blank Page 236 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� This area is centrally located and is ideally suited for high activity conventional hangars supporting avia- tion businesses. When considering redevelopment of these three hangars, there will be an additional process to undertake with the City of Georgetown Historic Preservation Department because these hangars have been identified as potentially having historic significance due to their age. Exhibit 4M presents five different potential development alternatives. The central theme to each of these alternatives is to plan for larger conventional hangars to face the existing aircraft apron. On four of the five alternatives, a taxiway is planned between the flight line hangars to provide access to some- what smaller hangars. One of the alternatives has an access taxilane extending from an existing taxilane. Table 4E presents a summary of the total square footage of the considered hangars. TABLE 4E Area One (1) Alternatives Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport Alternative Conventional Hangar Space (s.f.) Executive/Box Hangar Space (s.f.) Total (s.f.) Estimated Units s.f.): square feet TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT AREA) Area Two (2), encompassing approximately 4.8 acres, is situated along the east property line and is set back from the flight line. This location is best -suited for lower activity box and T-hangars. Exhibit 4N presents three development alternatives. Each of the alternatives has taxilane access from the north of this parcel near the existing T-hangars. This access point is also the location of the existing aircraft wash rack, which would have to be relocated. A new wash rack is shown on the exhibits slightly to the north of the current location. The new wash rack should meet environmental standards, including having fil- tration, water recycling, and industrial waste collection systems. There are overhead utility lines in this area, along the surface road, that would likely have to be buried underground in order to accommodate hangar construction. Alternative 1 considers several small T-hangar structures that are situated so that the doors open to the north and south. The structures encompass 35 individual units and 43,000 square feet. Alternative 2 considers individual box hangars. These could also be connected box hangars. One devel- opment scenario would be for the airport to construct the access taxilane and then enter into ground leases to individuals who then can build their own hangar. The structures encompass 26 individual units and 65,000 square feet. Page 237 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRI'()kl AIRPORT MASTER Alternative 3 considers three nested T-hangar structures. The structures encompass 31 individual units and 38,000 square feet. Table 4F summarizes the hangar capacity for each of these alternatives. TABLE 4F Area Two (2) Alternatives Summary Georeetown Municipal Airport 1 46,200 0 46,200 35 2 0 65,000 65,000 26 3 41,000 0 41,000 31 s.f.): square feet TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 3 Area Three (3) consists of approximately 17 acres in the northeast quadrant of the airport. This parcel wraps around the existing city fire station and is situated away from the flight line. All alternatives for this area will include a fire station access point to the airport, which will allow for faster response times for any emergencies at the airport. Taxilane access to this parcel is considered as an extension of Taxiway Al. Potential development of this parcel has been divided into a north and south half. This provides greater flexibility to the airport to develop one half at a time. Exhibit 4P shows three development options for the south portion of the parcel. South Portion Area 3 Alternative 1 considers connected box hangars for the south portion of this area. Alternative 2 considers a mix of conventional and box hangars in the south portion of this area. Alternative 3 considers three T- hangar structures, each having 20 individual units. Table 4G summarizes the hangar capacity for each of the three alternatives in this area. TABLE 4G Area Three (3) - South Alternatives Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport 1 0 70,600 0 70,600 28 2 0 32,500 17,900 50,400 20 3 66,000 10,900 0 76,900 65 s.f.): square feet Page 238 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT LOCATION ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 =' �' mom 115' 3.5 ac �3. - r ■■■ ' I Y FA-11 Al Al AIL r HIV I r�V -1 gas IF IOM ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4:• ALTERNATIVE 5 -1 - v' ' 115' - ' �rir��lrTilil�iilrnlrrn I � — % I — -■■ _ �1 \ I `'' ",lmill lfill lll�llllfi.IlfIIIIILi11tIIIIIIlU1.a 1:id Al . _ - I' � -� i ., a - .. Al LEGEND n 0 Alternatives - DRAFT 4-49 NORTH- 0 200 SCALE IN FEET Aerial Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16 Exhibit 4M AREA 1 ALTERNATIVES This page intentionally left blank Page 240 of 588 GEORGETOWN `- _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PORT MA ALTERNATIVE T w Replacerrient Wash Rack �� �� �l pl F1ll LLaL Existing Wash Rack — — — —— -�.- ----- — — — — —— — —— > / / Iru vie '1- I ALTERNATIVE2 LEGEND Airport..- 'FL� New Building New Pavement .:- Replacement i ■ l:■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ f -. ' Wash Rack . Overhead Waste Water Mains r■ j i w1 I Existing Water Mains ,r Wash Rack ■ ■ ■— ■_ —■ _■_ ■_ ■ — ■ — ■_ —Bury Electric Lines ;' o zoo Nif _ e `il R- SCALE IN FEET I ALTERNATIVE 3 Replacement - Wash Rack i�iM j Existing �A Wash Rack .,::P — — — — — "-z = — i lidI Aerial Photo: Google Ea 2-3-16 Alternatives - DRAFT 4-51 Exhibit 4N AREA 2 ALTERNATIVES This page intentionally left blank Page 242 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPOR 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Fire Department Fire Department Access Access QII ALTERNATIVE 3 a 0 + 200 SCALE IN FEET A Fire Department Access -,7MWiW [ASTER PLAN \tea LEGEND A-- q 4t . w a / . 11 / I i Relocated l `; Relocate Waste Water Line � �,!Ilt .1-� Waste Water Line ia0=__ 1 1 niw---- - i�•y� Alternatives - DRAFT 4-53 a I' i'�i� �i�i*i'*i�i* �► �1;r'` +' Relocate �� '• Waste Water Line ie. "LBJ oa Aerial Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16 Exhibit 4P AREA 3 SOUTH ALTERNATIVES This page intentionally left blank Page 244 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR130k1 AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1�aa North Portion Area 3 The north portion of Area 3 is more distant from the runway system and should be considered for lower activity development, such as box and T-hangars. Three development alternatives are presented on Exhibit 4Q. Alternative 1 considers T-hangars exclusively for this area. A total of 97 individual units are planned. Alternative 2 considers three rows of connected box hangars. An additional taxilane then extends into an area identified with individual development parcels. The parcel concept provides the airport and a hangar developer with a great deal of flexibility. The airport would provide a ground lease and the air- craft owner can build a hangar to suit their specific needs. Alternative 3 considers five rows of T-hangars. Table 4H summarizes the hangar capacity for each of these three alternatives for the north portion of Area 3. TABLE 4H Area Three (3) - North Alternatives Summary Georgetown Municipal Air- port 1 157,900 0 0 157,900 97 2 0 52,100 0 52,100 36 3 108,200 0 0 108,200 64 (s.f.): square feet TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT AREA n Area Four (4) is comprised of two parcels in the southeast area, encompassing a total of 4.5 acres of undeveloped land. These two parcels have long been identified for larger conventional hangars, which is consistent with the other hangar types in the area. Utilities and taxiways are immediately available. Exhibit 411 shows the planned hangar development for this area. Each of the three hangars shown is approximately 25,000 square feet. The exhibit also shows potential restaurant sites. Site 1 is an expansion of the existing terminal building. This expansion could accommodate both a restaurant and additional terminal building space. Site 2 would be a stand-alone facility located just to the north of the tower. NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT AREA 5 Area Five (5), in the northwest quadrant of the airport, has one existing conventional hangar and ap- proximately 51 acres of undeveloped land. There are utilities available along the edge of the property that could be extended onto airport property. Page 245 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRI'MI AIRPORT MASTER Vehicle Access to Area 5 Providing vehicle access to the site must be planned first in order to facilitate maximum benefit when the site is developed. Currently, vehicles utilize Toledo Trail to access the existing office building and on - airport hangar. Toledo Trail is a private road. Vehicles must pass through residential streets in order to access Toledo Trail. Where feasible, q new access point should be planned that would reduce or elimi- nate the need for vehicles to use residential streets. Exhibit 4S shows three viable access road alternatives. The first alternative considers extending Granada Road to an access point on the west side of the existing hangar. This road currently provides access to the swim and tennis club. If the access road were to enter at this location, it would necessarily have to cross the taxilane leading to the existing hangar. This is not an acceptable design as aircraft and vehicles would be crossing paths. This is especially true of a public road that may be utilized by drivers who are unfamiliar with airport markings and operations on airfield pavements. This alternative is, therefore, not recommended. The second alternative considers an entry point on the immediate east side of the existing hangar. This access point would extend from Toledo Trail. Access to Toledo Trail is considered from a new road that would wrap around the swim and tennis club. This new road would have the effect of removing airport - bound vehicles from the residential streets to the east. A portion of the Toledo Trail private easement would need to be acquired. This access point has a similar problem in that it would effectively cut off the cleared parcel, located immediately east of the existing hangar from the airfield. The same situation of having a public road and a taxilane would exist, which is not considered feasible. One option would be to have the road turn east immediately upon entering airport property and traversing along the fence line. The third alternative considers an entry point that is east of the undeveloped parcel. Access to this point would also utilize a new road that extends from Granada Dr. to the point of airport entry. Access at this point is more centrally located in Area 5 and, therefore, future taxilanes would not have to cross public roads. A portion of the Toledo Trail private easement would have to be acquired. Each of the develop- ment alternatives considered a more centrally located airport access road. Alternatives Planning of Area 5 presents a unique opportunity to consider a greenfield site. This opportunity allows for a plan that will maximize the available land and to plan for an appropriate mix of aviation uses. To that end, each of the development alternatives presented on Exhibit 4T follows the traditional develop- ment method of positioning high activity conventional hangars to face an aircraft apron and the runway system. Lower activity box and T-hangars are then situated back from the flight line. Table 4J presents a summary of the capacity provided by each of the four development alternatives. DRAFTAlternatives - Page 246 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE 1 J Ad. 1• L Alternatives - DRAFT ALTERNATIVE 2 r ALTERNATIVE 3 I.- 0 300 i SCALE IN FEET N Ic _ Fire Department y_ s IF - Fire Department F Access Access 1i Fire Departmen Access AIRPORT MASTER PLAN LEGEND I .--look L y r r Aert 1 Photo: Googl ,E th 2-3-16 i 4-57 Exhibit 4Q AREA 3 NORTH ALTERNATIVES This page intentionally left blank Page 248 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 f r � A � Restauran -� site 2 •r �' f' •3� _ LEGEND Airport Property New Building Terminal Expansion/ New Road/Parking Restaurant Site 1 ��..New Pavement To Be Removed Overhead Electric Waste Water Mains 0 200 Water Mains Underground SCALE IN FEET Aerial Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16 Alternatives - DRAFT 4-59 Exhibit 4R AREA 4 ALTERNATIVE GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MURPORT MASTER PLA s At s i s + o Access Point 3 -' \ C Access Point 240 Access Point 1 0 Alternatives - DRAFT LEGEND 0 400 L SCALE IN FEET 4-60 EEIFm Exhibit 4S NORTHWEST ACCESS ALTERNATIVES GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE 1 A� oa ADG II .w Alternatives - D t T 300' 100' LQJ' ALTERNATIVE 2 A Runway is-m Muv%`x 100') oa \ \ \ ADG II \ ■ / \ ■ 57.5 r \ \ 4-61 Ll r� r— LAI 0 300 SCALE IN FEET - r \ \ .. V _ - :: X'.. ADG I LEGEND I Photo: Google Earth 2-3-16 Exhibit 4T AREA 5 ALTERNATIVES GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE 3 A ALTERNATIVE 4 o soo LEGEND + �=� I Line SCALE IN FEET Air• • • • -a'-`-•`""-z'. — ' tea..- � — --_ - - - - Building New Road/Park! • a Runway 18-36 (5,004' x 100') oo o New To Be Removed ..... 300' \ 300' Overhead - ctric Waste Water Maii s Water Mains \ ne •• • Runway 100, 100, ADG II �� ADGII- \ 200' \ 300' 57.5' � \ A , ♦♦ ♦ ��,� •��► •��� _ may, r lot of �� � �► •t a �► �► / ���y I � 1001 1 , ADG I i ..',.. ADG I ! / HIN 1 Photo: Google Earth 2-3.16 Alternatives - DRAFT 4-62 Exhibit 4T mmmmmd AREA 5 ALTERNATIVES GEORGETOWN V _ Ml iNICIPAL AIKPOk I AIRPORT MASTER PC TABLE 4.1 Area Five (5) Alternatives Summary Geometown Municioal Airoort Alternative T-Hangar Space (s.f.) Executive/Box Conventional Hangar Space (s.f.) Hangar Space (s.f.) Total Estimated (s.f.) Units of (s.f.): square feet SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT AREA 6 Area Six (6) encompasses approximately 105 acres in the southwest quadrant of the airport. This land is currently undeveloped and has no existing infrastructure, such as utilities. The combination of the previous alternatives provides for enough hangar space; therefore, this area is planned to be reserved for long term future development. TERMINAL BUILDING Currently, the FBOs at the Airport provide most of the aviation services, such as line services, pilot's lounge, and flight planning stations. The terminal building at the Airport provides for various additional needs, such as administrative services, conference room, vending machines, restrooms, and a public lounge area. The existing terminal building also provides an appealing entry/departure point and a pos- itive impression of the community. The existing terminal building is located in the optimal place, central to the runway system and easily accessible from both the airside and the landside. Consideration is given to enhancing the services avail- able at the terminal building such as expanded line service capabilities and a restaurant. ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY The alternatives chapter of a master plan is intended to present analysis of various options that may be considered for specific airport elements. The need for alternatives is typically spurred by projections of aviation demand growth and/or by the need to resolve non-standard airport elements. FAA design standards are frequently updated with the intent of improving the safety and efficiency of aircraft move- ments on and around airports, which can lead to certain pavement geometries now being classified as non-standard when previously they did meet standard. DRAFTAlternatives - Page 253 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI A1RP0k 1 AIRPORT MASTER Pt The following three major elements have been discussed in this alternatives chapter: • Non -Development Alternatives • Airside Alternatives • Landside Alternatives Among the non -development alternatives considered were: 1) No -Build; 2) Relocate Airport; and 3) Transfer Services. Each of these was analyzed and supporting information, such as impacts and costs, was presented. This analysis is not intended as a recommendation to pursue one of these alternatives; instead, it is for informational purposes only. If the airport sponsor were to pursue one of these alter- natives, additional study beyond the scope of this master plan would be required. Two of the three non -development alternatives would lead to the closure of the existing airport. There is a lengthy process to obtain approval for this course of action. Often the primary hindrance to consid- ering airport closure is the fact that airports that have accepted federal development grants agree to certain grant assurances, one of which is to maintain the improvement for its useful life (20 years). If an airport is closed in the interim, then the sponsor must refund grants to the federal government. For Georgetown Municipal Airport, which has accepted $17 million since 2001, including more than $10 million in recent years, this would be a significant cost. On the airside, the most significant discussion related to the possibility of: 1) raising the instrument ap- proach visibility minimums from %a -mile to 1-mile; and 2) maintaining the critical design aircraft (and applicable design standards) as B-II. While it is unusual to voluntarily raise visibility minimums (because the airport would be giving up capability), consideration should be given to these actions at Georgetown Municipal Airport in order to meet land use compatibility standards and remove numerous homes from the RPZs. NOTE: The Airport did request increasing the visibility minimums to both ends of Runway 18-36 to 1- mile. On June 26, 2018, the FAA issued a NOTAM indicating the visibility minimum is now 1-mile. Ulti- mately, the approach plates will be updated, and the visibility minimums will be permanently set at 1- mile. In addition, on February 8, 2018, the FAA indicated that the critical design aircraft for the Airport is in the B-II category because activity by C-II aircraft have not exceeded the 500 operations threshold for four straight years. Therefore, the Airport will be listed with a B-II ARC with 1-mile visibility mini- mums. Because the Airport could transition back to C-II, based on future activity, a plan will be identified to meet the C-II standards; however, the visibility minimums are planned to remain at 1-mile. The minimum FAA recommended runway length for the Airport is 5,500 feet. Extending the runway in either direction to achieve this length would trigger the need for significant property acquisition and possibly road closure or relocation. This is because when the size or location of the RPZ changes, current guidance suggests that the new RPZ fully meet design standards and the "grandfathered" status of the current RPZs would no longer apply. One solution that implements declared distances would provide the necessary length for takeoff without altering the RPZs. DRAFTAlternatives - Page 254 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP()u i AIRPORT MASTER P1-:Xk On the landside, various areas for potential future aviation development have been identified. A poten- tial hangar layout has been presented to maximize the developable land. The future planned facility layout may be one of the specific alternatives or a combination of elements from each of the alternatives. The next step in the master plan development process is to arrive at a recommended development con- cept. Participation of the PAC and the public will be important considerations. Additional consultation with the FAA may also be required. Once a consolidated development plan is identified, a 20-year capital improvement program, with a list of prioritized projects triggered to aviation demand and/or necessity, will be presented. Finally, a financial analysis will be presented to identify potential funding sources and to show Airport management what local funds will be necessary to implement the plan. Page 255 of 588 EST-18d8 G EORGETOWN TEXAS CHAPTER FIVE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Page 256 of 588 The airport master planning process for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) has evolved through the development of forecasts of future demand, an assessment of future facility needs, and an evalua- tion of airport development alternatives to meet those future facility needs. The planning process has included the development of three sets of draft working papers to date, which were presented to the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and discussed at several coordination meetings and three public information workshops. In the previous chapter, several alternatives were analyzed to explore options for the future growth and development of the Airport. The development alternatives have been refined into a single recom- mended development plan for this Master Plan. This chapter describes, in narrative and graphic form, the recommended direction for the future use and development of Georgetown Municipal Airport. Where appropriate, the alternatives are summarized and a rationale for the selected alternative is pre- sented. AIRSIDE CONCEPT The airside concept generally relates to planned improvements to the runway and taxiway system. Ex- hibit 5A presents the long-term Master Plan development concept for the Georgetown Municipal Air- port. The following sections will present the resolution to each issue analyzed in Chapter Four — Alter- natives. iEpNNAL Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-1 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PIQAIW''Va_iiill AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE The FAA has established design criteria to define the physical dimensions of runways and taxiways, as well as the imaginary surfaces surrounding them, which protect the safe operation of aircraft at an air- port. These design standards also define the separation criteria for the placement of landside facilities. As discussed previously, the design criteria primarily center on the airport's critical design aircraft. The critical aircraft is the most demanding aircraft or family of aircraft which currently, or are projected to, conduct 500 or more operations (take -offs and landings) per year at an airport. Factors included in air- port design are an aircraft's wingspan, approach speed, tail height and, in some cases, the instrument approach visibility minimums for each runway. The FAA has established the Airport Reference Code (ARC) to relate these critical aircraft factors to airfield design standards. Analysis conducted in Chapter Two — Forecasts demonstrated that operations by aircraft in Aircraft Ap- proach Category (AAC) C have exceeded the 500 operations threshold, in six of the last 10 years. Thus, the Airport has been planned and constructed to ARC C-II standards for many years. However, for the last four years, the operations count by category C aircraft has been below the 500 operations threshold. Because of the decline in operations by category C aircraft, extensive consideration was given in Chapter Four — Alternatives, to the potential to revert to B-II design standards. The design standards for B and C were presented in Table 4B. After having received considered input from the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and from the public, initial consideration was given to continuing to identify the Airport as a C-II facility, the same as what is indicated on the current ALP. The following are the primary reasons for this consideration: • C-II design standards require more restrictive safety standards for the airport. For example, the Runway Safety Area (RSA) beyond the primary runway ends is required to be 1,000 feet long versus the B-II standard of only 300 feet (applicable to the crosswind runway). • While the 500 operations threshold for critical aircraft determination has not been met (accord- ing to the Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC)) the last four years, it was met in the previous six years before that. • There is a reasonable possibility that operations by C-II aircraft will once again exceed the 500 operations threshold. This considers the fact that the TFMSC count represents an absolute min- imum and additional operations by category C aircraft are likely. • The 2007-2009 national recession, followed by the relatively slow recovery (by historical stand- ards) severely slowed general aviation growth. The economy is now stronger and growing so general aviation demand is rebounding as well. • Maintaining C-II standards to the greatest extent practical prepares the airport for a potential transition back to C-II in the future. • As an economic engine for the city and the region, a reduction in design standards could nega- tively impact current operators and most certainly would deter future operators. • An airport master plan is a roadmap to meeting future demand in an unconstrained environment. Therefore, the master plan must preserve the capability to meet future needs to the greatest degree feasible. Local policy can and does restrict what can be implemented on a case -by -case Page 258 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ 'R MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DECLARED DISTANCES �` �_• . ,: RUNWAY 18 RUNWAY 36 t — • • 1I 5,500, S+ t •D• 11 11 ASDA 5,500'1 1 y Hold 1LDA 5,004'1 1 aintenaracy Bay Facility /� - Y •DA -Takeoff Distance Available TORA -Takeoff Run Available �.:ASDAAccelerate/Stop Distance * * Replaceme 1 `, y Wash Rack -a' , �aZ�.-y �' • • S � Fire DepartmeentFL OU Available �F LEJ ,. .. ::: Hold Bay/-/ / ..... " rnwa 18-36 (6,000' x 100') - �' •''i, ��— 98'Ext nsion 498' xtension ` '.• !— � t Future`-mile�1-II RPZ � - _ �,'.. \ �.-■ '::I / Ile .; Y, ` _ 'tom i � i ♦� ..• ' r , S. . t 4 Existing 1-mile B-II RPM -- ` / 1 �uture;t-mile�l RPZ i �•w�.� ! ' ,Y Relocated AWOS �� - E Existing 1-mile B -II RPZ and Segmented Cir P t .. 1i ti .- • . _ �� !"' W e qualityand 1 ' i ,4 ► t *��- y'• �' Math 10' , FUTURE AERONAUTICAL AND/OR ,.^ del lion pond a J " NON -AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT y . i _ tI t � . � a , A. bisual4creen . .• / y � �`1 � _ ,,� t .'�, f r `�•. d LEGEND ADG I. - ow { t► '` w t ' �` J A. • r r 1ti t df r,. '.tr`S•Py'!a 'tea • • • • r r Blvd . d•_ `.#'A pit. —jVOlt weS� Ay V r y • bar -.. - �y T. )�Y �? -0 ' 800 1600^. �! Ar•�-�{,,�' (�• :J'I•h �vt? '� •Y. �'` �1�r. _y «s •'. �' a'r?�'� ,11 I ♦- '1�% t t ]O• $d• Ir yJ-0e SCALE IN FEET Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-3 ,r S Future Acquisition A ;,��y(1erial Ph6to:.Google.Ca 2-3=16 w Exhibit 5A RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT This page intentionally left blank Page 260 of 588 GEORGETOWN � M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER fffll� basis. For example, the plan shows a need for additional hangars but construction is dependent upon the airport or a private developer paying for them. Upon completion of the draft Master Plan, the FAA contacted TxDOT and indicated that they desired to provide comment on the Master Plan. Comments from the FAA were received in February 2018. The FAA indicated that the Airport should be identified as a current B-II facility. Future planning will continue to consider the impacts of C-11 design standards. While airfield elements, such as the safety areas, must meet design standards associated with the appli- cable ARC, landside elements can be planned to accommodate specific categories of aircraft. For exam- ple, a taxilane into a T-hangar area only needs to meet the taxiway object free area (TOFA) width stand- ard for smaller single and multi -engine piston aircraft expected to utilize the taxilane, not those stand- ards for the larger aircraft representing the overall critical aircraft for the Airport. RUNWAY DESIGN CODE (RDC) Each runway is assigned an RDC. As discussed in Chapter Three — Facility Requirements, the RDC is com- prised of the Approach Category, the Airplane Design Group, and the instrument visibility minimums. For Runway 18-36, the RDC is currently described as B-II-5000. The future RDC is planned to be C-II-5000 as the instrument approach visibility minimums are planned to remain 1-mile. This change in the ap- proach visibility minimums is described in detail below but the primary purpose is to reduce the number of residential homes within the runway protection zones (RPZs). The RDC for a crosswind runway is a function of the crosswind components, which were described in detail in Chapter Three — Facility Requirements. At Georgetown Municipal Airport, Runway 11-29 should be designed to ARC A/B-I design standards at a minimum. With 1-mile visibility minimums to both run- way ends, the current RDC is A/13-I-5000 (small). Runway 11-29 has been planned to B-II standards and all safety surfaces meet these standards. The B-II design standards should be maintained to the greatest degree feasible. Runway 11-29 meets ARC B-11 design standards. Table 5A shows the main differences between B-1 and B-II design standards: Maintaining the B-11 standards provides an additional safety margin that is valuable when this runway is used by aircraft that might ordinarily use the primary runway. Greater usage of this runway might be the result of high crosswinds or closure of the primary runway due to maintenance activity or for effi- ciency of movement as directed by tower personnel. At the time of the next reconstruction, additional analysis may be necessary to continue to justify the B-11 standards. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 57 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIKI'0KI AIRPORT MASTERPCAWV.a� TABLE 5A B-I vs. B-II Design Standards Runway Width StandardElement B-I 60' Standard 75' Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 120' 150' RSA Length Beyond the Runway End 240' 300' Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Width 250' 500' ROFA Length Beyond the Runway End 240' 300' Obstacle Free Zone (OFA) Width 250' 400' OFZ Length Beyond the Runway End 200' 200' Runway Protection Zone (1-mile visibility) Inner Width Outer Width Length 250' 450' 1,000' 500' 700' 1,000' RUNWAY 18-36 LENGTH Issue: Runway 18-36 is currently 5,004 feet long. The minimum recommended runway length is 5,500 feet. Alternatives Summary: Four different runway extension alternatives were presented. The first three showed the impact to implementing a traditional extension to one end or the other or by splitting the extension among the two ends. The fourth alternative considered adding approximately 500 feet of pavement to each end that would be available for takeoff operations only. By then implementing de- clared distances, the requisite 5,500 feet of runway length would be available for takeoff calculations. The runway length available for landing would remain unchanged at 5,004 feet, as it exists today. Recommendation: None of the first three alternatives are It is recommended to extend considered feasible because each would change the various the runway to support 5,500 runway safety surfaces to include areas not already covered. The most significant is the RPZ. When an RPZ changes in size feet of take -off length while or location to encompass more incompatible land uses, a spe- maintaining 5,004 feet for land- cial analysis is required (typically outside the master plan) ing. which is reviewed by FAA HQ. The goal of that analysis is to identify the feasibility of removing all incompatible land uses from the RPZ, including roads and homes. While removing incompatible land uses within an RPZ is always the goal, those that existed prior to the September 29, 2012 (publication of FAA Memorandum, Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone) are not subject to the Interim Guidance. Therefore, the only feasible method of extending the runway is the fourth alternative. This alternative would add approximately 500 feet to each end of the runway and designate that pavement for takeoff only. As takeoff -only pavement, none of the runway safety surfaces (RSA, ROFA, and RPZ) would change Page 262 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL'NIVikk;a in size or location. Declared distances would have to be implemented, which would inform pilots that 5,500 feet is available for takeoff and the existing 5,004 feet is available for landing. Planning a future runway extension is important for this airport, as it is already deficient in terms of runway length. This airport cannot fully meet its role as a reliever airport without providing the minimum recommended runway length. Constructing the extension will have to clear several hurdles, including environmental clearance, likely an environmental assessment, and the restrictive council resolution from 1996 that sets a maximum runway length for the airport at 5,000 feet. RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) The ROFA clearing standard requires clearing the ROFA of objects protruding above the nearest elevation point of the RSA. Only frangible navigational aids, such as edge lights and airfield signs, may protrude into the ROFA. Under the existing B-II design standards, the ROFA for both runways is entirely on airport property. Runway 18-36 ROFA — North End Issue: The future C-II ROFA to the west of the Runway 18 end extends beyond the airport property line and encompasses all or part of seven residential properties. Alternatives: Four alternatives were considered in Chapter Four — Alternatives. These included: 1) ac- quire the property; 2) obtain a Modification to Standard (MOS) from the FAA; 3) shorten the runway; and 4) reduce the applicable runway design standards from C-II to B-II. Recommendation: Only alternatives 1 (meet the standard) and 2 (FAA Modification of Standard - MOS) remain viable. Other alternatives including shortening the runway are not feasible as that would nega- tively impact the current operators at the Airport, many of which are already weight -restricted because of the existing runway length. The FAA has indicated that the ARC for the Airport should be changed from C-II to B-II, based on a lack of 500 C-II operations over the last four years. By changing the applicable design standards to B-Il, the Airport will not have to seek a modification of design standards for the current condition. In a future C-II condition, an MOS will not be a viable solution because it is not typical to permit building into a non-standard condition. Therefore, for a future C-II condition, acquisition of the seven properties in the ROFA will be shown on the ALP. This is the same recommendation that was presented in the previous 2005 master plan and shown on the previous airport layout plan. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR13 ki AIRPORT MASTER Runway 18-36 ROFA — South End Issue: The B-II ROFA on the Runway 36 end meets standard. When applying a future C-II ROFA, a small (0.14-acre) corner of the ROFA extends beyond the airport property line and through the perimeter fence. Alternatives: Four alternatives were considered. The first was to acquire the property, which may also require slightly rerouting Lakeway Drive. The second was to petition TxDOT for a MOS. The third was to shorten the runway, whether physically or through declared distances. The fourth was to reduce the design standards from C-II to B-II. Recommendation: Since the B-II ROFA is entirely on airport property and meets current standards, no current action is necessary. If the airport transitions back to C-II standards, then the corner of the ROFA will encroach upon Lakeway Drive. The recommended solution at that time is to re-route Lakeway Drive around the ROFA. If this is not feasible, then the Airport may need to implement declared distances which would reduce takeoff and landing length for Runway 18 by 90 feet. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES (RPZ) Runway protection zones are trapezoidal areas beginning 200 feet from the runway end. The standard for RPZs is that they be clear of height obstructions and incompatible land uses, in order to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. Essentially any place where people can gather is con- sidered an incompatible land use, such as homes. A detailed description of the RPZ standards was pre- viously presented in Chapter Three — Facility Requirements. RPZs frequently have incompatible land uses and it is the responsibility of the local airport sponsor to consider options for meeting the standards. This is complicated by the fact that RPZ lands are often privately owned, so airports may have limited options with regard to land uses in the RPZ. Runway 18-36 RPZs Issue: The size of the RPZ is a function of the type of aircraft utilizing the runway (i.e., B-II) and the instrument approach visibility minimums (1-mile). During this Master Plan process, the RPZ became smaller because the critical aircraft changed from B-II to C-II and the instrument visibility minimums changed from%8-mile to 1-mile. The RPZ on the Runway 18 end is entirely on airport property. On the Runway 36 end, Lakeway Drive traverses the RPZ. The alternatives considered the RPZs if the Airport transitions back to C-II with 1-mile visibility minimums. Alternatives: Two alternatives were considered. The first was C-II with lower than 1-mile visibility min- imums and the second considered C-II with 1-mile visibility minimums. Both would introduce incompat- ible land uses, namely residential properties and streets. The 1-mile RPZ would have fewer residences. To meet the design standard for RPZs, the land would need to be acquired. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-8 GEORGETOWN _ _ Ml iNICIPAL AIKI'M i AIRPORT MAS Recommendation: In the future, if the airport transitions to C-II with 1-mile visibility minimums, a total of 17 homes on the north end and five on the south end would then fall within the RPZ. As is shown on the current ALP, these properties should continue to be shown for acquisition. This action should not be considered until and unless the airport transitions back to C-II. Runway 11-29 RPZs The RPZ for Runway 11 has compatible land uses except for the presence of Northwest Boulevard. The airport recently acquired most of this RPZ in order to preserve land use compatibility. No action is nec- essary as the road pre -dates the most recent RPZ guidance from the FAA; however, if an opportunity arises in the future, the airport should support relocating the road to outside the RPZ. There is a small corner of the RPZ that is not currently owned by the airport (1.2 acres) that the airport should acquire if feasible. The RPZ on the Runway 29 end encompasses one home and Lakeway Drive. No immediate action is needed to relocate the road but the airport should support those efforts if they are pursued by local road transportation planning agencies. The airport should acquire the home and approximately 2 acres of RPZ land, when and if it is feasible. APPROACH SURFACE The Approach Surface is designed to protect the use of the runway in both visual and instrument condi- tions near the airport. The Approach Surface typically has a trapezoidal shape that extends away from the runway along the centerline and at a specific slope, expressed in horizontal feet by vertical feet. The specific size, slope, and starting point of the approach slope is a function of the visibility minimums and the approach category of the critical design aircraft. The Approach Surface is commonly referred to as the Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) in order to distinguish it from the Part 77 Approach Surface (see Ap- pendix C - Airport Layout Plan). Issue: The current TSS meets standard. A future TSS associated with ARC C-II leading to Runway 18 penetrates the perimeter fence and, potentially, several trees. Alternatives: Two alternatives were considered: 1) maintain the existing TSS; or 2) voluntarily change the airport ARC from C-II to B-II. Recommendation: No action is necessary currently as the TSS is clear of obstructions. If, in the future, the airport transitions to back to ARC C-II, there would be numerous TSS penetrations. The TSS can have penetrations which are considered obstructions, but only the FAA can make a final determination that an obstruction is a hazard to air navigation. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5 GEORGETOWN _1*1 MUNICIPAI AIRI'MI AIRPORT MASTERPL TAXIWAYS As documented in the previous chapter, there are several existing taxiways that do not meet the most recent guidelines for proper geometry. In most cases, there is only one viable alternative for meeting the taxiway geometry standards. Most of the taxiways at the airport are at least 50 feet wide. The applicable taxiway design group (TDG) is '2,' which translates to a 35-foot wide taxiway. All future taxi- ways should be planned to a width of 35 feet, as that is what is eligible for FAA funding. If the Airport desires to fund the difference between 35 and 50 feet, they may do that. Table 513 presents the issues for each taxiway's segment and the planned solution. TABLE 5B Taxiway Design Solutions Georgetown Municipal Airport Taxiway Issue Taxiway J crosses the high-energy portion of Runway Solution Existing condition. No action necessary. 18-36. Taxiway L is at an acute angle to Runway 11-29. Minor issue. Taxiway L is planned to be replaced with an extension of Taxiway A when Taxiway L needs to be re- constructed. Taxiway G is wider than the 35-foot standard. Narrow Taxiway G to 3S feet at the time of the next re- construction. Taxiway L at the Runway 36 threshold is wider than the Narrow Taxiway L to 35 feet at the time of the next re- 35-foot standard. construction. Taxiway K is at an acute angle to Runway 11-29. Reconstruct Taxiway K at the standard 90-degree angle. Relocate Taxiway K so its intersection with Taxiway J is at a standard angle. The south portion of Taxiway L is 400 feet from Run- Replace Taxiway L with an extension of Taxiway A when way 18-36, which exceeds the current standard of 300 Taxiway L needs to be reconstructed. feet. Taxiway A is not a true parallel taxiway in that it ends Extend Taxiway A to the Runway 36 threshold when Taxi - at Taxiway F, which connects to Taxiway L to provide way L needs to be reconstructed. access to the Runway 36 threshold. Taxiway J is 375 feet from Runway 11-29 where the No action is needed; however, when Taxiway 1 needs to standard is 240 feet. be reconstructed, consideration should be given to relo- cating it to 240 feet. Intersection of Taxiways A, Al, and B is a wide expanse Physically separate Taxiways A and Al by removing pave - of pavement. ment. To be completed when Taxiway Al is extended to provide access to new hangars development areas. HOLD BAYS Georgetown Municipal Airport has several busy flight schools. As such, it is common for numerous stu- dents to be operating at the same time, especially during good weather. All pilots must complete pre- flight checks and engine run-up. These activities typically take place in proximity to the departure ends Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-10 GEORGETOWN M iNICIPnI AIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C11111111111111ft of the runways on pavement surfaces called hold bays. The current hold bays at the airport are non- standard in design and, in some cases, located in the incorrect place. New/replacement hold bays are planned in proximity to each runway end. Where feasible, the design of the hold bays reflects the most recent design considerations. Hold bays should be designed to allow aircraft to bypass others both on entrance and exit. Each holding location should be independently marked and include non -movement islands between each to provide additional cues to pilots. Runway 18 is the most common departure runway and, thus, is the most in need of an adequate holding location. Currently, a wide expanse of pavement near the threshold and Taxiway C (which is an extra wide expanse of pavement) are used for holding aircraft. There is no ability to construct the standard hold bay design on the Runway 18 end. Therefore, a larger holding apron is planned adjacent to Taxiway C and between Taxiways A and Al. Runway 36 currently has a hold bay available near the runway threshold, which is located between Tax- iway L and the runway. This "interior" hold bay location is discouraged because pilots' views can be blocked. A new hold bay, designed to meet current standards, is planned immediately east of Taxiway G. This is the closest location to the threshold without acquiring additional property. The exits from this hold bay do not line up with Taxiway G, which is a cue to the pilot that they need to taxi to the departure threshold. Runway 11 also has an existing "interior" hold bay. This is planned to be replaced by a single bay stand- ard design at the end of Taxiway J. Runway 29 also has an "interior" hold bay. This is planned to be replaced by a hold bay pad located near Taxiway M (the Runway 29 threshold taxiway). This design provides a location for engine run -ups where the aircraft does not obstruct the view of other pilots. Runway 18-36 west side hold bays are planned once a parallel taxiway is constructed on the west side of the runway. These hold bays meet the design criteria and remain on airport property in proximity to the runway threshold. INSTRUMENT APPROACHES Georgetown Municipal Airport has instrument approach procedures to each runway end. The visibility minimums are %8-mile to both ends of Runway 18-36 (since changed to 1-mile) and 1-mile to both ends of Runway 11-29. The visibility minimums to the crosswind runway are adequate and should be main- tained. As a busy reliever airport, the primary runway should have the lowest visibility minimums feasi- ble in order to fulfill its role. The lowest visibility minimums typically available to reliever airports is %- mile. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-_ GEORGETOWN � M INICIP I nIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER PLxa Issue: The visibility minimums to both ends of Runway 18-36 require an RPZ with an inner width of 1,000 feet, outer width of 1,510 feet, and a length of 1,700 feet (beginning 200 feet from the runway end). This is an area that encompasses approximately 49 acres. On the Runway 18 end, this RPZ covers ap- proximately 40 homes. On the Runway 36 end, an additional seven homes fall within the RPZ. By today's standards, homes and roads are considered incompatible land uses within an RPZ. Alternatives: Several alternatives were considered previously in this chapter in relation to the design standards discussion. The first was to "do-nothing" as the current RPZs were implemented by the FAA and prior to the latest design standards (2012). The next was to plan to acquire all land and relocate all roads in the RPZs. The next was to voluntarily increase the visibility minimums from%8-mile to 1-mile. Recommendation: It is recommended that the airport voluntarily increase their visibility minimums to 1-mile (completed June 26, 2018). Analysis of 10 years of meteorological data showed that the impact to operations would be minimal. In fact, only 0.15 percent of time were visibility minimums between Ma - mile and 1-mile. Very few operations would be impacted by this change to the visibility minimums. The 1-mile B-II RPZ is has an inner width of 500 feet, outer width of 700 feet, and a length of 1,000 feet. On the Runway 18 end, this RPZ is entirely on airport property. On the Runway 36 end, this RPZ closes over Lakeway Drive slightly. If the Airport transitions back to ARC C-II, then the 1-mile RPZ has an inner width of 500 feet, outer width of 1,010 feet, and a length of 1,700 feet. This RPZ would encompass approxi- mately 29 acres. On the Runway 18 end, 23 homes would be in the RPZ, and on the Runway 36 end, another five homes would be in the RPZ. This is the condition shown on the current ALP; however, to return to this condition may require acquisition of this land. PROPERTY ACQUISITION Planning for an airport includes the consideration of strategic property acquisition of adjacent lands in order to allow for facility expansion, or for the protection of the function and role of the Airport. The FAA/TxDOT supports and provides reimbursement for necessary property acquisition. The reimburse- ments are provided when the land is needed for airport development or protection. While the FAA/TxDOT supports and funds land acquisition, it does not support "land -banking" of property that may or may not be needed in the future. The FAA/TxDOT recommends that airports own the entirety of their RPZs where feasible. Therefore, for those RPZs that extend beyond the airport property line, an airport should identify and pursue opportu- nities for fee simple acquisition. In lieu of fee simple ownership, an airport should actively pursue avi- gation easements over all RPZ lands. This would permit an airport to limit the height of man-made or natural growth objects that could impact air navigation. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-12 GEORGETOWN I MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1fthAWRAwd AIRSIDE CONCLUSION The Georgetown Municipal Airport is a reliever general aviation airport. As such, it serves an important role as an alternate landing location for private aircraft that might otherwise use a commercial service airport. Currently, the airport cannot fully serve this role because the runway is approximately 500 feet shorter than what is recommended. Several options were considered for extending the runway, including additional length to one end or the other, or splitting an extension between the two ends. None of these options are considered viable because of the recent FAA design standards that would likely require acquisition of all homes and relo- cation of roads in RPZs. The only viable method for providing the minimum recommended runway length is the addition of ap- proximately 500 feet to each end and then designating the new runway pavement for takeoff operations only. Declared distances are then implemented which would indicate that there is 5,500 feet available for takeoff and the existing 5,004 feet available for landing. To remove incompatible land uses that fall within the existing RPZs, it is recommended that the instru- ment approach visibility minimums be raised from %8-mile to 1-mile (completed June 26, 2018). This action will have little to no effect on operations at the airport. Acquisition of avigation easements should be planned for all RPZ lands not owned by the airport. If the opportunity is available, the airport should acquire RPZ lands through fee simple acquisition. Replacement aircraft holding bays are planned in proximity to each runway end. Several taxiways are planned to be relocated/reconstructed to meet current design standards. LANDSIDE CONCEPT The primary goal of landside facility planning is to provide adequate aircraft storage space to meet fore- cast needs, while also maximizing operational efficiencies. The development scheme presented segre- gates aircraft activity levels, while placing the Airport in a position to maximize revenue potential. The landside facility plan is depicted on Exhibit 5A. There are an unlimited number of potential facility layout concepts that could be considered. The plan shown is only one possible layout for future hangars, which may change based on developer needs. Nonetheless, the layout presented is a starting point for future development needs. What should be strongly adhered to is utilization of aviation reserve land for aviation facilities. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-13 GEORGETOWN _1W1 MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTERPL HANGARS In the Facility Requirements chapter, it was determined, based on forecast growth and hangar occupancy arrangements, that the Airport may need approximately 238,300 square feet of additional aircraft hangar space over the 20-year forecast period (reference Table 3J). Approximately 118 individual aircraft positions were estimated. The layout of new hangars visualized on Exhibit 5A shows a total of 941,000 square feet of new hangar space. Clearly, the hangar development depicted far exceeds the projected need. Nonetheless, the layout does provide a sense of which areas should be reserved for future aviation development and the type of development (T-hangars, box hangars, or conventional hangars). As discussed previously, high activity conventional hangars should be located adjacent to the main taxi- ways. Medium activity box hangars should be the next layer of development and T-hangars should be set the farthest from the main taxiways. The discussion of the selected alternative for hangar develop- ment references the six development locations previously shown on Exhibit 4K. Table 5C presents a summary of the planned hangar development. TABLE SC Hangar Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport Area 1 SpaceLocation* T-Hangar 0 Executive/Box ..Space 5,000 79,200 84,200 34 Area 2 46,200 0 0 46,200 35 Area 3 (South) 66,000 10,900 0 76,900 65 Area 3 (North) 0 52,100 0 52,100 21 Area 4 0 3,700 66,100 69,800 28 Area 5 77,500 227,800 306,500 611,800 221 TOTAL 189,700 1 299,500 1 451,800 1 941,000 1 403 *Reference Exhibit 4K Area 1 Planned Development Area 1 is immediately north of the terminal building and is currently occupied by older hangar structures designed to house multiple aircraft. This area represents highly desirable development land at the Air- port because of its central location. Typically, high activity uses should be planned in this location, such as conventional hangars for F60s or other active airport businesses. This area is planned for redevelop- ment and shown with four conventional hangars and one box hangar. It should be noted that the existing hangars in this area have been identified by the City of Georgetown as having potential historical signif- icance because of their age. This may require additional environmental consideration prior to construc- tion of replacement hangars. As shown, Area 1 is planned with four larger conventional hangars and one smaller box hangar. A central taxilane/apron area is planned to accommodate ingress and egress from the hangars. A total of 84,000 Page 270 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PIXM square feet of hangar space, providing approximately 34 aircraft parking positions, are planned for Area 1. Area 2 Planned Development Area 2 is located away from a main taxiway along the perimeter fence adjacent to Airport Road. The preferred option for this area is a series of small T-hangar structures. In total, 35 individual positions would be available once built out. The access taxilane serving the existing T-hangars is planned to be utilized to extend access to the new T-hangar development area. This will necessitate closure of W. Halmar Drive. Terminal and Service Drives will continue to provide access to hangars located west of the planned new T-hangars. Area 3 Planned Development Area 3 is located to the north of the existing T-hangars and is subdivided into the north and south sec- tions for planning purposes. This area is set back from the main taxiway and is ideally suited for T- hangars or small box hangars. The south section is planned for three T-hangar structures which would mirror the existing T-hangar development. A total of 60 T-hangar positions are planned. Three small box hangars are situated at the east end of this development area to fill in the available space. Four parking positions are estimated to be available in the planned box hangars. The north half of Area 3 is planned for connected box hangars and an area of aviation parcel develop- ment. A total of 21 box hangar positions are planned and a total of 11 parcels of varying size are planned. Area 4 Planned Development Area 4 is located just east of the existing terminal area. There are numerous existing hangars of all types located in this area. There are currently four open parcels available for development. These are planned for three larger conventional hangars and one smaller box hangar. A total of 69,600 square feet of space providing an estimate of 27 spaces is planned. Area 5 Planned Development Area 5 is located on the west side of Runway 18-36. There is one existing conventional hangar on this side of the Airport. This is a large 51-acre aviation development site. The plan is to provide the full range of hangar types in this area in the future. Four large conventional hangars are planned to face the run- way and a large apron space. Smaller box hangars are set to the back and sides of the conventional hangars. Several T-hangar structures fill in the remaining space in proximity to Runway 11. As planned, Area 5 can accommodate nearly 612,000 square feet of hangar space. Page 271 of 588 GEORGETOWN � M INICIP I IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1 Surface road access to Area 5 is planned to extend from the intersection of Serenada Drive and Granada Drive. Granada Drive currently provides access to a tennis/swim club. A new road extending from Gra- nada Drive is planned to wrap around the tennis/swim club, crossing Toledo Trail and entering the airport property to the east of the existing conventional hangar. There are several homes along the Area S fence line. The plan includes preserving the tree line along the fence to reduce any potential environmental impacts of increased aviation activity in Area 5. Hangar Summary The hangar development plan depicted exceeds that which is forecast to be needed through the 20-year planning horizon of this master plan. If Areas 2, 3, and 4 were to be completely developed in the next 20 years, that would meet the forecast demand. A full development plan of Area 5 has been presented in order to allow airport management to move forward with any development requests for this area. AREA 6 DEVELOPMENT Area 6 is a large parcel encompassing approximately 105 acres of undeveloped land in the southwest quadrant of the Airport. Because of the availability of aviation land at the Airport, this entire parcel is planned to be available for either aviation or compatible non -aviation development. Several small por- tions of Area 6 are planned to be reserved for specific functions. First, a future hold bay on the west side of the Runway 36 threshold is planned. Second, all obstructions within the runway visibility zone, in- cluding existing trees, should be cleared and maintained clear. Third, following proper engineering as- sessment, a storm water runoff detention facility is planned. Any future non -aviation development on Area 6 should first consider locations farthest from the run- ways. Often, airports will reserve a buffer of up to 1,200 feet from the runway centerlines to allow for future aviation needs. This distance preserves the potential for apron space, hangar space, and access roads. In fact, TxDOT or FAA could require this aviation reserve buffer; however, it is not planned to be depicted on the airport layout plan because the need for aviation development of this area is likely more than 50 years into the future. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT BUILDING The Airport does not have a consolidated maintenance facility. The primary factor when considering locations for a maintenance facility is to avoid land that has a highest and best use as an aviation facility. The one commodity that an airport has that is in short supply is land with potential access to the run- way/taxiway system. If feasible, this aviation land should only be used for aviation purposes. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-16 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I IRI'r iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� A new maintenance facility is planned on the east side of Wright Brothers Drive. This land does not have ready access to the runway/taxiway system and is appropriate for airport support functions. SUPPORT FACILITIES Georgetown Municipal Airport has a terminal building that includes administrative offices, a small con- ference room, public restrooms, a lobby/lounge area, and a line service desk used by airport staff. This facility serves as an excellent entry point to the City of Georgetown. The building is optimally located, central to the airfield, and facing the main terminal apron area. The building should be maintained to an aesthetically high standard in its current location. Analysis of terminal facilities indicated that the space made available at airport FBOs, in conjunction with the public facilities available in the terminal building, meet the needs of aviation users at the airport. As new airport businesses are established at the Airport, each should make appropriate space available for their customers. Consideration may be given to expanding the terminal building to include a restaurant. This would be a local decision as TxDOT grant funding is not available for revenue spaces in terminal buildings. Another location considered for a restaurant is immediately east of the control tower. The parking lot serving the terminal building is currently being expanded. Once complete, the number of parking spaces should be adequate through the long-term planning period. As more hangars are con- structed, each should include dedicated vehicle parking lots to serve both based and transient users. As noted in Chapter Three — Facility Requirements, approximately 60 new parking spaces are forecast to be needed over the long term. AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN The objective of airport land use planning is to coordinate future uses of the airport property in a manner that is both functional with the design of the airport and compatible with the airport environs. There are two primary considerations for on -airport land use planning. First is to secure those areas essential to the safe and efficient operation of the airport. Second is to determine compatible land uses for the balance of the property which would be most economically advantageous to the airport and the com- munity. ON -AIRPORT LAND USE OBLIGATIONS The Airport has accepted grants for capital improvements from the FAA. As such, the Airport sponsor has agreed to certain grant assurances (See Appendix Q. Grant assurances related to land use ensure that Airport property will be reserved for aeronautical purposes. If the Airport sponsor wishes to sell Page 273 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I AIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft (release) airport land or lease airport land for a non -aeronautical purpose (land use change), they must petition TxDOT for approval. The Airport Layout Plan and the Airport Property Map must then be up- dated to reflect the sale or land use change of the identified property. The FAA's Airport Compliance Program (as enforced by TxDOT) ensures airport sponsors comply with the Federal obligations they assume when they accept Federal grant funds or the transfer of Federal property for airport purposes. The program serves to protect the public interest in civil aviation and ensure compliance with applicable Federal laws, FAA rules, and policies. Sources of Obligations When airports receive Federal assistance, the owners or sponsors accept certain obligations and condi- tions which may be incurred by contract or by restrictive covenants in property deeds. This generally involves the following: • Grant agreements (Grant Assurances) issued under Federal grant programs • Instruments of approved property transfers (e.g., property acquisition) • Deeds of conveyance When Airport owners and operators accept Federal grants, they agree to preserve and operate their facilities in a safe and efficient manner and comply with certain conditions and assurances. These obli- gations can span different airport development grant programs, including the Federal Aid to Airports Program (FAAP), the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), and the current Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Airport owners should be aware that obligations incurred under each program or con- veyance document vary. Major Obligations The following list includes some of the major obligations an airport owner can incur when accepting a Federal airport development grant. • Prohibition of exclusive rights • Proper use of airport revenue for Airport needs • Proper maintenance and operation of airport facilities • Protection of approaches • Keeping good title of airport property • Compatible land use • Availability of fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination • Adhering to the approved airport layout plan • Financial self-sustainability • Sale or disposal of Federally acquired property • Preserving rights and powers Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-18 GEORGETOWN _ M INICIPAI AIIlI�M1 AIRPORT MASTER PL' - • Using acceptable accounting and record -keeping systems • Compliance with civil rights requirements The FAA encourages airport owners to review each agreement and conveyance document to ensure that they understand their obligations. Keeping good records will allow them to quickly reference incurred obligations. Further, annual reviews of all agreements will aid efforts in complying with incurred Federal obligations. ON -AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN The FAA requires that all federally obligated airports utilize property for aviation purposes first and fore- most. If an airport has land that is unlikely to be utilized for aviation purposes because it exceeds that which is forecast to be needed or is inaccessible by aircraft, then these lands may be considered for compatible, non -aviation revenue support development. The revenue from these activities would pro- vide supplemental funds to the airport with the goal of improving an airport's overall financial position. By categorizing the entirety of airport property, Airport management can plan and direct any develop- ment proposals to appropriate locations. There are three major land use categories on an airport: air- field operations, aviation development, and non -aviation revenue support. The non -aviation revenue support category is only available to those airports with property that is unlikely to be needed for airfield operations or aviation development or cannot be utilized for those purposes. Often these categories are further subdivided to provide a better understanding of current or intended uses of airport property. Exhibit 513 presents the proposed land use classification for the Airport, each of which is discussed in the following sections. Airfield Operations Airfield operations is that portion of airport property that encompasses the major airside elements, such as the runways, taxiways, runway safety area, runway object free area, runway obstacle free zone, run- way protection zone (on airport property), taxiway safety area, taxiway object free area, navigational aid critical areas, and the runway visibility zone (where applicable). Airfield operations are intended for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft to and from the airfield. This land use designation includes the various object clearing areas and only elements necessary for aircraft navigation can be located here. Aviation Development The Aviation Development land use category includes those areas that should be reserved for develop- ment that require access to the airfield operations area. This might include aircraft hangars and trans - Page 275 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRI'Ok I AIRPORT MASTER Pt portation terminals. Any aviation business needing access to the runway and taxiway system could lo- cate in these areas. A rule of thumb is that all land immediately adjacent to the runway and taxiway system must be reserved for aviation development. For undeveloped areas in this classification, a depth of approximately 1,200 feet from the runway centerline is typically reserved. This distance will allow for future taxiways, taxilanes, aprons, hangars, and access roads. This land use category has been further subdivided as follows: High Activity Areas: High activity areas are those locations that are planned for greater frequency of aircraft movements. These areas are typically situated closest to the runway/taxiway system. Common uses in the high activity areas include conventional hangars and airport aviation businesses. Uses in the high activity areas frequently cater to transient users. Low -Activity Areas: Low activity areas are typically set to the side or back from the high activity areas. Often these are areas utilized by locally based aircraft owners. Typical uses include T-hangars and box hangars. Airport Support Function Area: This land use designation encompasses the variety of services necessary for operating an airport, including the fuel farm, maintenance building, and dedicated drainage facilities. Aviation Development/Non-Aviation Revenue Support This land use classification may accommodate aviation functions, but the analysis in this master plan has indicated that it may also be used for compatible non -aviation development. There are three primary areas identified for this land use classification. The first is the land surrounding the control tower, east of the terminal building. A stand-alone restaurant has been considered for this location. The second is the undeveloped land to the east of Wright Brothers Drive. A portion of this land currently serves as storm water detention. A new airport maintenance building is planned for a site adjacent to the deten- tion basin. A new detention basin site has been identified to the west of the Runway 36 threshold. This basin should be sized to accommodate additional runoff created by the planned development. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW, RECYCLING PLAN & LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This section discusses three instrumental topics in the airport master planning process: the environ- mental overview, recycling plan, and land use compatibility. Each of these categories are uniquely in- fluenced by the proposed master plan concept, as is explored below. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW Analysis of the potential environmental impacts of recommended airport development projects, as dis- cussed in this chapter and depicted on Exhibit 5A, is a key component of the Airport Master Plan process. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-20 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MA ER LAN i ; •.: o \ . IL r ' t• . 'f ` }s, _ `1 y�_1 `. •. .tip'`: L ^� O 1 I r. v •. �� 01 + i � � — _.-)�-• — �.. � ©i ,p . \ - ,tea � _ � - J ' - t nwa 18-3616,000' x 100') - fi .ti";, �z . ti 98'Ext sion 49 an det ntion pond tY '� _ '* ✓ .• ,'` , � � �• •. +, .tea `• � !• � � `" I '3.•.: �. yam{ r 1• ;'�` �- 1 "-�' 2 �' 2� .a E' AN GT\ -� rryy' -Tu�'x; •: s - ,d'°� �' � di. ` � LEGEND r - ti. *.� S M •� _ • 1 `► y. - tiC i �t Blvd Northv IL r ' �•� r��y- A,• Xf _r i�."`r : /-v�'•�. T. 'q. ''fib r . i .-f�-- �•"y 44� 4 'W;-� i• �, y.. • �'� w i} ��� a, i. \ ' • NORTH 800 .' 1600� r � r -r SCALE IN FEET Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-21 6t0:000g1eVW2-3-16 1% Exhibit 5B AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 278 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PQMh m The primary purpose of this Environmental Overview is to identify significance thresholds for the various resource categories contained in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Exhibit 4-1 and FAA Order 5050.413, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation Instruc- tions for Airport Actions, Table 7.1. The Environmental Overview then evaluates the development pro- gram to determine whether proposed actions could individually or collectively significantly affect the quality of the environment. Construction of any improvements depicted on the recommended development concept plan requires compliance with NEPA to receive federal financial assistance or to obtain a federal approval (i.e., a fed- eral action). For projects not "categorically excluded" under FAA Order 1050.1F, compliance with NEPA is generally satisfied through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is prepared when the initial review of the proposed action indicates that it is not categorically excluded, involves at least one extraordinary circumstance, or the action is not one known normally to require an Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS). If none of the potential impacts are likely to be significant, then the responsible FAA official prepares a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which briefly presents, in writing, the reasons why an action, not otherwise categorically excluded, would not have a significant impact on the human environment and the approving official may approve it. Issuance of a FONSI signi- fies that FAA would not prepare an EIS and has completed the NEPA process for the proposed action. In instances where significant environmental impacts are expected, an EIS may be required. An EIS is a clear, concise, and appropriately detailed document that provides agency decision -makers and the pub- lic with a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts of the proposed action and reason- able alternatives and implements the requirement in NEPA §102(2)(C) for a detailed written statement. The Airport is currently engaged in a year -long Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). The WHA identifies those species that could increase the risk of a wildlife strike with an aircraft. The WHMP identifies the specific actions an airport will take to mitigate the risk of wildlife strikes on or near the airport. The WHA and WHMP should be used to inform airport man- agement when undertaking any capital projects at the airport. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Table 5D summarizes potential environmental concerns associated with implementation of the recom- mended Master Plan development concept. Analysis under NEPA includes direct, indirect, and cumula- tive impacts. Chapter 6 provides the full capital improvement projects list. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-23 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - AIRPORT MASTER PCAIr� TABLE 5D Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Georgetown Municipal Airport Impact Threshold/Environmental Significance Air Quality Threshold: The action would cause pollutant None. According to the most recent FAA Avia- concentrations to exceed one or more of the tion Emissions and Air Quality Handbook (2015), National Ambient Air Quality Standards an emissions inventory under NEPA may be nec- (NAAQS), as established by the United States essary for any proposed action that would re- (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sult in a foreseeable increase in emissions due under the Clean Air Act, for any of the time pe- to its implementation. For construction emis- riods analyzed, or to increase the frequency or sions, a qualitative or quantitative emissions in - severity of any such existing violations. ventory under NEPA may be required, depend- ing on the type of environmental review re- quired for the project. As seen on Exhibit 2F in Chapter 2, operations are anticipated to in- crease at a rate of 1.59 percent annually over the 20-year planning horizon of this Airport Master Plan. Williamson County currently meets federal NAAQS standards,'; thus, general conformity review per the Clean Air Act would not be required as part of NEPA analyses. Biological Threshold: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service For federally -listed species: Indirect. There are Resources (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Ser- 12 species protected by the Endangered Species (including fish, vice (NMFS) determines that the action would Act (ESA) with potential to occur on airport wildlife, and be likely to jeopardize the continued exist- property, some of which have the potential to plants) ence of a federally listed threatened or en- be impacted by proposed projects. The 12 spe- dangered species, or would result in the de- cies include: the Georgetown salamander; Jol- struction or adverse modification of federally lyville plateau salamander; Salado salamander; designated critical habitat. bone cave harvestman; black -capped vireo; golden-cheeked warbler; least tern; piping FAA has not established a significance thresh- plover; red knot; whooping crane; coffin cave old for non -listed species. However, factors to mold beetle; and, tooth cave ground beetle.' consider are if an action would have the po- tential for: Much of Williamson County (approximately • Long term or permanent loss of unlisted 112,000 acres or 15.5 percent of the County) is plant or wildlife species; underlain by geology that is likely to contain • Adverse impacts to special status species caves with endangered karst invertebrates — or their habitats; which includes the bone cave harvestman, the • Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, coffin cave mold beetle, and the tooth cave disturbance, or fragmentation of native ground beetle (see Exhibit 5C). Some of the species' habitats or their populations; or greatest threats to karst species are indirect, in • Adverse impacts on a species' reproduc- that activities that alter surface drainage pat- tive rates, non -natural mortality, or ability terns through changes in topography, impervi- to sustain the minimum population levels ous cover, and site grading can lead to the dry - required for population maintenance. ing of karst features and changes in nutrient in- put. Changes to surface plant communities ' Texas Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants, EPA (data current as of Sept. 30, 2017; accessed Oct. 10, 2017) (https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_tx.html) ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/loca- tion/SDVE6YAUZ5GZXJT6URBHAKKHRI/resources) Page 280 of 588 GEORGETOWN MASTER'AUNICIPAt AIRPORT AIRPORT Florence Listed Species Present • Coffin Cave Mold Beetle ® Tooth Cave Ground Beetle _ } 195 C. Bone Cave Harvestman i Bone Cave Harvestman and Coffin Cave Mold Beetle 23386. coo V 195 00. V • Tl d V V Ji C, Source: Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SWCA, August 15, 2008) Karst Fauna Regions North Williamson County O Karst Fauna Region (KFR) Georgetown KFR l- McNeil, Round Rock KFR C Cedar Park KFR p Karst Geologic Units Edwards Limestone Georgetown Limestone GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT rgetown 29 Page 281 of 588 GEORGETOWN � _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTERPL' through land grading and paving can also lead to decreased levels of nutrient input into caves, altering cave temperatures and moisture levels that karst invertebrates require.3 Projects in the Master Plan concept that could impact these species include future roads/parking areas; fu- ture airport pavement; and future buildings, all of which require grading, land clearing, and pav- ing. In addition, there's an estimated 34,465 acres of woodland habitat in Williamson County that could potentially support the golden-cheeked warbler (see Exhibit 5D). The golden-cheeked warbler is known to arrive in central Texas in early to mid -March for breeding. They prefer relatively dense and mature woodland com- posed of a combination of Ashe juniper and hardwood tree species, especially deciduous oaks. The greatest threats to the continued ex- istence of the golden-cheeked warbler is habitat loss and urban encroachment on its breeding habitat.' Projects that would result in the reduc- tion of tree habitat on airport property could impact the livelihood of the golden-cheeked warbler. There is also approximately 4,267 acres of scrubland habitat that could potentially support the black -capped vireo (see Exhibit 5E). Typical breeding habitat is semi -open to relatively dense shrubland with vegetative cover down to ground level. Their habitat is usually dominated by shin oak or evergreen sumac, and sometimes Texas oak, plateau live oak, fragrant sumac, prairie sumac, poison ivy, Texas persimmon, redbud and Ashe juniper. The primary threats to the black -capped vireo include destruction of breeding habitat, loss or deterioration of breed- ing habitat through natural processes, low re- productive success, and indirect effect of land use on breeding grounds.' Although the black - capped vireo is not known to be omnipresent in Williamson County, any proposed construction that would destroy potential breeding habitat would impact this species. The least tern, piping plover, red knot, and whopping crane all prefer beachy substrates ' Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SWCA, August 15, 2008) Page 282 of 588 GEORGETOWN AIRPORT LEGEND • Golden-cheeked Warbler (GCW) Location 2338 P j . ems, . • .~• P. * County Boundary Open Space Lands Potential GCW Habitat (34,465 Acres) �1 GEORGETOWN �► MUNICIPAL AIRPORT t -'� 1431 0 • _ IL AIL Source: Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SWCA, August 15, 2008) GEORGETOWN AIRPORTMUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER / 4, LEGEND Potential Black -capped Vireo Habitat 4 Open Space Lands County Boundary 183 r GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IL • 1 000 go 1431 t ' Source: Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SWCA, August 15, 2008) GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRI'MI AIRPORT MAS and tidal areas as habitat and, therefore, con- struction activities at the airport will not impact any habitat for these endangered species. Further, projects that could degrade the water quality and quantity in springs and streams in the watersheds of Williamson County could have implications for protected salamanders, including the Georgetown salamander, Jollyville plateau salamander, and Salado salamander. Pecan Branch is the closest surface water to the Airport that could support these aquatic spe- cies; however, the primary location for these salamanders are in the North and South Forks of San Gabriel River, which would not be im- pacted by construction activities at the airport.3 Presence of any of the above -mentioned spe- cies, with potential to occur on or near airport property, should be evaluated prior to any de- velopment to ensure no harm to these pro- tected species occur. Informal or formal ESA, Section 7 consultation may be required. For designated critical habitat: None. There is no designated critical habitat located on airport property. For non -listed species: Indirect. Non -listed spe- cies of concern include those protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act. There are several pockets of airport property that are forested, which could provide roosting and/or foraging habitat for migratory birds pro- tected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (see Table 1P for full list of protected birds). Conducting bird surveys prior to devel- opment may be required to identify mitigation for potential harm to nests and/or ground - dwelling birds and to ensure compliance with the MBTA. Climate FAA has not established a significance thresh- Indirect. An increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) old for Climate; refer to FAA Order 1050.11's emissions could occur over the 20-year planning Desk Reference for the most up-to-date meth- horizon of the Airport Master Plan due to the odology for examining impacts associated with projected increase in operations (see Air Qual- climate change. ity). Project -specific analysis may be required per the FAA Order 1050.11' Desk Reference. DRAFT 5-29 Recommended Development Plan - Coastal Resources FAA has not established a significance thresh- None. The airport is not located within a desig- old for Coastal Resources. nated coastal zone. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act: Section 4(f) Farmlands Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention Threshold: The action involves more than a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) re- source or constitutes a "constructive use" based on an FAA determination that the avia- tion project would substantially impair the Section 4(f) resource. Resources that are pro- tected by Section 4(f) are publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or lo- cal significance; and publicly or privately - owned land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance. Substantial im- pairment occurs when the activities, features, or attributes of the resource that contribute to its significance or enjoyment are substan- tially diminished. Indirect. There are no wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, or properties included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that would be physically or constructively used by proposed development. However, there are four locally significant historical properties on Airport prop- erty that could be impacted by proposed devel- opment (see discussion in Historical, Architec- tural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources). All development is proposed on airport prop- erty, except for the planned new access road extending 0.30 miles from Granada Drive to the airport property line. This proposed access road would be adjacent to the Georgetown Tennis Center, which is a City -owned recreation area. During the NEPA process for the roadway ex- tension, additional study may be required to de- termine if physical or constructive use of the Georgetown Tennis Center property would oc- cur. Additionally, consultation with the City of Georgetown would be needed to determine if the project -related impacts would substantially impair the resource. Using this information, FAA would then determine Section 4(f) applica- bility and determine what impacts, if any, would occur. Threshold: The total combined score on Form I None. Based on the U.S. Department of Agricul- AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rat- ing," ranges between 200 and 260. (Form AD- 1006 is used by the U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Natural Resources Conservation Ser- vice (NRCS) to assess impacts under the Farm- land Protection Policy Act (FPPA). FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention. However, factors to be considered are if an action would have the po- tential to: • Violate applicable federal, state, tribal, or local laws or regulations regarding hazard- ous materials and/or solid waste manage- ment; • Involve a contaminated site; ture, Natural Resources Conservation Service — Web Soil Survey (NRCS-WSS), there are three areas on airport property classified as prime farmland (see Exhibit 1P). Two of the parcels are in the Runway 18 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), and thus are not slated for development. The third parcel is east of the Georgetown Jet Center hangar and has no development pro - None. There are no documented Superfund sites, brownfields or hazardous waste facilities on airport property. The closest of these facili- ties are two hazardous waste generators lo- cated on Aviation Drive and Halmar Cove just east of airport property (see Exhibit 1P). Con- struction activities would not interfere with these uses. The recommended Master Plan development Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-3.0.. GEORGETOWN V_A _ MUNICIPAI AIKI'<>KI AIRPORT MASTER PEW Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste; Generate an appreciably different quan- tity or type of solid waste or use a differ- ent method of collection or disposal and/or would exceed local capacity; or Adversely affect human health and the en - vironment. FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources. Factors to consider are if an action would result in a finding of "ad- verse effect" through the Section 106 process. However, an adverse effect finding does not automatically trigger preparation of an EIS (i.e., a significant impact). concept does not anticipate land uses that would produce an appreciably different quan- tity or type of hazardous waste. However, should this type of land use be proposed, oper- ators of the activities that would generate the hazardous waste would have to obtain a Re- source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generator identification (ID) number from the EPA or an authorized state (40 CFR Section 262.12). There may also be some situations that would require RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) permits. If an RCRA generator ID number or TSD permit would be required, it should be stated in subsequent NEPA documentation. Construction and demolition waste would be generated because of development proposed in the Master Plan. Construction and demolition waste, along with all other types of non -hazard- ous solid waste, would be hauled to the Georgetown Transfer Station, approximately 1.5 miles south of the airport. The current solid waste service provider is Texas Disposal Sys- tems, who provides weekly pickups. In addition, the airport operates under a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, which pro- vides guidance and regulations for the preven- tion and control of spills of potentially hazard- ous materials, particularly oil and fuel. It out- lines procedures and storage requirements for spill prevention. None. The closest properties listed on the NRHP are two miles away from the airport and thus would not be impacted by proposed develop- ment on airport property. However, there are four properties on airport property that are considered local historic resources (see Exhibit 1P and Chapter One for additional information). These properties include the terminal building (500 Terminal Drive), the airport traffic control tower (408 Terminal Drive), a T-hangar struc- ture (204 Hangar Drive), and a box hangar (108 Hangar Drive, at intersection with Terminal Drive in the northwest corner). The develop- ment concept shows the following potential im- pacts to these sites: Terminal building: expansion to include a potential restaurant. T-Hangar: replaced to update facility and provide for parking area. GEORGETOWN Mt INK IPAI AIRP )IZ I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Land Use FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Land Use. There are also no specific in- dependent factors to consider. The determi- nation that significant impacts exist is normally dependent on the significance of other im- pacts. — Box hangar: replaced to update facility and provide for parking area. These sites cannot be demolished or signifi- cantly altered without approval from the local Historic and Architectural Review Commission. These buildings are eligible for listing in the NRHP and will thus require Section 106 and 4(f) reviews if any federal funds or permits are asso- ciated with future development projects at the airport. TxDOT and the FAA will need to coordi- nate with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council for Historic preservation to determine the appropriate treatments for the structure. In addition, City staff is required to submit comments on any federally funded or permitted projects to the SHPO through the City's Certified Local Govern- ment Agreement." Should any previously undisturbed areas of the airport be subject to ground disturbance, a cul- tural resources survey may be necessary to de- termine the potential presence of historic arti- facts. None. The proposed development concept shows development primarily occurring within existing airport boundaries, except for the planned access road extension from Granada Drive. Chapter 1 presents existing land uses (Ex- hibit 1C), future land uses (Exhibit 1D), and cur- rent zoning (Exhibit 1E). Disruption of local traf- fic patterns could occur during construction of the access road extension from Granada Drive; however, these impacts would be temporary in nature. Further, there are three areas proposed for property acquisition that would require the acquisition of many homes. This is discussed in greater detail in the Socioeconomic Impacts section below. Note that all development proposed in the Mas- ter Plan would be subject to the regulations outlined in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Airport, which institutes impervi- ous cover limitations, stormwater control re- quirements, and tree/natural resource preser- vation requirements. ° Information from email communications, dated February 16, 2017, with the City of Georgetown Historic Planner. GEORGETOWN W INICI AI %Ikl'<>KI % AIRPORT MASTER PLAN f Natural Resources and Energy Supply Noise and Noise - Compatible Land Use FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Natural Resources and Energy Supply. However, factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to cause demand to exceed available or future supplies of these re- sources. Threshold: The action would increase noise by Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 1.5 decibel (dB) or more for a noise -sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be ex- posed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when com- pared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. None. Planned development projects at the air- port could increase demands on energy utilities, water supplies and treatment, and other natu- ral resources during construction; however, long-term impacts to service providers are not anticipated. Should long-term impacts be a con- cern, coordination with the Georgetown Utility Systems Department, as well as the City of Georgetown's Utility Master Plan, is recom- mended.' Direct. The airport's existing (2016) and long- term (2036) DNL noise exposure contours are shown on Exhibit 5F. The contours include the 65, 70, and 75 DNL.6 The FAA's threshold for compatibility with noise -sensitive land uses is the 65 DNL contour. The City of Georgetown Zoning Code (Chapter 12.36, Section 8.16.030) defines what is considered a noise nuisance based on the decibels emitted (see Chapter Another factor to consider is that special con- I One); however, Federal law preempts local au- sideration needs to be given to the evaluation of the significance of noise impacts on noise - sensitive areas within Section 4(f) properties where the land use compatibility guidelines in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 are not relevant to the value, significance, and enjoyment of the area in question. thority in regard to noise and thus the City Zon- ing Code cannot be used to restrict aircraft noise levels. Further, the Airport engages in a "Fly Friendly" Program that the City developed in response to concerned neighboring commu- nities (see Exhibit 1K). The purpose of the Pro- gram is to minimize the impact of aircraft oper- ations on the surrounding neighborhoods with- out unduly restricting the use of the airport.' The airport is surrounded by noise -sensitive land uses to the north, west, and south, which are primarily residential developments (see Ex- hibit 1P). Presently, and as shown on Exhibit 5F, the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours (2016) extend off airport property. Northwest of the Runway 18 end, the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours ex- tend off airport property into a residential de- velopment. The 65 DNL noise contour extends off airport property between the Runway 29 and 36 ends; however, this area is vacant and undeveloped. There are no existing noise im- pacts to Section 4(f) protected resources. The long-term (2036) noise contours (Exhibit 5 Utility/Infrastructure Plan (https://2030.georgetown.org/utility-master-plan/) 6 Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL). The 24-hour average sound level, in decibels, for the period from midnight to mid- night, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between midnight and 7 a.m., and between 10 p.m., and midnight, local time. The symbol for DNL is Ldn (See 14 CFR § 150.7). 1 "Fly Friendly" Program (https:Hairport.georgetown.org/fly-friendly-program/) GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIKI'<>KI AIRPORT MAST ERPL' 5F) extend off airport property in the same ar- eas as the existing contours. The 65 and 70 DNL noise contours northwest of the Runway 18 end are larger than the existing condition, likely due to the proposed runway extension. The 65 DNL noise contour that extends off both sides of the Runway 36 end are larger than the existing con- dition. There are no Section 4(f) protected re- sources within the future condition noise expo- sure contours. The FAA encourages local governments to take actions to reduce and prevent land uses around airports that are not compatible with airport operation and aircraft noise. As previously dis- cussed in Chapter One, Environmental Inven- tory, the City of Georgetown adopted an airport zoning designation in November 2005 that in- tended to limit residential uses near the airport by requiring appropriate buffers. Additionally, the Airport has an adopted Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (November 2004) that outlines the following recommendations related to noise: - Encourage departing aircraft to use the best rate of climb; - Encourage aircraft to begin departure from the end of the runway; - Avoid prolonged run -ups and perform them as near the center of the airport as possible; - Continue use of the National Business Aviation Association Noise Abatement Departure Procedures; - Maintain right-hand traffic pattern on Runway 36; - Designate Runway 11 as the preferen- tial nighttime runway; and, - Runway 11 noise abatement departure turn. Note that in 2007, an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) was constructed at the Airport. ATCT Controllers provide arrivals and departure guid- ance to ensure safe operations at the airport. The Fly Friendly Program documents are now for general reference only. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-34 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 2016 NOISE CONTOURS l OL z � r0 r � .• j � . ? t S � �t * EMI Y 1 '�• LEGEND Existing Run •�Airport Pro�t •• �• tom•1 2016 Noise Contoui Source: ESRI Basemap Imagery 2016 70 DNL • 111 111 Note: DNL -Day-Night Average Sound Level Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 2036 NOISE CONTOURS •. • r ' 10 IML y r + r J Source: ESRI semap Imagery (2016), ooe - oeoman Ba Note: DNL -Day-Night Average Sound L�e've lee 5-35 . :J Exhibit 5F EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS This page intentionally left blank Page 292 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIP I AIRP(W l AIRPORT MASTER PL'Xfljhh Socioeconomic Impacts Environmental Justice FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for socioeconomics. However, factors to consider are if an action would have the po- tential to: • Induce substantial economic growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through establishing projects in an unde- veloped area); • Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; • Cause extensive relocation when sufficient replacement housing is unavailable; • Cause extensive relocation of community businesses that would cause severe eco- nomic hardship for affected communities; • Disrupt local traffic patterns and substan- tially reduce the levels of service of roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities; or • Produce a substantial change in the com- munity tax base. Direct. Proposed development projects would occur primarily on airport property, except for the access road extension from Granada Drive. This roadway extension will occur in undevel- oped, vacant land, resulting in no home or busi- ness relocation; however, it could temporarily disrupt local traffic during construction. Addi- tionally, traffic volumes on and around airport property may increase during construction. However, neither of these impacts would result in long-term congestion. Following FAA guidelines, there are three areas proposed for future acquisition by the airport, when feasible. They are: - Runway 18 RPZ - 13 acres and 17 homes - Runway 36 RPZ - 12 acres and 7 homes - Runway 29 RPZ - 2.3 acres and 1 home If acquisition of real property or displacement of persons is involved, 49 CFR Part 24, as amended (implementing the Uniform Reloca- tion Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970), must be met for Federal projects and projects involving Federal funding. There is potential for increased economic activ- ity with the proposed aeronautical and non -aer- onautical related revenue development. FAA has not established a significance thresh- None. Since the Environmental Inventory (Chap - old for Environmental Justice. However, fac ter One) was conducted, the American Commu- tors to consider are if an action would have the potential to lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact to an environmental justice population (i.e., a low-income or minor ity population) due to: Significant impacts in other environmental impact categories; or Impacts on the physical or natural envi- ronment that affect an environmental jus- tice population in a way that FAA deter- mines are unique to the environmental nity Survey (ACS) 2011 - 2015 estimates have become available, providing new data for the block group' -I that contains the airport. Within this block group, there is a total population of 933 people, of which 48 persons (5.1%) are liv- ing below the poverty level.1D In this block group, almost 100 percent of the persons are White (930 people). Less than one percent of the block group is comprised of Black or African American persons, or individuals that are some other race." a Block Groups are statistical divisions of census tracts that generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people and are used to present data and control block numbering (U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html). 9 The airport is in block group 2, census tract 201.08. io American Community Survey 2011 - 2015 estimates (Table B17021: Poverty Status of Individuals in the Past 12 Months by Living Arrangement). " American Community Survey 2011 - 2015 estimates (Table B02001: Total Population). Dmmended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-37. GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIKI'<>KI AIRPORT MAS1ERPLX1�a�i justice population and significant to that The closest residences abut airport property to population. the north, west and south; however, per the EPA's Environmental Justice Screening (EJSCREEN) and Mapping Tool, the closest as- sisted multi -family housing development" is at the intersection of Northwest Boulevard and Janis Drive, west of Interstate 35 (approxi- mately 0.70 miles south of the airport). Given the distance, it is not expected that construc- tion would result in any disproportionately high and/or adverse impacts to any environmental justice populations residing near the airport. Children's FAA has not established a significance thresh- None. The nearest education facility is Frost El - Environmental old for Children's Environmental Health and ementary School, which is approximately one - Health and Safety Safety Risks. However, factors to consider are half mile west of the airport. Risks if an action would have the potential to lead to a disproportionate health or safety risk to chil- dren. Light Emissions FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Light Emissions. However, a factor to consider is the degree to which an action would have the potential to: • Create annoyance or interfere with nor- mal activities from light emissions; and • Affect the visual character of the area due to the light emissions, including the im- portance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual resources. Indirect. The primary recommendations related to lighting include implementing a two -light precision approach path indicator (PAPI-2) on both ends of the Runway 11-29; and, maintain- ing the PAPI-4 and runway end identifier lights (REILs) on Runway 18-36. The addition of lighting to proposed buildings, like additional hangars, the maintenance facil- ity, parallel taxiway, parking areas, and aviation and non -aviation revenue support facilities, could increase the amount of light emissions on the airport. This additional lighting could cause impacts to nearby residences, specifically those located just north of the airport, as this is where the bulk of development is proposed. Further, additional lighting could impact nearby wildlife, like light-sensitive species that hunt, migrate, or mate at night near the airport. How- ever, these species are likely already acclimated to airport lights. The incremental change in lighting due to recommended Master Plan pro- jects is not anticipated to cause undue stress. "The multi -family assisted properties layer in the EPA's EJSCREEN consist primarily of rental housing properties with five or more dwelling units, but also include nursing homes, hospitals, elderly housing, mobile home parks, and retirement service centers. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides subsidies and grants to property owners and developers to promote the development and preservation of affordable rental units for low-income populations and those with special needs, such as the elderly and disabled. Page 294 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Visual Resources/Visual Character Wetlands Floodplains FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Visual Resources/Visual Character. However, a factor to consider is the extent an action would have the potential to: • Affect the nature of the visual character of the area, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the af- fected visual resources; • Contrast with the visual resources and/or visual character in the study area; and • Block or obstruct the views of the visual resources, including whether these re- sources would still be viewable from other locations. Threshold: The action would: 1. Adversely affect a wetland's function to protect the quality or quantity of munici- pal water supplies, including surface wa- ters and sole source and other aquifers; 2. Substantially alter the hydrology needed to sustain the affected wetland system's values and functions or those of a wet- land to which it is connected; 3. Substantially reduce the affected wet- land's ability to retain floodwaters or storm runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (the term wel- fare includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources or property important to the public); 4. Adversely affect the maintenance of nat- ural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically important tim- ber, food, or fiber resources of the af- fected or surrounding wetlands. 5. Promote development of secondary ac- tivities or services that would cause the circumstances listed above to occur; or 6. Be inconsistent with applicable state wet- land strategies. Threshold: The action would cause notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Natural and beneficial floodplain values are defined in Paragraph 4.k 13 City of Georgetown Zoning, Chapter 4, Section 4.12 None. Development planned in the recom- mended Master Plan development concept would not significantly change the overall visual character of the airport. Additionally, all devel- opment is primarily on airport property and im- provements to the airside and/or landside facili- ties would not obstruct or interfere with any visual resources nearby. The City of Georgetown has a Courthouse View Protection (CVP) Overlay District that is intended to preserve views of the Williamson County Courthouse from various locations along corri- dors in Georgetown.13 The airport is over two miles away from the CVP overlay district and re- alization of the development concept would not interfere with any view sheds the district is in- tended to protect. None. There are no wetlands or hydric soils on airport property according to the USFWS Na- tional Wetlands Inventory. None. There is a 100-year floodplain associated with Pecan Branch along the southwest airport boundary. There is no development proposed in or near the floodplain. Should development be FG"GETOWN l iyl( II'Al AIIZN W I AIRPORT MAS of DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Manage- ment and Protection. Surface Waters Threshold: The action would: 1. Exceed water quality standards estab- lished by federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or 2. Contaminate public drinking water sup- ply such that public health may be ad- versely affected. Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to: • Adversely affect natural and beneficial wa- ter resource values to a degree that sub- stantially diminishes or destroys such val- ues; • Adversely affect surface water such that the beneficial uses and values of such wa- ters are appreciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such impair- ment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or • Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or au- thorization. considered in the southwest portion of the Air- port, best management practices (BMPs) should be used to ensure development does not occur in the part of the floodplain that is on airport property (see Exhibit 1P). Additionally, if no practicable alternative avoids a floodplain, the FAA or applicant must incorporate mitigation measures into the proposed project to minimize potential harm to or within floodplains (see FAA Desk Reference 1050.1F, Chapter 14 for mitiga- tion measures). Indirect. Airport projects, such as additional apron, parking lots, buildings and other impervi- ous surfaces, could increase the amount of run- off from the Airport. The airport is required by the EPA and Texas Commission on Environmen- tal Quality (TCEQ) to treat storm water runoff before it is discharged. There are two storm wa- ter pollution prevention control facilities at the airport (see Exhibit 1P) and a third storm water feature is proposed to accommodate potential increased runoff in the southwest corner of air- port property (see Exhibit 5A). One of the existing storm water features on air- port property is a water quality pond (located adjacent and north to Terminal Drive) designed to capture and filter the first one-half inch of storm water runoff from the north T-hangar ar- eas of approximately 16.2 acres. Treated storm water runoff is then discharged into culverts be- neath Terminal Drive. There is development proposed to the east, south, and west of this water quality pond. The second storm water feature is a detention pond, located at the southeast corner of airport property. This detention pond, which also func- tions as a sedimentation and filtration struc- ture, captures storm water runoff from up- stream and retains it for a period of time. There is no development proposed near this deten- tion pond. Pecan Branch flows onto the southwest corner of airport property, where there is potential for future aeronautical and/or non -aeronautical de- velopment. If construction is proposed around Pecan Branch, FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G, Standards for Specifying Con- struction of Airports, Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and Siltation Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-40 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIKI'<>KI AIRPORT MASTERPL' Groundwater Wild and Scenic Rivers Threshold: The action would: 1. Exceed groundwater quality standards established by federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies: or 2. Contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to: • Adversely affect natural and beneficial groundwater values to a degree that sub- stantially diminishes or destroys such val- ues; • Adversely affect groundwater quantities such that the beneficial uses and values of such groundwater are appreciably dimin- ished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or • Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or au- thorization. FAA has not established a significance thresh- old for Wild and Scenic Rivers. RECYCLING PLAN Control should be implemented. If Pecan Branch is deemed jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), coordi- nation with USACE would be required to deter- mine the level of permitting, if any, that would be required. Indirect. According to the City of Georgetown's 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2009), most of the City sits within the designated protection zones of the Edwards Aquifer, which is a natural groundwater resource extending 180 miles along the Balcones Fault Zone. The City draws its water from Lake Georgetown, but the Ed- wards Aquifer provides water for many commu- nities, and thus is a resource the City protects and monitors. The Master Plan concept demonstrates future revenue -generating opportunities on airport property that could increase the amount of wa- ter used on site. The aviation and non -aviation related revenue support areas could result in in- creased water use as these properties are de- veloped in the future. At the time of develop- ment, water scarcity impacts should be ad- dressed during design. None. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within 250 miles of the airport. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which amended Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), included several changes to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Two of these changes are related to recycling, reuse, and waste reduction at airports. - Section 132 (b) of the FMRA expanded the definition of airport planning to include "developing a plan for recycling and minimizing the generation of airport solid waste, consistent with appli- cable State and local recycling laws, including the cost of a waste audit." - Section 133 of the FMRA requires airports that have, or plan to prepare a master plan, and that receive AIP funding for an eligible project, to ensure that the new or updated master plan ad- dresses issues relating to solid waste recycling at the airport. This includes: - The feasibility of solid waste recycling at the airport; - Minimizing the generation of solid waste at the airport; Page 297 of 588 GEORGETOWN M(INICIPAI nikl'Ok l AIRPORT MASTER PL' — Operation and maintenance requirements; — A review of waste management contracts; and, — The potential for cost savings or the generation of revenue. CURRENT RECYCLING PRACTICES Recycling services are presently managed independently by various tenants and entities in what is known as a decen- tralized waste management system. The terminal building is the only place on airport that has public recycling bins. Currently, there are two recycling bins — one on the inside of the terminal building and one on the outside that are emptied into a 96-gallon cart. Recycling services at the ter- minal building are provided by Texas Disposal Systems, and pick-ups are scheduled as needed. (-I IRPr-nIT I;f)I ID WASTE PRACTICES The airport terminal and ATCT share a 4-yard dumpster that is serviced once per week for solid waste. Addition- ally, the Airport has one 8-yard dumpster and one 3-yard dumpster on the property that are serviced once per week for tenant use. What CAN be recycled? a — NEws Typically, plastic bottles, newspapers, magazines paper, aluminum cans and non - coated food service containers can be placed in mixed recycling bins. What CAN'T be recycled? Usually. plastic bags; soiled containers; food and non-food product wrapping, and Styrofoam can be recycled. Is every airport the same? Some airports recycle glass bottles and compost sold and liquid food waste. Be sure to ask what can and can't be recycled to maximize waste diversion! FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES Figure 1 Recycling Signage Example Future recycling opportunities at the airport include an additional paper- and cardboard -only dumpster for the airport, as this is a common item that is thrown in the trash. A tenant at the airport has indicated that this is a need. Further, the airport could consider incorporating clearly marked signage of what is and is not accepted placed near the solid waste and recycling containers to ensure consistent and effec- tive recycling practices. Figure 1 provides an example of signage that the airport could use in the future to explain what can and cannot be recycled. The airport should explore a centralized recycling manage- ment system that would provide greater opportunity for participation from airport tenants who many not be incentivized to recycle on their own. A centralized system would reduce the number of players involved in the overall management of the recycling efforts. Lastly, the City of Georgetown is developing a Solid Waste Master Plan that provides the vision and framework necessary to guide future activities and to develop the infrastructure, programs and policies needed to manage the City's solid waste for the Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-42 GEORGETOWN _ _ MUNICII'nl. AIRPOR1 AIRPORT MAS next 20 years. When this document becomes available, the airport could look to this document for ad- ditional suggestions on how to improve solid waste diversion rates to support the City's goals.14 RECYCLING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES While the airport may or may not pursue the implementation of a centralized recycling management system, there are other opportunities for improvement. Table 5E outlines objectives that could help reduce waste generation and increase recycling efforts. To increase the effectiveness of tracking pro- gress at the airport, a baseline state of all suggested metrics should be established to provide a compar- ison over time. Table 5E Waste Management and Recycling Goals Georgetown Municipal Airport .. •. M. ETIM Begin recycling cardboard and paper products Establishment of a dedicated card- board and paper dumpster Switch to online bill pay No longer receiving monthly paper bills Conduct a waste audit to identify most com- Identification of most common mon types of waste collected wastes Eliminate purchase of items that are not recy- Number of items purchased that are clable (i.e., Styrofoam) not recyclable Explore feasibility of on- or off -site composting Pounds of landscaping and food of landscaping and food waste waste Increase the number of recycling bins in public Number of recycling bins available areas of the terminal building to the public Incorporate recycling requirements and/or Number of tenant contracts with re - recommendations into tenant lease agree- cycling requirements and/or recom- ments mendations Expand recycling marketing & promotion ef- Number of marketing & promotional forts in the terminal building materials Require contractors to implement strategies Incorporation of waste reduction, to reduce, reuse, & recycle C&D waste reuse and recycling language into construction contracts; reduced construction costs C&D: Construction and Demolition MSW: Municipal Solid Waste Source: Airport Management (October 17, 2016). 14 https://recycle.georgetown.org/solid-waste-master-plan-swmp/ Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-43. .. •, GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAl Alkl'Ok I NNIL AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1� AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This section will discuss the current and future land uses around the airport, as well as the regulatory framework in the airport's environs. Land use planning in the area surrounding the airport occurs through regulatory and non -regulatory means. The primary tools include: Zoning Ordinance - Building Codes General Plan - Fair Disclosure Regulations Specific Plan - Land and/or Property Acquisition Subdivision Regulations The main regulatory tool for directing land use is the zoning ordinance, which limits the types, size, and density of land uses in various locations. Examples of land use types include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural. Non -regulatory means of land use control include land use plans, commonly referred to as general plans, comprehensive plans, or future land use plans. These can be adopted for the greater municipality or for specific areas. While general land use plans are intended to establish policies to guide development and land use, cities and counties control land use through zoning ordi- nances. Within the study area, land is only zoned within the city limits of Georgetown as the State of Texas has not passed legislation which would allow Williamson County to adopt a zoning ordinance. In the case of Georgetown Municipal Airport, the responsible jurisdiction exerting land use authority within the vicinity of the airport is the City of Georgetown. Areas around the airport that are unincorpo- rated parts of Williamson County are considered parts of the City of Georgetown's extraterritorial juris- diction (ETJ), which is the legal ability of a government to exercise land use authority beyond its normal boundaries. Exhibit SG shows the City of Georgetown limits, as well as areas under its ETJ. EXISTING LAND USE As discussed in Chapter One, existing land uses around the airport include residential developments to the north, west, and south. To the east are commercial/industrial land uses. As can be seen on Exhibit 1C in Chapter One, the airport is nearly surrounded by development. However, to better protect itself from incompatible development, the City of Georgetown acquired land that falls within the RPZs for Runways 11, 29, and 36. FUTURE LAND Usc Future land uses are shown on Exhibit 1D in Chapter One and are based on what is planned for in the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Areas to the north are planned for low density residential, whereas areas to the east and immediate south are designated as employment centers. Areas to the west are planned for low- to moderate -density residential. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-44 GEORGETOWN \1L'.N'I( II':AI :AIRI'UR1 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Va�� I t Op CITY Cr� LEAN CITY OF GEORGETOWN ETJ `� • �„\ £'� 1. I � � � CITY OF GE ORG TOWN 40 CITY OF GEORGETOWN ETJ r' • f.; < t � ;� hand► �- ♦ • CITY Road + Railroad Lake Georgetown :f�l Georgetown City Limits ETJ Agreement Lines ■ City of Hutto - 2007 ■ City of Jarrell - 2009 ■ City of Liberty Hill - 2008 ■ City of Weir - 1988 ■ City of Round Rock 2005 + Georgetown Municipal Airport N Source: City of Georgetown Mapping and Geographic Information Systems ` ITY OF ROUND R' Tr .- 1 Extra -Territorial Jurisdiction FLORENCE HUTTO JARRELL LEANDER LIBERTY HILL ROUND ROCK WEIR GEORGETOWN Incorporated City FLORENCE HUTTO JARRELL LEANDER LIBERTY HILL ROUND ROCK WEIR Page 301 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1*1_ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTERPL' ZONING Area zoning is presented on Exhibit 1E in Chapter One. Areas to the immediate north and south of the airport are unincorporated parts of Williamson County and do not have any existing zoning designations. However, these unincorporated areas are presently fully developed with low density residential housing. The airport property is zoned as industrial but has a Planned Unit Development Overlay District. An over- lay district is one that is applied over a previously established zoning district to create additional and/or in some cases more flexible development standards in addition to the underlying districts. The City of Georgetown Municipal Code (Chapter 4, Sec. 4.04.030, Part D) defines the PUD Overlay District as the following: "The Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is intended to allow flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive properties and that are to be developed in accordance with a common development scheme. PUD zoning is designed to accommodate var- ious types of development, including multiple housing types, neighborhood and community re- tail, professional and administrative areas, industrial and business parks, and other uses or a combination thereof. A PUD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land use and standards not permitted by zoning or the standards of this Code. Although greater flexibility is given to allow development in a PUD that would not otherwise be allowed, procedures and standards are established in this Code that are intended to ensure against misuse." Chapter 12.36 of the City of Georgetown Municipal Code establishes the Georgetown Airport Zoning Ordinance, which defines certain zones in and around the airport. As discussed in Chapter One, this or- dinance was created based on the Part 77 imaginary surfaces around the airport. Each individual zone is explained in Chapter One, as well as below. In addition to protections guaranteed by Chapter 8 (Sec. 8.02.030, Part 2a), the Ordinance states that any protected and heritage trees located in the Airport Clear Zone are exempt from the requirements laid out in Chapter 8, which discusses tree preservation, landscaping, and fencing ordinances. The Part 77 surfaces that the Airport Zoning Ordinance is based on would change as a result of the pro- posed changes to Runway 18-36. The City of Georgetown should consider updating the Airport Zoning Ordinance per the planned Part 77 surfaces to ensure that incompatible development does not occur prior to the runway extension. Chapter 5 (Sec. 5.05.010) of the City of Georgetown Municipal Code establishes uses that are allowed in each zoning district. If a Special Use Permit is obtained from the City Council, agriculture, industrial, and public use zones are allowed on airport property. Chapter 5 (Sec. 5.10.090) goes on to state that any service provider wanting to erect and operate a cell tower must follow current FAA rules and regulations so as to not interfere with the Georgetown Municipal Airport. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-46 GEORGETOWN I MUNICIPAI AIRP(W I AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1hLMEAMN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Subdivision regulations apply in cases where a parcel of land is proposed to be divided into lots or tracts. They are established to ensure the proper arrangements of streets, adequate and convenient public spaces, efficient movement of traffic, adequate and properly located facilities, and orderly and efficient layout and use of land. Subdivision regulations can be used to specify requirements for airport -compat- ible land development by requiring developers to plat and develop land to minimize noise impacts or reduce the noise exposure to new development. The regulations can also be used to protect the airport proprietor from litigation for noise impacts. The most common requirement is the dedication of a noise or avigation easement to the airport sponsor by the land developer as a condition of the development approval. Easements typically authorize over- flights of property, with noise levels attendant to such operations. They can also require developers to incorporate noise insulation during construction. The Airport Compatibility Guidelines (January 2003) for TexaS15 provides examples of subdivision regulations as tools to regulate aviation activity. One example is designating a public easement as the overflight of an aircraft along with its associated noise. A subdi- vision regulation could also restrict residential housing or require special acoustical construction within certain DNL contours. For example, the cities of Irving and Grapevine both have subdivision regulations that require the dedication of avigation easements as both municipalities have neighborhoods within the Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport's 65 DNL noise contour. The avigation easement protects both cities from lawsuits by homeowners who move into the noise -impacted areas. Although the Georgetown Municipal Airport has residential land uses that are impacted by the 65 and 70 DNL contours (both presently and in the future), subdivision regulations that would dedicate an air- port easement synonymous with the airport's noise contours would only protect future homeowners in areas that are currently undeveloped. Subdivision regulations that dedicate an avigation easement in the approach paths of Runways 18, 29, and 36 would provide protection to future buyers of the unde- veloped parcels, as well as the airport. Several of the undeveloped parcels in the Runway 29 approach path are zoned for single family residential, which are considered noise -sensitive. An avigation easement would alert prospective owners that there is an airport nearby. Note that, per the explanation below, the undeveloped parcel in the Runway 18 approach path would be subject to an avigation easement (if it were applied) as subdivision regulations apply within the City's ETJs. Per Chapter 1 (Sec. 1.05.020) of the City of Georgetown Municipal Code, the City, as authorized by Texas Local Government Code chapters 212 and 216, applies its applicable subdivision provisions to the City's ETJs. Subdivision regulations are in place only within the ETJs of Georgetown as Williamson County has not adopted subdivision regulations. The City of Georgetown subdivision regulations require that all final plats that lie within two miles of the Georgetown Municipal Airport have height restriction imposed by the Georgetown -Williamson County Joint Airport Ordinance. These restrictions are designated as an avi- gation easement. In addition, no building areas are permitted in areas designated as runway approach clear zones.16 11 http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/d/avninfo/Airport Compatibility Guidelines.pdf, Page 22: Subdivision Regula- tions (accessed October 19, 2017) 16 Georgetown Municipal Airport Noise Compatibility Study (November 2003) Page 303 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1W1 MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTERPL BUILDING CODES Building codes regulate the construction of buildings and ensure that they are constructed in a safe man- ner. Building codes may be used to require sound insulation in new residential, office, and institutional buildings when warranted by existing or potential high aircraft noise levels. According to the City of Georgetown Municipal Code, the City has adopted the 2012 edition of the International Building Code, which does not include specific provisions for aircraft noise attenuation. Given that there are residential areas in the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours, as well as the proximity of other noise -sensitive uses, the City of Georgetown should consider adopting language that requires con- struction techniques that reduce internal noise levels in noise -impacted areas. These provisions could help promote compatible development, but only for future structures, as building codes cannot be ap- plied retroactively. Therefore, this method would only work within the vacant areas that the 65 DNL noise contour encompasses. Building codes could require any future construction on parcels impacted by the 65 DNL to adhere to standards that attenuate internal sound levels to appropriate levels, given the type of use. LAND AND/OR PROPERTY ACQUISITION The intent of property acquisition is to remove residences from severely noise -impacted areas, as well as to prevent incompatible uses from being developed near an airport. This can be an effective way to ensure land use compatibility around an airport, although it has several drawbacks: - Potentially excessive costs - Very complex - High administrative effort - Disruption to lives of residents in acquisition area - Risk of considerable damage to character of established neighborhoods Property acquisition is typically accomplished through voluntary programs in which the purchaser - in this case the City of Georgetown - notifies property owners when it is ready to negotiate the purchase of their land and home(s). In some instances, the purchaser can use eminent domain to complete an acquisition if the property owner will not voluntary relinquish the rights to the land. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the FAA and TxDOT recommend that airports own the entirety of their RPZs when feasible. Therefore, for those RPZs that extend beyond the airport property line, which includes Runways 18, 36, and 29, the airport has identified areas proposed for fee simple acquisition. As mentioned in the Environmental Overview, there are three areas proposed for acquisition, including: - Runway 18 RPZ - 13 acres and 17 homes Runway 36 RPZ- 12 acres and 7 homes - Runway 29 RPZ - 2.3 acres and 1 home Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-48 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER Pf The acquisition of these homes is planned for in the long term. If acquired, the number of noise -impacted homes would be reduced near the airport. FAIR DISCLOSURE REGULATIONS Fair disclosure regulations, also known as real estate disclosures, are intended to ensure that prospective property buyers are informed that the property is or will be exposed to potentially disruptive aircraft noise. At the most formal level, fair disclosure can be implemented through regulations requiring the seller and agent to provide a notice of aircraft exposure on the real estate listing sheet and at the time a sales contract is executed. Additionally, any easements should be revealed at the time of closing. Fair disclosure regulations can place a high responsibility on real estate agents and lenders to disclose this information if legislation is not properly drafted. To ensure effectiveness, the disclosure regulations should clearly define the airport noise levels or overlay districts impacting the property and direct buyers to airport officials for more information. NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS The standard methodology for analyzing noise conditions at airports involves the use of a computer sim- ulation model. The FAA has approved the Airport Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) for use in environ- mental and planning analyses. The purpose of the noise model is to produce noise exposure contours that are overlain on a map of the airport and vicinity to graphically represent aircraft noise conditions. When compared to land use, zoning, and general plan maps, the noise exposure contours may be used to identify areas that are currently, or have the potential to be, exposed to aircraft noise. To achieve an accurate representation of an airport's noise conditions, the AEDT uses a combination of industry standard information and user -supplied inputs specific to the airport. The software provides noise characteristics, standard flight profiles, and manufacturer supplied flight procedures for aircraft within the U.S. civil and military fleets, including those which commonly operate at Georgetown Munic- ipal Airport. As each aircraft has unique design and operating characteristics (number and type of en- gines, weight, and thrust levels), each aircraft emits different noise levels. The most common way to spatially represent the noise levels emitted by an aircraft is a noise exposure contour. Airport -specific information, including runway configuration, flight paths, aircraft fleet mix, runway use distribution, local terrain and elevation, average temperature, and numbers of daytime and nighttime operations, are also used as modeling inputs. Based on the assumptions provided by the user, the AEDT calculates average 24-hour aircraft sound exposure within a grid covering the airport and surrounding areas. The grid values, represented with the day -night noise level metric or DNL, at each intersection point on the grid, represent a noise level for that geographic location. To create the noise contours, an isoline, similar to those on a topographic map, is drawn which connect points of the same DNL noise value. In the same way that a topographic contour represents the same elevation, the noise contour identifies areas of equal noise exposure. Page 305 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER P1''7CMkftTaa DNL is the metric currently accepted by the FAA, EPA, and HUD as an appropriate measure of cumulative noise exposure. These three agencies have each identified the 65 DNL noise contour as the threshold of incompatibility. Noise exposure contours were prepared for the airport for a baseline condition (2016) and a long-range condition (2036) based on the operational forecasts presented in Chapter Two. The resulting contours are shown on Exhibit 5F and discussed in depth in Table 5D, which explains that the existing and future condition 65 and 70 DNL noise contours extend off airport property in select areas. NON -COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSI- Areas with the potential for non -compatible development, when compared to the noise exposure con- tours and Part 77 approach surfaces, have been evaluated. This was done by evaluating the locally adopted zoning designations and future land use plan for undeveloped parcels encompassed within the four approach zones to determine if noise -sensitive land uses could be developed on these areas. An analysis of land uses within the noise contours is also discussed. As previously discussed in the Environmental Overview (Table 5D), the 65 DNL noise contour is the threshold of incompatibility for noise -sensitive land uses, such as residential land uses without acoustic treatment, mobile homes, transient lodging, schools, religious entities, medical buildings, and public fa- cilities. Exhibits 5H and 5J depict existing and future noise exposure contours on future land uses and zoning, respectively. As seen in the left-hand panel of Exhibit 5H, and as discussed previously in the Environmental Overview, the airport is surrounded by noise -sensitive land uses to the north, west, and south, which are primarily residential developments (see Exhibit 1P). Currently, the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours extend off airport property into a residential development northwest of Runway 18, impacting approximately 11 homes. The 65 DNL noise contour extends off airport property between the Runway 29 and 36 ends; however, this area is vacant and undeveloped. The long-term (2036) noise contours, as shown in the right-hand panel on Exhibit 5H, extend off airport property in the same areas as the existing contours. The 65 and 70 DNL noise contours northwest of Runway end 18 are larger than the existing condition, likely due to the proposed runway extension, thus impacting approximately five homes in 70 DNL noise contours and 20 homes in the 65 DNL noise contour (approximately 25 homes total). The 65 DNL noise contour that extends off both sides of the Runway 36 end are larger than the existing condition. The parcels within the Part 77 approach surfaces were evaluated to identify potential non -compatible development related to the height of structures. As depicted on Exhibit 5J, parcels within the Part 77 approach surfaces that are undeveloped, and thus have the potential to be developed incompatible in the future, are zoned: Local Commercial, Industrial, Residential Single Family, General Commercial, and Agriculture. Note that some areas have no zoning classification as they are in the City of Georgetown ETJ Page 306 of 588 Existing Noise Condition Future Noise Condition-�.:t„'`T-T ``,,•,y = ; ��' `City of , e; r CitY.Of yy�. �• �.. -. 9 or r eetown ETJ Geo etoWn ETI r r � w �k v I •A ham! • �� !C r V. A Page 307 of 588 This page intentionally left blank Page 308 of 588 Existing Noise Condition Future Noise Condition City of Georgetown r, ;A p . •, XA 7,il , r ``4 % ` ,. 4h'.�a.'- , Page 309 of 588 This page intentionally left blank Page 310 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPni AIRI'M i AIRPORT MASTER PL�i�a areas (see Exhibit 5G). However, as stated in Section 7.01.030 in Chapter 7 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances, all non-residential development within the City's ETJ is subject to the provisions outlined below. The maximum height limits for the following zoning districts are as follows: - Industrial (IN): 60 feet - Residential Single Family (RS): 35 feet - Local Commercial (C-1): 35 feet - General Commercial (C-3): 45 feet - Agriculture (AG): 35 feet As previously discussed, the City of Georgetown has adopted an Airport Zoning Ordinance, which defines use restrictions based on the Part 77 imaginary surfaces, including the approach zone, transition zones, horizontal zones, and conical zone. Any new development within the approach zones, as seen on Exhibits 5H and 5J, would be subject to the height limitations of the Airport Zoning Ordinance. Per the Airport Zoning Code, when an area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive limita- tions shall prevail. Further, the Airport Zoning Code should not be construed as prohibiting the growth, construction or maintenance of any tree or structure up to a height of 20 feet above the surface of the land. The maximum height limits for these Part 77 surfaces are as follows: - Approach Zones: One foot in height for each 34 feet in horizontal distance beginning at a point 200 feet from and at the elevation of the end of the runway and extending to a point 10,200 feet from the end of the runway. - Transition Zones: One foot in height for each seven feet in horizontal distance beginning at any point 250 feet normal to and at the elevation of the centerline of runways extending 200 feet beyond each end thereof, extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation or a height of 937 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, there are established height limits of one foot of vertical height for each seven feet horizontal distance measured from the edges of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending upward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical surfaces. - Horizontal Zone: That area beneath the horizontal surface which is located 150 feet above the airport elevation, or a height of 937 feet above mean sea level. - Conical Zone: That area beneath the conical surface which is one foot in height for each 20 feet of horizontal distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal surface extending to a height of 350 feet above the airport elevation. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-55 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I Emolk AIRPORT MASTER PLX1�' V.. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis specifically examines undeveloped parcels in the four approach paths at the airport as these are the areas with the most potential to be developed incompatibly in the future. Based on the above findings, the following are recommended for the City of Georgetown to pursue: - Zoning Ordinance: The City of Georgetown should work with the Georgetown -Williamson County Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) to re -zone undeveloped parcels in the Runway 29 approach path to better protect the airport and surrounding public. Some of these parcels are presently zoned for residential uses. Rezoning these parcels to uses that are less noise -sensitive, like indus- trial, commercial, or agriculture, could result in future tenants of these undeveloped parcels to be less likely to be impacted by the noise from the airport. Further, as seen on Exhibit 5.1, there are areas of land within the Runways 18, 36, and 11 approach zones that do not have zoning classifications because they are part of the City's ETJ. It is recommended that the City of Georgetown work with the JAZB to revise their Zoning Ordinance in a way that reduces and/or prevents incompatible land use development in these areas. - Subdivision Regulations, Avigation Easement: subdivision regulations that would dedicate an avigation easement within the airport's noise contours and Runway 29 approach path would pro- tect future buyers of undeveloped contours within these areas. Future land owners would then be pre -exposed to the notion that his/her property is likely to be impacted by activities at the airport. - Land and/or Property Acquisition: The airport plans to acquire 25 homes in the long-term in the RPZs of Runways 18, 29, and 36. Purchasing these homes would better protect both airport users and homeowners in these zones as they are areas intended to be free of all development. - Building Codes: Implementing building codes within the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours, as well as in the approach paths of Runways 18, 29, and 36, would require noise -attenuating construc- tion methods in new structures within noise -impacted areas around the airport. - Fair Disclosure Regulations: Undeveloped parcels would benefit from fair disclosure regulations as prospective buyers would be alerted that the land is within the vicinity of an active airfield with associated noise and safety hazards. SUMMARY A recommended development plan has been put forward that addresses future airside and landside needs. The primary feature of the airside plan is consideration of an extension of the runway. A runway length of between 5,000 and 7,600 feet is optimal for a reliever airport, such as Georgetown. Existing land use constraints limit the potential length of the runway to 6,000 feet, of which 5,500 feet would be available for takeoff. The current length of 5,004 feet would remain the landing length available. The considered runway extension is designed to meet the needs of current airport users and is not intended to attract larger aircraft. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-56 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PE On the landside, a long term conceptual plan has been put forth. Areas on the east side of the airport are shown with future hangar development. This includes potential redevelopment of some older hang- ars just north of the terminal building. The redevelopment would remove the older hangars and replace them with high -activity conventional/F60 hangars. This is a much more appropriate use of this land area. If all the land on the east side of the airfield were developed as presented on the plan, this would meet the 20-year need for hangar space. To provide a long-term vision for the airport, the large parcel on the west side of the airport has been shown with a full build -out scenario. The land to the southwest has been identified for either aviation or compatible non -aviation land uses. No development plan is currently shown for this parcel, instead, this should be considered for development on a case -by -case basis. The next chapter of the master plan will consider a reasonable plan to phase development of the Airport over time. Recommended Development Plan - DRAFT 5-57 EST-18d8 G EORGETOWN TEXAS CHAPTER SIX CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Page 314 of 588 The analyses completed in previous chapters evaluated development needs at the Airport over the next 20 years and beyond, based on forecast activity, operational efficiency, and meeting FAA design stand- ards. Next, basic economic, financial, and management rationale is applied to each development item so that the feasibility of each item contained in the plan can be assessed. The presentation of the capital improvement program (CIP) has been organized into three sections. First, the airport development schedules and CIP cost estimates are presented in narrative and graphic form. Second, capital improvement funding sources on the federal, state, and local levels are identified and discussed. Third, a funding plan is presented which identifies the range of potential capital expenses for the Airport based on various funding assumptions. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES AND COST SUMMARIES Now that the recommended development concept has been presented and specific needs and improve- ments for the Airport have been established, the next step is to determine a realistic schedule (imple- mentation timeline) and associated cost estimates for the plan. The recommended improvements are grouped by planning horizon: short-term, intermediate -term, and long-term. The short-term planning horizon is further subdivided into yearly increments. Those short-term projects that include multiple phases for environmental documentation, design, and construction have been separated into the yearly increments. Table 6A summarizes key activity milestones for the three planning horizons. L,. 7EAMINAL Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT Page 315 of 588 GEORGETOWN N_ MUNICIPAI AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PC TABLE 6A Planning Horizon Summary Georgetown Municipal Airport Short Intermediate Long BASED AIRCRAFT 1 3181 340 1 3701 400 Itinerant Local 45,006 50,972 48,700 58,000 S3,400 67,200 57,500 74,000 Subtotal 95,978 106,700 120,600 131,500 Itinerant 1 811 1 800 1 1,100 1 1,500 Itinerant 207 200 200 200 Local _7L350 200 200 200 TOTAL OPERATIONS107,900 1 1 11 Source: Coffman Associates analysis There are four primary sources from which to projects are derived: • Aviation Demand Forecasts: The forecasts of aviation demand provide data necessary to de- velop various demand -based needs for the Airport. Most obvious is the number of based aircraft needing hangar space. • Design Standards Review: Various design standards that apply to the airport have been re- viewed. Several projects are the result of a need to meet various airport design standards, which are based on the critical design aircraft. Design standards primarily relate to the numerous im- aginary safety -related surfaces and separation distances. • Facility Maintenance: Airports are required to maintain their pavement surfaces for the useful life of those pavements. The pavements require routine maintenance and occasionally must be rehabilitated or reconstructed. Numerous projects identified fall in this category. • Support Facilities: This category includes all airport -related facilities that do not naturally fall into the airside and landside categories, including elements such as fuel facilities, access and cir- culation, and general on -airport land use. The plan includes siting and construction of new hangars. Larger business and box hangars are assumed to be constructed by private developers. T-hangars may be constructed by private developers or by the airport, which then act as the lessor of those facilities. Whether hangars are constructed by the airport or by a third party, the airport sponsor's responsibility is to provide public access taxilanes, which are typically funded with TxDOT development grants. The economics of hangar construction and leasing over the last decade have made it difficult to amortize a 30-year loan on facilities while charging a reasonable monthly rent. This is the case across the country Page 316 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PEX1111111111ft where local airport sponsors are relying increasingly on private developers to build facilities at airports. Longer lease terms are becoming more common as a means of addressing this financial concern. Current TxDOT/FAA guidance suggests terms be no longer than 50 years. Some airport sponsors see a benefit to building hangar facilities in order to stimulate aviation activity and business development, even if the monthly rents have to be subsidized to some degree. Naturally, this will be a local decision, and nothing in this Master Plan and development schedule should be con- strued to indicate that only private developers can construct facilities at the Airport. As a master plan is a conceptual document, implementation of the capital projects should only be un- dertaken after further refinement of their design and costs through architectural and engineering anal- yses. Moreover, some projects may require additional infrastructure improvements (i.e., drainage im- provements, extension of utilities, etc.) that may take more than one year to complete. At this juncture, it is difficult to know, precisely, what the cost of individual projects will be; however, preparing order -of -magnitude cost estimates is an effective way to get a feel for the current costs. Many federal agencies utilize a system of five classes of estimates, as presented in Table 61B. The Master Plan scope limits cost estimates to Class S. TABLE 6B Cost Estimate Classification Class 5 Order of Magnitude Class 4 Intermediate Class 3 Preliminary Class 2 Substantive Class 1 Definitive Source: U.S. Department of Energy Screening or Feasibility Concept Study or Feasibility Budget, Authorization, or Control Control or Bid/Tender Check Estimate or Bid/Tender 0% to 2% 1% to 15% 10% to 40% 30% to 70% 50% to 100% Once the list of necessary projects was identified and refined, project -specific cost estimates were de- veloped. The cost estimates include environmental documentation, design, engineering, construction administration, and contingencies that may arise on the project. Capital costs presented here should be viewed only as estimates subject to further refinement during design. Nevertheless, these estimates are considered sufficient for planning purposes. Cost estimates were developed based on recent airport construction costs in the region. Cost estimates for each of the development projects in the CIP are in current (2017) dollars. Exhibit 6A presents the proposed CIP for Georgetown Municipal Airport. Most, but not all, of the projects identified are eligible for TxDOT grant funding because this Master Plan follows TxDOT guidelines and focuses on those projects that are eligible for grant funding. There are a variety of capital expenses that the Airport will have that are not eligible for TxDOT funding and which are not presented in great detail in this CIP. Non -eligible costs included are annual routine maintenance and initial T-hangar construction. Page 317 of 588 GEORGETOWN Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL''x1 UW TxDOT utilizes a priority ranking system to help objectively evaluate potential airport projects. Projects are weighted toward safety, infrastructure preservation, standards, and capacity enhancement. TxDOT will participate in the highest priority projects before considering lower priority projects, even if a lower priority project is considered a more urgent need by the local sponsor. Nonetheless, the project should remain a priority for the airport, and funding support should continue to be requested in subsequent years. The most important feature of the CIP is that future projects On a biennial basis, the CIP is for which the Airport may request TxDOT funding are in- cluded on the list. On a biennial basis, the CIP is updated and updated and reviewed with reviewed with TxDOT. Projects on the CIP will be moved up TxDOT. and down, depending on priority and funding availability. Pe- riodically, new projects will arise that can then be added to the annual CIP presented to the TxDOT. The following sections will describe in greater detail the projects identified for the Airport over the next 20 years. The short term (0-5 years) projects are presented in yearly increments. The intermediate (years 6-10) and long term (years 10-20) are grouped by local priority. SHORT TERM IMPROVFMFNTS The projects identified for the short-term planning period have been prioritized based on airport need and potential to be funded. If any of these projects cannot be funded in the timeframe indicated, the airport sponsor should consider the project for the following year. Exhibit 6B presents the short-term projects overlaid onto an aerial image of the airport. 2018 Projects Project #1: Install Taxiway Edge Lighting and Runway 11-29 PAPIs Description: This project has long been considered and is already programmed for 2018. Taxiway edge lighting will be installed, and precision approach path indicator lights will be installed on the crosswind runway. Cost Estimate: $1,290,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #2: Runway 18-36 Rehabilitation - Design Description: Design of a runway overlay and remarking project. Cost Estimate: $458,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. - Page 318 of 588 SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS) 2018 1 Taxiway Edge Lighting & Rwy 11-29 PAPIs $1,290,000 $1,161,000 $129,000 2 Runway 18-36 Rehabilitation - Design $458,000 $412,200 $45,800 3 Wildlife Hazard Assessment/Management Plan $100,000 $90,000 $10,000 4 Runway 18-36 Rehabilitation - Construct $4,700,000 $4,230,000 $470,000 5 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $20,000 $0 $20,000 2018 Total $6,568,000 $5,893,200 $674,800 2019 6 Tree Removal $40,000 $36,000 $4,000 7 REILs Rwy 36 - Replace $50,000 $45,000 $5,000 8 PAPIs Rwy 36 - Replace $150,000 $135,000 $15,000 9 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $20,000 $0 $20,000 2019 Total $260,000 $216,000 $44,000 2020 10 Two Supplemental Windsocks $20,000 $18,000 $2,000 11 Area 3 South Site Prep - Fencing, fire station access, utility $844,000 $759,600 $84,400 relocation, taxilane (design) 12 Maintenance Building (80'x80') $540,000 $486,000 $54,000 13 Two emergency generators $150,000 $135,000 $15,000 14 1 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $20,000 $0 $20,000 2020 Total $7,574,000 $1,398,600 $175,400 2021 15 Area 3 South Access Taxilanes - Construction $2,481,000 $2,232,900 $248,100 16 Taxiway L Relocate/Reconstruct- Design $197,000 $177,300 $19,700 17 Taxiway Al Reconstruction -Design $122,000 $109,800 $12,200 18 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $20,000 $0 $20,000 2021 Total $2,820,000 $2 520,000 $300,000 2022 19 Taxiway L Relocate/Reconstruction - Construct $2,105,000 $1,894,500 $210,500 20 Taxiway Al Reconstruction -Construct $1,299,000 $1,169,100 $129,900 21 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $20,000 $0 $20,000 2022 Total $3,424,000 $3,063,600 $360,400 TOTAL SHORT TERM PROGRAM I $14,646,000 I $13,091,400 I $1,554,600 1 AWOS Relocation $100,000 $90,000 $10,000 2 Area 5 Site Prep: utilities, fencing, drainage basin in Area 6 $1,852,000 $1,666,800 $185,200 3 T-hangars Area 3 (20 unit) $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 4 Dual Apron/Hold Bay between Twy Al &A - Design/Construct $1,624,000 $1,461,600 $162,400 5 Taxiway M Reconstruction - Design/Construct $340,000 $306,000 $34,000 6 Taxiway G Reconstruction - Design/Construct $349,000 $314,100 $34,900 7 Taxiway F Reconstruction - Design/Construct $634,000 $570,600 $63,400 8 Runway 11-29 Reconstruction - Design/Construct $5,532,000 $4,978,800 $553,200 9 Area 3 North Site Prep $880,000 $792,000 $88,000 10 Area 3 North AccessTaxilanes - Design/Construct $1,929,000 $1,736,100 $192,900 11 Wash Rack - Design/Construct $50,000 $45,000 $5,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT COST TXDOT ELIGIBLE LOCALSHARE 12 Terminal Building Expansion $750,000 $675,000 $75,000 13 Runway 18 Extension - Design/Construct $1,586,000 $1,427,400 $158,600 14 Runway 36 Extension - Design/Construct $1,586,000 $1,427,400 $158,600 15 Relocate/Reconstruct Taxiway K- Design/Construct $767,000 $690,300 $76,700 16 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $100,000 $0 1 $100,000 TOTAL• • l i •PROGRAM 1 Taxilane to Area 2 - Design/Construct $1,027,000 $924,300 $102,700 2 T-hangars Area 3 (20 unit) $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 3 Hold Apron Runway 29 - Design/Construct $597,000 $537,300 $59,700 4 Partial Parallel Twy to Rwy 18-36 (north) - Design/Construct $3,539,000 $3,185,100 $353,900 5 Area 5 Apron - Design/Construct $3,814,000 $3,432,600 $381,400 6 Area 5 Off Airport Roadway Access - Design/Construct $488,000 $0 $488,000 7 Area 1 Taxilane/Apron - Design/Construct $1,164,000 $1,047,600 $116,400 8 Area 5Taxilanes $562,000 $505,800 $56,200 9 Area 5 Internal Roads $924,000 $831,600 $92,400 10 Partial Parallel Twy to Rwy 18-36 (south) $3,824,000 $3,441,600 $382,400 11 TaxiwayJReconstruction- Design/Construct $191,000 $171,900 $19,100 12 Opportunity Aquisition of Property in ROFA (7 homes) $1,540,000 $1,386,000 $154,000 13 Opportunity Aquisition of Property in 1-mile $5,500,000 $4,950,000 $550,000 RPZs (17 north/8 south) 14 Master Plan Update $450,000 $405,000 $45,000 15 Pavement Preservation Maintenance $200,000 $0 $200,000 TOTAL LONG TERM PROGRAM TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS (Rounded to nearest $1,000) =��Zfm' Rollie= Note: Totals may not equal due to rounding This page intentionally left blank Page 320 of 588 GEORGETOWN ` MUNICIPAL AIRPORT '\ c 0 600 1600 LEGEND �v SCALE IN FEET ,�•Airport Property 1Runway Protection Z• .. y!•� i NORTH - Automated System (AWOS) Protection Area Short Term Development 2019 Ar Tree Removal - NP Pavement Preservation Maintenance - NP 711 2020 Y t O �Y fir' ` J•'`a' ' da • Supplemental Windsocks(g Maintenance I — �YY I � � ���©�� ��• .o. o.. ' �M1� , JCS -_ .... Area 3 South Site Prep - Fencing, firestation access, utility relocation, taxilane (design) - NP •i • :1'x 1 p•` m Runway 18-36 (6,000'x 100) Two emergency generators - NP m Area 3 South Access Taxilanes - Construction 2021 10 �. ''m - Design Taxiway L Relocate/Reconstruct Taxiway Al Reconstruction -Design Pavement Preservation Maintenance) - NP r s +, • •r ^ rZintaih 10'tree -,-"v f < _ �� -..�' ►:..�' j ! tine Asual screen 2022 Taxiway L Relocate/Reconstruction - Co do Taxiway Al Reconstruction . 1.1 f 1 tr 3�✓• A, ^- •'.�`��j, ' - _ Ph: • Not Pictured,y L _ J.. •! R�� ' .� y �� rA - Private development or development outside White the planning period 7t -:� .• .'v �' r j • 1. `r i...1lw't r ` 'L.• r th stir/ j ` ,,. f "� c1 ♦ ~ `�"i.• ; .� _>tar` ' �' -r _ Jr `.- • %I ;; (Il a•'} . _ �' -pi jr•' r s-N �r . .t '' F f j, wlb k. 4.• ` _ 1. ly 11 `' ~�} :5.' I +• r - ' 11._11 Y �,4, • - �J/r•� t .._ . '1 .� •� raa r 4 }�f1 'p JS trfrYx' t y. y w i7 r .`. •.� iA ', P '{ l - .h-r i • •l�T��!.f • .e- Ot - Y� ' !. ,r - T'` �, :',r �,'. 1� `„T. ���a .t• r . f \ f ""� , " • �� - f ► , �� �;• • ,1 Aial Photo: GooglaEarth -3n16 Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-7 Exhibit 66 SNORT TERM DEVELOPMENT This page intentionally left blank Page 322 of 588 GEORGETOWN MI INN(_ iPAL AlRIX)k f AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�� Project #3: Wildlife Hazard Assessment/Management Plan Description: A study to assess the airport for wildlife hazards and to develop a management plan which will include eligible projects to mitigate wildlife intrusion. Cost Estimate: $100,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #4: Runway 18-36 Runway Rehabilitation - Construction Description: Four -inch overlay, grooving, and marking of the runway. Cost Estimate: $4,700,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #5: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that are necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $20,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. 2019 Projects Project #6: Tree Removal Description: Removal of trees located on the airport within the Runway Object Free Area and the Run- way Visibility Zone. Cost Estimate: $40,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #7: Replace REILs on Runway 36 Description: Replace the runway end identification lights at the end of the runway. Cost Estimate: $50,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #8: Replace PAPIs on Runway 36 Description: Replace the PAPIs serving Runway 36. Cost Estimate: $150,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #9: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that are necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $20,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. Page 323 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAI AIRN)KI AIRPORT MASTER PE' - 2020 Projects Project #10: Two Supplemental Windsocks Description: Install supplemental windsocks at both ends of Runway 18-36. Cost Estimate: $20,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #11: Area 3 South Site Prep Description: Prepare Area 3 for development with grading, drainage, fencing, utility relocation, taxiway design, and fire station access. Cost Estimate: $844,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #12: Airport Maintenance Building - Construction Description: Construction of an 80'x80' maintenance building to consolidate all maintenance equipment and functions. This is planned to be located on the east side of Wright Brothers Drive. Cost Estimate: $540,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #13: Two Emergency Generators Description: Install permanent emergency generators to provide back-up capability for the airfield lights and critical airport operations. Cost Estimate: $150,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #14: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that is necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $20,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. 2021 Projects Project #15: Area 3 South Access Taxilanes - Construction Description: Construct primary taxilane leading to Area 3. Disconnect Taxiways A and Al at the Runway 18 threshold. Construct new connector taxiway between Taxiways A and Al. Construct approximately 18,100 square yards (sy) of new taxilane pavement, lighting and, marking. Remove approximately 1,800 sy of pavement. Cost Estimate: $2,481,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Page 324 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MI IN1('1PAL Al RPM I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Project #16: Taxiway L Relocate/Reconstruct - Design Description: Design element of taxiway relocation and reconstruction. Cost Estimate: $197,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #17: Taxiway Al Reconstruction - Design Description: Design element of Taxiway Al reconstruction. Cost Estimate: $122,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #18: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that are necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $20,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. 2022 Projects Project #19: Taxiway L Relocate/Reconstruct - Construction Description: Taxiway L is in need of reconstruction and is planned to be relocated to be parallel to Run- way 18-36. An aircraft hold bay is planned as part of the project. Once complete, the new taxiway will be the south portion of Taxiway A. Cost Estimate: $2,105,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #20: Taxiway Al Reconstruction - Construction Description: Reconstruct Taxiway Al in its current location. Includes pavement markings. Cost Estimate: $1,299,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #21: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that is necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $20,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-11 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR130k1 AIRPORT MASTER Short Term Summary The short-term projects address a number of pressing needs, the most significant of which is the reha- bilitation of Runway 18-36. Demand is pushing the need for hangar expansion into the undeveloped portion of Area 3 where T-hangars and box hangars are planned. Both Taxiways Al and L are in need of reconstruction. Taxiway L is planned to be shifted slightly toward the runway to be parallel with the runway. The short-term projects total approximately $14.7 million. The share eligible for FAA/TxDOT funding is estimated at $13.1 million and the local matching share is $1.6 million. INTERMEDIATE TERM IMPROVEMENTS To provide maximum flexibility for management when programming capital improvement projects, the intermediate term projects have been grouped and generally include those projects that may be needed in years six through ten. Airport management should regularly assess the need and timing for these projects based on actual demand and growth at the Airport. Exhibit 6C presents the intermediate term projects, as well as the previously planned short-term projects. Project #1: AWOS Relocation Description: Relocate AWOS to west side of the airfield. Current location planned for apron expansion. Cost Estimate: $100,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #2: Area 5 Site Prep Description: Prepare Area 5 for development with grading, drainage, fencing, utility extension, and con- structing a storm water drainage basin to accommodate long term development at the airport. Cost Estimate: $1,852,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #3: T-hangars in Area 3 (20 units) Description: Construct two 10-unit T-hangar structures in the south portion of Area 3. Cost Estimate: $1,500,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Assumes the airport will construct and act as the lessor. Project #4: Dual Apron/Hold Bay Between Taxiways Al and A — Design/Construct Description: Construct an apron between the taxiways to accommodate aircraft parking and aircraft holding. Approximately 11,000 sy of pavement. Cost Estimate: $1,624,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Page 326 of 588 GEORGETOWN ' MUNICIPAL AIRPORT R PLAN o aoo tsoo LEGEND INTERMEDIATE TERM PROJECTS SCALE IN FEET `� • • Property • ,Protection•.. Prep:Q) Area 5 Site in Area 6 • \— 1 NORTM— System (AWOS) Protection Area Intermediate Term Development Short Term Development ruct 6 Taxiway G • • D- • • X L e' l► Ic Taxiway F 1p Reconstruction -•• RehabilitationL, ' ~ -f` ►�.�, .< t'4! . - ' .• ter-/ -A •' .TVA �'ti Area 3 North Site Prep e' L Area 3 North Access Taxilanes - Design/Construct A -A. D Wash Rack - Design/Construct Terminal Building Expansion Runway 18 Extension IW ... r�j 1 Runway18 36 i6,000' x 100Relocate/Reconstruct Taxiway K - Design/Construct '1'' P - Private development ordevelopment outside White the planning period Al .f•{• ', > Water qual a ` .* -•-• ' ..1a -••• r - !Maintain 10'tree _ detOntion pogd +` 5 '+ • i 's y +� Irneffisualscreen _- !. '`r �' ;kip •a Y.r ["L• - , y '� / afti- ;- '1 _ _ y r• • • ; � ifT - � � `C'_�•• L h'• t '�, . �� Northwest Blvd. ' �` f ; a• : , '. Ar .♦ � . _ i%� 7 .. � t � may. �I r._ •w AgNal Pf�oto: Goo gl Earrt#1 -3e16 Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-13 Exhibit 6C INTERMEDIATE TERM DEVELOPMENT This page intentionally left blank Page 328 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICII'AL AIKI'M I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Project 45: Taxiway M Reconstruction — Design/Construct Description: Reconstruction of Taxiway M, an area of approximately 1,700 square yards. Cost Estimate: $340,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #6: Taxiway G Reconstruction — Design/Construct Description: Narrow Taxiway G to 50 feet and reconstruct. Approximately 1,400 sy of pavement con- struction. Remove approximately 1,200 sy of pavement. Cost Estimate: $349,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #7: Taxiway F Reconstruction — Design/Construct Description: Reconstruction of Taxiway F, an area encompassing approximately 3,300 square yards. Cost Estimate: $634,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #8: Runway 11-29 Reconstruction — Design/Construct Description: Rehabilitate Runway 11-29. Overlay with approximately 35,000 sy of pavement, remark runway. Cost Estimate: $5,532,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #9: Area 3 North Site Prep Description: Prepare the north portion of Area 3 for development with grading, drainage and utilities. Cost Estimate: $880,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #10: Area 3 North Access Taxilanes — Design/Construct Description: Extend taxilane to north portion of Area 3 (approximately 13,100 sy of pavement). Center- line marking. Cost Estimate: $1,929,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #11: Replacement Aircraft Wash Rack Description: Prior to construction of new hangars in Area 2, the current aircraft wash rack must be relocated. The new wash rack will include an oil separator and meet current environmental regulations. Cost Estimate: $50,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #12: Terminal Building Expansion Description: Extend terminal building to the south to accommodate expanded facilities or a restaurant. Cost Estimate: $750,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Page 329 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAL AIR130k I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Project #13: Runway 18 Extension — Design/Construct Description: Construct extension with approximately 8,700 sy of pavement. Relocate and/or install runway lighting. Includes design element. Cost Estimate: $1,586,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #14: Runway 36 Extension — Design/Construct Description: Construct extension with approximately 8,700 sy of pavement. Relocate and/or install runway lighting. Includes design element. Cost Estimate: $1,586,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #15: Relocate/Reconstruct Taxiway K — Design/Construct Description: Remove existing Taxiway K (4,400 sy), construct new Taxiway K (2,200 sy) at a 90-degree angle. Install new lighting and marking. Cost Estimate: $767,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #16: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that are necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $100,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. Intermediate Term Summary During the intermediate planning period, the terminal apron is planned to be expanded. Initial site prep is to take place on the west side of the primary runway in Area 5. The northern half of Area 3 on the east side is also planned to be prepared for hangar construction. There is great need for additional hangars and the intermediate planning horizon is the planned timing of these projects. The intermediate term projects total approximately $19.6 million. The share eligible for FAA/TxDOT funding is estimated at $16.2 million and the local matching share is $3.4 million. LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS Long-term projects are those planned for years 11-20. These projects are grouped as demand could shift over time. The need for these projects could be accelerated if exceptional growth occurs at the Airport. All relevant cost elements, including environmental documentation, design, and construction, are in- cluded for each project. Exhibit 6D presents the long-term projects, along with the previously planned short and intermediate projects. Page 330 of 588 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 0 800 1600 LONG TERM PROJECTS LEGEND SCALE IN FEET Airport Pr• • 1 - to ' D- ,Protection• •• ' z `INORTH-- - - Observation 0 Hold Apron Runway 36 - Design/Construct System (AWOS) Protection Area 4 • t► 13 • Development Partial Parallel Twy (north) - Design/Constructu llh� Intermediate Term Development Area 5 Apron 4 . Long Term Development Area 5 Off Airport Roadway Access - 0 Design/Construct PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator r r Area 1 Taxilane/Apron - Design/Construct REIL - - Runway End Identification Lights $ �nI ParallelArea 5 internal Roads Partial • ID- Design/Construct Taxiway J Rehabilitation Opportunity Acquisition of Property in ROFA YAlOpportunity Acquisition of Property in 1 -mile (7 homes) • • ..-A] E' 14 • • . �R _ — Runway 18-36 (6,000' x 100') Master Plan 1 .. � .: �' .v - - .i �.. ( .. • .� ` .: �:� O 1. ' - _ .1 �. " :{r�� White - Private development or development outside the planning period .4. ''� - ^� -•r y+, - _ IVFaintain10'Iree i1! `,. • 't. ,.i 'x - detOntionpogd • .� • 't • + 1. linevisual screen 9 X. 1► r • J a4i?0- �' _�•a Y��'�`Y• "- '�; •C� y, ,• '. �•',� • a ��,. � _// � �s�i. r.�:•�'��-A .�r �+-� ,`a•-r�+ r� 1C._., •'L � h'• �; ,'- .c+• .:� '+ Northwest 6 �'� ' ♦or - ✓.. lie.. �. •' 'mot �i�� 5 . i _r.- �4 ���" . • �' T' a r,_ >, • ` •w a ~a '� �. ;�. Aerial PKi to: Google Earth 2-3 a 6 Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-17 Exhibit 6D LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT This page intentionally left blank Page 332 of 588 GEORGETOWN M NI_ IPAL AIR130k f AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�� Project #1: Taxilane to Area 2 — Design/Construct Description: Construct approximately 5,000 sy of taxilane pavement to Area 2 to facilitate hangar ac- cess. Includes burial of overhead electrical lines and marking. Cost Estimate: $1,027,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #2: T-hangars in Area 3 (20 units) Description: Construct two 10-unit T-hangar structures in the south portion of Area 3. Cost Estimate: $1,500,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Assumes the airport will construct and act as the lessor. Project #3: Hold Apron Runway 29 — Design/Construct Description: Construct apron (3,000 sy) to be used for holding/runup aircraft. Cost Estimate: $597,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #4: Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18-36 (north) — Design/Construct Description: Construction of a partial parallel taxiway on the west side of Runway 18-36. The taxiway extends from the landing threshold south to the intersection with Runway 11-29. The project includes the hold apron at the Runway 18 threshold. Approximately 19,400 sy of pavement. Includes lighting and marking. Cost Estimate: $3,539,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project 45: Area 5 Apron — Design/Construct Description: Initial apron to serve Area 5 development. Approximately 21,500 sy of pavement. Includes marking. Cost Estimate: $3,814,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #6: Area 5 Off -Airport Roadway Access — Design/Construct Description: Extend an airport entrance road around the tennis/swim club, from Granada Drive. to the airport fence. Estimated at approximately 6,400 sy of pavement. Cost Estimate: $488,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Project #7: Area 1 Taxilane/Apron — Design/Construct Description: Construction of a taxilane and apron to serve development of Area 1 adjacent to the ter- minal building. Includes removal of the existing structures and other site prep. Approximately 7,700 sy of new pavement. Cost Estimate: $1,164,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIR130k1 AIRPORT MASTER P1''7C1�� Project #8: Area 5 Taxilanes Description: Extend initial taxilanes to Area 5. Approximately 3,000 square yards of pavement. Cost Estimate: $S62,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #9: Area 5 Internal Roads Description: Extend access road from the fence to the Area 5 terminal apron. Approximately 11,800 square yards of pavement. Cost Estimate: $924,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #10: Partial Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18-36 (south) — Design/Construct Description: Construct the south half of the west side parallel taxiway. Includes a hold apron for Runway 36. Approximately 25,400 sy of pavement. Includes lighting and marking. Cost Estimate: $3,824,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #11: Taxiway J Reconstruction — Design/Construct Description: Reconstruction of Taxiway J which encompasses approximately 16,700 square yards of pavement. Cost Estimate: $2,808,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #12: Opportunity Acquisition of Property in ROFA (7 homes) Description: Opportunity acquisition with grant funding of seven homes in the Runway 18-36 ROFA. Fence around the property. Cost Estimate: $1,540,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #13: Opportunity Acquisition of Property in 1-mile RPZs Description: Opportunity acquisition with grant funding of 17 homes north, 7 homes south, 1 home Runway 29 RPZ Cost Estimate: $5,500,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. Project #14: Master Plan Update Description: Planning is a continuous process and a new master plan should be undertaken when ap- propriate. Cost Estimate: $450,000 Funding Eligibility: This project is eligible for 90 percent TxDOT/FAA funding. M Page 334 of 588 GEORGETOWN M NI_ iPAL AIR130k f AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa Project #15: Pavement Preservation Maintenance Description: Repair of any pavement surfaces that is necessary to maintain the pavement. This type of maintenance is considered to be a pavement preservation project. Cost Estimate: $200,000 Funding Eligibility: 100 percent local. Routine pavement maintenance is a responsibility of the local airport sponsor and is required to meet grant assurances. This placeholder is included in every year of the 20-year CIP. Some years, the necessary funding may be greater and in other years, it may be less. Long Term Summary The long-term projects continue the general trend of major pavement rehabilitation projects and other projects related to hangar construction, including taxiways and taxilanes. Also included in the long-term planning period is property acquisition, which will bring the ROFA and RPZ up to current design stand- ards. The long-term projects total approximately $25.3 million. The share eligible for FAA/TxDOT funding is estimated at $20.8 million and the local matching share is $4.5 million. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY The CIP is intended as a road map of airport improvements to help guide the airport sponsor, FAA, and state aviation officials on needed projects. The plan as presented will meet the forecast demand over the next 20 years and, in many respects, beyond. The first five years of the CIP are separated into yearly installments, and the intermediate and long-term projects are grouped together. The sequence of pro- jects will likely change due to availability of funds or changing priorities in the years to come. Nonethe- less, this is a comprehensive list of capital improvement projects the Airport should consider in the next 20 years. The total CIP is estimated at approximately $59.5 million. The share eligible for FAA/TxDOT funding is estimated at $50.1 million and the local matching share is $9.5 million. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES There are generally five sources of funds used to finance airport development which include: • Airport cash flow • Revenue and general obligation bonds • Certificate of Obligation • Federal/state/local grants • Passenger facility charges (PFCs), which are reserved for commercial service airports Page 335 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AlRP0k I AIRPORT MASTER PL' Access to these sources of financing varies widely among airports, with some large airports maintaining substantial cash reserves and the smaller commercial service and general aviation airports often requir- ing subsidies from local governments to fund operating expenses and finance modest improvements. Financing capital improvements at the Airport will not rely solely on the financial resources of the City. Capital improvement funding is available through various grant-in-aid programs on both the federal and state levels. Historically, the Airport has received federal and state grants. While some years more funds could be available, the CIP was developed with project phasing in order to remain realistic and within the range of anticipated grant assistance. The following discussion outlines key sources of funding po- tentially available for capital improvements at the Airport. FEDERAL GRANTS' Through federal legislation over the years, various grant-in-aid programs have been established to de- velop and maintain a system of public -use airports across the United States. The purpose of this system and its federally based funding is to maintain national defense and to promote interstate commerce. The most recent legislation affecting federal funding, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, was enacted on February 17, 2012. The law expired on September 30, 2015; however, it has been ex- tended through several temporary measures. As of this writing (October 2017), a comprehensive new long-term authorization has not been passed. The current law authorizes the FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) at $3.35 billion for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 (and subsequent extensions). The AIP is funded through the collection of user fees, such as those imposed on airline tickets, aircraft parts, and aviation fuel. Eligible airports, which include those in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), such as Georgetown Municipal Airport, can apply for airport improvement grants. Table 6C presents the approximate distribution of the AIP funds. Currently, Georgetown Municipal Airport is eligible to apply for grants which may be funded through state apportionments, the small airport fund, reliever set -asides, and discretionary categories. Funding for AIP-eligible projects is undertaken through a cost -sharing arrangement in which TxDOT/FAA provides up to 90 percent of the cost and the airport sponsor invests the remaining 10 percent. In ex- change for this level of funding, the airport sponsor is required to meet various Grant Assurances, in- cluding maintaining the improvement for its useful life, which is usually 20 years. ' Guidance on the eligibility of a project for federal AIP grant funding can be found in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improve- ment Program Handbook, which can be accessed at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip handbook/media/AIP-Handbook-Order-5100-38D Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT -22 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI Alkl'Okl AIRPORT MASTERPLXi'Y�a� TABLE 6C Federal AIP Funding Distribution CategoryFunding Apportion Passenger Entitlements 29.19% $977,865,000 Cargo Entitlements 3.00% $100,500,000 Alaska Supplemental 0.65% $21,775,000 State Apportionment for Nonprimary Entitlements 10.35% $346,725,000 State Apportionment Based on Area and Population 9.65% $323,275,000 Carryover 10.77% $360,795,000 AirportSmall Small Hubs 1.67% $55,945,000 Nonhubs 6.68% $223,780,000 Nonprimary (GA and Reliever) 3.34% $111,890,000 Discretionary Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise 11.36% $380,560,000 Pure Discretionary 3.79% $126,965,000 Noise Set -Asides 8.40% $281,400,000 Military Airports Program 0.99% $33,165,000 Reliever 0.16% $5,360,000 Totals 00 00% 100 1/1 * FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 AIP: Airport Improvement Program Source: FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook Apportionment (Entitlement) Funds AIP provides funding for eligible projects at airports through an apportionment (entitlement) program. Non -primary airports, such as Georgetown, receive a guaranteed minimum level of federal assistance each year in the amount of $150,000. These non -primary entitlement (NPE) funds are available to use in the fiscal year it becomes available and the following three fiscal years. Unused funds expire after four years unless the sponsor obligates the funds under a grant or transfers the funds to another NPIAS airport. States also receive a direct apportionment based on a federal formula that takes into account area and population. For the State of Texas, TOOT distributes these funds for projects at various airports throughout the state. Small Airport Fund If a large or medium hub commercial service airport chooses to institute a passenger facility charge (PFC), which is a fee of up to $4.S0 on each airline ticket, for funding of capital improvement projects, then Page 337 of 588 GEORGETOWN J MUNICIPAL AIRI'Ok l AIRPORT MASTER PLX1�aa� their apportionment is reduced. Part of the reduced apportionment goes to the small airport fund. The small airport fund is reserved for small -hub primary commercial service airports, non -hub commercial service airports, and general aviation airports. Georgetown Municipal Airport is eligible for funds from this source. Discretionary Funds The remaining AIP funds are distributed by TxDOT/FAA based on the priority of the project for which they have requested federal assistance through discretionary apportionments. A national priority rank- ing system is used to evaluate and rank each airport project. Those projects with the highest priority from airports across the country are given preference in funding. High priority projects include those related to meeting design standards, capacity improvements, and other safety enhancements. Under the AIP program, examples of eligible development projects include the airfield, public aprons, and access roads. Additional buildings and structures may be eligible if the function of the structure is to serve airport operations in a non -revenue generating capacity, such as maintenance facilities. Some revenue -enhancing structures, such as T-hangars, may be eligible if all airfield improvements have been made; however, the priority ranking of these facilities is very low. Whereas entitlement monies are guaranteed on an annual basis, discretionary funds are not assured. If the combination of entitlement, discretionary, and airport sponsor match does not provide enough cap- ital for planned development, projects may be delayed. Georgetown Municipal Airport is eligible for discretionary funds. Set -Aside Funds Portions of AIP funds are set -asides designed to achieve specific funding minimums for noise compati- bility planning and implementation, select former military airfields (Military Airport Program), and select reliever airports. Georgetown does qualify for set -aside funds as it is a reliever airport. FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program The Airway Facilities Division of the FAA administers the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program. This program provides funding for the installation and maintenance of various navigational aids and equip- ment of the national airspace system. Under the F&E program, funding is provided for FAA Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs), enroute navigational aids, on -airport navigational aids, and approach lighting systems. While F&E still installs and maintains some navigational aids, on -airport facilities at general aviation air- ports have not been a priority. Therefore, airports often request funding assistance for navigational aids Page 338 of 588 GEORGETOWN not INICIP l AIRP iu I AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1111111111111M through AIP and then maintain the equipment on their own. The airport owns all the navigational aids at the Airport except for the REILs and PAPIs on the Runway 36 end, which are owned and maintained by the FAA. STATE AID TO AIRPORTS The State of Texas participates in the federal State Block Grant Program. Under this program, the FAA annually distributes general aviation state apportionment and discretionary funds to TxDOT, which in turn distributes grants to airports within the state. In compliance with TxDOT's legislative mandate that it "apply for, receive, and disburse" federal funds for general aviation airports, TxDOT acts as the agent of the local airport sponsor. Although these grants are distributed by TxDOT, they contain all federal obligations. The State of Texas also distributes funding to general aviation airports from the Highway Trust Fund as the Texas Aviation Facilities Development Program. These funds are appropriated each year by the state legislature. Once distributed, these grants contain state obligations only. The establishment of a CIP for the state entails first identifying the need, then establishing a ranking or priority system. Identifying all state airport project needs allows TxDOT to establish a biennial program and budget for development costs. The most recent TxDOT CIP, Aviation Capital Improvement Program 2016-2018, assumed that approximately $19 million in annual federal AIP grants, plus $24 million ear- marked for non -primary entitlements, $8 million in annual federal discretionary funding, and $16 million in state funds, would be available. The TxDOT biennial program sets a project priority system established by the Texas Transportation Com- mission in order to make the best use of limited state and federal airport development funds. Table 6D presents the priority objectives and their associated description in order of importance. TABLE 6D TxDOT Project Priorities Priority Description Objective Safety I Projects needed to make the facility safe for aircraft operations. Preservation I Projects to preserve the functional or structural integrity of the airport. Standards Improvements required to bring the airport up to design standards for current user aircraft. Upgrade Improvements to accommodate larger aircraft or longer stage lengths. Capacity Expansion required to accommodate more aircraft or higher activity levels. New Access A new airport providing new air access to a previously unserved area. New Capacity A new airport needed to add capacity or relieve congestion at other area airports. Source: TxDOT Aviation Capital Improvement Program 2016-2018 Each project for the Airport must be identified and programmed into the state CIP and compete with other airport projects in the state for federal and state funds. In Texas, airport development projects Page 339 of 588 GEORGETOWN I _UP MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IL AIRPORT MAS that meet TxDOT's discretionary funds' eligibility requirements can receive 90 percent funding from the Alp State Block Grant Program. Eligible projects include airfield and apron facilities. Historically, reve- nue -generating improvements, such as fuel facilities, utilities, and hangars, have not been eligible for AIP funding. However, FAA funding legislation has historically provided an allowance of NPE funds to be utilized for hangar, terminal, or fuel farm construction if all other airfield needs have been addressed. The availability of grant funds can fluctuate from year to year. Typically, an airport can expect a grant to cover several projects in one grant -cycle. The next grant opportunity may not arise for a couple of years thereafter. This cycle occurs as TxDOT must administer grants for more than 300 airports and has rela- tively limited resources. As a result, local budgeting for future capital improvements should consider sporadic grant availabilities. Routine Airport Maintenance Program (RAMP) TxDOT has established the RAMP to help general aviation airports maintain and, in some instances, con- struct new facilities. The program was initially designed to help airports maintain airside and landside pavements but has since been expanded to include construction of new facilities. RAMP is an annual funding source in which TxDOT will provide a 50 percent funding match for projects up to $100,000. Table 6E outlines the projects that are eligible under RAMP. It should be noted that several of the pro- jects listed in the Airport's proposed CIP are also eligible for RAMP funding. TABLE 6E Eligible Work Items Routine Airport Maintenance Program AIRSIDE MAINTENANCE Pavement crack seal Sweeping Pavement slurry seal/Fog seal/Rejuvenator Herbicide application Pavement markings Replacement bulbs/lamps for airside lights and approach aids Pavement failure repairs Repair/maintenance of beacon, lighting, and approach aids Drainage maintenance LANDSIDE MAINTENANCE AW05 part replacement (after airside has been addressed) Repair/maintenance of vehicle parking Navigational aids purchase and installation Hangar/terminal painting and repairs - airport- owned facilities only AWOS NADIN Interface charges Security camera systems Airport entrance signs and landscaping Game -proof or security fencing and gates Repair of fuel systems - airport -owned Access roads for AWOS installations Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and Spill Prevention Con- trol & Countermeasure Plans IMPROVEMENTCAPITAL • New public vehicle parking areas Drainage improvements New entrance roads and hangar access roads Extension of runway lighting systems Aircraft wash racks Beacon/tower replacements Aircraft parking aprons Water wells, sewer lines, and septic systems Small general aviation terminal buildings Preparation of FAA Form 7460-1 for RAMP projects Source: TxDOT Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-26 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRI' I AIRPORT MASTER Other State Airport Programs TxDOT also provides a funding mechanism for terminal building and ATCT improvements. TxDOT has funded terminal building construction on a 50/50 basis, up to a $1.0 million total project cost. It should be noted that TxDOT has recently considered upgrading the total cost allowance on a case -by -case basis. TxDOT also funds the construction of up to two ATCTs statewide each year. TxDOT has improved the program so that ATCT funding could be provided on a 90/10 basis, up to a total construction cost of $1.67 million. Georgetown is eligible for both these funding sources; however, the Airport already has 77_�[�M LOCAL FUNDING The balance of project costs, after consideration has been given to grants, must be funded through local resources. The goal of the airport is to generate enough revenue to cover all operating and capital ex- penditures. As with many general aviation airports, this is not always possible and other financing meth- ods will be needed. According to Exhibit 6A, local funding will be needed in each planning horizon. This includes $1.6 million in the short term, $3.4 million in the intermediate term, and $4.5 million in the long term. There are several alternatives for local financing options for future development at the Airport, including airport revenues, direct funding (subsidizing) from the City, issuing bonds, and leasehold financing. These strategies could be used to fund the local matching share or complete the project if grant funding cannot be arranged. There are several municipal bonding options available, including general obligation bonds, limited obli- gation bonds, and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are a common form of municipal bond that is issued by voter approval and secured by the full faith and credit of the city, and future tax revenues are pledged to retire the debt. As instruments of credit and because the community secures the bonds, general obligation bonds reduce the available debt level of the community. Due to the community pledge to secure and pay general obligation bonds, they are the most secure type of municipal bond and are generally issued at lower interest rates and carry lower costs of issuance. The primary disadvantage of general obligation bonds is that they require voter approval and are subject to statutory debt limits. This requires that they be used for projects that have broad support among the voters, and that they are reserved for projects that have the highest public priorities. In contrast to general obligation bonds, limited obligation bonds (sometimes referred to as self-liquidat- ing bonds) are secured by revenues from a local source. While neither general fund revenues nor the taxing power of the local community is pledged to pay the debt service, these sources may be required to retire the debt if pledged revenues are insufficient to make interest and principal payments on the - Page 341 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIP I nIRP iu i AIRPORT MASTER PL7C1�aa bonds. These bonds still carry the full faith and credit pledge of the local community and are considered, for the purpose of financial analysis, as part of the debt burden of the local community. The overall debt burden of the local community is a factor in determining interest rates on municipal bonds. There are several types of revenue bonds, but in general, they are a form of municipal bond which is payable solely from the revenue derived from the operation of a facility that was constructed or acquired with the proceeds of the bonds. For example, a lease revenue bond is secured with the income from a lease assigned to the repayment of the bonds. Revenue bonds have become a common form of financing airport improvements. Revenue bonds present the opportunity to provide those improvements without direct burden to the taxpayer. Revenue bonds normally carry a higher interest rate because they lack the guarantees of general and limited obligation bonds. Leasehold financing refers to a developer or tenant financing improvements under a long-term ground lease. The obvious advantage of such an arrangement is that it relieves the community of all responsi- bility for raising the capital funds for improvements. However, the private development of facilities on a ground lease, particularly on property owned by a government agency, produces a unique set of con- cerns. In particular, it is more difficult to obtain private financing as only the improvements and the right to continue the lease can be claimed in the event of a default. Ground leases normally provide for the reversion of improvements to the lessor at the end of the lease term, which reduces their potential value to a lender taking possession. Also, companies that want to own their property as a matter of financial policy may not locate where land is only available for lease. In addition to leasehold financing, it is acceptable for the airport to enter into some form of public/pri- vate partnership for various airport projects. Typically, this would be limited to hangar construction, but there are some examples where a private developer constructs, for example, a taxilane, and then deeds it to the airport for ongoing maintenance. When entering any such arrangement, the airport must be sure that the private developer does not gain an economic advantage over other airport tenants. Texas law generally requires local governments to seek voters' approval before issuing debt that will be repaid from tax revenue. One form of borrowing, however, represents an exception to this rule: certifi- cates of obligation, which do not require voter approval. Certificates of obligation are often associated with emergency spending but are not restricted to this purpose. Certain capital projects can be funded with CO's. For an airport, construction of revenue -generating facilities, such as a hangar or fuel farm, could be funded through CO's. Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-28 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MAS -� FUNDING PLAN The underlying strategy of the funding plan is to present the range of costs that the Airport may be responsible for if the entire CIP were to be undertaken in the timeframe suggested. Total project costs in the short, intermediate, and long term have been identified. Projects that are not eligible for TxDOT grant funding have been removed. The remaining amount is what is eligible for FAA AIP grant funding. This amount is reduced by 10 percent, which is the Airport matching share. It is further reduced by the maximum entitlement funding (non -primary entitlement). The remaining amount is what is eligible for FAA AIP discretionary funding. Table 6F outlines the maximum potential funds from AIP entitlements and FAA discretionary sources that could be attained during each planning horizon. This analysis assumes that the short-term horizon would be attained in five years, the intermediate horizon would be achieved in the next five years, and the long-term horizon would be achieved in an additional 10 years. Each horizon includes the aggregate total costs and funds available for the given planning horizon. TABLE 6F CIP Financial Assumptions (2017$) Georgetown Municipal Airport Short Term Intermediate $14,653,000 $19,S79,000 Long Term $25,320,000 Total $59,552,000 Total Project Costs Non -Eligible Costs $100,000 $1,600,000 $2,188,000 $3,888,000 Total Grant Eligible Project Costs $14,553,000 $17,979,000 $23,132,000 $55,664,000 AIP Project Grant Match (10%) $1,455,300 $1,797,900 $2,313,200 $5,566,400 Remaining Costs Less Matching Funds $13,097,700 $16,181,100 $20,818,800 $50,097,600 AIP NPE Funds $750,000 $750,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 Remaining Costs Eligible for FAA Discretionary Funding $12,347,700 $15,431,100 $19,318,800 $47,097,600 Airport CIP Costs High End' $13,903,000 $18,829,000 $23,820,000 $56,552,000 Airport CIP Costs Low End2 $1,555,300 $3,397,900 $4,501,200 $9,454,400 'Assumes no discretionary FAA funding. 2Assumes eligible costs receive full discretionary FAA funding. AIP - Airport Improvement Program; NPE - Non -Primary Entitlements In the short term, if the Airport were to receive full FAA discretionary funding for eligible projects, the minimum local investment would be $1.6 million. If no discretionary funding is available, then the high end for local funding would be $13.9 million. In the intermediate term, the low end local cost would be $3.4 million, which assumes full discretionary FAA funding. The high end local cost would be $18.8 million. In the long term, the minimum investment required from local sources is $4.5 million. The high end local cost would be $23.8 million. Page 343 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM 1 AIRPORT MASTER I:Xmkb The funding plan makes no assumption about the potential for other grant sources or the method for financing the local responsibility. Instead, a range is provided for the likely level of required local finan- cial participation if the entire CIP were to be implemented. If the full level of FAA/TxDOT discretionary funding can be obtained, then the Airport would be responsible for approximately $1.6 million in the short term, $3.4 million in the intermediate term, and $4.S million in the long-term. CONSIDERATIONS TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC AVIATION DEVELOPMENT Airports have land that can provide access to runways, a commodity that is in limited supply. Develop- ment of airport land is strictly reserved for aviation uses at federally obligated airports (such as Georgetown Municipal Airport) unless there are special circumstances which would allow non -aviation development. This master plan has identified on -airport land uses for both aviation and non -aviation functions. This section focuses on methods for the airport to enhance economic development of which there are three primary methods: 1. Airport sponsors build all facilities, including hangars and act as the leasing agent. Z. Airport sponsors execute a land lease and a private developer builds the facilities. 3. A combination of private development and airport sponsor development. Most airports have pursued the third option. Private developers build facilities to suit their own aviation needs, while airport sponsors take responsibility for facilities intended to meet the needs of the larger aviation community. Sponsor facilities may include terminal buildings, fueling infrastructure, surface road infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and runways/taxiways. Some airport sponsors have addition- ally taken responsibility for bulk aircraft storage facilities, such as T-hangars, and acted as the leasing agent. At Georgetown Municipal Airport, private development of hangar facilities has waned in recent years. In fact, there has not been a new executed ground lease in more than 10 years. Potential developers have cited multiple factors related to challenges of building on the airport: current maximum length of available ground lease, construction cost, and difficulty of available financing. The time to amortize a construction loan is cited as the largest impediment. FAA guidance provided in FAA Order 5190.66, Airport Compliance Manual, suggests that terms of 30-35 years are sufficient to retire a tenant's initial financing and provide a reasonable return on the tenant's investment. Terms extending beyond 50 years are not permitted. After a ground lease expires, the improvements (i.e., the constructed hangar) revert back to the airport. To improve private development of aviation facilities, airport sponsors should consider extending ground leases not to exceed 50 years. This may encompass an initial 30-year term followed by two 10-year options. All airports should establish standard basis rates for any facility for which they desire to extend a lease. Such facilities may include: Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT - GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER fl • Unimproved ground lease • Improved ground lease • Hangar lease for airport -owned hangars (condition dependent) • Aircraft tie -down positions • Fuel flowage fees and margins In addition to establishing standard basis rates, airports should allow for regular rate adjustments based on an inflation index. Periodically, airports will also commission a Rates and Fees study to establish the going rate for facilities. These studies typically include research on the rates and fees charges at other surrounding airports. In conclusion, Georgetown Municipal Airport should consider increasing the maximum ground lease pe- riod to at least 30 years but no more than 50 years, in addition to updating their lease rate structure. FUNDING AIRPORT OPERATIONS The Airport is operated by the City of Georgetown through the collection of various rates and charges from general aviation revenue sources. These revenues are generated specifically by airport operations. There are, however, restrictions on the use of revenues collected by the Airport. All receipts, excluding bond proceeds or related grants and interest, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of oper- ating and maintenance expenses, payment of debt service for as long as bonds remain outstanding, or to additions or improvements to Airport facilities. The operation of the Airport generates revenues, which are secured by federal grant assurances, to be utilized only on the Airport. While these revenues generated are significant, they are oftentimes not enough to fund both Airport operating expenditures and capital improvement requirements. Most gen- eral aviation airports in this country do not generate enough revenues to cover operating expenses. According to airport records, the Airport has begun in recent years to cover its operating expenses with operating revenues. An operating profit, however, should not be taken for granted. All potential reve- nue sources should be considered to support future capital expenditures, if necessary. To ensure that the airport maximizes revenue potential in the future, the Airport should periodically review aviation services rates and charges (i.e., ground lease rates, rental rates, etc.) at other airports to ensure that rates and charges at the Airport are competitive and similar to aviation services at other airports. This can further generate the opportunity for the City to establish other means of revenue collection or establish future rates and charges. Additionally, all new leases at the Airport should have inflation clauses allowing for periodic rate increases in line with inflationary factors. Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-31 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRN W I AIRPORT MASTER PLC; AIRPORT RATES AND CHARGES The FAA places several stipulations on rates and charges establishment and collection; however, two primary considerations need to be addressed. First, the rates and charges must be fair, equally applied, and resemble fair market value. Second, the rates and charges collected must be returned to and used only by and/or for the airport. In other words, the revenues generated by Airport operations cannot be diverted to the general use of the City of Georgetown. The FAA requires funds to be used at airports, as these funds are many times needed to either support the day-to-day operational costs or offset capital improvement costs. The following provides several activities that enhance revenue production for an airport, some of which are currently being practiced at Georgetown Municipal Airport. Aircraft Parking/Tiedowns Aircraft parking fees, also referred to as tiedown fees, are typically assessed to those aircraft utilizing a portion of an aircraft parking area that is owned by the airport. These fees are most generally assessed on a daily or monthly basis, depending upon the specific activity of a particular aircraft. Aircraft parking fees can be established in several different ways. Typically, airports assess aircraft park- ing fees in accordance with an established schedule in which an aircraft within a designated weight and/or size pays a similar fee (i.e., small aircraft, single engine aircraft). Aircraft parking fees may also be charged according to a "cents per 1,000 pounds" basis in which larger aircraft with increased weights would obviously pay more for utilizing the aircraft parking apron. There are also instances in which aircraft parking fees are not assessed on an airport. An airport sponsor may also include in a lease agreement with an aviation -related commercial operator at the airport to collect aircraft parking fees on portions of an aircraft parking apron in which the airport does not own or is leasing to a commercial operator. As a result, the airport could directly collect parking fees from an aircraft utilizing this space or allow the commercial operator to collect the parking fee, in which the agreement may allow the commercial operator to retain a portion of the parking fee as an administrative or service fee. As previously discussed, aircraft parking fees can be assessed on a daily or monthly basis. Daily aircraft parking fees are typically assessed to transient aircraft utilizing the airport on a short-term basis, while monthly fees are charged to aircraft that utilize a particular parking area for the permanent storage of their aircraft. Monthly aircraft parking fees are often assessed at airports that contain a waiting list for aircraft hangar storage space, such as Georgetown. It is also common practice at many airports to waive a daily aircraft parking fee in the event the aircraft purchases fuel prior to departing the airport. At Georgetown, the daily transient parking fee is $5.00. The monthly tie -down fee is $75. V_ Page 346 of 588 GEORGETOWN M INICIPAI AIRI' I AIRPORT MASTER Aircraft Storage Hangars There are several types of aircraft storage hangars that can accommodate aircraft on an airport. In order to establish hangar fees, an airport typically factors in such qualities as hangar size, location, and utilities. Aircraft hangar fees are most often charged on a monthly basis. Common aircraft storage hangars are typically categorized as T-hangars, box hangars, and conventional hangars. T-hangars provide for separate, single -aircraft storage areas. Box hangars are smaller clear - span hangars for individual aircraft. Conventional hangars provide a larger enclosed space that can ac- commodate larger multi -engine piston or turbine aircraft and/or multiple aircraft storage. Conventional hangars can also be utilized by aviation -related commercial operators for their business activities on an airport. Location can also play a role in determining hangar rates. Aircraft storage hangars with direct access to improved taxiways/taxilanes and adjacent to aviation services being offered at an airport can oftentimes be more expensive to rent. In addition, the type of utility infrastructure being offered to the hangar can also help determine storage fees. Smaller aircraft storage hangars, such as a T-hangar or small box hangar, can either be granted access through a manual sliding door or electric door. It is common for hangars that provide electric doors to have higher rental fees, as the cost associated with constructing these hangars would exceed the cost associated with simpler structures. At some airports, hangar facilities are constructed by the airport sponsor, while at other airports, hangars are built by private entities. In some cases, airports have both public and private hangar facilities avail- able. Hangars can be expensive to construct and offer minimal return on investment in the short term. In order to amortize the cost of constructing hangars, lease rates should be developed at a minimum to recover development and finance costs. The airport owns hangars of all sizes at the airport. T-hangar rates vary from $230-$400 per month. The fee difference depends on the condition, location, and if the hangar door is electric or not. Box and conventional hangars will range in monthly rates from $800 for a 3,000-square foot hangar to $6,000 per month for a larger conventional hangar. Differences in fees are dependent on condition, location, and other utilities availability. Ground Rental/Lease Ground rentals can be applied to aviation and non -aviation development on an airport. Also known as a land lease, a ground lease can be structured to meet the particular needs of an airport operator in terms of location, terrain features, amount of land needed, and type of facility infrastructure included. One of the single most valuable assets available to an airport is the leasable land with access to the runway/taxiway system. For aviation -related businesses, it is critical that they be located on an airport. Airport property is available for long term lease but, in most cases, it cannot be sold. At the expiration Page 347 of 588 GEORGETOWN � _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PU of the lease and any extensions, the improvements on the leased land revert back to the airport sponsor. In order for this arrangement to make financial sense, most ground leases are at least 20 years in length and include extension opportunities. Those who lease land on an airport are typically interested in con- structing a hangar for their own private use, for sub -lease, or for operation of an airport business. There- fore, the long-term lease arrangement is important in order to obtain capital funding for the construction of a hangar or other type of facility. It should also be noted that ground leases should include the op- portunity to periodically review the lease and adjust the rate according to the consumer price index (CPI). FAA guidance allows for lease terms of up to 50 years. Ground leases are typically established on a yearly fee schedule based upon the amount of square feet leased. The amount charged can vary greatly depending on the level of improvements to the land. For example, undeveloped land with readily accessible utilities and taxiway access can generate more reve- nue than unimproved property. Some airports will have other leasable space available. For example, airports with a terminal building may have office or counter space available for aviation and non -aviation related businesses. As previously mentioned, under certain circumstances, an airport sponsor may utilize portions of the airport for non -aeronautical purposes, such as commercial and/or industrial development if certain ar- eas are not needed to satisfy aviation demand or are not accessible to aviation activity. Prior to an airport pursuing a ground lease with a commercial operator for non -aeronautical purposes, the sponsor must formally request that the FAA release the land in question from its federal obligations. Georgetown offers ground leases for operators wishing to construct their own hangar facility. Improved land with ready access to utilities is generally $0.35 per square foot per month. Unimproved land is generally $0.20 per square foot per month. Fuel Sales and Flowage Fuel sales are typically managed at an airport in one of two ways: the airport sponsor acts as the fuel distributor or fueling operations are sub -contracted to a fixed base operator (FBO). If the airport sponsor acts as the fuel distributor, then the airport would receive revenues equal to the difference between wholesale and retail prices. At Georgetown, the airport owns the fuel farm and sells fuel directly through self -serve pumps and also sells wholesale to the FBOs who provide fuel delivery services. When fueling services are undertaken by an FBO, the airport sponsor typically receives a fuel flowage fee per gallon of fuel. By way of agreement with the airport sponsor, FBOs would be required to pay a fuel flowage fee for each gallon of fuel sold or received into inventory. In the case of self -fueling entities, a fuel flowage fee could apply for each gallon of fuel dispensed. Fuel flowage fees are typically paid on a "cents per gallon" basis. In some instances, fuel flowage fees will be established based upon the type of aviation activity. For example, commercial airline service operators may be assessed a higher fuel Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT 6-34 GEORGETOWN _ MUNICIPAL AIRPMI AIRPORT MAS flowage fee than general aviation aircraft or no fuel flowage fee at all if being assessed a landing fee. Fuel flowage fees can also be distinguished by type of fuel (100LL or Jet A). The owner of the fuel farm can also be the airport sponsor or an FBO operator. If the airport sponsor owns the fuel farm and the FBO operator undertakes the fueling activities, then a separate fuel storage fee can be charged or a higher fuel flowage fee may be assessed. At Georgetown, the airport owns the fuel farm. The airport sells AvGas self -serve directly to aircraft owners who fuel their own aircraft. There is no self -serve Jet A available. The FBOs have fuel delivery trucks for both AvGas and Jet A fuel. They purchase fuel from the airport at a fee that includes a fuel flowage fee of $0.1542 per gallon and an additional margin. The margin is $0.5208 per gallon for AvGas and $0.50 per gallon for Jet A. Landing Fees Landing fees typically only apply to larger aircraft, such as those over 60,000 pounds, for example, and only those involved in commercial airline or air taxi operations. Landing fees are not common on general aviation airports and are generally discouraged due to collection difficulty. Moreover, landing fees are somewhat discouraging to aircraft operators, who will many times elect to utilize a nearby airport that does not collect a landing fee. When landing fees are assessed, they are most commonly based upon aircraft weight and a "cents per 1,000 pounds" approach. In addition, some airport sponsors may use a flat fee approach wherein aircraft within a specified weight range are charged the same fee. Landing fees may be collected directly by the airport sponsor, or an airport may have an agreement with a commercial operator to collect landing fees. Similar to what was discussed with aircraft parking fees, under this scenario, the agreement may allow the commercial operator, such as an FBO, to retain a portion of the landing fee as an administrative or service fee. Similar to most general aviation airports, a landing fee has not been imposed at Georgetown. Financial Grant Assurances The above financial discussion is intended to show that the operation of Georgetown Municipal Airport meets various requirements and goals set forth by the FAA. Several of the grant assurances relate to financial condition of the airport as outlined below. Grant Assurance #24 — Fee and Rental Structure: Requires the airport sponsor to set fee, lease rates, and other charges that are directed at making the airport as self-sustaining as possible. Airport sponsors must impose fair market value charges for noncommercial uses of airport property, but aeronautical - Page 349 of 588 GEORGETOWN _1W1 M INICIP I nIRP iu 1 AIRPORT MASTER PL''7C1 user charges may be less than fair market value. As demonstrated, the fee and rental structure for air- port property and facilities is fair and equitable. Grant Assurance #25 — Airport Revenues: Restricts the use of airport revenue generated by the airport and local taxes on aviation fuel to be expended for the capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other facilities owned or operated by the airport sponsor, which directly and substan- tially relate to the actual air transportation of passengers, property, or noise mitigation efforts. Under the Single Audit Act of 1984, the airport must conduct an annual audit and assure the government that airport funds have been properly used. In general, revenue generated by the airport may not be diverted to functions unrelated to the operation and maintenance of the airport. Examples of revenue diversion include: a) General economic development; b) Marketing and promotional activities unrelated to the airport; c) Payments in lieu of taxes or other assessments that exceed the value of services; d) Payments to compensate sponsoring governmental bodies for lost tax revenues exceeding stated tax rates; and e) Direct or indirect payments of airport revenue beyond that which is required to pay for services and facilities provided to the airport. AIRPORT FUTURE AND BRANDING In 2013, the city commissioned the Georgetown Airport Business Analysis. The purpose of the study is to assist the city and airport in developing and operating the airport in a manner that would be financially and operationally sustainable in both the immediate and long term. A recommendation of the study was for the City of Georgetown to develop a long-term vision for the airport, a mission statement per se, that will help guide future planning of the airport. "As one of the most significant transportation - related economic development sites in the City, a unified vision will relate directly to jobs and economic viability for the City's future. A policy statement from the City Council regarding the unified vision for the airport would allow staff to work to achieve the vision." One element discussed in the study was branding for the airport which would emerge from the mission statement. "An assumption of this study is that the airport will continue to be developed to accommo- date both leisure aviation and the higher end business aircraft market. If this is the vision that City lead- ers wish for the Airport, then a more descriptive branding and marketing program can be developed for the airport. This clear-cut brand and resulting marketing program for GTU is essential to both keep ex- isting businesses and to attract new businesses to the City." Airport visioning and branding is a best practice that is consistent with successful airport operations. An essential element of a successful brand is the name. For an airport, the name should convey the type of facility (recreational, business, commercial, etc.) and the location. The following are possible airport names, each of which conveys the type of facility and the location: Page 350 of 588 GEORGETOWN _ Ml iNICIPAI AIRPM I AIRPORT MASTER PEW • Georgetown Regional Airport • Georgetown Executive Airport • Georgetown Business Airport • Georgetown Gateway Airport • Hill Country Gateway Airport at Georgetown MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To implement the Master Plan recommendations, it is key to recognize that planning is a continuous process and does not end with approval of this document. The airport should implement measures that allow them to track various demand indicators, such as based aircraft, hangar demand, and operations. The issues that this Master Plan is based on will remain valid for a number of years. The primary goal is for the Airport to best serve the air transportation needs of the region, while continuing to be econom- ically self-sufficient. The actual need for facilities is best established by airport activity levels rather than a specified date. For example, projections have been made as to when additional hangars may be needed at the Airport. In reality, the timeframe in which the development is needed may be substantially different. Actual de- mand may be slower to develop than expected. On the other hand, high levels of demand may establish the need to accelerate development. Although every effort has been made in this master planning pro- cess to conservatively estimate when facility development may be needed, aviation demand will dictate timing of facility improvements. The value of a Master Plan is keeping the issues and objectives at the forefront of managers and decision - makers. In addition to adjustments in aviation demand, when to undertake the improvements recom- mended in this Master Plan will impact how long the plan remains valid. The format of this plan reduces the need for formal and costly updates by simply adjusting the timing of project implementation. Up- dating can be done by the manager, thereby improving the plan's effectiveness. In summary, the planning process requires the City of Georgetown to consistently monitor the progress of the Airport in terms of aircraft operations and based aircraft. Analysis of aviation demand is critical to the timing and need for new Airport facilities Capital Improvement Program -DRAFT 6-37 Page 351 of 588 GEORGETOWN TEXAS APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS Page 352 of 588 fossa A ....................................................................... ABOVE GROUND LEVEL: The elevation of a point or surface above the ground. ACCELERATE -STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): See declared distances. ADVISORY CIRCULAR: External publications issued by the FAA consisting of nonregulatory material providing for the recommendations relative to a policy, guidance and information relative to a specif c aviation subject. AIR CARRIER: An operator which: (1) performs at least f ve round trips per week between two or more points and publishes f ight schedules which specify the times, days of the week, and places between which such f ights are performed; or (2) transports mail by air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Certif ed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127. AIRCRAFT: A transportation vehicle that is used or intended for use for f ight. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the stall speed in their landing conf guration at their maximum certif cated landing weight. The categories are as follows: • Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. • Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. • Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. • Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. • Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The landing, takeoff, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA (AOA): A restricted and secure area on the airport property designed to protect all aspects related to aircraft operations. AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION: A private organization serving the interests and needs of general aviation pilots and aircraft owners. of berms AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING: A facility located at an airport that provides emergency vehicles, extinguishing agents, and personnel responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircraft accident or incident. AIRFIELD: The portion of an airport which contains the facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft. AIRLINE HUB: An airport at which an airline concentrates a significant portion of its activity and which often has a significant amount of connecting traffic. AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): A grouping of aircraft based upon wingspan. The groups are as follows: • Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. • Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. • Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. • Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. • Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. • Group VI: 214 feet or greater. AIRPORT AUTHORITY: A quasi -governmental public organization responsible for setting the policies governing the management and operation of an airport or system of airports under its jurisdiction. AIRPORT BEACON: A navigational aid located at an airport which displays a rotating light beam to identify whether an airport is lighted. AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Aviation Administration to identify, prioritize, and distribute funds for airport development and the needs of the National Airspace System to meet specif ed national goals and objectives. AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on the runway system at an airport expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: A program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for airport planning and development. Pa 3-'T of 588 CO�f�ll Associates Airport Consullants (;fossary of Terms AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing and proposed airport facilities. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scaled drawing of the existing and planned land and facilities necessary for the operation and development of the airport. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING SET: A set of technical drawings depicting the current and future airport conditions. The individual sheets comprising the set can vary with the complexities of the airport, but the FAA -required drawings include the Airport Layout Plan (sometimes referred to as the Airport Layout Drawing (ALD), the Airport Airspace Drawing, and the Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Drawing, On -Airport Land Use Drawing, and Property Map. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: The planner's concept of the long-term development of an airport. AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM: A system that provides automated alerts and warnings of potential runway incursions or other hazardous aircraft movement events. AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART: A scaled drawing depicting the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 surfaces, a representation of objects that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads and other detail in the vicinity of an airport. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational (Aircraft Approach Category) to the physical characteristics (Airplane Design Group) of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the airport. AIRPORT SPONSOR: The entity that is legally responsible for the management and operation of an airport, including the fulf Ilment of the requirements of laws and regulations related thereto. AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT: A radar system that provides air traffic controllers with a visual representation of the movement of aircraft and other vehicles on the ground on the airf eld at an airport. AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR: The primary radar located at an airport or in an air traffic control terminal area that receives a signal at an antenna and transmits the signal to air traffic control display equipment clef ning the location of aircraft in the air. The signal provides only the azimuth and range of aircraft from the location of the antenna. AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): A central operations facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consisting of a tower, including an associated instrument f ight rule (IFR) room if radar equipped, using air/ground communications and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices to provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal airtraffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER: A facility which provides en route air traffic control service to aircraft operating on an IFR f ight plan within controlled airspace over a large, multi -state region. AIRSIDE: The portion of an airport that contains the facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft. AIRSPACE: The volume of space above the surface of the ground that is provided for the operation of aircraft. AIR TAXI: An air carrier certif cated in accordance with FAR Part 121 and FAR Part 135 and authorized to provide, on demand, public transportation of persons and property by aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft "for hire" for specif c trips. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: A service operated by an appropriate organization for the purpose of providing for the safe, orderly, and expeditious f ow of air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircraft operating on an IFR f ight plan within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of f ight. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMMAND CENTER: A facility operated by the FAA which is responsible for the central f ow control, the central altitude reservation system, the airport reservation position system, and the air traffic service contingency command for the air traffic control system. Paw 354 of 588 n Associates Airport Consultants (ilossary of Terms AIR TRAFFIC HUB: A categorization of commercial service airports or group of commercial service airports in a metropolitan or urban area based upon the proportion of annual national enplanements existing at the airport or airports. The categories are large hub, medium hub, small hub, or non - hub. It forms the basis for the apportionment of entitlement funds. AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: An organization consisting of the principal U.S. airlines that represents the interests of the airline industry on major aviation issues before federal, state, and local government bodies. It promotes air transportation safety by coordinating industry and governmental safety programs and it serves as a focal point for industry efforts to standardize practices and enhance the efficiency of the air transportation system. ALERT AREA: See special -use airspace. ALTITUDE: The vertical distance measured in feet above mean sea level. ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA): An approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR f ight plan when visibility is less than three miles and/orwhenthe ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude. APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS): An airport lighting facility which provides visual guidance to landing aircraft by radiating light beams by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with the extended centerline of the runway on his f nal approach and landing. APPROACH MINIMUMS: The altitude below which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight. APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction limiting surface clef ned in FAR Part 77 which is longitudinally centered on an extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from the primary surface at each end of a runway at a designated slope and distance based upon the type of available or planned approach by aircraft to a runway. APRON: A specif ed portion of the airf eld used for passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading, aircraft parking, and the refueling, maintenance and servicing of aircraft. AREA NAVIGATION: The air navigation procedure that provides the capability to establish and maintain a f ight path on an arbitrary course that remains within the coverage area of navigational sources being used. AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICE (ATIS): The continuous broadcast of recorded non - control information at towered airports. Information typically includes wind speed, direction, and runway in use. AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION SYSTEM (ASOS): A reporting system that provides frequent airport ground surface weather observation data through digitized voice broadcasts and printed reports. AUTOMATIC WEATHER OBSERVATION STATION (AWOS): Equipment used to automatically record weather conditions (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direction, temperature, dew point, etc.) AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): An aircraft radio navigation system which senses and indicates the direction to a non -directional radio beacon (NDB) ground transmitter. AVIGATION EASEMENT: A contractual right or a property interest in land over which a right of unobstructed f ight in the airspace is established. AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between true north and the direction of a f xed point (as the observer's heading). B ............................................................................. BASE LEG: A f ight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg normally extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline. See "traffic pattern." BASED AIRCRAFT: The general aviation aircraft that use a specif c airport as a home base. BEARING: The horizontal direction to or from any point, usually measured clockwise from true north or magnetic north. BLAST FENCE: A barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash. n Associates Airport Consultants PagA 35J of 588 (;Cossary of Terms BLAST PAD: A prepared surface adjacent to the end of a runway for the purpose of eliminating the erosion of the ground surface by the wind forces produced by airplanes at the initiation of takeoff operations. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which identif es suitable building area locations on the airport. C CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Aviation Administration to identify, prioritize, and distribute Airport Improvement Program funds for airport development and the needs of the National Airspace System to meet specif ed national goals and objectives. CARGO SERVICE AIRPORT: Ana irportserved by aircraft providing airtransportation ofpropertyonly,including mail, with an annual aggregate landed weight of at least 100,000,000 pounds. CATEGORY I: An Instrument Landing System (ILS) that provides acceptable guidance information to an aircraft from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 200 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CATEGORYII:An ILSthatprovides acceptable guidance information to an aircraft from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 100 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CATEGORY III: An ILS that provides acceptable guidance information to a pilot from the coverage limits of the ILS with no decision height specif ed above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CEILING: The height above the ground surface to the location of the lowest layer of clouds which is reported as either broken or overcast. CIRCLING APPROACH: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway for landing when f ying a predetermined circling instrument approach under IFR. t— FL 600 KEY tt tea�oMSL AGL Above Ground Level FL Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL Mean Sea Level , r14S00Y91 . 0 Source: -Airspace Reclassfication and Charting Changes for VFR Products: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot January 1993. bn... Fum ,_._, 01 CLASS �— 70 n.m— No Z p.';ed a 1.700 ,LG1 ,rpart ]OOAGL� •17 n.m.• Z CLASS A AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS B AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS C AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS D AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS E AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS G AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLEAR ZONE: See Runway Protection Zone. COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: A public airport providing scheduled passenger service that enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers. COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY: A radio frequency identif ed in the appropriate aeronautical chartwhich is designated for the purpose of transmitting airport advisory information and procedures while operating to or from an uncontrolled airport. COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): A low power, low/ medium frequency radio -beacon installed in conjunction with the instrument landing system at one or two of the marker sites. CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction - limiting surface clef ned in FAR Part 77 that extends Paw 354 of 588 �.an Associates Airport Consultants (ifossary of Terms from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. CONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport that has an operating airport traffic control tower. CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace of clef ned dimensions within which air traffic control services are provided to instrument f ight rules (IFR) and visual f ight rules (VFR) f ights in accordance with the airspace classif cation. Controlled airspace in the United States is designated as follows: • CLASS A: Generally, the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including f ight level FL600. All persons must operate their aircraft under IFR. • CLASS B: Generally, the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busi- est airports. The conf guration of Class B air- space is unique to each airport, but typically consists of two or more layers of air space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach procedures to the airport. An air traf- f c control clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area. • CLASS C: Generally, the airspace from the sur- face to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower and radar ap- proach control and are served by a qualifying number of IFR operations or passenger enplane- ments. Although individually tailored for each airport, Class C airspace typically consists of a surface area with a f ve nautical mile (nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 nautical mile radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. Two-way radio communi- cation is required for all aircraft. • CLASS D: Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port eleva- tion (charted as MSL) surrounding those air- ports that have an operational control tower. Class D airspace is individually tailored and conf gured to encompass published instru- ment approach procedure. Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must establish two-way radio communication. • CLASS E: Generally, controlled airspace that is not classif ed as Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the sur- face or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When desig- nated as a surface area, the airspace will be conf gured to contain all instrument proce- dures. Class E airspace encompasses all Victor Airways. Only aircraft following instrument f ight rules are required to establish two-way radio communication with air traffic control. • CLASS G: Generally, that airspace not classif ed as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all aircraft. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the overlying Class E airspace. CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: See special -use airspace. CROSSWIND: A wind that is not parallel to a runway centerline or to the intended f ight path of an aircraft. CROSSWIND COMPONENT: The component of wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline or the intended f ight path of an aircraft. CROSSWIND LEG: A f ight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. See "traffic pattern" D ............................................................................. DECIBEL: A unit of noise representing a level relative to a reference of a sound pressure 20 micro newtons per square meter. DECISION HEIGHT/DECISION ALTITUDE: The height above the end of the runway surface at which a decision must be made by a pilot during the ILS or Precision Approach Radar approach to either continue the approach or to execute a missed approach. DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared available for the airplane's takeoff runway, takeoff distance, accelerate -stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are: • TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): The runway length declared available and suitable forthe ground run of an airplane taking off. PagA 35� of 588 Cofbfl�Ca Associates Airport Consultants (;Cossary of Terms • TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of the TORA. • ACCELERATE -STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway length declared available for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff. • LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The cabinet level federal government organization consisting of modal operating agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, which was established to promote the coordination of federal transportation programs and to act as a focal point for research and development efforts in transportation. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: Federal grant funds that may be appropriated to an airport based upon designation by the Secretary of Transportation or Congress to meet a specif ed national priority such as enhancing capacity, safety, and security, or mitigating noise. DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway. DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME): Equipment (airborne and ground) used to r ; 10 NM measure, in nautical 0 miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft from the DME navigational aid. DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in Aweighted decibels, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the FAA standard metric for determining the cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. DOWNWIND LEG: A f ight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg. Also see "traffic pattern" E EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specif ed form of development or activity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specif ed in the easement document. ELEVATION: The vertical distance measured in feet above mean sea level. ENPLANED PASSENGERS: The total number of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including originating, stop -over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and nonscheduled services. ENPLANEMENT: The boarding of a passenger, cargo, freight, or mail on an aircraft at an airport. ENTITLEMENT: Federal funds for which a commercial service airport may be eligible based upon its annual passenger enplanements. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): An environmental analysis performed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether an action would signif cantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed environmental impact statement. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: An assessment of the current status of a party's compliance with applicable environmental requirements of a party's environmental compliance policies, practices, and controls. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): A document required of federal agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act for major projects are legislative proposals affecting the environment. It is a tool for decision -making describing the positive and negative effects of a proposed action and citing alternative actions. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE: A federal program which guarantees air carrier service to selected small cities by providing subsidies as needed to prevent these cities from such service. Paw I of 588 n Associates Airport Consultants (ilossary of Terms F FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: The general and permanent rules established by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government for aviation, which are published in the Federal Register. These are the aviation subset of the Code of Federal Regulations. FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES: The provision of customs and immigration services including passport inspection, inspection of baggage, the collection of duties on certain imported items, and the inspections for agricultural products, illegal drugs, or other restricted items. FINAL APPROACH: A f ight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The f nal approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. See "traffic pattern." FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA (FATO). A def ned area over which the f nal phase of the helicopter approach to a hover, or a landing is completed and from which the takeoff is initiated. FINAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the f nal approach segment for an aircraft landing on a runway begins for a non -precision approach. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI): A public document prepared by a Federal agency that presents the rationale why a proposed action will not have a signif cant effect on the environment and for which an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of services to users of an airport. Such services include, but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, f ight training, repair, and maintenance. FLIGHT LEVEL: A measure of altitude used by aircraft f ying above 18,000 feet. Flight levels are indicated by three digits representing the pressure altitude in hundreds of feet. An airplane f ying at f ight level 360 is f ying at a pressure altitude of 36,000 feet. This is expressed as FL 360. FLIGHT SERVICE STATION: An operations facility in the national f ight advisory system which utilizes data interchange facilities for the collection and dissemination of Notices to Airmen, weather, and administrative data and which provides pre-f ight and in-f ight advisory services to pilots through air and ground based communication facilities. FRANGIBLE NAVAID: A navigational aid which retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to a designated maximum load, but on impact from a greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the minimum hazard to aircraft. G ............................................................................. GENERAL AVIATION: That portion of civil aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers holding a certif cate of convenience and necessity, and large aircraft commercial operators. GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT: An airport that provides air service to only general aviation. GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. The glideslope consists of the following: 1. Electronic components emitting signals which provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument approaches such as ILS; or 2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide vertical guidance for VFR approach or for the visual portion of an instrument approach and landing. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A system of 48 satellites used as reference points to enable navigators equipped with GPS receivers to determine their latitude, longitude, and altitude. GROUND ACCESS: The transportation system on and around the airport that provides access to and from the airport by ground transportation vehicles for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and airport services. H ............................................................................. HELIPAD: A designated area for the takeoff, landing, and parking of helicopters. HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The highest classif cation in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway. Cadars-adn Associates Airport Consultants PagA 35y of 588 (;Cossary of Terms HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: A long radius taxiway designed to expedite aircraft turning off the runway after landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus reducing runway occupancy time. HORIZONTAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction - limiting surface def ned in FAR Part 77 that is specif ed as a portion of a horizontal plane surrounding a runway located 150 feet above the established airport elevation. The specif c horizontal dimensions of this surface are a function of the types of approaches existing or planned for the runway. INITIAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the initial approach segment begins for an instrument approach to a runway. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument f ight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Procedures for the conduct of f ight in weather conditions below Visual Flight Rules weather minimums. The term IFR is often also used to def ne weather conditions and the type of f ight plan under which an aircraft is operating. INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: 1. Localizer. 2. Glide Slope. 3. Outer Marker. 4. Middle Marker. 5. Approach Lights. INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of specif c visibility and ceiling conditions that are less than the minimums specif ed for visual meteorological conditions. ITINERANT OPERATIONS: Operations by aircraft that are not based at a specif ed airport. Paw 369 of 588 IN KNOTS: A unit of speed length used in navigation that is equivalent to the number of nautical miles traveled in one hour. L ............................................................................ LANDSIDE: The portion of an airport that provides the facilities necessary for the processing of passengers, cargo, freight, and ground transportation vehicles. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): See declared distances. LARGE AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum certif ed takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds. LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: A differential GPS system that provides localized measurement correction signals to the basic GPS signals to improve navigational accuracy integrity, continuity, and availability. LOCAL OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations performed by aircraft that are based at the airport and that operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport, that are known to be departing for or arriving from f ights in local practice areas within a prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute simulated instrument approaches at the airport. LOCAL TRAFFIC: Aircraft operating in the traffic pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known to be departing or arriving from the local practice areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch and -go training operations. LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA): A facility of comparable utility and accuracy to a Localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. LONG RANGE NAVIGATION SYSTEM (LORAN): Long range navigation is an electronic navigational aid which determines aircraft position and speed by measuring the difference in the time of reception of synchronized pulse signals from two f xed transmitters. Loran is used for en route navigation._ � --n Associates Airport Consultants (ifossary of Terms LOW INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The lowest classif cation in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway. M ....................................................................... MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The middle classif cation in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS): An instrument approach and landing system that provides precision guidance in azimuth, elevation, and distance measurement. MILITARY OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations that are performed in military aircraft. MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): See special - use airspace MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE: An air route depicted on aeronautical charts for the conduct of military f ight training at speeds above 250 knots. MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The f ight route to be followed if, after an instrument approach, a landing is not affected, and occurring normally: 1. When the aircraft has descended to the decision height and has not established visual contact; or 2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go around again. MOVEMENT AREA: The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are utilized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control clearance is required for entry onto the movement area. N ..................................................................... NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: The network of air traffic control facilities, air traffic control areas, and navigational facilities through the U.S. NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS: The national airport system plan developed by the Secretary of Transportation on a biannual basis for the development of public use airports to meet national air transportation needs. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: A federal government organization established to investigate and determine the probable cause of transportation accidents, to recommend equipment and procedures to enhance transportation safety, and to review on appeal the suspension or revocation of any certif cates or licenses issued by the Secretary of Transportation. NAUTICAL MILE: A unit of length used in navigation which is equivalent to the distance spanned by one minute of arc in latitude, that is, 1,852 meters or 6,076 feet. It is equivalent to approximately 1.15 statute mile. NAVAID: A term used to describe any electrical or visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated supporting equipment (i.e. PAP], VASI, ILS, etc.) NAVIGATIONAL AID: A facility used as, available for use as, or designed for use as an aid to air navigation. NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connecting all points of the same noise exposure level. NON -DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirectional signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction f nding equipment can determine his or her bearing to and from the radio beacon and home on, or track to, the station. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunction with the Instrument Landing System marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator. NON -PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. NOTICE TO AIRMEN: A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition, or change in any component of or hazard in the National Airspace System, the timely knowledge of which is considered essential to personnel concerned with f ight operations. Codwasan Associates Airport Consultants PagA 31� of 588 GCossary of Terms O ............................................................................. OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): An area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): The airspace below 150 feet above the established airport elevation and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function, in order to provide clearance for aircraft landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches. ONE -ENGINE INOPERABLE SURFACE: A surface emanating from the runway end at a slope ratio of 62.5:1. Air carrier airports are required to maintain a technical drawing of this surface depicting any object penetrations by January 1, 2010. OPERATION: The take -off, landing, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport. OUTER MARKER (OM): An ILS navigation facility in the terminal area navigation system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline, indicating to the pilot that he/she is passing over the facility and can begin f nal approach. P ........................................................................ PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING: Runway lighting systems at an airport that are controlled by activating the microphone of a pilot on a specif ed radio frequency. PRECISION APPROACH: A standard instrument approach procedure which provides runway alignment and glide slope (descent) information. It is categorized as follows: • CATEGORY I (CAT 1): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) with operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights. • CATEGORY II (CAT II): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 100 feet and visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR. • CATEGORY III (CAT III): A precision approach which provides for approaches with minima less than Category II. PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI): A lighting system providing visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during a landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides a sharper transition between the colored indicator lights. PRECISION APPROACH RADAR: A radar facility in the terminal air traffic control system used to detect and display with a high degree of accuracy the direction, range, and elevation of an aircraft on the f nal approach to a runway. PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): An area centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning at the runway threshold and extending behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation (except for frangible NAVAIDS). The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility. PRIMARY AIRPORT: A commercial service airport that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers. PRIMARY SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction limiting surface def ned in FAR Part 77 that is specif ed as a rectangular surface longitudinally centered about a runway. The specif c dimensions of this surface are a function of the types of approaches existing or planned for the runway. PROHIBITED AREA: See special -use airspace. PVC: Poor visibility and ceiling. Used in determining Annual Service Volume. PVC conditions exist when the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and visibility is less than one mile. Paw 3(& 588 n Associates Airport Consultants I;fossary of Terms ........................................................................ RADIAL: A navigational signal generated by a Very High Frequency Omni -directional Range or VORTAC station that is measured as an azimuth from the station. REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A statistical technique that seeks to identify and quantify the relationships between factors associated with a forecast. REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (RCO): An unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve f ight service stations (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground -to -ground communications between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering en route clearances, issuing departure authorizations, and acknowledging instrument f ight rules cancellations or departure/ landing times. REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): See remote communications outlet. RTRs serve ARTCCs. RELIEVER AIRPORT: An airport to serve general aviation aircraft which might otherwise use a congested air -carrier served airport. RESTRICTED AREA: See special -use airspace RNAV: Area navigation - airborne equipment which permits f ights over determined tracks within prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to overt y ground -based navigation facilities. Used en route and for approaches to an airport. RUNWAY: A def ned rectangular area on an airport prepared for aircraft landing and takeoff. Runways are normally numbered in relation to their magnetic direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For example, a runway with a magnetic heading of 180 would be designated Runway 18. The runway heading on the opposite end of the runway is 180 degrees from that runway end. For example, the opposite runway heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 36 (magnetic heading of 360). Aircraft can takeoff or land from either end of a runway, depending upon wind direction. RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHT: A series of high intensity sequentially f ashing lights installed on the extended centerline of the runway usually in conjunction with an approach lighting system. RUNWAY DESIGN CODE: A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. RUNWAY END IDENTIFICATION LIGHTING (REIL): Two synchronized f ashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and positive identif cation of the approach end of a particular runway. RUNWAY GRADIENT: The average slope, measured in percent, between the two ends of a runway. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach type and minima. RUNWAY REFERENCE CODE: A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated taxiway. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A def ned surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): An area on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that there is an unobstructed line of- site from any point f ve feet above the runway centerline to any point f ve feet above an intersecting runway centerline. RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): An instrumentally derived value, in feet, representing the horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway from the runway end. S ...................................................................... SCOPE: The document that identif es and def nes the tasks, emphasis, and level of effort associated with a project or study. SEGMENTED CIRCLE: A system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pattern information at airports without operating control towers. PagA 361 ff 588 Associates Airport Consultants (ifossary of Terms SHOULDER: An area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transition between the pavement and the adjacent surface; support for aircraft running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protection. The shoulder does not necessarily need to be paved. SLANT -RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line distance between an aircraft and a point on the ground. SMALL AIRCRAFT: An aircraft that has a maximum certif ed takeoff weight of up to 12,500 pounds. SPECIAL -USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of clef ned dimensions identif ed by a surface area wherein activities must be conf ned because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. Special -use airspace classif cations include: • ALERT AREA: Airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. • CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: Airspace wherein activities are conducted under conditions so controlled as to eliminate hazards to nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the ground. • MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): Designated airspace with clef ned vertical and lateral dimensions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military activities from instrument f ight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify for visual f ight rule (VFR) traffic where these activities are conducted. • PROHIBITED AREA: Designated airspace within which the f ight of aircraft is prohibited. • RESTRICTED AREA: Airspace designated under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 73, within which the f ight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restriction. Most restricted areas are designated joint use. When not in use by the using agency, IFR/VFR operations can be authorized by the controlling air traffic control facility. • WARNING AREA: Airspace which may contain hazards to nonparticipating aircraft. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR departure routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual form only. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES: A published standard f ight procedure to be utilized following takeoff to provide a transition between the airport and the terminal area or en route airspace. STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR arrival routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual or textual form only. STOP -AND -GO: A procedure wherein an aircraft will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop -and -go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one operation for the takeoff. STOPWAY: An area beyond the end of a takeoff runway that is designed to support an aircraft during an aborted takeoff without causing structural damage to the aircraft. It is not to be used for takeoff, landing, or taxiing by aircraft. STRAIGHT -IN LANDING/APPROACH: A landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the f nal approach course following completion of an instrument approach. T ............................................................................. TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN): An ultrahigh frequency electronic air navigation system which provides suitably -equipped aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and distance to the TACAN station. TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): See declared distances. TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): See declared distances. TAXILANE: The portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways and aircraft parking positions. TAXIWAY: A clef ned path established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another. Paw 3AA f 588 n Associates Airport Consultants (ilossary of Terms TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP: A classif cation of airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance. TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): A clef ned surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane unintentionally departing the taxiway. TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES: Published f ight procedures for conducting instrument approaches to runways under instrument meteorological conditions. TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL: An element of the air traffic control system responsible for monitoring the en -route and terminal segment of air traffic in the airspace surrounding airports with moderate to high levels of air traffic. TETRAHEDRON: A device used as a landing direction indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron points in the direction of landing. THRESHOLD: The beginning of that portion of the runway available for landing. In some instances the landing threshold may be displaced. TOUCH-AND-GO: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway. A touch -and go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one operation for the takeoff. TOUCHDOWN: The point at which a landing aircraft makes contact with the runway surface. TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA (TLOF): A load bearing, generally paved area, normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands or takes off. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The f rst 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE): The highest elevation in the touchdown zone. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHTING: Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100-foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along the runway. TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic f ow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and f nal approach. DOWNWIND LEG BASE CROSS- WIND WIND LEG LEG + X FINAL APPROACH DEPARTURE LEG --y t`` UPWIND LEG 1 T UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport without an air traffic control tower at which the control of Visual Flight Rules traffic is not exercised. UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace within which aircraft are not subject to air traffic control. UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION (UNICOM): A nongovernment communication facility which may provide airport information at certain airports. Locations and frequencies of UNICOM's are shown on aeronautical charts and publications. UPWIND LEG: A f ight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing. See "traffic pattern." V VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR): A ground -based electronic navigation aid transmitting very high frequency navigation signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magnetic north. Used as the basis for navigation in the national airspace system. The VOR periodically identif es itself by Morse Code and may have an additional voice identif cation feature. PagA 361gf588 Cofbfl�Ca Associates Airport Consultants (;Cossary of Terms VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-DIRECTIONAL RANGE/ TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION '/ �_ \\\\\0\\s���s� (VORTAC): A navigation aid providing VO R azimuth, TACA N azimuth, and TACAN distance- measuring equipment (DME) _ at one site. VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is clef ned by radio navigational aids. VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR f ight plan, operating in VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic control facility and having an air traffic control authorization, may proceed to the airport of destination in VFR conditions. VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI): An airport lighting facility providing vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to landing by radiating a directional pattern of high intensity red and white focused light beams which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees red/ white, above path if white/white, and below path if red/red. Some airports serving large aircraft have three -bar VASI's which provide two visual guide paths to the same runway. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting f ight under visual conditions. The term VFR is also used in the United States to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements. In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of f ight plan. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of specif c visibility and ceiling conditions which are equal to or greater than the threshold values for instrument meteorological conditions. VOR: See "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station" VORTAC: See "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical Air Navigation" W WARNING AREA: See special -use airspace. WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: An enhancement of the Global Positioning System that includes integrity broadcasts, differential corrections, and additional ranging signals for the purpose of providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and continuity required to support all phases of f ight. A 6breviations AC: advisory circular ADF: automatic direction f nder ADG: airplane design group AFSS: automated f ight service station AGL: above ground level AIA: annual instrument approach AIP: Airport Improvement Program AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALS: approach lighting system ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced f ashers (CAT I conf guration) ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced f ashers (CAT II conf guration) AOA: Aircraft Operation Area APV: instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance ARC: airport reference code Paw 36f 588 14 Associates Airport Consultants ARFF: aircraft rescue and f re f ghting ARP: airport reference point ARTCC: air route traffic control center ASDA: accelerate -stop distance available ASR: airport surveillance radar ASOS: automated surface observation station ATCT: airport traffic control tower ATIS: automated terminal information service AVGAS: aviation gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL) AWOS: automatic weather observation station BRL: building restriction line CFR: Code of Federal Regulation CIP: capital improvement program DIVIE: distance measuring equipment DNL: day -night noise level DWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft with dual -wheel type landing gear DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft with dual -tandem type landing gear FAA: Federal Aviation Administration FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation FBO: f xed base operator FY: f scal year GPS: global positioning system GS: glide slope HIRL: high intensity runway edge lighting IFR: instrument f ight rules (FAR Part 91) Abbreviations ILS: instrument landing system IM: inner marker LDA: localizer type directional aid LDA: landing distance available LIRL: low intensity runway edge lighting LMM: compass locator at middle marker LOW compass locator at outer marker LORAN: long range navigation MAILS: medium intensity approach lighting system with indicator lights MIRL: medium intensity runway edge lighting MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge lighting MLS: microwave landing system MM: middle marker MOA: military operations area MSL: mean sea level NAVAID: navigational aid NDB: nondirectional radio beacon NM: nautical mile (6,076.1 feet) NPES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NPRM: notice of proposed rule making ODALS: omnidirectional approach lighting system OFA: object free area OFZ: obstacle free zone OM: outer marker Pa9A 36of 588 Co�f—fn Associates Airport Consultants PAC: planning advisory committee PAPI: precision approach path indicator PFC: porous friction course PFC: passenger facility charge PCL: pilot -controlled lighting PIW public information workshop PLASI: pulsating visual approach slope indicator POFA: precision object free area PVASI: pulsating/steady visual approach slope indicator PVC: poor visibility and ceiling RCO: remote communications outlet RRC: Runway Reference Code RDC: Runway Design Code REIL: runway end identif cation lighting RNAV: area navigation RPZ: runway protection zone RSA: runway safety area RTR: remote transmitter/receiver RVR: runway visibility range RVZ: runway visibility zone SAILS: short approach lighting system SASP: state aviation system plan SEL: sound exposure level A66reviations SID: standard instrument departure SM: statute mile (5,280 feet) SIRE: snow removal equipment SSALF: simplif ed short approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights STAR: standard terminal arrival route SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with single -wheel tandem type landing gear TACAN: tactical air navigational aid TAF: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast TDG: Taxiway Design Group TLOF: Touchdown and lift-off TDZ: touchdown zone TDZE: touchdown zone elevation TODA: takeoff distance available TORA: takeoff runway available TRACON: terminal radar approach control VASI: visual approach slope indicator VFR: visual f ight rules (FAR Part 91) VHF: very high frequency VOR: very high frequency omni-directional range VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated C -.ais Paw YN)f 588 Associates Airport Consultants EST-18d8 /GEORGETOWN TEXAS APPENDIX B AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS Page 369 of 588 Texas Airport System Plan Airport Development Worksheet Printed: 08/30/2016 AIRPORT PROJECT HISTORY Page 1 of 2 Airport: GEORGETOWN MUNI Airport ID: GTU Associated City: GEORGETOWN NPIAS Site #: 48-0093 FAA Site #: 23934."A FYR Agency Local ($) State ($) Federal ($) Project Description 1969 TAC 1,250 RW and TW resurfacing. 1978 TAC 342 NDB. 1979 FAA 27,160 AMP;Bovay Engineers. 1980 TAC 50,000 Pave TWs, access roads to hangars, and parking apron;install security fencing. 1982 TAC 40,000 Install MIRL on RW 18-36. 1983 TAC 125,000 Seal coat Rw 18-36 (4100 x 100), TWs, (NPI) restripe. 1987 FAA 649,500 Expand apron (15,000 sy);acquire clear zone land. 1988 FAA 500,000 Overlay RW 18-36 (100' x 4,100') and TWs A and C. 1990 FAA 600,000 Acquire land, obstruction removal. 1991 TDA 78,750 64,099 1,153,796 Relocate Lakeway Drive; Extend & mark RW 36 (900 x 100), extend MIRL RW 36 (900 If); extend TW to RW 36; install TW reflectors; install perimeter fencing. 1994 TDOT 29,771 29,771 535,887 Reconstruct & mark RW 11-29, TWs B & D (3200 x 50), rehab hangar access TWs (5500 sy), install MIRL RW 11-29, reflectors on TW B & D, TW signs (6 units), REIL RW 18, replace lighted windcone & segmented circle and rotating beacon. 1994 TDOT 65,475 65,475 Install 1.300 Ift of 8 1996 FAA 3,002 3,002 54,027 Update airport master plan. 1998 FAA 646,576 1,919,774 Rehab & mark RW 18-36, TWs A & C; construct hangar access TWs to north T-hangar area, hangar access TWs to south corporate hangar area; repair & seal concrete apron joints; construct south corporate area apron, construct holding aprons at RW 18-36 & RW 11-29; construct water quality pond; construct access TWs to private hangar sites in s. corp. hangar; drainage; new access road to s. corp. apron; new north entrance road; realign chain link fencing; install electronic gate in s. corp. area; install water line & fire hydrants. 1999 TXDOT 222.133 222,133 Construct/remodel terminal building 2001 FAA 62,698 247,500 Conduct Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. 2002 TXDOT 82,276 748,474 Engineering/Design and Construction. Install guidance signs (6), Rehabilitate RW 11-29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 Ibs.); Mark RW 11-29 (4331 sf)Rehabilitate ramp at T-hangar B & C (300 x 50) & (300 x 40) Install PAPI-4 RW 18 (05 NPE); Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50); Relocate overhead powerlines & underground water lines due to ATCT location; Install new rotating beacon & tower (05 NPE); Mark terminal apron tie -downs; Upgrade drainage pipe under access road; Relocate City owned building @ 404 Terminal Drive due to ATCT; Modify/repair 8 ft. game fence (13,000 If); Drainage improvements for hangar access TW between T-hangars B & C; Clean & grub trees in ATCT line of sight NPE 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 2003 TXDOT 12.862 12,862 RAMP: Security cameras at airport entrances 2004 TXDOT 3,647 32,821 Prepare and airport layout plan 2005 TXDOT 166,667 1,500,000 design and construct air traffic control tower 2006 TXDOT 1,910 1,910 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for professional services for SPCC Plan services 2007 TXDOT 2.341 2,341 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for repairs to airport hangar door seals. 2008 TXDOT 5,331 5,331 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for installation of PAPI controller, base radio for tower emergency services and other projects tbd and added by amendment. 2009 TXDOT 8,550 8,550 RAMP: TxDOT- AWOS maint.;, Spon. - for NADIN interface, AWOS repairs/parts replacement; annual insp. of cont twr equip, ann. insp. and maint. of NDB, maint and meter calibration of fuel dispensers; removal of trees; tile in terminal restrooms; terminal renova 2009 TXDOT 51.808 1,020,710 Acquire RPZ RW 36 (7.15 ac.); Environmental studies; Engineering/design rehabilitate Runway 11-29 and 18-36, north hangar access area and mid hangar acres area; widen taxi lane to T-hangars E, F, and G relocate fire hydrant; install obstruction lighting on northwest runway safety area at Runway 18; improve runway safety area at Runway 36 and southwest side of Runway 36; survey and appraisal services to acquire land for runway protection zone at Runway 11,36 and 29 and acquire land southwest of Runway 11-29 SBGP-57-2009 $195,721; SBGP-46-2008 $146,077; SBGP-41-2007 $678,912 2010 TXDOT 4,472 4,472 RAMP: :,r or to contract for annual inspections and maintenance of fuel rrr et rri and NDB. B-1 Texas Airport System Plan Airport Development Worksheet Printed: 08/30/2016 AIRPORT PROJECT HISTORY Page 2 of 2 Airport: GEORGETOWN MUNI Airport ID: GTU Associated City: GEORGETOWN NPIAS Site #: 48-0093 FAA Site #: 23934.*A FYR Agency Local ($) State ($) Federal ($) Project Description 2010 TXDOT 150,302 150,302 Construct concrete ribbon curb for airport roads (14,000 If) (already designed, in-house PM); Rehabilitate airport roads (10,500 sy) 2011 TXDOT 82.072 50,000 RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. 2011 TXDOT 124,865 1,123,779 Improve RSA RW 36; Improve RSA southwest side RW 36 (Corp. Eng. rock drainage put in pipe & buried); Rehabilitate corporate taxiway (south area) (28,000 sy); Widen taxilane to T-hangars E,F & G (510 x 50) & relocate fire hydrant.; Contingency, admin.fees, RPR, etc.; Rehabilitate north hangar access area (16,800 sy); Rehabilitate mid hangar access area (9985 sy) SBGP-2011-79 $598,965; SBGP-2008-49 $369,776; SBGP-2010-67 $155,039 2012 TXDOT 50,000 50,000 RAMP: TxDOT to contract for AWOS Maintenance, Sponsor to contract for airport general maintenance projects. 2013 TXDOT 3,237 61,505 obstruction survey 2013 TXDOT 69,135 622,212 Engineering/design for parallel TW A & IightingSBGP-080-2012 $377,037.97; SBGP-086-2014 $182,148.81; SBGP-090-2015 $63,025.0 See 1514GRGTN for full scope 2013 TXDOT 19,425 19,425 RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. 2014 TXDOT 25,056 25,056 RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. 2014 TXDOT 146,639 1,062,714 Replace MIRLS & signage RW 11-29 (4100 ft); Replace MIRLs & signage RW 18-36 (5000 If); Contingency, admin. fees, RPR, etc.; Replace electrical vault; Replace ALCMS in ATCT to show new lighting configuration/controls; Add Alt. 1- Upgrade MIRLs to LED & REILs RW 18 ($40,650) SBGP-84-2013 $11,228.18; SBGP-86-2014 $80,910; SBGP-87-2014 $556,851.79; SBGP-89-2015 $188,583.02; SBGP-90-2015 $142,659.05; SBGP-91-2015 $82482.35 2014 TXDOT 101,986 457,726 460,150 Acquire RPZ1 TSS land RW 29 (4.7 ac); Acquire RPZ RW 11 (6.8 ac); Environmental studies SBGP-057-2009 $37,368.20; SBGP-075-2011 $422,782.02 2015 TXDOT 32,015 32,015 RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. Total Project ($) 2,249,763 1,457,119 12,287,188 Page 371 of 588 B-2 Texas Airport System Plan Airport Development Worksheet Printed: 0410712015 Revised: 10/28/2013 DEVELOPMENT BY TIME PERIOD Page 1 of 2 Airport: GEORGETOWN MUNI Airport ID: GTU Associated City: GEORGETOWN NPIAS Site #: 48-0093 FAA Site #: 23934.*A *Status Codes: U-Unassigned, D-Draft, C-CIP, A -Active, F-Finished, X-Disc. Req. **Totals Only Include Items with Status Code = U, D, X or C Project Proj Airport Proj Wk Code Item Project Description Time Period : 00-05 Cost Purp Comp Type ID Status* Expand apron/relocate taxilane north of terminal (3100 sy) 232,500 CA AP EX 2 U Expand apron/relocate taxilane south of terminal (2110 sy) 232,500 CA AP EX 2 U Rehabilitate north hangar access area (16,800 sy) 100,800 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate mid hangar access area (9985 sy) 59,910 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate ramp at T-hangar B & C (300 x 50) & (300 x 40) 17,994 RE AP IM 4 U Relocate ASOS/ or install AWOS for terminal apron expansion 120,000 ST EQ WX 41 U Rehabilitate RW 18-36 (5000 x 100) 333,336 RE RW IM 155 U Rehabilitate RW 11-29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.) 205,002 RE RW IM 155 U Mark RW 18-36 (49,600 sf) 70,000 RE RW IM 155 U Mark RW 11-29 (38,500 sf) 55,000 RE RW IM 155 U Install new property line fencing & clear TSS on RW 11 (1800 10 62,000 167 U Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50) 106,668 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate corporate taxiway (south area) (28,000 sy) 84,996 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate north T-hangar access TWs (10,416 sy) 27,040 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate south hangar access TW (300 x 50) 9,996 RE TW IM 198 U Expand northern terminal apron (6860 sy) 564,075 1 C Pavement demo & sod 88,720 CA AP EX 2 C Modify apron tie -down layout & taxilane marking. 26,638 CA AP EX 2 C Rehabilitate terminal apron (29,571 sy) 139,750 RE AP IM 4 C Drainage improvements at Hangars M, N, & O 85,700 4 C Relocate terminal auto parking from the redesigned located fuel farm. (800 150,000 69 C SO Install new property line fencing & clear TSS on RW 11- 29 (4073 If) 112,000 ST LA SZ 102 C Clearing and grubbing northeast section of airport (1.7 ac) 10,200 116 C Relocate fire hydrant at Bldg. 6 10,500 129 C Airport Master Plan Update 200,000 143 C West ditch drainage improvements (bring back to natural & maintainable 185,075 167 C state) RW 18-36 & RW 11-29 shoulder work for FOD control 71,000 167 C Install PAPI-2 RW 11-29 77,395 ST RW VI 176 C Construct/realign new parallel TW A, B, C, D, E ,F, G & holding areas 2,875,373 RE TW IM 198 C (27,800 sy) Contingency, admin. fees, RPR, etc. 1,512,442 RE TW IM 198 C Rehabilitate southeast corporate hangar TW (32,809 sy) 107,630 RE TW IM 198 C Rehabilitate TW E & 1 (23,619 sy) 57,918 RE TW IM 198 C Rehabilitate TW A south of the terminal apron (19,904 sy) 46,709 198 C Rehabilitate TW N (11,166 sy) 42,541 RE TW IM 198 C Rehabilitate TW S (4500 sy) 23,403 RE TW IM 198 C Taxilane & drainage improvements between T-hangar J & L (240 sy) 20,100 198 C Rehabilitation of taxilanes for development north of RW 11 (Sponsor 12,980 198 C recently regained control) Sign & mark movement area east of TW N (2) 6,670 RE TW IM 198 C Install MITLs & signage TW A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H (15, 100 10 814,980 Sp TW LI 201 C Install MITLs & signage on TW J, K & L (8,900 If) 387,840 Sp TW LI 201 C Add Alt. 1- Upgrade MITLs to LED (est. $71,500) 1 201 C Relocate/replace fuel farm 823,000 OT OT FF 234 C Acquire RPZ RW 11 (6.8 ac) ST LA SZ 102 A Acquire RPZ/ TSS land RW 29 (4.7 ac) ST LA SZ 102 A Environmental studies Page 372 of 588 EN PL MA 140 A I Texas Airport System Plan Printed: 04/07/2015 Airport Development Worksheet Revised: 10/28/2013 DEVELOPMENT BY TIME PERIOD Page 2 of 2 Airport: GEORGETOWN MUNI Airport ID: GTU Associated City: GEORGETOWN NPIAS Site #: 48-0093 FAA Site #: 23934.*A *Status Codes: U-Unassigned, D-Draft, C-CIP. A -Active, F-Finished, X-Disc. Req. **Totals Only Include Items with Status Code = U. D. X or C Project Proj Airport Proj Wk Code Item Project Description Time Period : 00-05 Cost Purp Comp Type ID Status* Replace electrical vault 156 A Replace ALCMS in ATCT to show new lighting configuration/controls 156 A Replace MIRLS & signage RW 11-29 (4100 ft) SP RW LI 158 A Add Alt. 1- Upgrade MIRLs to LED & REILs RW 18 ($40.650) 158 A Replace MIRLs & signage RW 18-36 (5000 If) ST RW LI 170 A Contingency, admin. fees, RPR, etc. ST RW LI 170 A Engineering/design for parallel TW A & lighting RE TW IM 198 A RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. OT OT CO 999 A RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. 999 A Time Period : 00-05 **Total Cost : $ 10,170,382 Project Proj Airport Proj Wk Code Item Project Description Time Period : 06-10 Cost Purp Comp Type ID Status* Rehabilitate aprons (36,000 sy) 216,000 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 11-29 ends 182,000 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 18-36 ends (2800 sy) 16,800 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate RW 18-36 (5000 x 100) 333,336 RE RW IM 155 U Rehabilitate RW 11-29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.) 205,002 RE RW IM 155 U Mark RW 18-36 (37,700 sf) 37,700 RE RW IM 155 U Mark RW 11-29 (28,500 sf) 28,500 RE RW IM 155 U Rehabilitate & mark TWs A & C (6500 x 50) 216,666 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50) (12,500 lbs.) 106,668 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate mid -field hangar access TW's (5500 sy) 33,000 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate south corporate hangar TW (1500 x 150) 30,000 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate north T-hangar access TWs (10,416 sy) 27,040 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate south hangar access TW (300 x 50) 9,996 RE TW IM 198 U Time Period: 06-10 **Total Cost : $ 1,442,708 Project Proj Airport Proj Wk Code Item Project Description Time Period : 11-20 Cost Purp Comp Type ID Status* Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 11-29 ends 182,000 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate aprons (36,000 sy) 36,000 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate holding aprons RW 18-36 ends (2800 sy) 12,480 RE AP IM 4 U Rehabilitate RW 18-36 (5000 x 100) 333.336 RE RW IM 155 U Rehabilitate RW 11-29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.) 205,002 RE RW IM 155 U Mark RW 18-36 (37,700 sf) 37,700 RE RW IM 155 U Mark RW 11-29 (4331 sf) 4,331 RE RW IM 155 U Rehabilitate & mark TWs A & C (6500 x 50) 216,666 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50) (12,500 lbs.) 106,668 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate mid -field hangar access TW's (5500 sy) 33,000 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate south corporate hangar TW (1500 x 150) 30,000 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate north T-hangar access TWs (10,416 sy) 27,040 RE TW IM 198 U Rehabilitate south hangar access TW (300 x 50) 9.996 RE TW IM 198 U Time Period : 11-20 **Total Cost : $ 1,234,219 Time Period: 0-20 **Total Cost : $ 12,847,309 Page 373 of 588 B-4 EST 1848 GEORGETOWN TEXAS APPENDIX C GRANT ASSURANCES Page 374 of 588 Appendix C GRANT ASSURANCES Airport Master Plan Georgetown Municipal Airport The Georgetown Municipal Airport, owned and operated by the City of Georgetown, Texas, is eligible for various development grants. As a block -grant state, Texas Department of Transportation — Aviation Division (TxDOT) receives and administers federal airport development funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition, the State of Texas, through appropriations from the legislature, makes investments into capital development at airports across the state. When accepting develop- ment funds, Texas airports must contractually agree to abide by federal and/or state Grant Assurances. The following lists the 39 federal and State of Texas Grant Assurances. PageQ45 of 588 AV/qT 4° 'Z FAA • Airports 7 `2 ASSURANCES Airport Sponsors A. General. 1. These assurances shall be complied with in the performance of grant agreements for airport development, airport planning, and noise compatibility program grants for airport sponsors. 2. These assurances are required to be submitted as part of the project application by sponsors requesting funds under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII, as amended. As used herein, the term "public agency sponsor" means a public agency with control of a public -use airport; the term "private sponsor" means a private owner of a public -use airport; and the term "sponsor" includes both public agency sponsors and private sponsors. 3. Upon acceptance of this grant offer by the sponsor, these assurances are incorporated in and become part of this grant agreement. B. Duration and Applicability. l . Airport development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a Public Agency Sponsor. The terms, conditions and assurances of this grant agreement shall remain in full force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment acquired for an airport development or noise compatibility program project, or throughout the useful life of the project items installed within a facility under a noise compatibility program project, but in any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date of acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for the project. However, there shall be no limit on the duration of the assurances regarding Exclusive Rights and Airport Revenue so long as the airport is used as an airport. There shall be no limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to real property acquired with federal funds. Furthermore, the duration of the Civil Rights assurance shall be specified in the assurances. 2. Airport Development or Noise Compatibility Projects Undertaken by a Private Sponsor. The preceding paragraph 1 also applies to a private sponsor except that the useful life of project items installed within a facility or the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment acquired under an airport development or noise compatibility program project shall be no less than ten (10) years from the date of acceptance of Federal aid for the project. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Pagel rZ of 588 Page 1 of 20 3. Airport Planning Undertaken by a Sponsor. Unless otherwise specified in this grant agreement, only Assurances 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 18, 25, 30, 32, 33, and 34 in Section C apply to planning projects. The terms, conditions, and assurances of this grant agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the life of the project; there shall be no limit on the duration of the assurances regarding Airport Revenue so long as the airport is used as an airport. C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and certifies, with respect to this grant that: 1. General Federal Requirements. It will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for this project including but not limited to the following: Federal Legislation a. Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII, as amended. b. Davis -Bacon Act - 40 U.S.C. 276(a), et seal c. Federal Fair Labor Standards Act - 29 U.S.C. 201, et sea. d. Hatch Act — 5 U.S.C. 1501, et sea.2 e. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 Title 42 U.S.C. 4601, et sea.12 f. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 - Section 106 - 16 U.S.C. 470(f)., g. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 - 16 U.S.C. 469 through 469c., h. Native Americans Grave Repatriation Act - 25 U.S.C. Section 3001, et seq. i. Clean Air Act, P.L. 90-148, as amended. j. Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 93-205, as amended. k. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 - Section 102(a) - 42 U.S.C. 4012a., 1. Title 49, U.S.C., Section 303, (formerly known as Section 4(f)) m. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - 29 U.S.C. 794. n. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); o. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability). p. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 - 42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq. q. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95-341, as amended. r. Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 42 U.S.C. 4151, et seg.' s. Power plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 - Section 403- 2 U.S.C. 8373.1 t. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act - 40 U.S.C. 327, et seq., u. Copeland Anti -kickback Act - 18 U.S.C. 874.1 v. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 - 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., w. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-542, as amended. x. Single Audit Act of 1984 - 31 U.S.C. 7501, et see y. Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 - 41 U.S.C. 702 through 706. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Pagd(:r31 of 588 Page 2 of 20 z. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended by section 6202 of Pub. L. 110-252). Executive Orders a. Executive Order 11246 - Equal Employment Opportunity' b. Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands c. Executive Order 11998 — Flood Plain Management d. Executive Order 12372 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs e. Executive Order 12699 - Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted New Building Construction' f. Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice Federal Regulations a. 2 CFR Part 180 - OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement). b. 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. [OMB Circular A-87 Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State and Local Governments, and OMB Circular A-133 - Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations] 4, 5, 6 c. 2 CFR Part 1200 — Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment d. 14 CFR Part 13 - Investigative and Enforcement Procedures 14 CFR Part 16 - Rules of Practice For Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings. e. 14 CFR Part 150 - Airport noise compatibility planning. f. 28 CFR Part 35- Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services. g. 28 CFR § 50.3 - U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. h. 29 CFR Part 1 - Procedures for predetermination of wage rates.' i. 29 CFR Part 3 - Contractors and subcontractors on public building or public work financed in whole or part by loans or grants from the United States.' j. 29 CFR Part 5 - Labor standards provisions applicable to contracts covering federally financed and assisted construction (also labor standards provisions applicable to non -construction contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act).' k. 41 CFR Part 60 - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor (Federal and federally assisted contracting requirements).' 1. 49 CFR Part 18 - Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments.3 in. 49 CFR Part 20 - New restrictions on lobbying. n. 49 CFR Part 21 — Nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the Department of Transportation - effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. o. 49 CFR Part 23 - Participation by Disadvantage Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Paget-* of 588 Page 3 of 20 p. 49 CFR Part 24 — Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs.12 q. 49 CFR Part 26 — Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Programs. r. 49 CFR Part 27 — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance.' s. 49 CFR Part 28 — Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities conducted by the Department of Transportation. t. 49 CFR Part 30 - Denial of public works contracts to suppliers of goods and services of countries that deny procurement market access to U.S. contractors. u. 49 CFR Part 32 — Governmentwide Requirements for Drug -Free Workplace (Financial Assistance) v. 49 CFR Part 37 — Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities (ADA). w. 49 CFR Part 41 - Seismic safety of Federal and federally assisted or regulated new building construction. Specific Assurances Specific assurances required to be included in grant agreements by any of the above laws, regulations or circulars are incorporated by reference in this grant agreement. Footnotes to Assurance C.1. 1 These laws do not apply to airport planning sponsors. 2 These laws do not apply to private sponsors. 3 49 CFR Part 18 and 2 CFR Part 200 contain requirements for State and Local Governments receiving Federal assistance. Any requirement levied upon State and Local Governments by this regulation and circular shall also be applicable to private sponsors receiving Federal assistance under Title 49, United States Code. 4 On December 26, 2013 at 78 FR 78590, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR Part 200.2 CFR Part 200 replaces and combines the former Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants (OMB Circular A-102 and Circular A-110 or 2 CFR Part 215 or Circular) as well as the Cost Principles (Circulars A-21 or 2 CFR part 220; Circular A-87 or 2 CFR part 225; and A-122, 2 CFR part 230). Additionally it replaces Circular A-133 guidance on the Single Annual Audit. In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.110, the standards set forth in Part 200 which affect administration of Federal awards issued by Federal agencies become effective once implemented by Federal agencies or when any future amendment to this Part becomes final. Federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation, must implement the policies and procedures applicable to Federal awards by promulgating a regulation to be effective by December 26, 2014 unless different provisions are required by statute or approved by OMB. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Pagd:* of 588 Page 4 of 20 5 Cost principles established in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E must be used as guidelines for determining the eligibility of specific types of expenses. 6 Audit requirements established in 2 CFR part 200 subpart F are the guidelines for audits. 2. Responsibility and Authority of the Sponsor. a. Public Agency Sponsor: It has legal authority to apply for this grant, and to finance and carry out the proposed project; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. b. Private Sponsor: It has legal authority to apply for this grant and to finance and carry out the proposed project and comply with all terms, conditions, and assurances of this grant agreement. It shall designate an official representative and shall in writing direct and authorize that person to file this application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein; to act in connection with this application; and to provide such additional information as may be required. 3. Sponsor Fund Availability. It has sufficient funds available for that portion of the project costs which are not to be paid by the United States. It has sufficient funds available to assure operation and maintenance of items funded under this grant agreement which it will own or control. 4. Good Title. a. It, a public agency or the Federal government, holds good title, satisfactory to the Secretary, to the landing area of the airport or site thereof, or will give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that good title will be acquired. b. For noise compatibility program projects to be carried out on the property of the sponsor, it holds good title satisfactory to the Secretary to that portion of the property upon which Federal funds will be expended or will give assurance to the Secretary that good title will be obtained. 5. Preserving Rights and Powers. a. It will not take or permit any action which would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers necessary to perform any or all of the terms, conditions, and assurances in this grant agreement without the written approval of the Secretary, and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance by the sponsor. This shall be done in a manner acceptable to the Secretary. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PageGfO of 588 Page 5 of 20 b. It will not sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other interests in the property shown on Exhibit A to this application or, for a noise compatibility program project, that portion of the property upon which Federal funds have been expended, for the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances in this grant agreement without approval by the Secretary. If the transferee is found by the Secretary to be eligible under Title 49, United States Code, to assume the obligations of this grant agreement and to have the power, authority, and financial resources to carry out all such obligations, the sponsor shall insert in the contract or document transferring or disposing of the sponsor's interest, and make binding upon the transferee all of the terms, conditions, and assurances contained in this grant agreement. c. For all noise compatibility program projects which are to be carried out by another unit of local government or are on property owned by a unit of local government other than the sponsor, it will enter into an agreement with that government. Except as otherwise specified by the Secretary, that agreement shall obligate that government to the same terms, conditions, and assurances that would be applicable to it if it applied directly to the FAA for a grant to undertake the noise compatibility program project. That agreement and changes thereto must be satisfactory to the Secretary. It will take steps to enforce this agreement against the local government if there is substantial non-compliance with the terms of the agreement. d. For noise compatibility program projects to be carried out on privately owned property, it will enter into an agreement with the owner of that property which includes provisions specified by the Secretary. It will take steps to enforce this agreement against the property owner whenever there is substantial non- compliance with the terms of the agreement. e. If the sponsor is a private sponsor, it will take steps satisfactory to the Secretary to ensure that the airport will continue to function as a public -use airport in accordance with these assurances for the duration of these assurances. If an arrangement is made for management and operation of the airport by any agency or person other than the sponsor or an employee of the sponsor, the sponsor will reserve sufficient rights and authority to insure that the airport will be operated and maintained in accordance Title 49, United States Code, the regulations and the terms, conditions and assurances in this grant agreement and shall insure that such arrangement also requires compliance therewith. g. Sponsors of commercial service airports will not permit or enter into any arrangement that results in permission for the owner or tenant of a property used as a residence, or zoned for residential use, to taxi an aircraft between that property and any location on airport. Sponsors of general aviation airports entering into any arrangement that results in permission for the owner of residential real property adjacent to or near the airport must comply with the requirements of Sec. 136 of Public Law 112-95 and the sponsor assurances. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagEC'r of 588 Page 6 of 20 6. Consistency with Local Plans. The project is reasonably consistent with plans (existing at the time of submission of this application) of public agencies that are authorized by the State in which the project is located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport. 7. Consideration of Local Interest. It has given fair consideration to the interest of communities in or near where the project may be located. 8. Consultation with Users. In making a decision to undertake any airport development project under Title 49, United States Code, it has undertaken reasonable consultations with affected parties using the airport at which project is proposed. 9. Public Hearings. In projects involving the location of an airport, an airport runway, or a major runway extension, it has afforded the opportunity for public hearings for the purpose of considering the economic, social, and environmental effects of the airport or runway location and its consistency with goals and objectives of such planning as has been carried out by the community and it shall, when requested by the Secretary, submit a copy of the transcript of such hearings to the Secretary. Further, for such projects, it has on its management board either voting representation from the communities where the project is located or has advised the communities that they have the right to petition the Secretary concerning a proposed project. 10. Metropolitan Planning Organization. In projects involving the location of an airport, an airport runway, or a major runway extension at a medium or large hub airport, the sponsor has made available to and has provided upon request to the metropolitan planning organization in the area in which the airport is located, if any, a copy of the proposed amendment to the airport layout plan to depict the project and a copy of any airport master plan in which the project is described or depicted. 11. Pavement Preventive Maintenance. With respect to a project approved after January 1, 1995, for the replacement or reconstruction of pavement at the airport, it assures or certifies that it has implemented an effective airport pavement maintenance -management program and it assures that it will use such program for the useful life of any pavement constructed, reconstructed or repaired with Federal financial assistance at the airport. It will provide such reports on pavement condition and pavement management programs as the Secretary determines may be useful. 12. Terminal Development Prerequisites. For projects which include terminal development at a public use airport, as defined in Title 49, it has, on the date of submittal of the project grant application, all the safety equipment required for certification of such airport under section 44706 of Title 49, United States Code, and all the security equipment required by rule or regulation, and Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Pagd:4 of 588 Page 7 of 20 has provided for access to the passenger enplaning and deplaning area of such airport to passengers enplaning and deplaning from aircraft other than air carrier aircraft. 13. Accounting System, Audit, and Record Keeping Requirements. a. It shall keep all project accounts and records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by the recipient of the proceeds of this grant, the total cost of the project in connection with which this grant is given or used, and the amount or nature of that portion of the cost of the project supplied by other sources, and such other financial records pertinent to the project. The accounts and records shall be kept in accordance with an accounting system that will facilitate an effective audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984. b. It shall make available to the Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, for the purpose of audit and examination, any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient that are pertinent to this grant. The Secretary may require that an appropriate audit be conducted by a recipient. In any case in which an independent audit is made of the accounts of a sponsor relating to the disposition of the proceeds of a grant or relating to the project in connection with which this grant was given or used, it shall file a certified copy of such audit with the Comptroller General of the United States not later than six (6) months following the close of the fiscal year for which the audit was made. 14. Minimum Wage Rates. It shall include, in all contracts in excess of $2,000 for work on any projects funded under this grant agreement which involve labor, provisions establishing minimum rates of wages, to be predetermined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Davis -Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5), which contractors shall pay to skilled and unskilled labor, and such minimum rates shall be stated in the invitation for bids and shall be included in proposals or bids for the work. 15. Veteran's Preference. It shall include in all contracts for work on any project funded under this grant agreement which involve labor, such provisions as are necessary to insure that, in the employment of labor (except in executive, administrative, and supervisory positions), preference shall be given to Vietnam era veterans, Persian Gulf veterans, Afghanistan -Iraq war veterans, disabled veterans, and small business concerns owned and controlled by disabled veterans as defined in Section 47112 of Title 49, United States Code. However, this preference shall apply only where the individuals are available and qualified to perform the work to which the employment relates. 16. Conformity to Plans and Specifications. It will execute the project subject to plans, specifications, and schedules approved by the Secretary. Such plans, specifications, and schedules shall be submitted to the Secretary prior to commencement of site preparation, construction, or other performance under this grant agreement, and, upon approval of the Secretary, shall be incorporated into this grant agreement. Any modification to the approved plans, Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Pagd:0 of 588 Page 8 of 20 specifications, and schedules shall also be subject to approval of the Secretary, and incorporated into this grant agreement. 17. Construction Inspection and Approval. It will provide and maintain competent technical supervision at the construction site throughout the project to assure that the work conforms to the plans, specifications, and schedules approved by the Secretary for the project. It shall subject the construction work on any project contained in an approved project application to inspection and approval by the Secretary and such work shall be in accordance with regulations and procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Such regulations and procedures shall require such cost and progress reporting by the sponsor or sponsors of such project as the Secretary shall deem necessary. 18. Planning Projects. In carrying out planning projects: a. It will execute the project in accordance with the approved program narrative contained in the project application or with the modifications similarly approved. b. It will furnish the Secretary with such periodic reports as required pertaining to the planning project and planning work activities. c. It will include in all published material prepared in connection with the planning project a notice that the material was prepared under a grant provided by the United States. d. It will make such material available for examination by the public, and agrees that no material prepared with funds under this project shall be subject to copyright in the United States or any other country. e. It will give the Secretary unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use any of the material prepared in connection with this grant. f. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove the sponsor's employment of specific consultants and their subcontractors to do all or any part of this project as well as the right to disapprove the proposed scope and cost of professional services. g. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove the use of the sponsor's employees to do all or any part of the project. h. It understands and agrees that the Secretary's approval of this project grant or the Secretary's approval of any planning material developed as part of this grant does not constitute or imply any assurance or commitment on the part of the Secretary to approve any pending or future application for a Federal airport grant. 19.Operation and Maintenance. a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport, other than facilities owned or controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagCAO of 588 Page 9 of 20 state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not cause or permit any activity or action thereon which would interfere with its use for airport purposes. It will suitably operate and maintain the airport and all facilities thereon or connected therewith, with due regard to climatic and flood conditions. Any proposal to temporarily close the airport for non -aeronautical purposes must first be approved by the Secretary. In furtherance of this assurance, the sponsor will have in effect arrangements for - I) Operating the airport's aeronautical facilities whenever required; 2) Promptly marking and lighting hazards resulting from airport conditions, including temporary conditions; and 3) Promptly notifying airmen of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the airport. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require that the airport be operated for aeronautical use during temporary periods when snow, flood or other climatic conditions interfere with such operation and maintenance. Further, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the maintenance, repair, restoration, or replacement of any structure or facility which is substantially damaged or destroyed due to an act of God or other condition or circumstance beyond the control of the sponsor. b. It will suitably operate and maintain noise compatibility program items that it owns or controls upon which Federal funds have been expended. 20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport (including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards. 21. Compatible Land Use. It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility program implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise compatibility program measures upon which Federal funds have been expended. 22. Economic Nondiscrimination. a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport. b. In any agreement, contract, lease, or other arrangement under which a right or privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC311 of 588 Page 10 of 20 to engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to- t) furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to all users thereof, and 2) charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or service, provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to volume purchasers. c. Each fixed -based operator at the airport shall be subject to the same rates, fees, rentals, and other charges as are uniformly applicable to all other fixed -based operators making the same or similar uses of such airport and utilizing the same or similar facilities. d. Each air carrier using such airport shall have the right to service itself or to use any fixed -based operator that is authorized or permitted by the airport to serve any air carrier at such airport. e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, non -tenant, or subtenant of another air carrier tenant) shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to providing air transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers which make similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications such as tenants or non -tenants and signatory carriers and non - signatory carriers. Classification or status as tenant or signatory shall not be unreasonably withheld by any airport provided an air carrier assumes obligations substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers in such classification or status. f. It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform. g. In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights and privileges referred to in this assurance, the services involved will be provided on the same conditions as would apply to the furnishing of such services by commercial aeronautical service providers authorized by the sponsor under these provisions. h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC31A of 588 Page 11 of 20 23. Exclusive Rights. It will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public. For purposes of this paragraph, the providing of the services at an airport by a single fixed -based operator shall not be construed as an exclusive right if both of the following apply: a. It would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed -based operator to provide such services, and b. If allowing more than one fixed -based operator to provide such services would require the reduction of space leased pursuant to an existing agreement between such single fixed -based operator and such airport. It further agrees that it will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities, including, but not limited to charter flights, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, air carrier operations, aircraft sales and services, sale of aviation petroleum products whether or not conducted in conjunction with other aeronautical activity, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, and any other activities which because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircraft can be regarded as an aeronautical activity, and that it will terminate any exclusive right to conduct an aeronautical activity now existing at such an airport before the grant of any assistance under Title 49, United States Code. 24. Fee and Rental Structure. It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy of collection. No part of the Federal share of an airport development, airport planning or noise compatibility project for which a grant is made under Title 49, United States Code, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Federal Airport Act or the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 shall be included in the rate basis in establishing fees, rates, and charges for users of that airport. 25. Airport Revenues. a. All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or off the airport. The following exceptions apply to this paragraph: 1) If covenants or assurances in debt obligations issued before September 3, 1982, by the owner or operator of the airport, or provisions enacted before September 3, 1982, in governing statutes controlling the owner or operator's financing, provide for the use of the revenues from any of the airport owner or Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC313 of 588 Page 12 of 20 operator's facilities, including the airport, to support not only the airport but also the airport owner or operator's general debt obligations or other facilities, then this limitation on the use of all revenues generated by the airport (and, in the case of a public airport, local taxes on aviation fuel) shall not apply. 2) If the Secretary approves the sale of a privately owned airport to a public sponsor and provides funding for any portion of the public sponsor's acquisition of land, this limitation on the use of all revenues generated by the sale shall not apply to certain proceeds from the sale. This is conditioned on repayment to the Secretary by the private owner of an amount equal to the remaining unamortized portion (amortized over a 20-year period) of any airport improvement grant made to the private owner for any purpose other than land acquisition on or after October 1, 1996, plus an amount equal to the federal share of the current fair market value of any land acquired with an airport improvement grant made to that airport on or after October 1, 1996. 3) Certain revenue derived from or generated by mineral extraction, production, lease, or other means at a general aviation airport (as defined at Section 47102 of title 49 United States Code), if the FAA determines the airport sponsor meets the requirements set forth in Sec. 813 of Public Law 112-95. b. As part of the annual audit required under the Single Audit Act of 1984, the sponsor will direct that the audit will review, and the resulting audit report will provide an opinion concerning, the use of airport revenue and taxes in paragraph (a), and indicating whether funds paid or transferred to the owner or operator are paid or transferred in a manner consistent with Title 49, United States Code and any other applicable provision of law, including any regulation promulgated by the Secretary or Administrator. c. Any civil penalties or other sanctions will be imposed for violation of this assurance in accordance with the provisions of Section 47107 of Title 49, United States Code. 26. Reports and Inspections. It will: a. submit to the Secretary such annual or special financial and operations reports as the Secretary may reasonably request and make such reports available to the public; make available to the public at reasonable times and places a report of the airport budget in a format prescribed by the Secretary; b. for airport development projects, make the airport and all airport records and documents affecting the airport, including deeds, leases, operation and use agreements, regulations and other instruments, available for inspection by any duly authorized agent of the Secretary upon reasonable request; c. for noise compatibility program projects, make records and documents relating to the project and continued compliance with the terms, conditions, and assurances of this grant agreement including deeds, leases, agreements, regulations, and other instruments, available for inspection by any duly authorized agent of the Secretary upon reasonable request; and Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC314 of 588 Page 13 of 20 d. in a format and time prescribed by the Secretary, provide to the Secretary and make available to the public following each of its fiscal years, an annual report listing in detail: 1) all amounts paid by the airport to any other unit of government and the purposes for which each such payment was made; and 2) all services and property provided by the airport to other units of government and the amount of compensation received for provision of each such service and property. 27. Use by Government Aircraft. It will make available all of the facilities of the airport developed with Federal financial assistance and all those usable for landing and takeoff of aircraft to the United States for use by Government aircraft in common with other aircraft at all times without charge, except, if the use by Government aircraft is substantial, charge may be made for a reasonable share, proportional to such use, for the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities used. Unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, or otherwise agreed to by the sponsor and the using agency, substantial use of an airport by Government aircraft will be considered to exist when operations of such aircraft are in excess of those which, in the opinion of the Secretary, would unduly interfere with use of the landing areas by other authorized aircraft, or during any calendar month that — a. Five (5) or more Government aircraft are regularly based at the airport or on land adjacent thereto; or b. The total number of movements (counting each landing as a movement) of Government aircraft is 300 or more, or the gross accumulative weight of Government aircraft using the airport (the total movement of Government aircraft multiplied by gross weights of such aircraft) is in excess of five million pounds. 28. Land for Federal Facilities. It will furnish without cost to the Federal Government for use in connection with any air traffic control or air navigation activities, or weather -reporting and communication activities related to air traffic control, any areas of land or water, or estate therein, or rights in buildings of the sponsor as the Secretary considers necessary or desirable for construction, operation, and maintenance at Federal expense of space or facilities for such purposes. Such areas or any portion thereof will be made available as provided herein within four months after receipt of a written request from the Secretary. 29. Airport Layout Plan. a. It will keep up to date at all times an airport layout plan of the airport showing 1) boundaries of the airport and all proposed additions thereto, together with the boundaries of all offsite areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for airport purposes and proposed additions thereto; 2) the location and nature of all existing and proposed airport facilities and structures (such as runways, taxiways, aprons, terminal buildings, hangars and Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC45 of 588 Page 14 of 20 roads), including all proposed extensions and reductions of existing airport facilities; 3) the location of all existing and proposed nonaviation areas and of all existing improvements thereon; and 4) all proposed and existing access points used to taxi aircraft across the airport's property boundary. Such airport layout plans and each amendment, revision, or modification thereof, shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary which approval shall be evidenced by the signature of a duly authorized representative of the Secretary on the face of the airport layout plan. The sponsor will not make or permit any changes or alterations in the airport or any of its facilities which are not in conformity with the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary and which might, in the opinion of the Secretary, adversely affect the safety, utility or efficiency of the airport. b. If a change or alteration in the airport or the facilities is made which the Secretary determines adversely affects the safety, utility, or efficiency of any federally owned, leased, or funded property on or off the airport and which is not in conformity with the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary, the owner or operator will, if requested, by the Secretary (1) eliminate such adverse effect in a manner approved by the Secretary; or (2) bear all costs of relocating such property (or replacement thereof) to a site acceptable to the Secretary and all costs of restoring such property (or replacement thereof) to the level of safety, utility, efficiency, and cost of operation existing before the unapproved change in the airport or its facilities except in the case of a relocation or replacement of an existing airport facility due to a change in the Secretary's design standards beyond the control of the airport sponsor. 30. Civil Rights. It will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in any activity conducted with, or benefiting from, funds received from this grant. a. Using the definitions of activity, facility and program as found and defined in §§ 21.23 (b) and 21.23 (e) of 49 CFR § 21, the sponsor will facilitate all programs, operate all facilities, or conduct all programs in compliance with all non- discrimination requirements imposed by, or pursuant to these assurances. b. Applicability 1) Programs and Activities. If the sponsor has received a grant (or other federal assistance) for any of the sponsor's program or activities, these requirements extend to all of the sponsor's programs and activities. 2) Facilities. Where it receives a grant or other federal financial assistance to construct, expand, renovate, remodel, alter or acquire a facility, or part of a facility, the assurance extends to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC33)6 of 588 Page 15 of 20 3) Real Property. Where the sponsor receives a grant or other Federal financial assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of real property or an interest in real property, the assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property. c. Duration. The sponsor agrees that it is obligated to this assurance for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the assurance obligates the sponsor, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods: 1) So long as the airport is used as an airport, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or 2) So long as the sponsor retains ownership or possession of the property. d. Required Solicitation Language. It will include the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material under this grant agreement and in all proposals for agreements, including airport concessions, regardless of funding source: "The (Name of Sponsor), in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises and airport concession disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award." e. Required Contract Provisions. 1) It will insert the non-discrimination contract clauses requiring compliance with the acts and regulations relative to non-discrimination in Federally - assisted programs of the DOT, and incorporating the acts and regulations into the contracts by reference in every contract or agreement subject to the non- discrimination in Federally -assisted programs of the DOT acts and regulations. 2) It will include a list of the pertinent non-discrimination authorities in every contract that is subject to the non-discrimination acts and regulations. 3) It will insert non-discrimination contract clauses as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a sponsor. 4) It will insert non-discrimination contract clauses prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, creed, sex, age, or handicap as a Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC33)7 of 588 Page 16 of 20 covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, license, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the sponsor with other parties: a) For the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and b) For the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program. f. It will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub -recipients, sub -grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the acts, the regulations, and this assurance. g. It agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the acts, the regulations, and this assurance. 31. Disposal of Land. a. For land purchased under a grant for airport noise compatibility purposes, including land serving as a noise buffer, it will dispose of the land, when the land is no longer needed for such purposes, at fair market value, at the earliest practicable time. That portion of the proceeds of such disposition which is proportionate to the United States' share of acquisition of such land will be, at the discretion of the Secretary, (1) reinvested in another project at the airport, or (2) transferred to another eligible airport as prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall give preference to the following, in descending order, (1) reinvestment in an approved noise compatibility project, (2) reinvestment in an approved project that is eligible for grant funding under Section 47117(e) of title 49 United States Code, (3) reinvestment in an approved airport development project that is eligible for grant funding under Sections 47114, 47115, or 47117 of title 49 United States Code, (4) transferred to an eligible sponsor of another public airport to be reinvested in an approved noise compatibility project at that airport, and (5) paid to the Secretary for deposit in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. If land acquired under a grant for noise compatibility purposes is leased at fair market value and consistent with noise buffering purposes, the lease will not be considered a disposal of the land. Revenues derived from such a lease may be used for an approved airport development project that would otherwise be eligible for grant funding or any permitted use of airport revenue. b. For land purchased under a grant for airport development purposes (other than noise compatibility), it will, when the land is no longer needed for airport purposes, dispose of such land at fair market value or make available to the Secretary an amount equal to the United States' proportionate share of the fair market value of the land. That portion of the proceeds of such disposition which is proportionate to the United States' share of the cost of acquisition of such land will, (1) upon application to the Secretary, be reinvested or transferred to another Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC-M of 588 Page 17 of 20 eligible airport as prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall give preference to the following, in descending order: (1) reinvestment in an approved noise compatibility project, (2) reinvestment in an approved project that is eligible for grant funding under Section 47117(e) of title 49 United States Code, (3) reinvestment in an approved airport development project that is eligible for grant funding under Sections 47114, 47115, or 47117 of title 49 United States Code, (4) transferred to an eligible sponsor of another public airport to be reinvested in an approved noise compatibility project at that airport, and (5) paid to the Secretary for deposit in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. c. Land shall be considered to be needed for airport purposes under this assurance if (1) it may be needed for aeronautical purposes (including runway protection zones) or serve as noise buffer land, and (2) the revenue from interim uses of such land contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport. Further, land purchased with a grant received by an airport operator or owner before December 31, 1987, will be considered to be needed for airport purposes if the Secretary or Federal agency making such grant before December 31, 1987, was notified by the operator or owner of the uses of such land, did not object to such use, and the land continues to be used for that purpose, such use having commenced no later than December 15, 1989. d. Disposition of such land under (a) (b) or (c) will be subject to the retention or reservation of any interest or right therein necessary to ensure that such land will only be used for purposes which are compatible with noise levels associated with operation of the airport. 32. Engineering and Design Services. It will award each contract, or sub -contract for program management, construction management, planning studies, feasibility studies, architectural services, preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping or related services with respect to the project in the same manner as a contract for architectural and engineering services is negotiated under Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 or an equivalent qualifications -based requirement prescribed for or by the sponsor of the airport. 33. Foreign Market Restrictions. It will not allow funds provided under this grant to be used to fund any project which uses any product or service of a foreign country during the period in which such foreign country is listed by the United States Trade Representative as denying fair and equitable market opportunities for products and suppliers of the United States in procurement and construction. 34. Policies, Standards, and Specifications. It will carry out the project in accordance with policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to the advisory circulars listed in the Current FAA Advisory Circulars for AIP projects, dated (the latest approved version as of this grant offer) and included in this grant, and in accordance Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC33)9 of 588 Page 18 of 20 with applicable state policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary. 35. Relocation and Real Property Acquisition. a. It will be guided in acquiring real property, to the greatest extent practicable under State law, by the land acquisition policies in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 24 and will pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as specified in Subpart B. b. It will provide a relocation assistance program offering the services described in Subpart C and fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance to displaced persons as required in Subpart D and E of 49 CFR Part 24. c. It will make available within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, comparable replacement dwellings to displaced persons in accordance with Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 24. 36. Access By Intercity Buses. The airport owner or operator will permit, to the maximum extent practicable, intercity buses or other modes of transportation to have access to the airport; however, it has no obligation to fund special facilities for intercity buses or for other modes of transportation. 37. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. The sponsor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26, or in the award and performance of any concession activity contract covered by 49 CFR Part 23. In addition, the sponsor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the administration of its DBE and ACDBE programs or the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26. The sponsor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts, and/or concession contracts. The sponsor's DBE and ACDBE programs, as required by 49 CFR Parts 26 and 23, and as approved by DOT, are incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of these programs is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the sponsor of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Parts 26 and 23 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1936 (31 U.S.C. 3801). 38. Hangar Construction. If the airport owner or operator and a person who owns an aircraft agree that a hangar is to be constructed at the airport for the aircraft at the aircraft owner's expense, the airport owner or operator will grant to the aircraft owner for the hangar a long term lease that is subject to such terms and conditions on the hangar as the airport owner or operator may impose. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC*O of 588 Page 19 of 20 39. Competitive Access. a. If the airport owner or operator of a medium or large hub airport (as defined in section 47102 of title 49, U.S.C.) has been unable to accommodate one or more requests by an air carrier for access to gates or other facilities at that airport in order to allow the air carrier to provide service to the airport or to expand service at the airport, the airport owner or operator shall transmit a report to the Secretary that- 1) Describes the requests; 2) Provides an explanation as to why the requests could not be accommodated; and 3) Provides a time frame within which, if any, the airport will be able to accommodate the requests. b. Such report shall be due on either February 1 or August 1 of each year if the airport has been unable to accommodate the request(s) in the six month period prior to the applicable due date. Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 PagC-21 of 588 Page 20 of 20 PART III - Sponsor Responsibilities In accepting the Agreement, the Sponsor guarantees that: it will comply with Attachment A, Certification of Airport Property Interest, attached and made a part of this Agreement; and b. it will comply with Attachment B, Certification of Airport Fund, attached and made a part of this Agreement; and it will comply with Attachment C, Certification of OMB Circular A-133 Single Audit Requirements, attached and made a part of this Agreement; and d. it will, in the operation of the facility, comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, procedures, covenants and assurances required by the State of Texas in connection with the Agreement; and the Airport or navigational facility which is the subject of this Agreement shall be controlled for a period of at least 20 years, and improvements made or acquired under this project shall be operated, repaired and maintained in a safe and serviceable manner for the useful life of the improvements, not to exceed 20 years; and f. consistent with safety and security requirements, it shall make the airport or air navigational facility available to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical use without unjust discrimination between such types, kinds and classes and shall provide adequate public access during the period of this Agreement; and g. it shall not grant or permit anyone to exercise an exclusive right for the conduct of aeronautical activity on or about an airport landing area. Aeronautical activities include, but are not limited to scheduled airline flights, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft sales, rental and repair, sale of aviation petroleum products and aerial applications. The landing area consists of runways or landing strips, taxiways, parking aprons, roads, airport lighting and navigational aids; and h. it shall not permit non -aeronautical use of airport facilities, unless noted on an approved Airport Layout Plan, without prior approval of the State; and i. it shall not enter into any agreement nor permit any aircraft to gain direct ground access to the sponsor's airport from private property adjacent to or in the immediate area of the airport. Further, Sponsor shall not allow aircraft direct ground access to private property. Sponsor shall be subject to this prohibition, commonly known as a "through -the -fence operation," unless an exception is granted in writing by the PagC-22 of 588 State due to extreme circumstances; and it will acquire all property interest identified as needed for the purposes of this project and comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, procedures, covenants and assurances required by the State of Texas in the acquisition of such property interest; and that airport property identified within the scope of this project and Attorney's Certificate of Property Interests shall be pledged to airport use and shall not be removed from such use without prior written approval of the State; and k. the Sponsor shall submit to the State annual statements of airport revenues and expenses when requested; and 1. all fees collected for the use of an airport or navigational facility constructed with funds provided under the program shall be reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The proceeds of such fees shall be used solely for the development, operation and maintenance of the airport or navigational facility. Sponsor shall not be required to pledge income received from the mineral estate to airport use unless state and/or federal funds were used to acquire the mineral estate of airport lands or any interest therein; and M. an Airport Fund shall be established by resolution, order or ordinance in the treasury of the Sponsor, or evidence of the prior creation of an existing airport fund or a properly executed copy of the resolution, order, or ordinance creating such a fund, shall be submitted to the State. The fund may be an account as part of another fund, but must be accounted for in such a manner that all revenues, expenses, retained earnings, and balances in the account are discernible from other types of moneys identified in the fund as a whole. All fees, charges, rents, and money from any source derived from airport operations must be deposited in the Airport Fund and shall not be diverted to the general revenue fund or any other revenue fund of the Sponsor for any purposes other than operation of the airport. All expenditures from the Airport Fund shall be solely for airport purposes. Sponsor shall be ineligible for a subsequent grant or loan by the State unless, prior to such subsequent approval of a grant or loan, Sponsor has complied with the requirements of this subparagraph; and n. the Sponsor shall operate runway lighting at least at low intensity from sunset to sunrise; and o. insofar as it is reasonable and within its power, Sponsor shall adopt and enforce zoning regulations to restrict the height of structures and use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to heights and activities compatible with normal airport operations as provided in Tex. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 241.001 et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Sponsor shall also acquire and retain aviation easements or other property interests in or rights to use of land or airspace, unless sponsor can show that acquisition and retention of such interest will be impractical PagC-23 of 588 or will result in undue hardship to Sponsor. Sponsor shall be ineligible for a subsequent grant or loan by the State unless Sponsor has, prior to such subsequent approval of a grant or loan, adopted and passed an airport hazard zoning ordinance or order approved by the State; and P. it will provide upon request to the State, and the engineering or planning consultant, copies of any maps, plans, or reports of the project site, applicable to or affecting the above project; and q. after reasonable notice, it will permit the State and any consultants and contractors associated with this project, access to the project site, and will obtain permission for the State, consultants and contractors associated with this project, to enter private property for purposes necessary to this project. r. all development of an airport constructed with program funds shall be consistent with the Airport Layout Plan approved by the State and maintained by the Sponsor. A reproducible copy of such plan, and all subsequent modifications, shall be filed with the State for approval; and 2. The Sponsor certifies to the State that it will have acquired clear title in fee simple to all property upon which construction work is to be performed, or have acquired a leasehold on such property for a term of not less than 20 years, prior to the advertisement for bids for such construction or procurement of facilities that are part of the above project, and within the timeframe of the project, a sufficient interest (easement or otherwise) in any other property interest which may be part of the project. 3. The Sponsor, to the extent of its legal authority to do so, shall save harmless the State, the State's agents, employees or contractors from all claims and liability due to activities of the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees performed under this agreement. The Sponsor, to the extent of its legal authority to do so, shall also save harmless the State, the State's agents, employees or contractors from any and all expenses, including attorney fees which might be incurred by the State in litigation or otherwise resisting said claim or liabilities which might be imposed on the State as the result of such activities by the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees. 4. The Sponsor and not the State shall, for all purposes, be the "Sponsor" of the project. Sponsor agrees to assume responsibility for operation of the facility in compliance with all applicable state and federal requirements including any statutes, rules, regulations, assurances, procedures or any other directives before, during and after the completion of this project. 5. The Sponsor shall have on file with the State a current and approved Attorney's Certificate of Airport Property Interests and Exhibit A property map. 6. The Sponsor by execution of this grant certifies that it has implemented, or will implement PagC3M of 588 during this project, an effective airport pavement maintenance -management program and it assures that it will use such program during the period of this Agreement. It will provide upon written request such reports on pavement condition and pavement management programs as the State determines may be useful. Failure to comply with this condition may make the Sponsor ineligible for future grants. 7. The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of the Agreement shall be evidenced by execution of this Agreement by the Sponsor. The Agreement shall comprise a contract, constituting the obligations and rights of the State of Texas and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the project and the operation and maintenance of the airport. The Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the Agreement by the State and shall remain in fill force and effect for a period of at least 20 years. PagC-25 of 588 EST 1848 GEORGETOWN TEXAS APPENDIX D HEIGHT AND HAZARD ZONING Page 400 of 588 Appendix D AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE Airport Master Plan Georgetown Municipal Airport The City of Georgetown has in place height and hazard zoning to protect aircraft operations on and around the Airport. The Airport Zoning is contained in the City of Georgetown, Code of Ordinances, Title 12, Chapter 12, Section 36. The Airport Zoning Ordinance should be updated if and when there is a change to the physical dimensions of the runway so that the parameters of the zoning apply to the existing conditions at the Airport. The Airport Zoning Ordinance is also available at the following internet address and is reproduced on the following pages: https://library.municode.com/TX/Georgetown/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=COOR TIT12STSIPU PL CH12.36GEAIZO S12.36.010SHT1 PageDKII of 588 CHAPTER 12.36. - GEORGETOWN AIRPORT ZONING Sec. 12.36.010. - Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Georgetown Airport Zoning Ordinance." (Prior code § 4-70) Sec. 12.36.020. - Definitions. As used in this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires: "Airport" means Georgetown Municipal Airport. "Airport elevation" means the established elevation of the highest point on the usable landing area. "Airport hazard" means any structure, tree or use of land which obstructs the airspace required for or is otherwise hazardous to the flight of aircraft in landing or taking -off at the airport. "Airport reference point" means the point established as the approximate geographic center of the airport landing area and so designated. "Height:" For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones set forth in this ordinance and shown on the zoning map, the datum shall be mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified. "Joint Airport Zoning Board" means a board consisting of five members, two members appointed by the Georgetown City Council and two members appointed by Williamson County Commissioners' Court, the four so appointed shall elect a fifth member, the chairman. "Landing area" means the surface area of the airport used for the landing, take -off or taxiing of aircraft. "Nonconforming use" means any structure, tree or use of land which is lawfully in existence at the time the regulation prescribed in the ordinance or an amendment thereto becomes effective and does not then meet the requirements of said regulation. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint stock association or body politic, and includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, administrator, executor, guardian or other representative. "Runway" means the paved surface of an airport landing strip. "Structure" means an object constructed or installed by man, including, but not limited to, buildings, towers, smokestacks and overhead transmission lines. "Tree" means any object of natural growth. (Prior code § 4-71) Sec. 12.36.030. - Zones. In order to carry out the provisions of this chapter, there are created and established certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transition surfaces, horizontal surface and conical surface. Such areas are shown on the Georgetown Municipal Airport Zoning Map consisting of one sheet, prepared by the Texas Aeronautics Commission and dated December 1, 1975, which is attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and is kept on file in the Board office. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: Page 1 PageDKZ of 588 A. Approach Zone. Approach zone is established beneath the approach surface at each end of all runways on Georgetown Municipal Airport for nonprecision instrument landings and take -offs. The approach zone shall have a width of 500 feet at a distance of 200 feet beyond each end of the runway, widening thereafter uniformly to a width of 3,500 feet at a horizontal distance of 10,200 feet beyond each end of the runway, its centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. B. Transition Zones. Transition zones are established beneath the transition surface adjacent to each runway and approach surface as indicated on the zoning map. Transition surfaces, symmetrically located on either side of runways, have variable widths as shown on the zoning map. Transition surfaces extend outward from a line 250 feet on either side of the centerline of the runway, for the length of such runway plus 200 feet on each end. The line is parallel to and level with the runway centerlines. The transition surfaces along such runways slope upward and outward one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the point where they intersect the horizontal surface. Further, transition surfaces are established adjacent to approach surfaces for the entire length of the approach surfaces. These transition surfaces have variable widths, as shown on the zoning map. Such transition surfaces flare symmetrically with either side of the runway approach surfaces from the base of such surfaces and slope upward and outward at the rate of one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the points where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces. C. Horizontal Zones. The area beneath a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of 10,000 feet radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. D. Conical Zone. The area beneath the conical surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. (Prior code § 4-72) Sec. 12.36.040. - Height limitations. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow or maintained in any zone created by this chapter to a height in excess of the height limit established in this chapter for such zone. Such height limitations are established for each of the zones in question as follows: A. Approach Zones. One foot in height for each 34 feet in horizontal distance beginning at a point 200 feet from and at the elevation of the end of the runway and extending to a point 10,200 feet from the end of the runway. B. Transition Zones. One foot in height for each seven feet in horizontal distance beginning at any point 250 feet normal to and at the elevation of the centerline of runways extending 200 feet beyond each end thereof, extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation or a height of 937 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits of one foot vertical height for each seven feet horizontal distance measured from the edges of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending upward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical surfaces. C. Horizontal Zone. That area beneath the horizontal surface which is located 150 feet above the airport elevation, or a height of 937 feet above mean sea level. D. Conical Zone. That area beneath the conical surface which is one foot in height for each 20 feet of horizontal distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal surface extending to a height of 350 feet above the airport elevation. Page 2 PageDe of 588 E. Excepted Height Limitations. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting the growth, construction or maintenance of any tree or structure to a height up to 20 feet above the surface of the land. F. Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive limitations shall prevail. (Prior code § 4-73) Sec. 12.36.050. - Use restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no use may be made of land within any zone established by this chapter in such a manner as to create electrical interference with radio communication between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport or otherwise endanger the landing, taking -off or maneuvering of aircraft. (Prior code § 4-74) Sec. 12.36.060. - Nonconforming uses. A. Regulations Not Retroactive. The regulations prescribed by this chapter shall not be construed to require the removal, lowering or other changes or alteration of any structure or tree not conforming to the regulations as of the effective date of this chapter, or otherwise interfere with the continuance of any nonconforming use. Nothing contained in this chapter shall require any change in the construction, alteration or intended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was begun prior to the effective date of this chapter, and is diligently prosecuted. B. Marking and Lighting. Notwithstanding subsection (A) of this section, the owner of any nonconforming structure or tree is required to permit the installation, operation and maintenance thereon of such markers and lights as are deemed necessary by the Joint Airport Zoning Board to indicate to the operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport hazards. Such markers and lights shall be installed, operated and maintained at the expense of the City of Georgetown. (Prior code § 4-75) Sec. 12.36.070. - Permits. A. Future Uses. Except as specifically provided in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section, no material change shall be made in the use of land and no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, planted or otherwise established in any zone created by this chapter unless a permit therefor has been applied for and granted. Each application for a permit shall indicate the purpose for which the permit is desired, with sufficient particularity to permit it to be determined whether the resulting use, structure or tree would conform to the regulations prescribed in this chapter. If such determination is in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted. 1. In the areas within the limits of the horizontal zone and the conical zone, no permit is required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet in vertical height above the ground, except when, because of terrain, land contour or topographic features, such tree or structure would extend above the height limits prescribed for such zone. 2. In the areas within the limits of the approach zones but at a horizontal distance of not less than 5,200 feet from each end of the runways, no permit is required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet in vertical height above the ground, except when such tree or structure would extend above the height limit prescribed for such approach zone. Page 3 Pages of 588 3. In the areas within the limits of the transition zones beyond the perimeter of the horizontal zone, no permit is required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet in vertical height above the ground, except when such tree or structure, because of terrain, land contour or topographic features would extend above the height limit prescribed for such transition zones. B. Nothing contained in any of the foregoing exceptions shall be construed as permitting or intending to permit any construction, alteration or growth of any structure or tree in excess of any of the height limits established by this chapter except as set forth in subsection (E) of Section 12.36.040. (Prior code § 4-76 (a)) Sec. 12.36.080. - Existing uses. No permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment or creation of an airport hazard or permit a nonconforming use, structure or tree to be made or become higher, or become a greater hazard to air navigation, than it was on the effective date of this chapter or any amendments thereto or than it is when the application for a permit is made. Except as indicated, all applications for such a permit shall be granted. (Prior code § 4-76 (b)) Sec. 12.36.090. - Nonconforming uses abandoned or destroyed. Whenever the Joint Airport Zoning Board determines that a nonconforming structure or tree has been abandoned or more than 80 percent torn down, physically deteriorated or decayed, no permit shall be granted that would allow such structure or tree to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the zoning regulations. (Prior code § 4-76 (c)) Sec. 12.36.100. -Variances. Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure, or permit the growth of any tree, or use his property, not in accordance with the regulations prescribed in this chapter, may apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from such regulations. Such variances shall be allowed where it is duly found that a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest but will do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of this chapter. (Prior code § 4-76 (d)) Sec. 12.36.110. - Hazard marking and lighting. Any permit or variance granted may, if such action is deemed advisable to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and is reasonable in the circumstances, be so conditioned as to require the owner of the structure or tree in question to permit the City of Georgetown at its own expense to install, operate and maintain thereon such markers and lights as may be necessary to indicate to flyers the presence of an airport hazard. (Prior code § 4-76 (e)) Sec. 12.36.120. - Enforcement. Page 4 PageD6& of 588 It is the duty of the Joint Airport Zoning Board to administer and enforce the regulations prescribed in this chapter. Applications for permits and variances shall be made to the Joint Airport Zoning Board through the office of the City Manager upon a form furnished by him. Applications, required by this chapter to be submitted to the Joint Airport Zoning Board, shall be promptly considered and granted or denied. Applications for action by the Board of Adjustment shall be forthwith transmitted by the chairman of the Joint Airport Zoning Board. (Prior code § 4-77) Sec. 12.36.130. - Board of Adjustment —Created. There is created a Board of Adjustment to have and exercise the following powers: A. To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Joint Airport Zoning Board in the enforcement of this chapter; B. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of this chapter upon which such Board of Adjustment under such regulations may be required to pass; C. To hear and decide specific variances. (Prior code § 4-78 (a)) Sec. 12.36.140. - Board of Adjustment —Membership. The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five members appointed by the Georgetown -Williamson County Joint Airport Zoning Board as prescribed in the provisions of V.C.T.A. Local Government Code Section 241.032 et seq., and each shall serve for a term of two years and removable for cause by the appointing authority upon written charges, after a public hearing. (Ord. 900183 § 2: prior code § 4-78 (b)) Sec. 12.36.150. - Board of Adjustment —Rules, meetings. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for its governance and procedure in harmony with the provisions of this ordinance. Meetings of the Board of Adjustment shall be held at the call of the chairman and at such times as the Board of Adjustment may determine. The chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All hearings of the Board of Adjustment shall be public. The Board of Adjustment shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall immediately be filed in the office of the City Manager and shall be a public record. (Prior code § 4-78 (c)) Sec. 12.36.160. - Board of Adjustment —Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law giving the facts upon which it acted and its legal conclusions from such facts in reversing, affirming or modifying any order, requirement, decision or determination which comes before it under the provisions of this chapter. (Prior code § 4-78 (d)) Page 5 Pages of 588 Sec. 12.36.170. - Board of Adjustment —Majority vote. The concurring vote of a majority of the members of the Board of Adjustment shall be sufficient to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of the Joint Airport Zoning Board or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under this chapter, or to effect any variation in this chapter. (Prior code § 4-78 (e)) Sec. 12.36.180. - Appeals —Generally. Any person aggrieved, or any taxpayer affected, by any decision of the Joint Airport Zoning Board made in its administration of this chapter, if of the opinion that a decision of the Joint Airport Zoning Board is an improper application of these regulations, may appeal to the Board of Adjustment. (Prior code § 4-79 (a)) Sec. 12.36.190. - Appeals —Notice. All appeals under this chapter must be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board of adjustment, by filing with the joint airport zoning board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The joint airport zoning board shall forthwith transmit to the board of adjustment all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. (Prior code § 4-79 (b)) Sec. 12.36.200. - Appeals —Stay of proceedings. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the joint airport zoning board certifies to the board of adjustment, after the notice of appeal has been filed with it, that by reason of the facts stated in the certificate a stay would, in its opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed except by order of the board of adjustment on notice to the agency from which the appeal is taken and on due cause shown. (Prior code § 4-79 (c)) Sec. 12.36.210. - Appeals —Time. The board of adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for hearing appeals, give public notice and due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time. Upon the hearing any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. (Prior code § 4-79 (d)) Sec. 12.36.220. - Appeals —Determination. The Board of Adjustment may in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination, as may be appropriate under the circumstances. (Prior code § 4-79 (e)) Page 6 PagcD07 of 588 Sec. 12.36.230. - Judicial review. Any person aggrieved, or any taxpayer affected, by any decision of the board of adjustment, may appeal to the court of record as provided in accordance with V.T.C.A. Local Government Code Section 241.041 et seq. (Ord. 900183 § 3: prior code § 4-80) Sec. 12.36.240. - Conflicting regulations. Where there exists a conflict between any of the regulations or limitations prescribed in this chapter and any other regulations applicable to the same area, whether the conflict be with respect to the height of structures or trees, the use of land or any other matter, the more stringent limitation or requirement shall govern and prevail. (Prior code § 4-82) Sec. 12.36.250. - Violation —Penalty. Each violation of this chapter or of any regulation order or ruling promulgated under this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and be punishable by a fine of not more than $250.00 and each day a violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense. (Prior code § 4-81) Page 7 Pages of 588 GEORGETOWN TEXAS APPENDIX E FORECAST SUPPLEMENTAL Page 409 of 588 Appendix E FORECAST SUPPLEMENTAL Airport Master Plan Georgetown Municipal Airport In January 2018, the FAA requested the opportunity to review the forecasts of aviation demand pro- vided in Chapter Two of this master plan. While the selected forecasts for based aircraft and opera- tions were acceptable to FAA, they requested more detailed information related to the regression analysis component for each forecast. Specifically, they requested the detailed input data for the re- gression analysis. The following data is included: • Regression Analysis — Registered Aircraft • Regression Analysis — Based Aircraft • Regression Analysis — Local Operations • Terminal Area Forecast Worksheets — FAA Comparison to the TAF • 2018 Terminal Area Forecast PageE41) of 588 Georgetown Municipal Airport Registered Aircraft Regression Analysis Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.975400685 R Square 0.951406496 Adjusted R Square 0.92931854 Standard Error 19.3947636 Observations 17 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 5 81012.0393 16202.40786 43.07354138 7.38602E-07 Residual 11 4137.725405 376.156855 Total 16 85149.76471 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 98200.82432 30701.99929 3.19851562 0.008477043 30626.17949 165775.4691 X1-Year -49.72791312 15.54380237 -3.199211618 0.008466547 -83.93959145 -15.51623478 X2-Active Aircraft 0.004675261 0.000644901 7.249574321 1.64502E-05 0.003255842 0.006094679 X3 - Population 0.002139782 0.000452385 4.729998997 0.000619359 0.001144089 0.003135476 X4 - Employment -0.000740504 0.000434169 -1.705566195 0.1161298 -0.001696105 0.000215096 X5-Income -0.008489264 0.006678238 -1.271183273 0.229886073 -0.023187966 0.006209438 Y1 - Registered Aircraft X1- Year X2 - Active Aircraft X3 - Population X4 - Employment X5 - Income 1,323 2021 203,225 1,909,317 1,326,950 50,755 1,394 2026 204,030 2,127,274 1,487,886 54,391 1,662 2036 210,695 2,618,924 1,837,119 61,359 Regression Inputs Y1 - Registered Aircraft X1- Year X2 - Active Aircraft X3 - Population X4 - Employment X5 - Income 1,121 2000 217,533 1,075,071 769,597 $42,009 1,176 2001 211,446 1,121,817 779,267 $40,787 1,172 2002 211,244 1,138,202 769,836 $38,600 1,169 2003 209,606 1,159,210 773,213 $38,429 1,202 2004 219,319 1,187,341 793,775 $38,859 1,192 2005 224,257 1,223,435 833,997 $40,515 1,196 2006 221,942 1,277,121 874,574 $41,704 1,295 2007 231,606 1,329,122 924,846 $41,791 1,300 2008 228,664 1,376,136 955,139 $43,219 1,310 2009 223,876 1,417,303 948,260 $40,683 1,341 2010 223,370 1,456,984 959,527 $41,210 1,375 2011 220,453 1,505,091 994,002 $42,678 1,302 2012 209,034 1,553,697 1,026,899 $45,074 1,267 2013 199,927 1,593,973 1,076,871 $44,524 1,269 2014 204,408 1,640,395 1,117,231 $45,470 1,294 2015 203,880 1,675,333 1,146,746 $46,506 1,318 2016 203,425 1,712,292 1,176,271 $47,216 PageE421 of 588 Georgetown Municipal Airport Based Aircraft Regression Analysis Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.981705904 R Square 0.963746482 Adjusted R Square 0.94726761 Standard Error 4.769955491 Observations 17 r_1.P1TU df 55 M5 F Significance F Regression 5 6653.252183 1330.650437 58.48376557 1.49868E-07 Residual 11 250.2772292 22.75247539 Total 16 6903.529412 Coefficients Standard Error t Stot P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 5587.850584 6031.017474 0.926518719 0.374057885 -7686.329377 18862.03055 X1 - Year -2.69202994 3.060852009 -0.879503463 0.397934885 -9.428919788 4.044859908 X2 - Registered Aircraft 0.088899791 0.056478366 1.574050335 0.14377834 -0.035408255 0.213207838 X3 - Active Aircraft -0.000857282 0.000277443 -3.089941163 0.010287146 -0.001467929 -0.000246634 X4 - Population -3.20467E-05 0.000121956 -0.262771806 0.797582958 -0.000300471 0.000236377 X5 - Employment 0.0002289 8.45444E-05 2.707450346 0.020383552 4.28188E-05 0.000414981 Y1 - Based Aircraft X1 - Year X2 - Registered Aircraft X3 - Active Aircraft X4 - Population X5 - Employment X6 - Income 336 2021 1360 203,225 1,909,317 1,326,950 50755 358 2026 1420 204,030 2,127,274 1,487,886 54391 403 2036 1580 210,695 2,618,924 1,837,119 61359 Y1 - Based Aircraft X1 - Year X2 - Registered Aircraft X3 - Active Aircraft X4 - Population X5 - Employment X6 - Income 268 2000 1,121 217,533 1,075,071 769,597 42,009 264 2001 1,176 211,446 1,121,817 779,267 40,787 261 2002 1,172 211,244 1,138,202 769,836 38,600 256 2003 1,169 209,606 1,159,210 773,213 38,429 256 2004 1,202 219,319 1,187,341 793,775 38,859 256 2005 1,192 224,257 1,223,435 833,997 40,515 261 2006 1,196 221,942 1,277,121 874,574 41,704 266 2007 1,295 231,606 1,329,122 924,846 41,791 272 2008 1,300 228,664 1,376,136 955,139 43,219 277 2009 1,310 223,876 1,417,303 948,260 40,683 283 2010 1,341 223,370 1,456,984 959,527 41,210 288 2011 1,375 220,453 1,505,091 994,002 42,678 294 2012 1,302 209,034 1,553,697 1,026,899 45,074 300 2013 1,267 199,927 1,593,973 1,076,871 44,524 306 2014 1,269 204,408 1,640,395 1,117,231 45,470 312 2015 1,294 203,880 1,675,333 1,146,746 46,506 318 2016 1,318 203,425 1,675,333 1,146,746 46,506 PageE4& of 588 Georgetown Municipal Airport Local Operations Regression Analysis Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.9794 R Square 0,9593 Adjusted R Square 0.8914 Standard Error 2659,2353 Observations 9 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 5 499469981.4745 99893996.2949 14.1262 0.0269 Residual 3 21214596.7477 7071532.2492 Total 8 520684578.2222 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 9S96 Upper 9596 lower 95% Upper 9596 Intercept -23548508.1287 20852624.0243 -1.1293 0.3409 -89910864,4102 42813848.1528-89910864,4102 42813848.1528 X1 - Year 11746.2836 10597.1267 1.1084 0.3485 -21978.5031 45471.0703-21978.5031 45471.0703 X2 - FAA Local GA Op 0.0134 0.0136 0.9858 0.3969 -0.0298 0,0566-0.0298 0.0566 X3 - Population 0.0192 0.5143 0.0373 0.9726 -1.6176 1.6560-1.6176 1.6560 X4 - Employment -0.2710 0.3669 -0.7387 0.5136 -1.4385 0.8965-1.4385 0.8965 XS - Income 0.9592 2.8118 0.3411 0.7555 -7.9891 9.9076-7.9891 9.9076 X2 - FAA Local GA Y3 -Operations X3 - Year Operations X3 - Population X4 - Employment X5 - Income 77,343 2021 12,011,000 1,909,317 1,326,950 50,755 103,399 2026 12,255,000 2,127,274 1,487,886 54,391 149,266 2036 12,772,000 2,618,924 1,837,119 61,359 Regression Inputs X2 - FAA Local GA Y3 -Operations X3 - Year Operations X3 - Population X4 - Employment X5 - Income 35,961 2008 14,081,000 1,376,136 955,139 43,219 25,153 2009 12,448,000 1,417,303 948,260 40,683 25,066 2010 11,716,000 1,456,984 959,527 41,210 28,579 2011 11,437,000 1,505,091 994,002 42,678 34,632 2012 11,608,000 1,553,697 1,026,899 45,074 36,015 2013 11,688,000 1,593,973 1,076,871 44,524 37,697 2014 11,675,000 1,640,395 1,117,231 45,470 39,426 2015 11,691,000 1,675,333 1,146,746 46,506 50,972 2016 11,776,000 1,712,292 1,176,271 47,216 PageE4M of 588 Template for Comparing Airport Planning and TAF Forecasts (Sample data shown - replace with actuals) AIRPORT NAME: Passenger Enplanements Base yr. Base yr. + 5yrs. Base yr. + 10yrs Base yr. + 15yrs Commercial Operations Base yr. Base yr. + 5yrs. Base yr. + 10yrs Base yr. + 15yrs Total Operations Base yr. Base yr. + 5yrs. Base yr. + 10yrs. Base yr. + 15yrs. Georgeteown Municipal Airport (GTU) Airport AF/TAF Year Forecast 2017 TAF (% Difference) 2016 0 0 #DIV/0! 2021 0 0 #DIV/0! 2026 0 0 #DIV/0! 2031 0 0 #DIV/0! 2018 TAF 2016 811 639 26.9% 776 4.5% 2021 800 639 25.2% 934 -14.3% 2026 1,100 639 72.1 % 934 17.8% 2031 1,285 639 101.1% 934 37.6% 2016 97,346 78,035 24.7% 92,742 5.0% 2021 107,900 79,833 35.2% 109,424 -1.4% 2026 122,100 81,674 49.5% 113,676 7.4% 2031 127,615 83,559 52.7% 118,115 8.0% NOTES: TAF data is on a U.S. Government fiscal year basis (October through September). AF/TAF (% Difference) column has embedded formulas. Page 414 of 588 E-5 Template for Summarizing and Documenting :airport Planning Forecasts (Sample data shown - replace with actuals) A. Forecast Levels and Growth Rates AIRPORT NAME: Georgeteown Municipal Airport (GTU: Specify base year: 2016 Base Yr. Level Base Yr. + lvr. Base Vr. + 5vrs. Base Vr. + I Ovrs. Base Yr. + 15vrs. Base s r. to • I Passenger Enplanements AirCarricr 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/O! Commuter 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/O! TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/O! Operations Itinerant Air carrier Commutcr/air taxi Total Commercial Operations General aviation Military Local General aviation Military TOTAL OPERATIONS Instrument Operations Peak Hour Operations Cargo/mail (enplaned+dnplaned tons) Based Aircraft Average Annual Compound Growth Rates Base vr. to +5 Base vr. to +10 Base vr. to +15 #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/0! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! 811 809 800 1,100 1,285 -0.2% -0.3% 3.1% 3.1% 811 809 800 1,100 1,285 -0.2% -0.3% 3.1% 3.1% 45,006 45,722 48,700 53,400 55,412 1.6% 1.60% 1.7% 1.40% 207 200 200 200 200 -3.4% -0.7% -0.3% -0.2% 50,972 52,306 58,000 67,200 70,518 2.6% 2.60/6 2.8% 2.2% 350 200 200 200 200 42.9% -10.6% -5.4% -3.7% 97,346 99,237 107,900 122,100 127,615 1.90/0 2.1% 2.3% 1.8% 2,301 2,337 2,485 2,735 2,845 1.6% 1.60/6 1.7% 1.4% 34 36 47 54 56 5.90/0 6.7% 4.7% 3.4% 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! #DIV/O! Single Engine (Nonjet) 251 254 267 290 300 Multi Engine (Nonjet) 24 24 25 26 26 Jet Engine 35 36 39 43 46 Helicopter 8 8 9 11 12 Other 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 318 322 340 370 384 B. Operational Factors Base Yr. Level Base Yr. + lvr. Base Vr. + 5vrs. Base Yr. + I Ovrs. Base Yr. + 15vrs. Average aircraft size (seats) Air carrier 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commuter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average enplaning load factor Air carrier 0.0% 0.0% 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% Commuter 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% GA operations per based aircraft 302 304 314 326 328 NOTE: Right hand side of workshect has embedded formulas for average annual compound growth rate calculations 1.2% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.80/0 0.80/0 0.5% 2.9% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 0.0% 2.4% 3.2% 2.7% 0.0% 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% Note: Show base plus one year if forecast was done. If planning effort did not include all forecast years shown interpolate years as needed, using average annual compound growth rates. Page 415 of 588 E-6 rn V 1 /26/2018 https://taf.faa.gov/HomeMunReport L AREA FORECAST DETAIL REPORT 106 APO TERMINA Forecast Issued January 2018 GTU AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Enplanements Itinerant Operations Local Operations Total Fiscal Air Air Air Taxi & GA Military Total Civil Military Total Total Tracon Base Commuter Total Year Carrier Carrier Commuter Ops Ops Aircraft REGION:ASW STATE:TX LOCID:GTU CITY:GEORGETOWN AIRPORT:GEORGETOWN MUNI 1992 0 0 0 0 800 18,000 800 19,600 28,500 0 28,500 48,100 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 800 18,000 800 19,600 28,500 0 28,500 48,100 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 800 18,000 800 19,600 28,500 0 28,500 48,100 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 800 18,000 800 19,600 28,500 0 28,500 48,100 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 800 28,730 800 30,330 56,659 0 56,659 86,989 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 800 28,730 800 30,330 56,659 0 56,659 86,989 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 873 28,730 800 30,403 56,659 0 56,659 87,062 0 133 1999 0 0 0 0 873 35,259 800 36,932 78,053 0 78,053 114,985 0 201 2000 0 0 0 0 858 39,375 786 41,019 58,347 0 58,347 99,366 0 268 2001 0 0 0 0 873 43,035 800 44,708 63,771 0 63,771 108,479 0 278 2002 0 0 0 0 873 47,513 800 49,186 71,270 0 71,270 120,456 0 278 2003 0 0 0 0 907 49,176 800 50,883 74,665 0 74,665 125,548 0 287 2004 0 0 0 0 940 51,474 800 53,214 77,971 0 77,971 131,185 0 256 2005 0 0 0 0 974 53,276 800 55,050 81,362 0 81,362 136,412 0 256 2006 0 0 0 0 1,001 55,141 800 56,942 83,989 0 83,989 140,931 0 256 2007 0 0 0 0 1,029 57,071 800 58,900 86,700 0 86,700 145,600 0 256 2008 0 0 0 20 1,342 34,387 238 35,987 34,337 490 34,827 70,814 0 216 2009 0 0 0 0 928 34,550 143 35,621 27,853 212 28,065 63,686 0 216 2010 1 0 1 5 1,018 31,625 240 32,888 23,923 247 24,170 57,058 0 216 2011 0 0 0 6 665 34,698 315 35,684 27,921 252 28,173 63,857 0 193 2012 0 0 0 3 332 33,573 155 34,063 33,322 64 33,386 67,449 0 198 2013 0 0 0 0 396 33,333 77 33,806 35,271 111 35,382 69,188 0 198 https://taf.faa.gov/Home/Run Report Page 416 of 588 1/3 1/26/2018 hftps://taf.faa.gov/Home/RunReport 2014 0 0 0 0 441 33,893 74 34,408 38,599 72 38,671 73,079 0 187 2015 0 0 0 0 639 35,380 131 36,150 38,582 207 322 38,789 48,391 74 939 92,742 0 292 0 319 2016 0 0 0 0 776 43,380 195 44,351 48,069 17* 0 0 0 0 934 46,350 184 47,468 54,224 277 54,501 101,969 0 325 2018* 0 0 0 0 934 48,068 184 49,186 57,495 277 57,772 106,958 0 336 2019* 0 0 0 0 934 48,308 184 49,426 58,070 277 58,347 107,773 0 347 2020* 0 0 0 0 934 48,549 184 49,667 58,651 277 58,928 108,595 0 353 2021 * 0 0 0 0 934 48,792 184 49,910 59,237 277 59,514 109,424 0 361 APO TERMINAL AREA FORECAST DETAIL REPORT Forecast Issued January 2018 GTU AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Enplanements Itinerant Operations Local Operations m Fiscal 00 Air Commuter Total Air Air Taxi & GA Military Total Civil Military Total Total Total Tracon Ops Based Aircraft Year Carrier Carrier Commuter O s P 2022* 0 0 0 0 934 49,036 184 50,154 59,829 277 60,106 110,260 0 375 2023* 0 0 0 0 934 49,281 184 50,399 60,427 277 60,704 111,103 0 381 2024* 0 0 0 0 934 49,527 184 50,645 61,032 277 61,309 111,954 0 389 2025* 0 0 0 0 934 49,774 184 50,892 61,643 277 61,920 112,812 0 397 2026* 0 0 0 0 934 50,022 184 51,140 62,259 277 62,536 13,67 0 405 2027* 0 0 0 0 934 50,272 184 51,390 62,882 277 63,159 114,5 0 413 2028* 0 0 0 0 934 50,523 184 51,641 63,511 277 63,788 115,429 0 421 2029* 0 0 0 0 934 50,775 184 51,893 64,146 277 64,423 116,316 0 429 2030* 0 0 0 0 934 51,029 184 52,147 64,787 277 65,064 117,211 0 438 0 0 0 0 934 51,284 184 52,402 65,436 277 65,713 118,115 0 447 ^2031* 2032* 0 0 0 0 934 51,540 184 52,658 66,090 277 66,367 119,025 0 456 2033* 0 0 0 0 934 51,798 184 52,916 66,750 277 67,027 119,943 0 465 2034* 0 0 0 0 934 52,057 184 53,175 67,418 277 67,695 120,870 0 476 2035* 0 0 0 0 934 52,317 184 53,435 68,092 277 68,369 121,804 0 487 2036* 0 0 0 0 934 52,578 184 53,696 68,773 277 69,050 122,746 0 498 hftps://taf.faa.gov/Home/RunReport Page 417 of 588 2/3 m is 1/26/2018 hops:/Itaf.faa.gov/Home/RunReport 2037* 0 0 0 0 934 52,840 184 53,958 69,461 277 69,738 123,696 0 509 2038* 0 0 0 0 934 53,104 184 54,222 70,155 277 70,432 124,654 0 520 2039* 0 0 0 0 934 53,369 184 54,487 70,856 277 71,133 125,620 0 531 2040* 0 0 0 0 934 53,635 184 54,753 71,565 277 71,842 126,595 0 542 2041 * 0 0 0 0 934 53,902 184 55,020 72,281 277 72,558 127,578 0 553 2042* 0 0 0 0 934 54,171 184 55,289 73,003 277 73,280 128,569 0 564 2043* 0 0 0 0 934 54,441 184 55,559 73,733 277 74,010 129,569 0 576 2044* 0 0 0 0 934 54,712 184 55,830 74,470 277 74,747 130,577 0 588 2045* 0 0 0 0 934 54,984 184 56,102 75,215 277 75,492 131,594 0 600 https://taf.faa.gov/Home/Run Report Page 418 of 588 MIDI GEORGETOWN TEXAS APPENDIX F AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN Page 419 of 588 Appendix F AIRPORT PLANS Airport Master Plan Georgetown Municipal Airport As part of this Master Plan, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the development of several technical drawings detailing specific parts of the airport and its environs. The technical draw- ings are collectively referred to as the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set. These drawings were created on a computer -aided drafting system (CAD) and serve as the official depiction of the current and planned condition of the Airport. These drawings will be delivered to the FAA for their review and approval. The FAA will critique the drawings from a technical perspective to be sure all applicable federal regula- tions are met. The five primary functions of the ALP that define its purpose are: 1) An approved plan is necessary for the airport to receive financial assistance under the terms of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AIP), as amended, and to be able to re- ceive specific Passenger Facility Charge funding. An airport must keep its ALP current and follow that plan, since those are grant assurance requirements of the AIP and previous air- port development programs, including the 1970 Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) and Federal Aid Airports Program (FAAP) of 1946, as amended. While ALPs are not required for airports other than those developed with assistance under the aforementioned federal programs, the same guidance can be applied to all airports. Z) An ALP creates a blueprint for airport development by depicting proposed facility improve- ments. The ALP provides a guideline by which the airport sponsor can ensure that develop- ment maintains airport design standards and safety requirements and is consistent with airport and community land use plans. F-1 Page 420 of 588 3) The ALP is a public document that serves as a record of aeronautical requirements, both present and future, and as a reference for community deliberations on land use proposals and budget resource planning. 4) The approved ALP enables the airport sponsor and the FAA to plan for facility improve- ments at the airport. It also allows the FAA to anticipate budgetary and procedural needs. The approved ALP will also allow the FAA to protect the airspace required for facility or ap- proach procedure improvements. 5) The ALP can be a working tool for the airport sponsor, including its development and maintenance staff. It should be noted that the FAA requires that any planned changes to the airfield (i.e., runway and tax- iway system, etc.) be represented on the drawings. The landside configuration developed during this master planning process is also depicted on the drawings, but the FAA recognizes that landside devel- opment is much more fluid and often dependent upon specific developer needs. Thus, an updated drawing set is not typically necessary for future landside alterations; however, a revision to the ALP drawing may be required. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET The ALP set includes several technical drawings which depict various aspects of the current and future layout of the Airport. The following is a description of the ALP drawings included with this master plan. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING An official Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing has been developed for Georgetown Municipal Airport, a draft of which is included in this appendix. The ALP drawing graphically presents the existing and ulti- mate airport layout plan. The ALP drawing includes such elements as the physical airport features, wind data tabulation, location of airfield facilities (i.e., runways, taxiways, navigational aids), and exist- ing general aviation development. Also presented on the ALP are the runway safety areas, airport property boundary, and revenue support areas. The computerized plan provides detailed information on existing and future facility layouts on multiple layers that permit the user to focus on any section of the airport at a desired scale. The plan can be used as base information for design and can be easily updated in the future to reflect new develop- ment and more detail concerning existing conditions as made available through design surveys. FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE DRAWING Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, was established for use by local authorities to control the height of objects near airports. The FAR Part 77 Airspace Draw- ing included in this Master Plan is a graphic depiction of this regulatory criterion. The FAR Part 77 Air- space Drawing is a tool to aid local authorities in determining if proposed development could present a F-2 Page 421 of 588 hazard to aircraft using the airport. The FAR Part 77 Airspace Drawing can be a critical tool for the air- port sponsor's use in reviewing proposed development in the vicinity of the airport. The airport sponsors should do all in their power to ensure development stays below the FAR Part 77 surfaces to protect the role of the airport. The following discussion will describe those surfaces that make up the recommended FAR Part 77 surfaces at Georgetown Municipal Airport. The FAR Part 77 Airspace Drawing assigns three-dimensional imaginary surfaces associated with the airport. These imaginary surfaces emanate from the runway centerline(s) and are dimensioned ac- cording to the visibility minimums associated with the approach to the runway end and size of aircraft to operate on the runway. The FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces include the primary surface, approach surface, transitional surface, horizontal surface, and conical surface. The FAR Part 77 drawing is based on the future condition of the airfield. Each surface is described as follows. Primary Surface: The primary surface is an imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the runway. The primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each runway end. The elevation of any point on the pri- mary surface is the same as the elevation along the nearest associated point on the runway centerline. The width of the Primary Surface for both runways is 500 feet. Approach Surface: An approach surface is also established for each runway end. The approach sur- face begins at the same width as the primary surface, extends upward and outward from the primary surface end, and is centered along an extended runway centerline. The approach surface leading to each runway is based upon the type of approach available (instrument or visual) or planned. The current approach surface to each end of Runway 18-36 extends out 10,000 feet and expands to a width of 3,500 feet with a slope of 34:1. The approach surface for Runway 11-29 extends out 5,000 feet and expands to a width of 2,000 feet with a slope of 20:1 Transitional Surface: The runway has a transitional surface that begins at the outside edge of the pri- mary surface at the same elevation as the runway. The surface rises at a slope of 7:1, up to a height 150 feet above the highest runway elevation. At that point, the transitional surface is replaced by the horizontal surface. Horizontal Surface: The horizontal surface is established at 150 feet above the highest elevation of the runway surface. Having no slope, the horizontal surface connects the transitional and approach sur- faces to the conical surface at a distance of 5,000 feet from the end of the primary surface currently and 10,000 feet if non -precision instrument approaches are implemented. Conical Surface: The conical surface begins at the outer edge of the horizontal surface. The conical surface then continues for an additional 4,000 feet horizontally at a slope of 20:1. Therefore, at 4,000 feet from the horizontal surface, the elevation of the conical surface is 350 feet above the highest air- port elevation. F-3 Page 422 of 588 APPROACH SURFACE PROFILE DRAWINGS The runway profile drawing presents the entirety of the FAR Part 77 approach surface to the runway ends. It also depicts the runway centerline profile with elevations. This drawing provides profile de- tails that the Airspace Drawing does not. The approach surface profile drawings include identified penetrations to the approach surface. Pene- trations to the approach surface are considered obstructions. The FAA will determine if any obstruc- tions are also hazards which require mitigation. The FAA utilizes other design criteria such as the threshold siting surface (TSS) and various surfaces defined in FAA Order 8260.313, Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), to determine if an obstruction is a hazard. If an obstruction is a hazard, the FAA can take many steps to protect air navigation. The mitigation op- tions range from removing the hazard to installing obstruction lighting to adjusting the instrument ap- proach minimums. TERMINAL AREA DRAWING The terminal area drawing is a larger scale plan view drawing of existing and planned aprons, buildings, hangars, parking lots, and other landside facilities. AIRPORT LAND USE DRAWING The objective of the Airport Land Use Drawing is to coordinate uses of the airport property in a manner compatible with the functional design of the airport facility. Airport land use planning is important for orderly development and efficient use of available space. There are two primary considerations for air- port land use planning. These are to secure those areas essential to the safe and efficient operation of the airport and to determine compatible land uses for the balance of the property which would be most advantageous to the airport and community. In the development of an airport land use plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport, the airport property was segmented into several large general tracts. Each tract was analyzed for specific site characteris- tics, such as tract size and shape, land characteristics, and existing land uses. The availability of utilities and the accessibility to various transportation modes were also considered. Limitations and con- straints to development such as height and noise restrictions, runway visibility zones, and contiguous land uses were analyzed next. Finally, the compatibility of various land uses in each tract was analyzed. The depiction of on -airport land uses on this drawing becomes the official FAA acceptance of current and future land uses. However, implementation of any non -aeronautical uses will require further FAA approval, even if the land is designated for non -aeronautical uses on this drawing. There are four dif- ferent land uses identified for Georgetown Municipal Airport: Airfield Operations, Aviation Develop- ment — High Activity, Aviation Development — Low Activity, and Aviation Development/Revenue Sup- port. F-4 Page 423 of 588 The Airfield Operations category includes the immediate runway and taxiway environment and in- cludes the Navaid critical areas, runway visibility zone, runway and taxiway safety areas, and the run- way protection zones. The Airfield Operations area is reserved for facilities critical to the safe opera- tions of aircraft on the runways and taxiways. The Aviation Development category (both high and low -activity) reserves critical space adjacent to the Airfield Operations area for aviation -specific activity. This activity includes all facilities necessary for aviation -related functions including hangars, terminal buildings, and fuel farms. Essentially any facili- ties to be developed in the Aviation Development area must be intended for a function that requires access to the runway and taxiway system. It should be noted that other uses that are compatible with airport operations can be located in the Aviation Development area on a temporary basis, usually con- sidered five years or less. The Aviation Development/Revenue Support category can include aviation facilities and non -aviation facilities. There is a large 100+ acre parcel in the south quadrant of the airport that is not anticipated to be needed for aviation uses well into the future and may be considered for non -aviation uses that are compatible with airport activity. Any use of airport land for non -aviation purposes must be ap- proved by TxDOT prior to implementation. AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP The Airport Property Map provides information on property under airport control and is, therefore, subject to grant assurances. The various recorded deeds that make up the airport property are listed in tabular format. The primary purpose of the drawing is to provide information for analyzing the cur- rent and future aeronautical use of land acquired with federal funds. FAA/TxDOT ALP APPROVAL TxDOT approval of any ALP is subject to the condition that the improvements identified may not be undertaken without prior written environmental approval by the TxDOT. Approval of the ALP does not imply any commitment for federal funding or approval of future structures requiring notice under FAR Part 77. F-5 Page 424 of 588 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS for GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP Georgetown, Texas Prepared for the City of Georgetown, Texas DRAWING INDEX 1. AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING 2. IPASD RUNWAY 18 3. IPASD RUNWAY 36 4. IPASD RUNWAY 11 5. IPASD RUNWAY 29 6. TERMINAL AREA DRAWING 1 7. TERMINAL AREA DRAWING II MISCELLANEOUS DRAWINGS 1. AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING 2. RWY 18-36 DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING DRAFT 3. RWY 11-29 DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING July 2018 4. LAND USE DRAWING 5. AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP Associates r� dam, Av�a.ia� Di.„icn eY CHK'D I DATE rq l� t0 e 5 7 _ 00 GENERAL NOTES' HORIZONTAL DAIUY HAD 63 STATE PLANE, TEXAS CENTRAL FIPS 4203 SURVEY FEET; VERTICAL DATUM NAVO a& DO NOT APPLY CORRECTION FACTOR. EMSTNG RUNWAY ETD ELEVATIONS, AND BEARINGS NOTED IN THIS ALP FROM THE FAA. Attp: //wtldatoeXMt (aa9o'I/. TXDOT RECORDS INDICATE AN EXISTING HEIGHT HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS AIRPORT WAS ADOPTED APRIL 13, 1976. RWY 18-36 SOW a 100'• ZONED 6100'. OTU, NM; RWY 11-29 40D9' a 150'. ZONED 4100' OTU. W. USGS MAPS COPYRIGHT 2016 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. OBSTRl1CT10N DATA IDENTIFIED FROM MAPPING RECEIVED FROM TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRARSPCRTATON AND THE FAA OBSTACLE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE (OAS) FILE RELEASED MONTH DAY YEAR. AIRPORT EL = 789.5' HORIZONTAL SURFACE EL = 939.5 Obstruction Table No. Oajecl DHCrpt:aa Lalituoe i_ Lono,[�ae Acl of $ur(oce Rrm ('a�at�on ne„li�an•• n t laa b'w'3a# X vTfd+a# r F cr ,ar OaIX'J1 KOJaT AalaAA1111tA1 moY I rat Xrad.N.T3• N vrw'xAPY • ]!41' I.r tAAAaINNAI ACaA3t AETta _,_ moY 3 VT¢TA1g1 aadfl.# X vrw'T1.)r w 1DAr e'V T+A191OIK —T AQaAAUnGL moY • 1LQTAlIa1 aw.xilw•X vTw'ilar. 19ar -z 1wAXVTnWz 1pgW e Na�Alla1 aM31.er N vTw'3670• • "L2 lar 1wAXv,IOXAL IpwK • tool raps afda).w' X vTw'fzef' • 77ar taaY APIROMI oars+ ABbN19cAL moY 7 1601 qO aadN.Oe' M vTWN.Ir w 7Mo Iv.r AFFwaAa ao—r A1bWIRGLL moY _ 6 • F6a pan awtYef' N .—..w • 7Mr Iv.r m9flo OI I IE0. F ALIOMMIMYL may F . Np Fwn #fdaa3+• N vTw'faar • mr xar AFFw9Aa lepp,p) NwAw 1eGL moY VLaTABa #.tloa+r X •ratlfaM• w m.r as Imlt� n nAXw�1 Fw( 3WW—IT N 971WSaY . me 22 twNfvnauz ICI AEIwAWRX moY IS mA--mom AM _ 3P1r40K M eTWL7r ■ 6Mf 4w APVItoAo, RIWAW AOYI,WeGLL SnAv 13 1ta:'IAlgl SCfr4)Ai'N r ,,war. Mo- 11.r I11A19MMK moms —_Ipgl( 1• W.TA— #WM.M• N vTf1',av0 • elrv' ll 1N.wvlgr•4 .MOK ' 4 VrmAna a4tlsa.a• N I1TfI'taw• w eu•' ,FS 1wA1a9,10NA1 N KMTAIgI ai o3e3 vTft'YtW w —C zr ANSmfOr RIM a IOIOAT 1) Ma9oEY1m as" 4I'ozar N r .VAC e• w —I• ar 1wAramlAL IwwpT ATRaM111GL moY +e a@[OIm —T a4I'da Sr N v 111,r w e21r ,Lr AITwo.aol ADwOT ARaAN1vC moY + VtaTArla aw3r.:•• N •TaY+asl• w Tae• W twAAfvnaL.z _nr a I1oIVR WQ1Alla1 aadSl.er X vral Izer w ext tl xar II+N91giAL Ilium zf W2TA1N•1 aad3aw'N vl ai ltoYw eaf lr Twarlauz Room xx WQTATXN aadSe.3YN vrwu>YfT AI.d 110 1wNavnauz ILK x3 _10 aaI ona N vTw aSar vl — • 7l nl.wvtnul IOIaw 24 WMTAMr aai o3a M Tw'aex' • wn.Y it TIIAX9I+NNAL 11M a IOIv2 .t Atea 30 aI,2]t• N +} Tw'a1M• • wM.r , ev tNANvrNNu TwA a Idmt . VtQTIAIIa aat IIXY N vrw'aa.af• w Liar 3" nauL — a — St(rTAna+ aat'IAw N vratlfLW w e.'a.f' xad mM91XalAL — a — VL¢rAna. a.,•I>.xr X •rw'uxc w TSa ,xJ mAN5lnalAL TIM a Imd _ W¢TAll- aal]I.ae' N vT ,-w w Tar "-w II MaR 1b1 IIv11 OR IOIOtC WaTTAtg1 afI'u. ss• M vTw•faar w •Izr ar APvnaAf IIIY ar Idb2 3 WQTAg1 `_w N vTw'Sv.W r war wJ Arr+tafal iww a IOg1C >7 KMTANK afI'x4.ee' M .—.-er w emw IJ IPt'Xaaal — a — u VL9TTAtla afI'x4 xr N rw'Sv.w• w wLr 3r� AwRwol 7A1 a "D a _ >. .—TXw w war Z., AvnaAOl 1111111 a Isar _ ' --A—afI'n Ir M vTw'Sx.xl• W TF.+' +zr AwwoAa 7A1 a Ida.( 3F Tea r_ aaI'z3ef' N vTw'S1.eY W _w 1, • AraaaAd wl a IObK_— r .—A— a41-u.# N vrad3 r w emr _ w0 lavXafol 11w1 at Allow i WRTAIIa1 —M,r X vTw'.xfx• w n,.Y t! Arneafa 1M1 a IMIaL i VratAna. ]rfe'eL✓ N AwY•i' w molar y A/FwaAa /AI a Rowe •a -A_ MY,re4M' M 67,R9aO' w 80.7 Lr I A w"m IN a FBI61L • Q A— Ae. =1/aM W FM PWA RWSM% Ir Fa IWRRMW NN Mw BY I'eR RIaI1e16e OBSTRUCTION AREA - SAMPLED POINTS REPRESENT THE HIGHTES POINTS WITHIN THE VICINTIY OF OBJECTS. O OBSTRUCTION IDENTIFIER MAGNETIC DECLINATION V (DECEMBER 2018) 03' 56' E ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 0' OY W �10 1D00 2000 3000 .DDD \� ,•_20W TEXAS DEPARTMEVIATION DNIVIT OF TRANSPORTATION 41RPORT SPONSOR / ASION 1 / ALP APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC 150/5300-13A CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED ON �- PLUS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL TUBS ALP IS APPROVED AND SUPPORTED BY AwwNAi I RNDINC AND FAA NRA STUDY PR10R TO THE STINT OF AIRPORT SPONSOR r� ANY LAND ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. SPONSOR ACKNOWLEDGES APPROVAL I ALP BY TUNDI DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO COPYRIGHT 2016, TEXAS DEPARTWIENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING_ DRAFT / - \ eY 11\1rL laaa AlM/wl N� MR vimiiiit MR Imo" 1 tTaL AMI...M.Iselwe 1000 0 Ln8 40. 0, ARTLq f Sl/ ACE 900 800 COMPOSITE GROUND PROFILE OF HIGHEST TERRAIN ACROSS WIDTH OF THE DEPARTURE SURFACE 700 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 GENERAL NOTES 1. SAMPLED POINTS REPRESENT THE HIGHEST POINTS VATHIN THE VICINITY Or OBJECTS. 2. APPLY GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS SET FORTH IN FAA ORDERS 8260.46F, DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (DP) PROGRAM. AND 8760.3C, U. S. STANDARD FOR TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES 3. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY THE FAA. 4. ALL ELEVATIONS IN FEET. EXISTING/ULTIMATE RUNWAY 36 DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE Item Description TOP Penetration Remediotion Ele 1 TREES 852.2 58-7 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 2 TREES 830.6 35.6 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 3 UNSPECIFIED OBJ 820.6 10.2 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE ♦ TREES 820.9 2.1 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 5 TREES 828.8 1.6 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 6 TREES 819.9 5.3 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 7 TREES 817.0 22.6 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISH/UPOATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 1000 1000 TREES Beg inning 2 40D' from DER. 606' Left of CL. 1 up to 564' MSL 0a 7 6 a 3 900 900 tOS 1 EX RWY 18 END t0 105 107 ULT RWY DISP'O THRSHD EL 785.7(1101 S 106 _ 800 800 ULT MAY 18 END EL 785.0 ULT RWY 36 700 EX RWY 36 END 700 END EL 744.0 ULT RWY 36 DISP'D THRSHD EL 747.5 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS WAS DETERMINED USING MAPPING MADE AVAILABLE BY TXDOT. OBSTACLE HEIGHTS MAY BE DIFFERENT DUE TO THE AGE OF THE SURVEY AND ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES MAY EXIST. EXISTING/ULTIMATE RUNWAY 18 DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE Item Description Penetration Remediotion Elevotion 101 TREES 755.3 29.5 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTASUSR PDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 102 UNSPECIFIED OBJ 781.1 21.3 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 103 TREES 780.5 19.5 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 104 TREES 776.8 12.3 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE IDS TREES 779.2 14.7 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTARUSH/UPDAIE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 105 TREES 770.6 2.2 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 107 POLE 782.9 1.7 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 108 POLE 792.2 &0 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 109 POLE 794.0 8.2 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 110 POLE 794.9 7.6 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 111 POLE 790.7 1.9 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. a 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1000 900 800 COMPOSITE GROUND PROFILE OF HIGHEST TERRAIN ACROSS WIDTH OF THE DEPARTUR�LiaURFACE SURFACE 10000 11000 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION DIVISION AIRPORT SPONSOR ALP APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC 150/5300-13A CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED ON PLUS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL THIS ALP 15 APPROVED AND SUPPORTED BY FINDING AND FAA NRA STUDY PRIOR TO THE START OF AIRPORT SPONSOR Z�o ANY LAND ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. SPONSORNOVILEDGES APPROVAL OF ALP BY TXDOT DOE S�NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO COPYRIGHT 2016. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. MAGNETIC DEC-ARCN DRAFT (DECEMBER 2016) 03' 56' E ww nA1aw sacra Luna nm o.a ts.uAX° AIR ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 0' 07' W 1Iti .+m tAonore amn+.�s O IODO 2000 3000 PREPARED BY: 237 KAL Blue Parteay SuM 100 PT JUL)L=018 HORIZONTAL SCALE 1'.1000' Late SArmll W. 6LD63 P O"to" °' Associates emner 0 100 200 300 4835 E. C--- Roo" OP ALL 2D1B sArn a.� �t�. Ar. =5a rwAr�Oftm (602) 993-61,99. 1. (71%) VERTICAL SCALE I'.100' RWY 18-36 DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 5 w ... GEORGETOWN, TEXAS (KGTU) Alatlon Di - SHUT 2 OF 5 REVl510N5 BY CHH'D DATE 1200 1200 1000 fX/U °0 1000 1000 _ 1000 tr)8 n 36 aO�T 900 7 2 900 900 8 EX RWY 11 END NPREX RWY 29 END COMPOSITE GROUD OFLE OF EL 785.7 EL 758.7 HIGHEST TERRAIN ACROSS 11111)TH--_ _ 10 OF THE DEPARTURE SURFACE 900 800 800 800 10 800 EX RWY 11 END EL 785.7 COMPOSITE GROUND PROFILE OF 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 HIGHEST TERRAIN ACROSS WIDTH GENERAL NOTES 1. HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 - NAD83; VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1980 - NAVD88 2. SAMPLED POINTS REPRESENT THOSE CAUSING THE MOST ADVERSE CUMB GRADIENT, CUMB-TO ALTITUDE. AND/OR CEILING AND VISIBILITY. 3. APPLY GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS SET FORTH IN FAA ORDERS 8260.46F, DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (DP) PROGRAM, AND 8260.3C, U. S. STANDARD FOR TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES. 4. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY THE FAA. 5. ALL ELEVATIONS IN MSL FEET. EXISTING/ULTIMATE RUNWAY 29 DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE Item Description Top Penetration Remediation Elevation I TREES 813.8 21.7 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA. ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 2 TREES 825.4 27.7 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 3 TREES 811.9 13.3 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA. ESTABLISHAVPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 4 TREES 826.2 21.4 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/VPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 5 POLE 837.0 38.5 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 6 TREES 823.6 14.8 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 7 POLE 828.9 19.3 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 8 POLE 832.0 14.1 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISHAVPDATE 08STACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 9 POLE 827.4 5.0 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 10 TREES 830.4 3.5 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA. ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. OF THE DEPARTURE SURFACE SURFACE 700 700 0 1000 20DO 3" 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS WAS DETERMINED USING MAPPING MADE AVAILABLE BY TXDOT. OBSTACLE HEIGHTS MAY BE DIFFERENT DUE TO THE AGE OF THE SURVEY AND ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES MAY EXIST. EXISTING/ULTIMATE RUNWAY 11 DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE Item Description To ion Elevation Penetration 101 TREES 793.6 30.1 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 102 POLE 786.1 21.1 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 103 TREES 784.3 14.9 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABUSH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 104 POLE 937.9 28.5 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA: ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 105 POLE 814.7 2.4 ASSESS DEPARTURE AREA; ESTABLISH/UPDATE OBSTACLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION DIVISION AIRPORT SPONSOR ALP APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC 150/5300-13A CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED ON PLUS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL nNDNC AND FAA NRA STUDY PRIOR TO ME START OF THIS ALP 15 APPROVED AND SUPPORTED BY AIRPORT SPONSOR ANY LAND ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON AIRPORT Z�.epo PROPERTY SPONSOR ACKNOWLEDGES APPROVAL OF ALP BY TXDOT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO COPYRIGHT 2016. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. MAGNETIC DECLINATION DRAFT (DECEMBER 2016) 03' 56' E rules m�avt ommi mwa as fuutu4 aR ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE D' Or W nXA .war mays Atntrton.w 0 IDDO 2000 3000 PREPARED BY: 237 N.W. BW4 Pmino7 Sult4 100 HORIZONTAL SCALE 1'-1000' l«L^It Yo. 6406] ^«� �^«" "' AssociatesP PT JUL)L1018 spry 0 100 200 300 4e35 E. Cactus Rood &At4 2W Aiport Consultants Soett4 . Al. e5254 3lY 2018 a..1 to vs (602) 993-6999. Fo• (7196) VERTICAL SCALE I'-IW RW i i i - '9 DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT �a w L GEORGETOWN, TEXAS (KGTU) A1atIm DiMew SHEET 3 OF 5 REVISIONS BY CHF'D DATE A mom [Assembly r of Life of Godhurch X 'I Ag LAND USE LEGEND -- Property Exist!ngry Bounda Boun A,rBeld Operat was j� , ' u Fx�sling 65 DNL Contour ® HiA'^atghiAc Development Uwty 65 1 on Development 1 Ultimaee 65 DNL Contour Low Activity Low Existing Aviation Development Runway Visibility Zone Revenue Support Ultimate Aviation Non -Aviation Ru Runn wayy VisibildZone Revenue Support Sy Aviation Or alion Revenue Support GENERAL NOTES TXDOT RECORDS INDICATE AN EXISTING HEIGHT HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS AIRPORT WAS ADOPTED APRIL 13, 1976. RWY 16-36 S000- . 100', ZONED 6100'. OrU, NPI, RWY 11-29 4009' x 150'. ZONED 4100' OTU. NPI. HORIZONTAL DATUM NAD 63 STATE PLANE. TEXAS CENTRAL FPS 4203 SURVEY FEET; VERTICAL DATUM NAVD Da. DO NOT APPLY CORRECTION FACTOR, Page 429 of i All Chufch in the Rock _ Y `�.' - Sty +•� ar'� • . • % — � •-1 y t ' r t � r ;SIT. - �- Alk 65 65 65 65 u Grace Bible Church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 65 65 r 65 _ ' � . . 4 . fir►. AA r - . K4 r , • L ' Benold Middle School MAGNETIC DECLINATION (DECEMBER 2016) 03' 56' E ANNUAL RATE OF CNANGE 0' 07' W 0 200 400 am 120D I.-M. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION DIVISION AIRPORT SPONSOR ALP APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC 150/5300-13A CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED ON PLUS THE REOUIREMENTS Di A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING AND FAA NRA STUDY PRIOR TO THE START OF THIS ALP IS APPROVED AND SUPPORTED BY AIRPORT SPONSOR ANY LAND ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. SPONSOR ACKNOWLEDGES APPROVAL OF ALP BY TXDOT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO COPYRIGHT 2016. IXAS DEPARTMENT ^C TRANSPCPTAIDN FUNDING. DRAFT IHIW Tula• ol�clot AwW.r IIraI AAUP aaullAW art PREPARED BY: 237 N.W. Btu• P.U, x.r. Awal, rlra•Wr. IIWImu 'i'. 100 Mo. 640 L•i• S24- 16 p1 Mw`018 = (2 (616) 52A-3500. Fm� (25]5) 5 �'.- PI, —ix �• 035 E CxI- R-1 Associates �� DP JIILOA 201E S.I'• 235 Scoli.aa•. Ai. 6.52- A OMMkants (602) 993-6999, Fm (7196) IYWIY AIRPORT LAND USE DRAWING &EP GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT .0 r'Cr)Q(_CTntAIKI T�7'vA1Z lllrTII A•iationD1,10on TRACT 13 NO. SEARING DISTANCE L1 S61'3r6rW 3641' L2 N10'471BE 9447 L3 N66'3rSrE 35A1' L4 N10'"IWE 13071- L5 NO2"'WE 197W L6 N68'SZis"E 1103' l7 511.5635•E 295.59'NCANd. ,,, U8 N66'371rE 733r TRACT 13 NO. RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD CHORD 8EMNG C1 1340.00 HILL 08'300R t8681 N81'U9'39'W TRACT 14 -_--- No. RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD CHORDBEAMW Ct 93461- 3921' 02'2L r 39.20' SeT'1941•W TRACTS 16 and 17 No. RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD CHORE) BEARING CI 1,"TV swor 25.0611• SOW NOr rlrw C2 421100 68 W 0o-mr 3646 N OI'4319• W C3 1036.7E 785.37 40.571P 78877 S1r3P14'E C4 25 3892 91121rOr 35.81' 9ws2T'E ULTIMATE PROPERTY DATA TABLE TRACT ACRES TYPE a INTEREST ACOUNMO PURPOSE OF ACOUISRION REMARKS A 235. Fee AA,-Il AA 8 B 01 Fee AeraNll Uu The Georgetown airport property map was developed as defined by the Georgetown TRACT 15 - project Scope Version 2. The consultant has made every effort to reconcile the existing / +�.• l available property data from sources as provided by TxDOT which include mapping and TRACT 2 s7g 2r,rE 3m76s property boundaries, and the 2004 airport property map created by grw willis, inc. Additional property data incorporated is limited to several available deeds. Property data - laar,.,�\ was not available to accurately identify and describe all existing property boundaries. �\ ' N667D'S4•W NW217VE ap 11 �7LA 7 JJ L`I4Jl' TRACT m9. I 5 i9' 112r w 119. s 66'3P54• w / fii S6' sr1rW 21, I 7 -- TRACT 14 TRACT 11 PROPERTY LEGEND -_ 1 EwryPrapwry eware� - � UII-AI PMWII9..ldH r \ 7 TRACT 8 -TRACT 4 \ 1 \ TRACT 10 TRACT 12 ` \ 4 � TRACT 6 . - 1NNIN CTARWY 1636600f %100 TRUE11F/1RI14.116. -UL7 RWY fe-38Saw %low EXISTING PROPERTY DATA TABLE - VOLUME PA TYPE TRACT ACREAGE GRANTOR GRANTEE INSTRUMENT REMARKS RECORDED INTEREST (974Al2INUM6ER 1 485.88 J F. NAUSENFLl1CK. EI CITY OF GEORGETOWN 02A271 W2 VOLUME 312, PAGE 121 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED WA Large Aae4ge Pscrpe y AL 2 5.37 CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0W-1942 VOLUME 312. PAGE 304 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED WA W H NUNN 3• 994 BLANCHE PERRIRAZ CITY OF GEORGETOWN 12.1021,"a VOLUME 1732. PAGE J39 UNKNOWN - WA UneMe b Nd on may ESTATE 4 324 . WARD CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0202AW2 VOLUME 1965. PAGE $57 JUDGEMENT AIP 1J8.009304.91 5 14 M . HAV,NS CITY OF GEORGETOWN 09IN1WI VOLUME 2056. PAGE 194 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED AIP 3.4S OM04.91 6 328 . HAVINS CITY OF GCORGCTOWN D9.'I11199t VOLUME 2056, PAGE 194 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED AIP 3.48-0M.04.91 7 41 HAVINS CITY OF GCORGETOWN 09'1Y 1991 VOLUME m56. PAGE 190 UNKNOWN AIP 348.00B3-0491 NN0 Euct Rruiwary 6 293 . HAVINS PDD.EV CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0W1Y1991 VOLUME 2056. PAGE IW ROW AIP 3�480093-01.91 Nep F- &votary 9 11* GETOWN CITY OF GEORGETOWN 09'ISi198B VOLUME 1707. PAGE 287 ROW EASEMENT AIP 3�800934 -91 Owl 108 eves o1 wgna. eaument RP Renlln0er of - W rcn16817 10 019 ELZABCOCKE CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0W171INI VOLUME 2057. PAGE WO ROVE EASEMENT AIP 3.49.00 -04.91 largo Aneage O�reyarcy�Neee E- Boundary 11 1.64611 ELL I7ABE7 H COCKE CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0 IN1991 VOLUME 2067. PAGE $14 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED AIP 3�009304.91 Need Ea B-uM 12 346- FRANCIS P. RAVINS. CITY OF GEORGETOWN 1SM=1 2011072293 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED 0D14GRGTN Grams - mr 1 rgma ET AL 13 3.783 FRANCIS P. HAMNS, CITY OF GEORGETOWN 100257m11 2011072293 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED D914GRGM Grantor reyna mrHral,q- ET AL 14 3.984 JEFFREYD HOUSTON CITY OF GEORGETOWN 021 2014 2014025432 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED 1214GRGTN 8 LISA A. IgUSTON. OLISTO - MICHAEL WAYNE HOUSTON 8 SUE ELLEN HOUSTON 15 0,641 JF D.H CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0204I2014 2014025432 FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED 1214GRGTH 9 II OA A. HOUSTON.CH LWAYN HOUSTON 8 SUE ELLENHOUSTON OUSTON 16 2.M4 RAYMOND J AND CITY OF GEORGETOWN O90160014 UNKNOWN FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED 1214GRGTN GWYNN8 JOSEPH 17 1.- RAYMOND J AND CITY OF GEORGETOWN OW19F1014 UNKNOWN FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED 1214GRGTN GWYNN 8. JOSEPH Li \' 1-,\ TRACT 16 N 61'OI'31•E�� /! 31L1/-1 / r CZ 7 \ N 6EO1ro9' 13586' TRACT 9 Xfi 556.26'1rw ss 79' s 21-01ror w I'/-. 1260r -8 66.1 21 or 302'n71'W \ \ 232 36 \ • / I RL•2066]' ( J t e=oewor 2- \ C•2(16 fii 11 1 \-1rRACT 5 1 / u \% TRACT 13 r! } TRACT 1 I Z--"I� MAGNETK: DECLINATION (DECEMEER WI6) 03' S6' E ANNUAL RATE CF CHANGE III OrW 0 200 400 600 1200 I'c4p0 r TRACT 8 TRACT 5 r r � l , TRACT 7 \1 FROM ORW W111e. N1e ANWI F-aPA-Qr M0P drld Ono0r 20D4. W �� 6� {,tLf• 80 06 1 011 TO O WIND COVERAGE RUNWAY CROSSWIND COMPONENT RETICENT RUNWAY I8-36 16 KNOTS 99.82A RUNWAY 11-29 10.5 KNOTS 89.96% COMBINED COVERAGE 99.97% 000 �. \ } SURVEY MONUMENT COORDINATES ID PERMANENT IDENTIFIER LATITUDE LONGITUDE PI BM109J 30'104616- 97'40'49.69 52 AB6597 }0'40'53. 48- 97'41'07. 17' S3 BU0724 1 30'40'45. 53- 97-40.34 56' 6° �• / 0 O Oo°O ` X,67"7 ° O Ay •'••� • O °° O41 O\ o d 00. In • < - 0 102 E(11R 2 vRO� TION ZONE P�0 Do42♦ BSBati L 92 C)� Q. O ` Ex R FY 29 END �F r 2 1 W}W 7 48 • T- �1 1 1t4 ° 7 41AM1 Z 0 Z 79 _ EL 758.7 / % ; J. } 4.�61-65 I0 OBO � �- '21 / �]O4 2 } 200' e� p ULi RWY vpDT�ON ZONE / UL7 RWY PROTECTION ZONE J Q 27 375' 1] S00 DID' PARTIALLY OWNED a 4II�� �SS. 2 O O LLY ,,�1�jr��� :I-75q 31 v /�' n o - 23 n }I pOo �j � ✓ i v . )6 V V 250' o o 2B 91 I Y� � ` Q X RwY o cna+ 3dNE 0 OQ- O .��JO e d % WY 18 EO 30 O 19 2 , RS00' sM1° \ ''�000'.500'.O'E� \ j OO ., / ( _ T RWY IB DISP'D TI•RSHD RIOO- Rl v` /ART25.9 O TOZ/HIGH PONT EL 785.7 7 Ex AWDS / `"-,VQ �]3D I' E p o O (fl< e? SD' WY L O O a oO O ]6t i' yw tn>2.e 50' `T- `1�,I� It O I LILT RWY I END - q O \O:.f 0.. .Y O �UJ MICA\] L ]85.0 if x RWY 36 ND 0 • 250 300' E% PAR-1 TDZE X RWY36 • ULi RWY J6 O15P'D TNRSHD • 00 ° � _•. �.. THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE PENETRATION$ 7 5.5'� f 764.5 - J EL 747� 0 ° O`-' THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE PENETRATIONS ARE ESTIMATES BASED ON SURVEY RECEIVED FROG T.DOT. • O ARE ESTIMATES BASED ON SURVEY RECEIVED FROM T.DOT. EXISTING LINE 5 400.}800.I 0000 a Do 18-J6 100 -:RUE-BE NG IB}.5� UtrFRW1�IB-}6 6B8�-x'y00' 1 ci ULTIMATE LINE 6 800.3500.10000 5 O EXISTING LINE 5 100.3800.10000 LILT RWY 76 n 5 e ° O • \ l ULTIMATE LINE 6 800.3800.1°000 1 • 11 250' 50' TOZE 751 7' S0' Ex PA�i -i' • 9 U T RWY END v ` G LILT E%T VISION ...ice° UL A % N EL 7110 AND : ACEYENT -"_ ` AND DI C MEN ]71 titul 711,j' O \ O o OFF 0 C O V •� v 7 L9 O�� �- WELD AND$ ANO 9�°OO oO ° R O 1080' SEGMENTED CIRCLE X RWY PRoZ ON zoN-�l p O 25 I DDD' oV 0 ��//LJ/" j, a rr TI'- 0 0 4 O b o � IALLY. OWNED 0 4 �000 0o Q �• (�0�0 P TIALIY OWNED �]S O00 � Rom. {OYI 1-`Sxr1T\ IJ O 1 � �A .y.� Fo L- i12-i2i] � � i21 �2 O :13D-135 � i3Ni-i4i 0 \\\ RUNWAY END COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ewR.•EM 1 lP✓JnIG( <UVAnp1 E.- EI° OF PAT le JO'4t Yls 2� eT•0'•0 SO' 7D5 7' 1 11 C141 OF Rn 14 "411,111' 07•a'015" M. On G EID V s♦v b JO'•a1962' 97'•0ww' 7.7 T' nAR [IWl C! Rf7 b b'•01•so' ' EKTHG EI° Or A'If 11 30 10 - 11.1'a 2F 7W •' EKING CW a< R.v H 1 la'W'32 w e7'•o2e16' 7N17' AIRPORT DATA TABLE "IS ULTIMATE AIRPORT ELEVATION (MSL) 789.5 7895' AIRPORT NAVIGATION AIDS CPS CPS MEAN MAX TEMP (Hottest Mo IN T) 96.2 E (Aagvsl) 96.2 T (Ay9yst) AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC) 6-11 C-II TAXIWAY MARKING STD W/4REF STD W/4REF TAXIWAY LIGHTING NONE NONE 30'40'43.70 N . 30'40'4223' INAIRPORT REFERENCE POINT COORDINATES 97-40'45.80- W 1 97'40'45.1� W NOTES FAA SITE NUMBER - 2393-A NPIAS SERVCE LEVEL AND NUMBER - REC40NAL (R) STATE EQUIVALENT SERVICE ROLE - RELIEVER (RL) DATUM COORDINATE SYSTEMS - HORIZONTAL DATUM HAD 1103 State Plane Te.- ceIt1oI Zone. FIRS Zone 4203 (Feet). VERTICAL DATUM NAVDe8. 00 NOT APPLY CORRECTION FACTOR. EXISTING RUNWAY END ELEVATIONS. AND BEARINGS NOTED IN THIS ALP SUPPLIED BY FAA WEB DATA SHEET SYSTEM, 111P'//.ae0olaeneet.tao'go /. T KDOT RECORDS INDICATE AN EXISTING HEIGHT HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS AIRPORT WAS ADOPTED APRIL 13. 1976. RWY 18-36 5000' 100'. 20NE0 6100'. OTU, NPI; RWY 11-29 4009' . 150', ZONED 4100' OTU. NPI RPZ/TRAVERSEWAY ELEVATIONS ARE GROUND LEVEL MEAN SEA LEVEL (M$L)- NO KNOWN OFZ OBJECT PENETRATIONS CAUTION ZONE LIGHTS ARE PRESENT FOR RUNWAY 18-36, EXISTING DATA FROM A VERTICALLY-GIADED SURVEY MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF AC ISO/5300-16, 17. AND 18 WAS CONDUCTED AND VAUDATED BY BY THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) DECEMBER 5. 2012. SOURCE OF SURVEY MAPPING IS UNKNOWN FAA STUDY NUMBER ----- ASW----_ --- Q - FUTURE AERONAUTICAL ANO/OR ••`� ���� 14=� j�151-1 9 9 PhA^^ NQN(IE AUTICAL DEVELOPMENT `L O U fOo \ ^ 1QP O O \ \ 75' 0.� �O o j o, J� p O "Jny\J \167 D M / 0 47 RUNWAY DATA TABLE / o � b 25V RW 18-36 RW 11-29 i EXISTING ULTIMATE EXISTING ULTIMATE iE N�N �N 25O 1 CC GE /V),(1/�� RUNWAY ARC B-II C-11 B-I B_I TFNN EN a0 \% • � O - / / DESIGN AIRCRAFT k ARC Cessna CA.1- ChdI_gw 300/ Kmq A. 90 King Air 90 ,4/ O y\ ALD LEGEND FEANRE EXISTING ULTIMATE RUNWAY/TAXIWAY OUTLINE RUNWAY/TAXIWAY TO BE REMOVE BUILDINGS/T'ACIUTtES AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE - AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE +/FENCE - - - - rv>- FENCE LINE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL) -.• °- AIRPORT REFERENCE PONT e WIND CONE W SEGMENTED CIRCLE LF THRESHOLD LIGHTS M eM e e RW END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REILS) CBIG BEACON * {r VGSI o HOLD POSITION AND SIGN .... ...o ASOS/AW°S • le PACS AND SACS MARKERS GROUND CONTOURS SIGNIFICANT OBJECT LOCATION 0 TREES/BRUSH NCNOIPECTIONAL BEACON (NOB) IS 560KLS./ KMq A. 200 K.g Air 200 p l 0 BALANCED FIELD LENGTH 3S60'/5300' 4810/5300' S300' 5-100 0� ° ( E% RWY 11 //�� RUNWAY LENGTH k WIDTH 1L) 5004' X 100' 6000' % 100' 4099' X 75' 4099' X 7S E TOZ V U PAVEMENT DESIGN STRENGTH (1000 Ibs.) m'Ooo SW 30,000 SW 12.ODO SW 12.000 SW EL B TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION DIVISION AIRPORT SPONSOR RUNWAY LIGHTING MIRE MIRE MIRE MIRE b°a0 /\! PERCENT EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 0 8A 0.8% 0 7% 0.7% 1 AID APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC ISO/5300-13A CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPICTEDBYON O O O O PLUS ONE REQUIREMENTS Of A FAVORABLE THIS ALP IS APPROVED ANDSUPPORTED BV PERCENT N1ND COVERAGE 99.825 16 kts 99.82% 16 kts 89.965 105 41s 8996% 10.5 4ls O l\,` • "O, ENVIRONMENTAL fN01NG AND FAA NRA STUDY PRIOR TO AIRPORT SPONSOR MAXIMUM ELEVATION ABOVE MSL 785 7' 785.7' 789.5' 789 5' /7 O / O °NORM\ ,TurSL T�-� O v , ONTHE START IRPORTPROPERTYAND ACOUISITICN OR CONSTRUCTION ��5� ACKNOWLEDGES APPROVAL OF ALP BY RW SURFACE TYPE ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT J O \ O `� _ / t (�-Ll-."'-� Yl `Y „� n TxDOT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO RSA - LENGTH BEYOND RW END 300' 1000' 240' 240 Sf./'T _ COPYRIGHT 2017, lE%AS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. Y444� J DRAFT RSA - WIDTII ISO' 400 120 120' f0 O o 790. x7' 784.7' -f 1•� OFA - LENGTH BEYOND RW END 3D0' 1000' 240' 240 e y } o • �T ✓ / -V Z OiA WIDTH 500' 800' 400' 400' �' V s 793.2' •w •u1oK o•acru, Aru11al sm art •Xa as OFZ - LENGTH BEYOND RW END 2DO' 200' 200' 200' OFZ WIDTH 4DO' 400' 250' 250 , V �p •0 0 •. O 4AORETIC DECLINATION RUNWAY END 18 36 1B 36 11 29 II 29 d ° y0 (DECEMBER 2016) O O E% Rwr PROTECTION ZONE FAA AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO. PREPARED BY: APPROACH TYPE GPS LPV GP5 LPV GPS LPV CPS UPV GPS GPS GPS GPS O OD .250.450 03 56 E 237 N W Ow. Pon..' O 2016-ASW-4257-NRA ANHVAL RATE OF CHARGE S.ae 100 (n( P EIY TIALIY OWNED Pi DULY 2018 APPROACH NSIBIUTY MINIMA 1 MILE 1 MILE 1 MILE 1 MILE I MILE I MILE 1 MILE 1 MILE � v �� Q O 0' 07' W Leef Summit, 40 64063 pEy.Y[o4 wa THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE k SLOPE 14 20.1 d5 20.1 JS 20.1 d5 20:1 d4 20:1 J4 201 04 20:1 E4 20:1 ,Q (1 (6t6) 52a-3500. fe. (25]5) O Al ,Ci �T ` RUNWAY MARKING NPI NPI NPI R I NPI NPI NNPI NPI �Al C.I.- Pa- 011- Amciates C� V VW�I� .c•1 v 0 400 800 INN 2400 ��� 2xi Ins R°°a �7 � O4H� 4 JI1LY 2018 RUNWAY VISUAL AIDS PAPI-4 PAPI-4 PAR-4 PA➢I-4 PAPI-2 PAPI-2 PAPI-2 PAR-2 V 4�g`(S SeOlteEek. At. 8525E "�M`^• C�� a wa PER. REIL REIL REIL A• Y �� (602) 993-6999. Fo. (71%) • TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION 785. 7' 764.5' 785 7' 751.7' 789.5' 777 3' 789 5' 777.3' ` Q0♦p� ?W / I'.800' FAR PART 77 APPROACH CATEGORY C C C C C C C C o1 Q 1 r Ry `' AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING FAR PART 77 APPROACH SURFACE SLOPE 34 1 34'.1 34, 1 34' 1 34' 1 34:1 34 1 341 I p' qs �1 TARE -OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 5004' 5004' 5502' 5502' 4090' 4099' 4099' 40"' O � 4 N0. REVISIONS BY CHK'D DATE TAKE -OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TOGA) 5004' 5004' 5502' 1 5502' 4099' 1-9 4099' 4099' ,�W y O �� GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ACCELERATE STOP DISTANCE AVAIL. (ASDA) 5004' 5004' S502' S502' -19' 4099 4099' 4099' O .>< GEORGETOWN, TEXAS KGTU LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) 5004' S004' S004' S004' 4099' 4099' 4099' 4099' ) D �Y �` V _ \� W SHEET 1 OF 1 BUILDING TABLE BUILDING DESCRIPTION TOP - NUMBER EXISTING ULTIMATE ELEVATION I TERMINAL - 772.2' 2 ATCT - 845.0' 3 OFFICE - 7921' . STORAGE - 772.2' 5 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR TO BE REMOVED 779.0' 6 T-HANGAR TO BE REMOVED 775.8' 7 T-HANGAR TO BE REMOVED 774.0' 8 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 780.2 9 T-HANGAR - 772.7' 10 T-HANGAR - 773.8 11 T-HANGAR - 775.3' 12 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 778.0' 13 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 777.8 14 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 786 5' 15 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 784 7' 16 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 778.8 17 T-HANGAR - 7745 18 T-HANGAR - 7778' 19 T-HANGAR - 7778' 20 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 7789' 21 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 184.1' 22 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 787.1' 23 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 793.1' 24 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 765 2' 25 T-HANGAR - 791..' 26 T-HANGAR - 791.3' 27 T-HANGAR - 791.3' 28 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 7979' 29 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 8046' 30 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - BOB 6' 31 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 785.1' 32 T-HANGAR - wilODl. 33 T-HANGAR - voilaDl. un786 34 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 7' 35 E%ECU TIVE HANGAR - 7766' 36 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 777 2' 37 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 777 7' SB EXECUTIVE HANGAR - 779.8' 39 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - a il.Dl. un787.3' .0 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 41 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - -il.bi. 42 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - un-il.Dl. 43 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 779.2' .. 1 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - -A0bl. .5 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - -il.bi. .6 EXECUTIVE HANGAR - un voilPDle 48 LOCAL FIRE STATION 7989' BUILDING TABLE BUILDING DESCRIPTION TOP - NUMBER EXISTING ULTIMATE ELEVATION 795' 61 HANGAR 62 HANGAR 795' 795' 63 HANGAR 64 . HANGAR 795' 795' 795' 65 1 HANGAR 66 1 HANGAR 67•: HANGAR 795' 795' 795' 68 : 1 HANGAR 69 1 HANGAR 70 •: HANGAR HANGAR HANGAR - HANGAR HANGAR -•: HANGAR HANGAR - ,'x HANGAR 795' 71•: 796' 72•: 796' ]] 797' ]1•: 797' ]5 797' ]6� 791' ]] 791' 78 BOX HANGAR 791' 79 T-HANGARS 797' 80 T-HANGARS 797' 81 T-HANGARS 797' 82 WASH RACK 792' 83 T-HANGARS 793' 84 T-HANGARS 790' 85 T-HANGARS 790' 86 T-HANGARS 789' 87 T-HANGARS 708. 88 T-HANGARS 786' 89 T-HANGARS 784' 90 T-HANGARS 782' 91 BOX HANGAR 780' 92 BOX HANGAR 780' 93 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 793' 94 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 791' 95 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 790' 96 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 791' 97 POTENTIAL RESTAURANT SITE 2 777' 98 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 785' 99 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 785' 100 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 779' lot EXECUTIVE HANGAR 770' 102 MAINTENANCE 770' . ULTIMAIL ELEVATIONS An LSTIMATES. FINAL LLLVAIIMb WILL IR. ULTLRMINEO BY GRADING AND DRAINAGE. I Q � o 0 _ OAS '.� r3 •\ GEC C..+f ALD LEGEND FEATURE EXISTING ULTIMATE RVNWAY/TAXIWAY OUTLINE RVNWAY/TAXIWAY TO BE REMOVE BVILDINGS/FACIU TIES -- AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE — — AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE ./TENCE FENCE UNE --•--�� BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL) — AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT e WIND CONE @ SEGMENTED CIRCLE �R THRESHOLD LIGHTS • • . RW END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REILS) 4D C&G BEACON * T} VLSI HOLD POSITION AND SIGN ASOS/AWOS ■ a PACS AND SACS MARKERS • GROUND CONTOURS - SIGNIFICANT OBJECT LOCATION 0 TREES/BRUSH NCNDIRECTIONAL BEACON (NOS) V 1 o 0 •\ 90 fa/ \ 87 �a \ 86 A � 85 iI 79i ✓ D�5 ; 9' r .0� u Z� MAGNETIC DECLINATION (DECEMBER 2016) 03' 56' E ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 0' 07' W 0 200 400 800 1200 1•..00 p i ///////////// / • NMI t00 42 BRp)Hf� 140 a� 3 122' ALD LEGEND FEATURE EXISTING LA.TIMATE RJNWAY/TA%IWAY OUTLINE _---_ •: WAY/TA%IWAY TO BE REMOVE :-... LDINGS/FACIUTIES A1RPptT PROPERTY LINE AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE ./FENCEAR- E LINE .DING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL) — AIRPORT REFERENCE PANT WIND CONE @ SEGMENTED CIRCLE if THRESHOLD UGHTS • �� e e RW END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (RE1LS) • C&G BEACON * {r VGS1 r HOLD POSITION AND SIGN ASOS/AWDS W • PACS AND SACS MARKERS • GROUND CONTOURS - SIGNIFICANT OBJECT LOCATION 0 TREES/BRUSH NONDIRECTIpIµ BEACON (NDB) r� CEORLETOw1 IY TENNIS CEN 7ER ' I I 1 J f RELOCATED AWOS AND SEGMENTED CIRCLE `\ I� BUILDING TABLE BUILDING DESCRIPTION 70'. NUMBER EXISTING ULTIMATE ELEVATION 47 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR - 834.7' 101 - BOX HANGAR = 102 - BOX HANGAR - 103 - BOX HANGAR - 104 - BOX HANGAR - 105 - SOX HANGAR - 106 BO% HANGAR - 107 - BOX HANGAR 806, 108 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 815' 109 CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 811' 110 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 809' 111 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 812' 112 - BOX HANGAR 801' 113 - BOX HANGAR 800' 114 - BOX HANGAR 799' 115 BOX HANGAR 799' 116 BOX HANGAR 798' 117 BOX HANGAR 798' 118 BOX HANGAR 790' 119 BOX HANGAR 790' 120 BOX HANGAR 790' 121 - BOX HANGAR 799' 122 - BOX HANGAR 799' 123 - BOX HANGAR 799' 124 - BOX HANGAR 799' 125 BOX HANGAR 799' 126 - BOX HANGAR 799' 127 BOX HANGAR 799' 128 BOX HANGAR 799' 129 - BOX HANGAR 798' 130 - BOX HANGAR 801' 131 - BOX HANGAR 801' 132 - BOX HANGAR 8o1' 133 BOX HANGAR 801' 134 - BOX HANGAR 801' 135 BOX HANGAR 801' 136 - BOX HANGAR 803' 137 BOX HANGAR 803' ULIIMAIL LLLVAIIt.YiS AHL L IIMAILX IINµ LLLVAIIUN) WILL HL DETERMINED BY GRADING AND DRAINAGE. BUILDING TABLE BUILDING DESCRIPTION TOP - NUMBER EXISTING ULTIMATE rLEVAnoN 138 - BOx HANGAR 803' 139 - SOX HANGAR 803' 140 - BOX HANGAR 803' 141 - BOX HANGAR $02' I42 - BOX HANGAR 802' I43 - BOX HANGAR 801' 144 - BOX HANGAR 801' I45 - BOX HANGAR BOA' 146 - BOX HANGAR 804' I47 - BOX HANGAR 804' I48 - BOX HANGAR 804' 149 - BOX HANGAR 804' ISO - BOX HANGAR 804' "I - BO% HANGAR 805' 152 - BOXX HANGAR 805' 153 - BOX HANGAR 805' 154 - BOX HANGAR 805' 155 - BOX HANGAR 805' 156 - BOX HANGAR 804' 157 - BOX HANGAR 804' 150 - BOX HANGAR 803' 159 - BOX HANGAR 803' I690 - BOX HANGAR BOB' 161 - BOX HANGAR $08' 162 - BOX HANGAR 809' 163 - BOX HANGAR 809' 164 - BOX HANGAR 809' 165 - BOX HANGAR 810' 166 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 815' 167 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 817' 168 - SOXHANGAR 809' 169 - BOX HANGAR $09' 170 - BOX HANGAR 809' 171 - T-HANGARS 813' 172 - T-HANGARS 814' 173 - T-HANGARS 815' 174 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 809' 175 - CONVENTIONAL HANGAR 808' ULIIMAIL LLLVAIIUN) AIR L IIMAIL ; 11NAL LLL 11— 1MLL tlL DETERMINED BY GRADING AND DRAINAGE. MAGNETIC DECLINATION (DECEMBER 2016) 03' 56' E ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 0' 07' w 0 100 200 ADO 600 1'-200 Page 434 of 588 C1000pr off:� a Associates Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com KANSAS CITY (816) 524-3500 237 N.W. Blue Parkway Suite 100 Lee's Summit, MO 64063 PHOENIX (602) 993-6999 4835 E. Cactus Road Suite 235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Page 435 of 588 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion on the Austin Avenue Bridges Environmental Clearance Process and selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: The first phase of the Historic Resources Survey Report Process (Section 106 consultation) for the historic environmental reviewby TxDOT and the Texas Historical Commission has been completed. The initial Section 106 finding is that the following options do not appear to result in adverse effects. Option 1 - No build Option 2A- Build new bridge to the east and convert to 1-way pair Option 6A- Bridge rehab and add separate pedestrian bridge to the east The next steps are to choose a preferred alternative, develop the alternative details, complete the environmental technical documents and present findings for public input. Once developed, the preferred alternative will again be reviewed at 30% and 60% design phases by the Section 106 parties. Staff recommendation to GTAB and City Council will be to move forward with Option 6A. With this option, the existing bridges would be rehabilitated and a new separate pedestrian bridge would be constructed to the east of the existing bridge. As part of this process, we evaluated pedestrian bridges on both the east and west side. The east side was preferred as the impacts were less when considering: potential karst habitat, impacts to springs, amount of right of way needed, parkland impacts, archaeological resources, and historic properties (specifically the Blue Hole Park as it is eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing). GTAB Recommendation: GTAB will consider this item at their August 10, 2018 meeting. Staff will bring any recommendations from GTAB to City Council at the Workshop. Staff Recommendation: Staff is seeking direction on bringing back an item to the August 28th City Council meeting for recommendation on adoption of Option 6A - Bridge rehab and add separate pedestrian bridge to the east as the locally preferred alternative for the Austin Avenue Bridges evaluation process. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Selection of a preferred alternative will allow staff to program and develop funding scenarios for completion of the design and ultimate construction of the potential projects. SUBMITTED BY Edward G. Polasek, AICP ATTACHMENTS: AAB LPA Presentation Page 436 of 588 Austin Avenue Bridges Project August 14, 2018 Update Georgetown City Council Workshop Page 437 of 588 Agenda 1. Project Overview • TxDOT Section 106 Historic Evaluation • Determination of Alternatives with No Adverse Effects 2. City Recommendation of Preferred Alternative to move forward in Evaluation Process 3. Next Steps • Environmental Evaluation Moving Forward • CAMPO/Financial Determination Page 438 of 588 Existino Ai,ctin Avenue Facility • Constructed in 1940 • Four -lane undivided roadway (two lanes in each direction) • 11-foot travel lanes • No center turn lane • No shoulders or offsets to pedestrian elements • Four -foot sidewalk on either side • No designated bike lanes • Bridges are cantilevered suspended -span bridges Possible Imorovement The study will consider options to: • Improve safety and mobility • Address maintenance needs over the next several decades • Widen lanes to 12 feet • Add a center turn lane or median • Improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations EXISTING BRIDGE 53.5' OVERALL V RAILING V RAILING Page 439 of 588 January 2016 — Project Kickoff To conduct environmental study, public involvement, and 30% design and construction plans February 2016 — Meetings with Property Owners and Stakeholders Met with 26 property owners and stakeholders to introduce the project and collect initial input March 2016 — First Public Meeting To introduce the project and process, and collect feed back on needs, preferences, and process; 104 Attendees; 128 Surveys; 189 Additional Comments; 31 Mapped Comments June 2016 — Second Public Meeting and Walking Tour Workshop to collect input on safety and mobility considerations, and aesthetic and character elements; 58 Attendees; 15 Walking Tour Attendees; 51 Mapped Comments August 2016 — Meeting and Walking Tour with Consulting Parties Review of Section 106 and Environmental Process, and walking tour May 2017 — Third Public Meeting Presentation of preliminary and primary alternatives, updates on environmental and historical process; 61 Attendees; 147 comments December 2017 — Historic Resources Survey Report Consulting Parties Meeting Meeting to discuss recommendation of the non -archeological historic property survey report prior to official comment period; 21 Attendees Page 440 of 588 Team submits Historic Resources Survey Report (HRSR) to TOOT for review HRSR identifies properties constructed prior to 1975 within the APE and recommends whether they are National Late spring/early Register eligible, if that determination was not previously made. The HRSR also analyzes the impacts the primary summer 2017 alternatives may have on historically significant resources. TOOT reviews HRSR Summer 2017 TOOT conducts consulting party consultation regarding HRSR Summer/fall 2017 TxDOT coordinates with Texas Historical Commission for Section 106 Winter 2018 Clearance (Note: If "adverse effects" cannot be avoided, additional Section 4(f) compliance required.) Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires that projects with the least adverse effects move forward as preferred alternatives if they meet the Need and Purpose. rnrPcc Page 441 of 588 Section 106 Evaluation 1. TxDOT &Texas Historical Commission Determination of Alternatives that appear to result in no adverse affects: • Option 1— No Build • Option 2A—Build new bridge to the east for one-way pair • Option 6A — Bridge Rehab with new pedestrian bridge to the east. 2. In order to complete the Process the City must select a preferred alternative to move forward. Page 442 of 588 1. No build Does not meet criteria. Has no impacts, but must move forward for evaluation as required by NEPA and Section 106 *0/ 2A. Build on new location and conversion Meets most criteria (limited mobility improvements for NB traffic) to 1-way pair of bridges on east side Has some impacts to all resources 2B. Build on new location and conversion Meets most criteria (limited mobility improvements for SB traffic) to 1-way pair of bridges on west side More impacts to resources than east side (2A) 3A. Build a new bridge on offset alignment Meets all criteria on the east side 3+ acres of ROW needed and major impacts to historic properties and resources 3B. Build a new bridge on offset alignment Meets all criteria on west side 3+ acres of ROW needed and major impacts to historic properties and resources 4. Bypass on alternative alignment and leave bridges as a monument 5. Rehabilitate bridges only 6A. Rehabilitation with a new pedestrian bridge on east side 6B. Rehabilitation with a new pedestrian bridge on west side 7A. Rehabilitation and widen bridges on east side 7B. Rehabilitation and widen bridges on west side Does not meet criteria Major (most) impacts to resources and monuments are impractical Does not meet criteria Minimal impacts to resources Meets some criteria (no mobility improvements) Some ROW needed and some impacts to resources Meets some criteria (no mobility improvements) Some ROW needed and more impacts to resources than east side (6A) Meets all criteria Some ROW needed and some impacts to resources Meets all criteria Some ROW needed but more impacts to resources than east side (7A) 8. Full replacement Meets all criteria Some ROW needed, and impacts all resources, requires full 4(f) analysis IV/ X x x x x x V/ x Page 443 of 588 Selection of Preferred Alternative 1. Staff Recommendation Option 6A —Rehab with the east. is to move forward with � new pedestrian bridge to 2. 6A, with new construction to the east, is preferred as the impacts were less when considering: • potential karst habitat, • impacts to springs, • right of way needed, • archeological resources, • historic properties (specifically the Blue Hole Parkas it is eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing) and parkland. Page 444 of 588 Alternative 6A overview 1. $7-$10 million, cost dependent on pedestrian bridges &trail connections, roadway approaches and ADA accommodations. • Rehab cost approximately $3 million+. 2. Construction duration 16-18 months. Keep lanes open during day, nightly closure for bearing replacement. 3. Estimated Service Life with proper maintenance: 20-30 years for rehab, 75+ for pedestrian bridges. m Page 445 of 588 Environmental Evaluation Moving Forward 1. Geologic Assessment and formal Presence/Absence surveys being performed by TxDOT. 2. GTAB Recommendation from August 10tn 3. Selection of a Preferred alternative and completion of Assessment allow the environmental documentation to be completed. 4. TxDOT Evaluation will lead to determination of Environmental Assessment or Categorical Exclusion. • Environmental Assessment requires a Public Hearing • Categorical Exclusion does not require a Public Hearing, but we recommend a Public Meeting to share the latest information. Page 446 of 588 • Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) with TxDOT for Reconstruction of North and South Austin Avenue bridges is for $1,299,174 in Federal Participation in FY19. • Completing design of Selected alternative will allow City to meet schedule of August 2019 project clearance. • Alternative 6A can be split to Bridge Rehab (as described in AFA) and separate pedestrian project. • Must clear timing and schedule with TxDOT/CAMPO to maintain existing Federal Funds and allow application for future funding. Page 447 of 588 ho 1. Environmental Assessment/Categorical Exclusion determination. (Winter 2018ISpring 2019) 2. Budget Amendments for completing design that meets CAMPO/TxDOT deadlines. (Spring 2019) 3. Conduct Public Hearing/Meeting (TBD) 4. Address Comments and make revisions submit 30% Plan, Specification and Estimate (PS&E) for Section 106 review. (TBD) 5. CIP Budgeting for either: • Combined Rehab and Pedestrian Bridge Projects; or • Separate Rehab/Separate Pedestrian Bridge Page 448 of 588 Questions/Discussion/ Direction Page 449 of 588 Thank You! Edward G. Polasek, AICP Email: AustinAve@georgetown.or� Website: austinave @georgetown.or� Phone: (512) 930-2544 Page 450 of 588 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge -- Chris Foster, Resource Management and Integration Manger, Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities, and Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown has been selected as a finalist in the 2018 Mayor's Challenge. Throughout the summer, the City has executed a series of tests to refine a business plan for the 'virtual power plant". Elevator Pitch Georgetown Texas is 100% renewable using wind and solar power from 350-500 miles away. By 2021 the summer demand will outpace our supply which means we'll need additional power. Current contracts have fixed prices for the next 20-25 years, but we experience fluctuations in transmission costs due to the distance. The proposal is to install batteries and solar panels on homes in our city. We'd be producing power locally on residential rooftops. The vision is an electric grid that improves service, reduces the impact of outages, provides protection against emergency weather and national security events and keeps costs steady. This workshop will be a high-level review of the Mayor's Challenge process, the work done to date, and will seek direction and input from Council on next steps. FINANCIAL IMPACT: On the regular agenda, there is an item to seek City Council direction to submit an application for a possible grant in the amount of $1,000,000 or $5,000,000. Staff will return to City Council to accept the award in October. SUBMITTED BY: Jackson Daly ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Solar Installation Diagram Financial Model Project Schedule Page 451 of 588 Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge August 14 2018 no The Challenge The 2018 U.S. Mayors Challenge, sponsored by Bloomberg Philanthropies, is a nationwide competition that encourages city leaders to uncover bold, inventive ideas that confront the toughest problems cities face. V EST 1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS Background • Council approved application in late 2017 • Over 500 cities expressed interest • 320 applications • 35 finalists — $100, 000 — "Test & Learn" — Reapply in August for $1 M - $5M EST.1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS Virtual Power Plant Video Bloomber, Philanthri w LIF-%At:-L%JVVUI 11�:) oft Challenge Champion ayorscha I I enge. bloom berg.org sk City : 'r4, � i Local ideas. National impact. [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Partners • Opus One Solutions • Texas State University • Rhyme & Reason Design • Wang Architects • S Deatherage Law, PLLC • Fractal Business Analytics • McCord Engineering V EST 1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS Community Engagement • 10 Focus Groups total • About 700 total participants • First 7 Focus Groups • Existing groups and events i Ideas, perceptions and direction • Last 3 Focus Groups • Citizens selected for representation • Hypothesis Testing and Refinement [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Direction Seeking 1. Utility Staff (8) 2. Friends of the Library (20) 3. Red Poppy Festival (546) 4. Sun City Water Matters (9) 5. Legal Staff (2) 6. Chamber of Commerce (50) 7. Young Professionals (5) �` .. M' EST.1848 AG LOGLORGETOWN ' TEXAS Hypothesis Testing and Refinement 8. Citizen Survey Group (17) 9. Citizen Survey Group (16) 10. Citizen Survey Group (22) ` . ;,.,_, !�+ - " i [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS ,7 N Key Citizen Feedback ✓ Willing to host solar and batteries ✓ Trust City to perform work ✓ Prefer Utility Owned ✓ Prefer bill credit for lease payments for hosting ✓ Prefer battery outside and on side of house ❖ Want Utility to offer backup power as a paid service ❖ Prefer to swap backup power for hosting ❖ Order of introduction and wording of programs matters [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS �r t ty Sk' 1�• 1�• . WANG ARCHITECTS Architecture I Urban Design I Masterplannrng 0 l L OT - Side Attached Box with Screen Page 462 of 588 l 1_ i� '7 1 i MMMMOr ■ EST.1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS WANG ARCHITECTS Architecture I Urban Design I Masterplanrnng "WWWWIMMMI�M� 99 MAI SC - Side Attached Box with Screen Page 466 of 588 EST.1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS VPP Program: 1st Stage • Offer #1 — Homeowner receives free backup power — Home must host both battery and solar owned by Utility • Offer #2 — Homeowner receives backup power — Homeowner pays $20/month to Utility • Offer #3 — Homeowner receives free backup power - Home must host solar owned by the Utility [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS VPP Program: 2nd Stage (if required) • Offer #4 — Homeowner receives a monthly utility bill credit — Home must host battery owned by Utility • Offer #5 — Homeowner receives a monthly bill credit — Home must host solar owned by the Utility [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Rollout Schedule • Q4-2018 —Award notification — Council Review — PM position posted — Rollout team kicked off — RFP for potential assets launched • Q1-2019 — Customer recruitment begins — Easement work begins — Civil work begun [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Rollout Schedule Con't • Q2-2019 — Batteries and Solar installations occur — O&M team training done — Program repeats cycle of customer recruitment, civil and installation • Ever Quarter after — Review performance of assets • rinanuai • Operational — Report on customer feedback • .Conclude pilot in December of 2021 [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS WIN lip O EST.1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS —Ao. Challenge Participation • Value Gained So Far —Invaluable staff training — Offsetting peak utility growth with local solar financially viable, but likely to garner better returns on larger sites — Use the insights gained to inform future utility upgrades as technology changes (Distribution Automation) — There is a market for backup power as a paid service — Consider incorporation into new developments • Additional Requirements Coming — Undetermined Staff hours — Full time PM position — Definite Communications Team workload [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Costs/Benefits of $1 M Grant Costs • PM position beyond 3 years • FTE for communications • Unknown quantity of travel and speech time from Mayor and Executive Staff • Reporting/administration costs • About $3,000/year in O&M • Without more assets the overhead would always be more than the revenue stream [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Be nef its • Step up in level of our Innovation value • Media exposure • 7-9 Batteries and 10-13 Solar sites — Operational Revenues of about $50,000/year — Allows testing of market and system operations • Helps curb peak demand • Potentially replaces Distribution Automation • Potentially extends useful life of field assets Costs/Benefits of $5M Grant Costs Benefits • PM position beyond 3 years • Step up in level of our • FTE for communications Innovation Value • Unknown quantity of travel and • Media exposure speech time from Mayor and • About 60 Batteries and 90 Solar Executive Staff sites • Reporting/administration costs — Operational Revenues of about • About $22 000/ ear in O&M $350,000/year ' y — Allows testing of market and system operations • Helps curb peak demand • Potentially replaces Distribution Automation [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS • Potentially extends useful life of field assets Break Even Points on Capital Investment With fully loaded PM • $1 M plan never breaks even • $5M plan breaks even at 20 years [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Without PM • Both plans break even between 11 and 15 years Questions? EST.1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS Additional Information EST.1848 GLORGETOWN TEXAS FAQs • Who owns the panels and batteries? —Panels and battery owned by City • How is the contract structured for placing the batteries and panels? —Easement goes with property • Where does the power go? —Energy goes to community and is owned by utility (panels are on City's side of meter) [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS FAQs • Who maintains the roof? —Traditional roof maintenance and repair is responsibility of customer • Who maintains the panels? —Solar and battery maintenance and repair is responsibility of city • Are the panels and batteries insured? —City carries insurance for solar and batteries [ST. 1114£1 G EORGETOWN TEXAS FAQs • How is the roof insured? —Customer carries insurance for roof • What if I need to repair my roof? —City will remove panels if needed for customer repair and maintenance of roof, then reinstall panels I ST. 1848 G LORGETOWN TEXAS House Solar Panels ry - Vr, r I I I Bore C1rrv�- Residence 1 Bore Road � I F — —I—I I I I I I Residence I I 0 I � I I Q -------------- Residence Primary Line Secondary Line Inverter Secondary Line / ElTransformer _ OPedistal Residence 4 I Residence 5 ri71fi71fi: Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec - Month 18 18 18 19 19 19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 ward no -. X list PM _-. X FU InterInterJEEE X PM Hired X Kickoff Program team X RFP for Batt Assets X X Project Area Selection X Refine Solar Radiance Model in Project Area X X UMAX contracts created X X Recruit Customers to host Batteries X X X X X X Recruit Customers to host Solar X X X X X X McCord Task Order on Ci ■ Work for Batt Easement work completed X X X Civil work at residences X Batteries delivered/Connected X RFP for Solar partner X X Warehouse integration X X Solar Installations X Service team training X Sales Calls for Backup Pow er X Service calls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X House Solar Panels i Battery/inverter I ' Bore Drive Residence 1 Bore Road I I I Bor Residence 2 Jku Residence 3 Primary Line Secondary Line Inverter Secondary Line T-Transformer OPeclistal Residence 4 I Residence 5 Page 485 of 588 $1M plan Grant Funding Equipment Installation Project Manager Grant Funds Subtotal City Funds 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 (5170,800) (5160,800.00) (5180.600.00) ($67,515) ($67,515.00) ($67,560.00) (5100,000) (5100,000.001 (585.210.00) $338,315 5328.315 $333,370 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Installation Project Manager ($14,790) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Hostingpayments (82801 (5620) (51,080) (51,200) (51.200) (51,200) ($1.2001 (51.200) (51.200) (51,200) (51.200) ($1,200) (51,200) (51.200) (51,200) (51,200) (81,200) (51,200) (51.200) (.51,200) 0&M ($2881 ($288) ($1,296) ($1,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) (51,7281 (51,728) (51,728) (51,728) (51,728) ($1,728) (51,728) ($1,728) ($1,728) Operational Revenues $6,406 $24,723 $42,326 $52,970 $52;970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 $52,970 Subtotal 851838 523,815 525,160 550,042 550,042 550,042 550,042 550,042 550,042 550,042 550,042 S50:042 550,042 550;042 S50:042 550,042 1 550,042 I 550:042 1 550.042 1 550,042 Net Margin to City 1 $5,838 1 $23,815 1 $25,160 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50.042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 550,O42 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 $50,042 1 550,O42 1 $50,042 Total 3 yr Project term 1 $54,813 Total 20 years asset life 1 S905:526 $5M plan Grant Funding Equipment Installation Project Manager Grant Funds Subtotal Citv Funds 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 (51.065,000) (51,279.400.00) (51,004,000.00) ($450,025) ($553.415.00) ($347,400.00) ($100,000) ($100,000.00) ($100,000.00) $1,615,025 81,932,815 51,452,160 $0 $0 $760 Equipment Installation Project Manager 50 (5100,000) (5100,000) ($100,000) (5100,0001 (5100.000) (5100.000) (5100,000) (5100,000) (5100,000) (5100,000) (5100,000) (5100.000) (5100,000) (5100,000) (5100.000) ($100,000) (5100,000) Hosting payments ($1,020) ($6,440) ($9,420) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,3601 ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,3601 ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) ($9,360) 0&M (53,024) (59.9364 (513.824) (512.0961 (512.0961 (512.096) (512,096) (S12.0961 (512.096) (512.096) (512.0961 (812.096) (812.0961 (512,0961 (512.0961 (512,096) (512,096) ($12,096) ($12,096) ($12,096) Operational Revenues $28,698 $131,088 $268,962 $355,049 $355,049 $355,049 $355,049 $355,049 $355.049 $355,049 $355,049 $355,049 $355,049 5355,049 5355,049 5355.049 5355,049 5355,049 5355,049 5355,049 Subtotal 1 $24,654 1 $114,712 1 $245,718 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 Net Margin to City 1 $24,654 1 $114,712 1 $246,478 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 5233,593 1 $233,593 J $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,593 1 $233,5931 $233,593 1 $233,593 Total 3 yr Project term $385,844 Total 20 years asset life $4,356,923 Page 486 of 588 Proposed Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec - Month 18 18 18 19 19 19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 Award notification X Kickoff Program team X ■■ Project Area Selection X ■. UMAX contracts -" created X X Recruit Customers to host Solar X X X X X X X X X X X Easement work completed X X X X X X X ItA IMIM .----�■� Batteries delivered/Connected X X X X X X x x Warehouse Integration X X Service team iminin X X X X l_ [ X X X X X X X X X X x X x X X Page 487 of 588 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The Quarterly Financial Report to Council is attached. An executive summary is included to highlight variances with regards to the revenues and an overview of the investment portfolio as of June 30, 2018. The Financial Report shows a comparison of current year to date revenues compared to the prior year for the third quarter of the fiscal year on all major funds. The investment activity and strategies described in the investment report are in compliance with the City's Investment Policy and state law. This report meets the quarterly reporting requirements mandated by the Public Funds Investment Act. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY Paul Diaz, Budget Manager ATTACHMENTS: 3rd Quarter Report Q3 Entire Report Page 488 of 588 FY2018 Annual Budget GFORGETOWN 3rd Quarter Report .y Page 489 of 588 . FY2018 Annual Budget G EORG ETOW N General Fund Revenues • Overall general fund revenue up 7.0% relative to 3rI quarter of FY2017. • Sales Tax collections total $8.3 million, or 58.1% of budget. (more than Budget) • Property Tax collections up 5.6% compared to the same period last year. (On tairet) • Franchise fees up $578,000 or 18% compared to 3rdQuarter of FY2017 (more than budget) Page 490 of 588 FY2018 Annual Budget dIIIIIIIIIIIII G EORG ETOW N General Fund Expenditures • Overall general fund expenditures total $44.6 million, or 74.1% of budget. • Public Safety expenditures total $22.1 million, or 77.7% of the divisional budget. — The Fire Division continues to experience vacancies • Community Services (Parks and Rec., Library, and Communications) and Finance Division (Municipal Court) total $8.1 million or 70.1% of the divisional budget Page 491 of 588 FY2018 Annual Budget G EORG ETOW N General Fund Expenditures • The Georgetown Utility System Division (Environmental Services, Inspections, Public Works, and Streets) expenditures through the third quarter total $7.3 million or 65% of the divisional budget. — Seasonality of road repair. • Administration Services Division (Administrative Services, City Council, City Secretary, and Social Service Funding) expenditures for the third quarter total $1.8 million, which represents 68% of the divisional budget. Page 492 of 588 FY2018 Annual BudgetGEORGETOWN Utility Funds • Electric sales revenue through the third quarter of FY2018 totals $47.8 million, up 9.3% compared to the prior year's third quarter. The increase is due to growth in the customer base and the impact of the power cost adjustment. Total operating revenues are projected to end FY2018 at $74.4 million, $2.36 million more than budget. • Water revenue is up 13.3 % while wastewater revenue is up 4.7% compared to last year. The increases are due to growth in the system, consumption, and impact fees. Total operating revenues are projected to finish the year at $57.3 million. Page 493 of 588 FY2018 Annual BudgetGEORGETOWN CVB and Airport • Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue totals $1.0 million year-to-date, an increase of 13.2% from the prior year due to the Sheraton Hotel. • Airport revenue is up 1.1% from the prior year, and includes fuel sales and lease revenue. Page 494 of 588 FY2018 Annual Budget A=d EGEORGETOWN TEXAS Investment Reoort 12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 Total cash and investments $165,885,663 $173,516,846 $203,105,508 Ave rage Yi e I d Total cash and investments Ave rage Yi e I d Total cash and investments 1.30% 1.60% 1.83% GTEC 12/31/2017 $19, 053, 403 1.39% GEDCO 12/31/2017 $6,157,417 3/31/2018 $19, 387, 468 1.62% 3/31/2018 $6, 339, 643 6/30/2018 $20, 607, 520 1.90% 6/30/2018 $6, 651,120 Ave rage Yi e I d Page 495 of 588 1.23 % 1.49% 1.92% FY2018 Annual Budget dM G EORG ETOW N 0 0 0 Summary Strong revenues across the major funds. — General, Water, Electric, CVB, and Airport Expenses are tracking closely to budget. Investment are seeing higher interest rates relative to the beginning of the calendar year. Page 496 of 588 FY2018 Annual Budget Page 497 of 588 ECT 18i8 GEORGETOWN TEXAS Q3 2018 FINANCIAL REPORT AN D INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDED JUKE 30, 2018 Page 498 of 588 FINANCIAL REPOR TAND INVESTMENT REPORT For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2018 Tahle of Con tents ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................................1-4 GeneralFund Schedule................................................................................................................................. 5 ElectricFund Schedule.................................................................................................................................. 6 Water Services Fund Schedule...................................................................................................................... 7 Joint Services Fund Schedule......................................................................................................................... 8 Council Discretionary Fund Schedule............................................................................................................9 Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund Schedule............................................................................................. 10 ParamedicFund Schedule........................................................................................................................... 11 AirportFund Schedule................................................................................................................................. 12 Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation Fund Schedule .................................................... 13 Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Fund Schedule............................................................. 14 Quarterly Investment Report - City........................................................................................................15-29 Quarterly Investment Report - GTEC......................................................................................................30-35 Quarterly Investment Report - GEDCO...................................................................................................36-41 GrantApplications....................................................................................................................................... 42 Capital Improvement Projects................................................................................................................43-45 Long-term Commitments and Other Unfunded Liabilities.....................................................................46-48 Page 499 of 588 EST. 111411 Report G EORGETOWN FY2018 Quarterly TEXAS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED TUNE 30, 2018 1. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The "Budget Column" presented in the fund schedules reflect the budget as of June 30, 2018—the end of the quarter. Council approved a mid -year budget amendment on July 10th. Therefore, the budget column is not inclusive of the amendment, however, the projection column does account for the amendment and mirrors the information presented in the Council Budget Workshop and City Manager's Proposed Budget. GENERAL FUND REVENUES: General Fund revenues collected for the third quarter of fiscal year 2018 (FY2018) are 7.0% ahead of fiscal year 2017. The total revenue collected year to date (YTD) for the General Fund is $45.5 million. The sales tax collections through June totaled $8.3 million, or 58.1% of budget. Sales tax is two months in arrears. Sales tax revenues are on target to meet the year-end projection of $14.7 million. The growth in sales tax is driven by increases in our core sectors of retail trade, food, and information, which are positively impacted by population growth. Sales Tax $1,300,000 — $1, 200, 000 $1,100, 000 $1,000,000 — $900,000 y i $800,000 i $700,000 $600,000 > - Q O z o L Q Q cn 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Property tax revenues are typically received during the first two quarters of the fiscal year, with the majority of the taxes being received in December and January. The amount of revenue is based on the assessed value and is estimated using the County Assessor's data. Any deviations from estimates in this revenue stream are typically related to new Building Permits construction and delinquency payments. Property tax 160 revenue for the third quarter of FY2018 is up 5.6%, or $649,584 from the third quarter of FY2017. 1140 1 120 The City collects franchise fees for electric, natural gas, too cable, and non -cellular telephone services. Through the 80 third quarter, franchise fee revenues total $3.8 million in 60 2018, an increase of 6.7% from the third quarter of 2017. Franchise fees collections occur on a quarterly basis. 40 The City also collects a 3% franchise fee and a 7% return on investment (ROI) fee from City owned utilities. Through the third quarter of the fiscal year, the City has collected $5.7 million R01, an increase of 5.5% over this time last year. 20 — - — - 0- - - Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Environmental services revenues are up 20.7% from third quarter of FY2017. This increase is due to the growth in the customer base and the implementation of new rates. Development related revenue totals $1.96 million, or 77% of budget through the third quarter. The chart to the right illustrates the growth in building permits the City has seen in FY2018. Page 900 of 588 EST. 18" Report G EORGETOWN FY2018 Quarterly TEXAS Overall, General Fund primary revenues are strong in the third quarter of FY2018 and are higher than the prior year. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES: General Fund operating expenditures for the third quarter of fiscal year 2018 are at 74.1% of budget. Total salaries and benefit expenditures through the third quarter total $26.4 million or 77.3% of budget. Other operational costs total $18.2 million, or 70.0% of budget. Administration Services Division (Administrative Services, City Council, City Secretary, and Social Service Funding) expenditures for the third quarter total $1.8 million, which represents 68% of budget. Year-to-date expenditures for the Community Services (Parks and Rec., Library, and Communications) and Finance Division (Municipal Court) total $8.1 million or 70.1% of budget. The Georgetown Utility System Division (Environmental Services, Inspections, Public Works, and Streets) expenditures through the third quarter total $7.3 million or 65% of budget. Capital maintenance on streets is seasonal and will see more spending in 4t" quarter. Year-to-date expenditures for Public Safety total $22.1 million, which represents 77.7% of budget. The Fire Division continues to experience vacancies resulting in increased overtime costs. Overall, General Fund expenditures are within budget and the fund can cover the 90-day Contingency Reserve and the Economic Stability Reserve. UTII ITY F11Nr)S- Electric sales revenue through the third quarter of FY2018 totals $47.8 million, up 9.3% compared to the prior year's third quarter. The increase is due to growth in the customer base and the impact of the power cost adjustment. Total operating revenues are projected to end FY2018 at $74.4 million, $2.36 million more than budget. Water revenue is up 13.3% while wastewater revenue is up 4.7% compared to last year. The increases are due to growth in the system and impact fees. Total operating revenues are projected to finish the year at $57.3 million. OTHER MAJOR FUNDS: Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue is $1.0 million year-to-date, an increase of 13.2% from the prior year due to the Sheraton Hotel. Airport revenue is up 1.1%from the prior year, and includes fuel sales and lease revenue. 11. INVESTMENTS The investment activity and strategies described in this report comply with the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA), the City's investment policy, and generally accepted accounting principles. Activity for the third quarter of fiscal year 2018 includes the deposit of bond proceeds, the maturing of financial institution deposits (CDs) and transfers to new CDs. Recent maturities are held in consolidated cash in preparation for August municipal debt payments. We purchased a CD with new banking institutions to increase diversity. The new bank we are investing with is BTH Bank. Interest rates for money market accounts and CD's have continued to increase due to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) increasing the rate by .25% in June 2018. The City will continue soliciting the best rates to improve both diversity and yield, while keeping in mind safety and liquidity. The Investment Reports for the quarter ended June 30, 2018, and the supporting schedules are attached. Valley View Consulting, L.L.C., has prepared the attached investment reports. A component of our investment advisory services contract includes Valley View preparing the quarterly investment reports on behalf of the City. A summary of the investment balances at June 30, 2018, compared to the prior quarter, is shown below for the City, as well as Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (G EDCO). Page -?I)1 of 588 EST. 18" �. G EORGE TOE CITY GTEC GEDCO 3/31/18 6/30/18 3/31/18 6/30/18 3/31/18 6/30/18 Total cash and investments $173,516,846 $203,105,508 $19,387,468 $20,607,520 $6,339,643 $6,651,120 Average Yield 1.60% 1.83% 1.62% 1.90% 1.49% 1.92% The City's strategy continues to be matching maturities with cash flow needs, while focusing on the investment policy's long-range goals. The City's investment strategy is to "ladder' or stagger maturities, thus minimizing erratic interest rate fluctuations. As interest rates have risen, the City is also managing yield on bond proceeds for arbitrage purposes. City portfolio balances have increased in the last few years in direct correlation to the increase in contingency reserves and debt proceeds issued for future capital improvement projects. The City's investment portfolio includes bank deposits, local government investment pool balances, money market accounts, and financial institution deposits (CD's). All of these investments carry insurance or an implied backing from the Federal Government. The collateral on all City investments are monitored monthly to ensure the financial institutions carry minimum collateral of 102% of market value of the City's investments. Currently, the City does not own any securities due to the market conditions for these types of investments, however, we have a safekeeping relationship with BBVA for future investment possibilities. Once the City begins purchasing securities, the investment officers will obtain from a reliable source the current credit rating for each held investment that has a PFIA-required minimum rating. All securities held by financial institutions as collateral on behalf of the City have been reviewed and met PFIA-minimum rating criteria. The City has worked closely with the City's depository bank to find an average daily balance that is best to receive the highest yield on the account. These balances earn credit against the fees charged by the bank versus earning interest on these balances. The City has looked at various options to maximize our best yield versus investment and the decision to change the depository collateral from securities to a letter of credit has increased our Earnings Credit Rate to .45 (plus 10 basis points). The excess earning allowance over fees has continued to increase over the last several months. The City will continue to verify depository yield versus investment yield to achieve the best outcome. The City's investment program is conducted to accomplish the objectives of safety, liquidity, public trust, and yield. Each aspect is considered when making decisions regarding investments. 111. CAPITAL PROJECTS The projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consist of infrastructure and related construction and do not include small capital items such as furniture, equipment, and vehicle maintenance. Maintenance -type projects are not capitalized as a fixed asset and are usually cash funded. Therefore, these projects are operational in nature and are in the departmental operating budget. Ayear-to-date budget status for each of the approved projects is included in the quarterly report. PARKS Son Gabriel Pork Improvements: Phase one of San Gabriel Park is complete. A contract with Prime Construction was approved by City Council on May 22, 2018 for the construction of phase two. Construction is expected to be completed by June 2019. Items included are entry monuments, roadway and parking improvements, four medium Page #02 of 588 EST.18411 Report G EORGETOWN FY2018 Quarterly TEXAS size picnic and barbecue pavilions, a large multi -use pavilion, 10 small picnic pavilions, trails and trail heads, two children's play areas, restoration of two existing springs, one new small restroom building, lighting for two existing volleyball courts, one lighted basketball court, directional and interpretive signage, open spaces and landscaping. In addition, the trail extension from San Gabriel Park to the park at Katy Crossing will also be constructed. TRANSPORTATION Rivery Extension is a $4.5 million project from the 2015 Road Bond. Construction is underway with crews working on potholing existing utilities and installing new utilities while also excavating and prepping subgrade. Airport Road is a fiscal year 2017 GTEC project. Patin Construction is working on processing base material while placing concrete for the headwalls and footings for the cox culverts and making drainage improvements. DOWNTOWN& COMMUNITYSERI/ICES Downtown West: The City of Georgetown broke ground in November 2017 to start the renovation of two City buildings that will be part of a civic campus for City government offices. The new civic campus will include a City Hall and Council Chamber and Municipal Court Building as well as the existing Georgetown Public Library that opened in 2007, the Historic Light and Water Works office building, and a public parking lot on Eighth Street. The $13 million project is funded by proceeds from the sale of City buildings, municipal bonds, and fee revenues. Construction should be complete by the end of the year. Structural steel is complete and interior framing is under way. ELECTRIC New development continues to exceed expectations in the third quarter with additional residential, multifamily, and business projects in progress. Projects under construction include Holt Caterpillar, Ewald Kubota, Hillwood Section 2, Downtown West, Carroll at Rivery Ranch, Mansions II, and Woodsprings Hotel. WATER The Berry Creek Interceptor design is 90% complete and the easement acquisition is in progress. Berry Creek Interceptor phase 4, 5, and 6 will be approximately 15,000 linear feet of 36-inch wastewater from the existing lift station at Sun City to the Berry Creek lift station. Construction is estimated to start in November 2018. The Stonehedge and Westinghouse lift station project bid went to the Board and Council in November 2016. Construction started in January 2017 and was completed in May 2018. The Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion will take the existing plant from 1.5 million gallons to 3 million gallons of treatment capacity. The Pecan Branch wastewater treatment plant construction started in July 2017 and is scheduled for completion in July 2019. The Shell Road and CR 255 water main designs are complete and easement acquisitions are in progress. This project will be approximately 44,500 LF of 30—inch waterline from Daniels Mountain Water storage tank to Braun Water storage tank. Construction is estimated to start in December 2018. Page h3 of 588 General Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE YEAR-END APRROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 12,233,596 12,405,718 Revenue Administrative Charges 2,087,555 172,287 1,558,958 2,087,555 All Other Revenue 4,056,192 943,397 3,420,916 4,187,026 Development and Permit Fees 2,553,500 311,701 1,967,116 3,102,150 Franchise Fees 5,203,863 303,922 3,794,947 5,300,544 Garey Park 225,000 15,732 16,232 225,000 Parks and Rec Fees 2,339,220 355,801 1,710,762 2,437,500 Property Tax 13,674,500 99,954 12,223,146 13,400,000 ROI 8,417,635 804,739 5,678,880 8,473,681 Sales Tax 14,026,000 1,181,988 8,308,355 14,743,750 Sanitation Revenue 8,974,500 738,963 6,520,958 8,873,500 Transfer In 472,200 68,750 253,450 472,200 Revenue Total 62,030,165 4,997,234 45,453,721 63,302,906 Expense Administrative Services 1,560,089 161,814 1,177,597 1,557,444 Animal Services 875,831 88,249 654,604 828,681 Arts & Culture 80,900 2,200 23,465 80,931 City Council 175,087 12,527 136,191 173,230 City Secretary 916,463 62,934 490,913 727,349 Code Enforcement 415,749 36,122 278,189 390,366 Communications 400,137 43,253 294,484 389,324 Environmental Services 7,623,412 649,469 5,132,192 7,715,241 Fire Emergency Services 10,789,592 1,115,797 8,025,130 10,956,430 Fire Support Services 2,648,858 269,935 2,060,914 2,680,268 Garey Park 621,557 83,853 232,131 517,820 General Gov't Contracts 3,253,786 278,820 3,145,346 3,742,660 Inspections 1,231,441 128,137 869,157 1,160,914 Library 2,554,935 277,237 1,994,695 2,525,656 Municipal Court 632,929 62,024 462,146 614,394 Parks 2,578,108 253,879 1,947,433 2,580,317 Parks Admin 607,229 64,666 462,586 609,666 Planning 1,709,954 158,460 1,186,495 1,534,488 Police Admin 2,234,502 203,563 1,709,384 2,220,396 Police Operations 11,511,871 1,420,798 9,392,007 12,043,704 Public Works 1,241,845 52,167 877,605 1,138,228 Rec Programs 1,338,038 170,282 697,317 1,318,687 Recreation 2,527,496 296,385 1,890,826 2,491,467 Streets 4,657,416 333,701 2,539,833 4,535,851 Tennis Center 435,014 41,409 278,577 427,705 Transfer Out 1,739,523 3,739 1,728,304 1,928,103 Expense Total 64,361,761 6,271,421 47,687,521 64,889,320 EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (2,331,596) (1,274,187) (2,233,801) (1,586,414) AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 9,902,000 10,819,304 Page 504 of 588 Electric Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE APPROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) YEAR-END PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 12,824,257 6,758,275 Operating Revenue Electric Revenue Interest Other Revenue 67,595,139 48,318 4,469,955 7,103,307 11,225 876,683 47,797,527 45,093 3,713,457 69,416,907 47,632 5,017,865 Operating Revenue Total 72,113,412 7,991,215 51,556,076 74,482,405 Operating Expenditures CRR Credits Georgetown Utility Systems Purchased Power Transfer Out-Interfund Transfers Transfer Out-ROI (2,000,000) 17,915,971 44,000,000 92,600 5,493,707 (287,875) 1,345,801 6,519,847 - 479,754 (6,101,990) 13,455,616 43,436,398 92,600 3,636,758 (7,000,000) 18,433,826 52,000,000 92,600 5,235,000 Operating Expenditures Total 65,502,278 8,057,527 54,519,382 68,761,426 Total Net Operations 6,611,134 (66,312) (2,963,306) 5,720,979 Non -Operating Revenue Bond Proceeds Transfers in 6,537,000 90,981 6,727,776 90,981 6,537,000 540,981 Non -Operating Revenue Total 6,627,981 - 6,818,757 7,077,981 Non -Operating Expenditures CIP Interest Expense Debt Issuance Cost Debt Service 9,880,487 1,697,769 15,000 2,539,258 548,866 - - 3,835,459 665,850 190,776 1,547 6,508,565 1,259,116 15,000 2,959,731 Non -Operating Expenditures Total 14,132,514 548,866 4,693,631 10,742,412 Total Net Non -Operations (7,504,533) (548,866) 2,125,125 (3,664,431) EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (893,399) (615,178) (838,181) 2,056,548 ENDING FUND BALANCE 11,930,858 8,814,823 Contingency Rate Stabilization 5,125,000 5,500,000 5,125,000 - AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 1,305,858 3,689,823 Page h5 of 588 Water Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE APPROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) YEAR-END PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 67,881,131 74,958,153 Operating Revenue Capital Recovery Fee 6,672,500 2,520,510 12,400,492 12,416,521 Interest 192,385 131,794 915,880 794,596 Irrigation Utility Revenue 225,000 51,259 207,050 214,891 Other Revenue 2,176,250 392,593 3,860,160 3,851,044 Raw Water Revenue 178,500 13,171 92,618 141,089 Transfer In, Debt 116,613 - - 116,613 Wastewater Utility Revenue 10,850,000 940,528 8,192,589 11,007,305 Water Utility Revenue 27,748,195 3,164,153 20,203,229 28,756,997 Operating Revenue Total 48,159,443 7,214,008 45,872,018 57,299,056 Operating Expenditures Irrigation 204,300 13,707 92,607 205,000 Transfer Out, Fleet/Joint Service 62,000 - 62,000 62,000 Transfer Out, General 425,000 68,750 206,250 425,000 Transfer Out, ROI 2,686,505 303,701 1,882,225 2,993,788 Transfer Out, Utilities 90,981 - 90,981 540,981 Wastewater Distribution 613,000 28,079 477,121 592,810 Wastewater Plant Management 2,437,025 184,377 1,901,718 2,412,396 Water Administration 18,602,018 1,864,315 14,015,733 18,313,695 Water Distribution 2,723,300 221,571 1,608,278 2,194,442 Water Operations 3,769,545 430,012 2,952,275 3,682,263 Water Plant Management 2,548,726 206,343 1,720,612 2,319,630 Operating Expenditures Total 34,162,400 3,320,855 25,009,801 33,742,005 Total Net Operations 13,997,043 3,893,153 20,862,217 23,557,051 Non -Operating Revenue Bond Proceeds Non -Operating Revenue Total Non -Operating Expenditures OF 90 65,085,236 1,149,695 9,819,726 65,495,658 CIP 91 5,178 - - 5,178 Debt Service 5,344,535 1,415,884 5,344,535 Non -Operating Expenditures Total 70,434,949 1,149,695 11,235,610 70,845,371 Total Net Non -Operations (70,434,949) (1,149,695) (11,235,610) (70,845,371) EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (56,437,906) 2,743,458 9,626,608 (47,288,319) ENDING FUND BALANCE 11,443,225 27,669,833 Contingency 6,000,000 6,000,000 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 5,443,225 21,669,833 Page 5Z06 of 588 Joint Services Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE YEAR-END APRROVEDBUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 302,565 711,548 Revenue Gedco Admin/Contract Fee 221,328 18,444 165,996 221,328 Gtec Admin/Contract Fee 166,882 13,907 125,163 166,882 Interest 10,000 2,567 14,497 15,000 Other 26,774 53,513 322,474 257,469 ServiceFees- Airport 131,785 10,982 98,838 131,785 ServiceFees- Conservation 100,350 8,363 75,267 - Service Fees - Electric 4,233,598 352,800 3,175,200 4,233,598 ServiceFees - General 3,345,567 278,797 2,509,173 3,345,567 Service Fees-Stormwater 938,969 78,247 704,223 938,969 Service Fees - Water 7,248,183 604,015 5,436,135 7,248,183 Transferin 5,000 - - 80,000 VPIDAdmin/Contract Fee 8,966 747 6,723 8,966 Revenue Total 16,437,402 1,422,382 12,633,689 16,647,747 Accounting 947,423 101,015 707,425 944,432 City Wide Hr 415,400 42,995 185,263 283,765 Conservation 982,774 68,962 438,992 718,059 Customer Care 4,054,593 349,392 3,071,839 4,015,638 Economic Development 596,092 53,906 427,223 576,201 Engineering 2,143,112 196,908 1,356,022 1,926,432 Engineering Support 1,069,289 94,912 706,887 1,002,015 Finance Administration 1,115,967 78,243 864,808 1,116,361 Gus Administration 1,469,912 138,820 1,047,554 1,457,786 Human Resources 949,739 103,234 674,430 905,323 In -House Legal 913,277 98,390 733,541 1,007,640 Insurance & Legal 705,000 2,216 620,384 775,000 Joint Svcs Con 569,000 61,436 642,144 985,825 Purchasing 740,589 66,373 480,855 734,602 Transfer Out 67,800 - 67,800 67,800 Expense Total 16,739,967 1,456,802 12,025,166 16,516,879 EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (302,565) (34,420) 608,523 130,868 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 0 842,416 Page 507 of 588 Council Discretionary Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 APRROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD YEAR TO DATE (W/ENCUMB) YEAR-END PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE Revenue 300,473 285,808 Interest Transfer In, General Fund 2,000 1,000,000 1,744 - 10,679 1,000,000 9,000 1,188,580 Revenue Total 1,002,000 1,744 1,010,679 1,197,580 Expense Transfer Out, GCP Transfer Out, General Fund Transfer Out, Joint Services - - - 100,000 75,000 75,000 Expense Total - - - 250,000 EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,002,000 1,744 1,010,679 947,580 ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,302,473 1,233,388 9 Page 508 of 588 Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE YEAR-END APRROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 690,201 839,544 Revenue Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax Revenues 1,200,000 126,809 1,008,999 1,325,000 Interest 1,500 1,515 8,171 7,000 Other 12,000 813 14,573 18,515 Poppy Festival 109,400 540 128,714 135,451 Revenue Total 1,322,900 129,676 1,160,457 1,485,966 Operations 551,381 26,675 342,054 549,739 Personnel 361,237 38,502 272,213 357,176 Poppy Festival 136,200 3,715 124,039 136,200 Transfer to Facilities 49,565 4,130 37,170 49,565 Transfer to Fleet 5,090 424 3,816 5,090 Transfer to General Fund 10,200 - 10,200 10,200 Transfer to Information Technology 24,806 2,067 18,603 24,806 Expense Total 1,138,479 75,513 808,094 1,132,776 EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 184,421 54,163 352,362 353,190 ENDING FUND BALANCE 874,622 1,192,734 Contingency 187,147 187,147 Reserved for Capital 687,474 687,474 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE - 318,112 10 Page 509 of 588 Paramedic Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE YEAR-END APRROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (501,205) (656,180) Revenue TASPP Revenue 128,000 - - 128,000 EMS Revenue 2,617,762 223,922 1,846,232 2,486,307 Franchise Fees 20,000 - 4,000 20,000 Transfer In 44,870 3,739 33,651 44,870 Revenue Total 2,810,632 227,661 1,883,883 2,679,177 O&M 636,212 55,227 487,615 590,395 Personnel 1,788,522 249,637 1,659,013 1,788,522 Expense Total 2,424,734 304,864 2,146,628 2,378,917 EXCESS (DEFICIANCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 385,898 (77,203) (262,745) 300,260 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE (115,307) (355,920) 11 Page 510 of 588 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE Operating Revenue Fuel and Terminal Sales Interest and Other Leases and Rentals Revenue Total Airport Operations Fund Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2018 YEAR TO DATE APPROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) YEAR-END PROJECTION 436,734 436,734 T 2,794,919 198,514 1,871,574 2,596,789 65,600 2,280 35,716 83,139 Debt Service 125,850 - 18,142 Operations -Fuel 2,296,250 129,117 2,200,637 Operations -Non Fuel 667,504 34,933 463,920 Personnel 375,920 41,296 274,334 351,814 Transfers Out 53,500 - 53,500 53,500 Operating Expenditures Total 3,519,024 205,347 3,010,533 3,256,789 TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 223,979 63,879 (481,489) 267,136 Non -Operating Revenue Bond Proceeds 150,000 - 145,000 150,000 Other Revenue 41,810 45,701 45,701 Grants 35,000 - 20,341 42,578 Non -Operating Revenue Total 185,000 41,810 211,042 238,279 Non -Operating Expenditures Airport Ramp 15,000 - - 15,000 Edge Lighting 150,000 - - 150,000 Hangar Upgrades 33,000 1,375 18,258 33,583 Pavement Upgrades 40,000 - 1,175 21,175 Runway Rehab 16,500 - - 16,500 Wildfire Management 25,500 2,700 12,900 13,500 Other Expense - - 257 200,887 Non -Operating Expenditure Total 280,000 4,075 32,589 450,644 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 128,979 101,614 (303,037) 54,770 ENDING FUND BALANCE 565,713 491,504 RESERVES Contingency 213,158 213,158 Reserves Total 213,158 213,158 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 352,555 278.346 12 Page 511 of 588 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE Operating Revenue Sales Tax PI D Assessments Interest Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 APPROVED BUDGET 22,051,111 6,575,000 553,201 127,000 CURRENT PERIOD 540,357 27.298 YEAR TO DATE (W/ENCUMB) YEAR-END PROJECTION 18,241,681 - 773,E V 1 217,060 242,000 10perating Revenue Total 7,255,201 567,655 4,062,992 7,570,201 Operating Expenditure Administrative Support 364,814 30,276 272,484 364,114 Operating Expenditure Total 364,814 30,276 272,484 364,114 TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 6,890,387 537,379 3,790,508 7,206,087 Non -Operating Revenue Other Grant Revenue - - 11,222 11,222 Non -Operating Revenue Total 11,222 11,222 Non -Operating Expenditure Pecan Center Dr to Airport Rd (FY15) 5,390,290 276,818 2,900,709 2,500,000 Rivery TIA Improvements 1,016,790 4,995 633,908 1,016,790 FM 971 / Fontana 66,431 21,173 - 66,431 Rivery-Extension Williams Dr to NW Blvd (FY16) 767,678 11,750 29,527 767,678 IH 35 / HWY29 Intersection 650,000 - 43,347 650,000 NB Frontage 2338 to Lakeway - 2,004 - - SW Bypass 2243 to IH35 333,962 - 205,464 205,410 FM1460 Widening 501,260 294 100,000 Wolf Ranch Pkwy Extension 283,350 - - Mays St 3,252,729 251,036 1,000,000 Tamiro Improvements 410,000 - - Available for Projects TBD 1,643,750 - SE Inner Loop Widening (Rock Ride ROW) Debt Service Non -Operating Expenditure Total - 3,330,135 17,646,375 - 316,740 - 601,515 4,665,800 900,000 3,330,885 10,537,194 TOTAL NET NON -OPERATIONS (17,646,375) (316,740) (4,654,578) (10,525,972) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (10,755,988) 220,639 (864,070) (3,319,885) ENDING FUND BALANCE 11,295,123 14,921,796 RESERVES Contingency 1,643,750 1,643,750 Reserved Bond Proceeds 4,150,000 1,650,000 Reserves Total 5,793,750 3,293,750 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE Page �42 of 588 Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Fund Year -End Projection to Approved: Jun FY2018 YEAR TO DATE YEAR-END APPROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD (W/ENCUMB) PROJECTION BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 5,902,863 6,051,152 OPERATING REVENUES Interest 25,400 10,256 68,798 68,800 Lease Revenue (Grape Creek) 24,000 - 36,000 36,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 61,100 - 60,991 61,000 Sales Tax 1,643,750 135,089 961,483 1,693,750 Sale of Property - - OPERATING REVENUES Total 1,754,250 145,345 1,127,272 1,859,550 OPERATING EXPENDITURES Debt Service 212,569 43,784 212,569 Interest Expense 26,128 - - 26,128 Joint Services Allocation 221,328 18,444 165,996 221,328 Miscellaneous Expense 11,108 - 10,991 11,040 Principal Reduction 90,485 - - 90,485 Promotional & Marketing Program 81,000 3,000 78,301 81,000 Special Services 57,500 - 42,500 57,500 Supplies 300 - - Travel & Training 1,500 500 OPERATING EXPENDITURES Total 701,918 21,444 341,572 700,550 TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 1,052,332 123,901 785,700 1,159,000 _ Catalyst DisperSol Economic Development Projects -Undetermined Texas Life Sciences NON -OPERATING EXPENDITURES Total 36,000 60,000 6,308,518 139,740 6,544,258 - 18,839 40,000 - 139,740 198,579 18,839 40,000 150,000 139,740 348,579 TOTAL NET NON -OPERATIONS (6,544,258) - (198,579) (348,579) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (5,491,926) 123,901 587,121 810,421 ENDING FUND BALANCE 410,938 6,861,573 RESERVES Contingency RESERVES Total 410,938 410,938 423,438 423,438 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE - 6,438,135 14 Page 513 of 588 r- w 1-11 nJ ■ � / � m � A � � � � Page / 4 0 588 n m m m N (D 7 o0 Fnt m 0 0 °-' m j 3 CD 7 a m { n 3 s. O m 0 4 3 X m o d m CD c O O m W m O O aCL Q (D (D `D 5. Q- ,vmi 5n 0 CD .0 �_ co N (n _� m m 2-_ m _-I FLE O n C C7 GQ N n � m cn 0 CO 00 Oo ,< O N 0o W co m \ c 00CD y_ o 0 3 (n N 7 CD CL D 0 y CD O CD N m 0 su F 4 i -I 0) cn W _a 0 W — CO CO A- tll N CD co - �k(n--IA C O co W W m 0A0 0 CD cn W C N A m N A m fA d -I M (n W i 77 CD W 00 00 A CA Ln v A C i 0) O i co W W 0D co O (n W C Amm m W co A (D N A -< X N p Off, i i N p CD O v 7.(Q -n co 00 m W (WD '--0 ---0 0 8 pOj e w cn m Cyf w CD CD m X' CD C. W co l O O CD W N N (gyp -0 O N O N i W W O W N 00 (p - O O CD CD m cn (n N 0 p..vl -+ Cn A i V m OO NAO�iw00 CA cn _���m m m O D (ncn"Ncn O CD A (n N i i A C CD Q Q Q 0 C CD 00 N En Go O1 fA 40 CD N D) OCY) (D W P O W N >t cn cn Cn O OD a) cn m 4 � 0) A " v :� A ' O. O (D CO W 00 N N N O N C CD A cn m 00 -4 00 " = N A A CO) C C e� CI so m 7 a CD 0 C y ✓cr C y rr � rr S w W CD i ,A N C O C- CD Page N 5 of 588 O SN O N N W W A A 0 N o ( O m O 0 O 0 O Up O 0 4� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s A o� J O 20'; O N N W W O O O O O O O 0 's v s S 1 1 ` 1 i • s 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 Ul 0 0 � c 1 o Cry cnCD N O 1 2 It 9 O 1 Q O ty � Ci � I I C W 0 cm Q N Q J O N LT J O Iv (T O fJ cn o cn o cn o cn o cn o cn o cr O@c' 7 O�c7 Oec, Oe Q� A O�7 S Oec' s ch cn O CD C O. G 0 y' N S CD MC (pT(p N N. 7 O o m � ? o W o T O CD Q m 0 f to O 3 a-N0 n W °°Q3 a C 3 o„ o Ul n3,n � c n a N W @ O O 0 (Npp. o• o a 0 3 fD N N G7 _n W CD W FLm K c \ 3• O -n C W D O_ Efl � � N W cn O W CD O 10 C n W. CD 7 a O_ C 7 57 p 7 m 0 J N N O U7 CD CD O. o N O O O f0 o-�3m ? o CD 0 C CD f0 N . CD Q 9 T (a CD < N m_ M (n a Q O) CD j (D G CL N 3 O W m=r 3 m (D C N rtm,.o 3 _a CD (O 7 UD N o 3 fD Q C O. 3 O. W (D N W D (n m O M f0 0. O N j7 C 3 0 CD CD N Q O' N O W ! 07D n N N W aCD sCD x CD < a CD m CD Vl N C OQ 7 @ ErO7 O_ R N (D N W CD � Q W 0 O m 0' O CD CD Q" Gf N 00 Page M6 of 588 Z; M 7 7 N 0 N a n a 0 ^N. 0 _ N o L N fo d CD CL CD < ,25CD CD m no m a CD 0 a O 5 m 5 = o _ N CD c :� N (D CD . o CD 0. Q M < _ (D x m D) C13 n CD O 'G C UD. CL N O O N N � CL y. 0 m CD CD C d 3 0 m c C N = fD yQ 0 0 N m CD D] N CL _ m_ N n U3 m O N IM _ 0_ 3 m m CL <. 0 0 N D] m _ 0 40 N O W O cn O 00 e N N -{ c w M CL C- c O O N O W O C c) CD to 7 O N N N CO CL CD Q- al cn _ � Cn CD CL n � a)� CD CD .N-. M� Z .-h x CD M Z W co c)v cov .�. CD X-4.) CO CO CO CO OO OOp117 � n Co0000 O O O 77, C� 0 O O --i --IzQC-0 X X X CD w O O 0 D O = W(93 77, Y X 3 O X, S D D rn Ci N N S w N N N N N N -- N N-- "" N N C N"(nG.)"NCACn6OCn W W CDN mIm C, O Cn N N O M O O �I v O O O v Cn W �1 CD CC 0 0 0 -.-0 0 0 -.-0 -0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.-0 0 0 Ci O O O O O O O O O O �� 0 0 0 0 0 0 C OD O) W A? W W N N N W W -I -4 -4 v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O 1 0 0 0 N" 0 0 1 0" 0 \ \ \ \ O O O O C W W CD s Cn W CD M W s \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CDwwCOmwmCOwwCoOD00C)D00 CID CID oDCID a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - � 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N N 0 A N W Cn N N N- N M \ \ \ \ \ 0) a) O) 0) Cr. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N N N O O N N O- O N O W W W W G: \ \ \ O O O O C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ oDWWWWM-4-4Wwv-4-4M-1 wCID CDMa W W W M U1 Cn - M O -4 W W� W m CCD CDO W N O O Cn O O O in 0 0 O O O (D 0) aD O O Na N O W m N W W M O W A CA Cn A Cn O a N N O CD O CD A N O Cn A W" O N - A O N M" O A O CD N N W" CO CO CA -1 N CD A CO Cr co J O O 00 -i A W OD W Cn CA O ' CD Co Cn O Ul N -I 0 0 Cn -1 V A W -Al. N Cn -I O Cn A O s"" th W W W Cn Cn Cn - O� W W A M Cn coo O O W N _CA O O Cn O O O Cn s 0 0 0" 0 0 0 O C O O O j N N O' W 00 N W W O O W A W m A Cn O M N N O w M W A N O Cn A W" O N " A O N" O O A O w N N W N 00 OO m -,l N O A 0o Cn OVD CO Ln s"" 4 O O COn v W N Ln -4 O Cn ? O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -�J � w W W W Cn CT M G M 0 -1 W W A W Cn CD O O W N O O CJf O O O Cn O O O - 0 0 0 M CO O O -I N N O� W O NW W M O W A O Cn A Cn 00 CO N N O CD W Wp. N O Cn A W- O N A O N- CD - O A O CD s N N W N CO CO CA --J N Co A Co Cn W O O OD s A W CO W Cn M O " CD CD Cn O Cn N 4000n�1-1A W ANCn-IOCnA O"""A Z11 O Cu c CD 1 r: Cn CD -n T C7 0) CD c O CD c 7 CZ W W W N N N N N N N- -� I D r CD W W W -4CJf A W W� w A N N -� pl -4 m M -4 cn N Am O m -4 m IM CD N N N N N p :'71 N N E- ma' s �� N N O l.< N� Cn W ' N 0 in O O Cn 0 O 6 N co Cb - O co O Cn N N O Cn O O -1 -1 O O O -1 Cn W- -1 CD CD �-��������0�0�� �p�Z�a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L C CD W O N O 00 z Page N7 of 588 ClCCDD - 0 O # of Days Cn O O 0 m sv CL W D c IID o>> W r x CD CD:3 0 CD 0 W m 'cCD r O pr X Q 4, =3 Z O p cn 1� cn O l Cfl N CD (7 1 3 N CD � Z X Cp (A 7 0-1d c W x 0) NO N N O CA o i 0 7 N N 3 0 N o 0 O S to OD " " " <! f2 fA fA N N N CT �I O N Cn —I O N Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn O Cr O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD O X X 0 67 O °1 o D CD CD a) O O to E; CD v O w l T O 0 W n CD cn Page M 8 of 588 n O mmCor mr Fx*Or wwmww NC �c = Q mac' 3 O v w. m Q c c a c c r G G CO n G `� j� = �W77aa(D n m ti w (n CD CD � 'c ai CD CL ;pqCo n" a) as CD CD a CD CD Co C7 Co m ? p N � v Co Co CO Co Co N N p o' 0) w CO XmX, v o) 77Lopl 0 n n� � 77 00 Copan n pppC7C7 0 p p 77 0 p 4A .i V W cn 00 Gam) :fl V W in co a) EA W -PA N O W O 0 in O 00 m m m - 0 x x x 0 �CD o m = ° =. 0) �> > o D DCD C� v N N O N' CJl W N 0 M O O U9 O O CO N N OO OD O W O m N N O cn O O -1 -1 O O O -1 Ul N W -1 (D (D 0 0 1.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 OD C) 0�? W W N_ N_ N_ s �_ �_ 0 00 0 -I V V V V 0 0 0 — 0 0 O N— 0 0 " O" 0 0 00000 W " W (o ` ' m " W CD 0 W . . \ ` . s 0 (O (O 0 w CD 0 CO CO CD CO 00 OO 00 00 OO co 0 OD OD 00 0 �I _O _CT _W _(Jl _W _O _OD _-p� _W _W O O _CTi _CJ7 _� _C7 _W _W O O (n O O O O O O O O C n (D O 00 0 0 O 0 — (D 0 0 Ul CD '� A W A O 0 A 0 0 CO O pop O O N sp N Un N ,4 (n W O_ V' N O O O 0 m' O A W 00 N CD (n W I I j� O (j LI) 00 A A O COn O O COD E N COO OOo Cn 000 -N4h. s nO C O MO C O 7 7 3 0 .fit d CD = CD d (D W O O _W _W _ul_m_"_m_m -4_W_W_A_O_CT_W _Ul_W_O_OD_p� C) C) OO (n OOOOOOOOUI O O O 0" (D O O Cn CO "' � (A) CDOOD O 0? C C) 0 (O O 00 O O O N" 0" V N 0 N V Ut W C1 O_ -I ' N O O O W Oo " O� W 00 N_ (D Ul W C I I j-4 O j A? N A E O U01 0 0 C00 A N COD 000 0 000 -69 D W � W Ul O Cl S s O" N N N W W... N O � S1 W CA O (D O) 9D Ul N O Ul " N 0 0 0 0 (D U) (n " (D W N -I (O ' N W m 0 a) cn W -N CD y W M O CCn CO N W 0 A N M N OOD Ln A (WO I U) n cn d � W N WNW-ON � a W (n OD a) �1 V N C 0 Oo m (D 00 C CY) `G CZ { .n 0 (D _ _ - (D _W _W _W (n C n _Un _C) _0 :1 W W A _0 CJl CVO _O O W _N -CO-4 D C) CD Ul C) CD CD Cn 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 OD O C)-1 C 3 W A 0 N N O CO 0 OD N O CTl A W" O N Ul -N Cn OD 00 O N" 0) F O 0 0 A C) CO " N N W N 00 OD 0 -I N 0 A OD Ul (D O 00 �1 O O 00 — t W OD CO Ul 0 O' (o I Co Ut C) Ul N O -1 C) C) 0 V --AW� N 0 V O M A O... 4S, CZ 4W W O O W W W CT U i Cn -+ 0 0 ,I W W _) Cn _CVO O _O W N O O Cn O O O Cn O O O 0 0 O N N O' W OD N W W 0 0 W4�- 0 0 00 O O V Cn 4�- Ul OD OD C N N 0 0 0 OD E N O Cn A W— O N '-N O N" �► 0"0-N0CD"N N W NOo000-4 N 00INODU9 C Oo V CDCD 00 "� W 00 W M 0 O " (o I Co Cn O Cn N CD 4 O O m v v� W4s. N Cn —1 O (n -Ph. O""" A ic fy C) S W N O co W O O O 7 a CD m C m n O 3 W N O 7 Page �q9 of 588 0 N N� c N N a CD G '� c o o N o N N lZp '� G G CA C) G `G CD 0< C) N (A (I) 07 Z�x m C-) Er °�' Zm m nm >r� a W co C) W WDcco a) w vom co C)=>j�c�W QW W�c D>xux m n n n D c OD OTC- n a000 x vv v 0 v v O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 00 Q Q A A W W N N LJ \ z 00 0 0� 0 0 0 N j 0 0 O O � (CID)� W� O ...• � Cn T W O Of W s (D (D (D O O (D (D fD fD (D (D DO 00 OD w V W W W W Cn Cn O� 0 0 V W W A O) Cn O O Ln O_ O O in 0 0 0 8 0 0 C) 0w 0 0- N N O O OWI OWo A N O O A W W O N CD > N O 00C 0) O A O (0 N N w Na 00 00 0) V Na OD A 00 L 00 J O O 00 A W N w L)7 0) o to (D Cn O Cn N V C) C) UI V V A W A N Ln J O Cn A O i W W W (n (n (n — O O W W A 0) Ln w o V w n O O Ln O O o Ln �_ O O 1 0 0 0 8 w 0 0- N N O O OWI OWO A N O A W O N V A Cn N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O O A O W t N NJ N W 00 W J CD CD 0) OD L 00 J CD C)00 � A W n GilO (I Ln V O C)Cn W A W AOD LCT J O Cn A(D O)(D J0) Ln NJ N O _O A CO OD 7 (D N K N O w Dl 0 O 7 w O a 0) m N a vN 0pr o CO N O a i ou Ln O W A Ln W Ln N N 0) Ln N w m CF) 00 0 N 00 0) 0) m;u (D N n (D O �• C A n (D N C O_ d A C 52� CD G W 7 (CD O (D Q Cn (D G m(D C Cn O m v Q L n 7 C O D_ N O o � 00 O Page ��O of 588 m 0 CD mmwr-m'wwm0 O v Q- v c c ��zC- X X X vOCCi CD 07 co C c NCCCC W O : 7 N• 7 0 N y C N (fpD N G< G .- Rr cn a w 7C O. m CL Q M 7 7C N N Q- C) Z CD CD a CD n m 0 ,. w W, W y 7< p'7 C (D m m p o' d W W (� o' >> 7 7 N v 7 7C 7c x n D y y , N C)0 0 Cl) DfD 00 07 vv v-0 0 M vvov 0 v vv n 0 v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �_ 0 0 DO O) O) A A W W t) N N > OD OD O O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 > W > W > (O > >_ C` > W (O 0I W > CO fD CO (O f0 fD f0 (O (O CO f0 O O 00 00 A X W N co N co V A ON) 49 <i9 b9 I En En 69 49 N 9 N .� Q �1 N N S CA CD N N HfO O re rn N O N � O m 0 m O .D C N C O IN N W n O N o O w N C G) 0 O CI D N G'I O N O J M N m G � 7 N CD CM W 0 .'0 N Page �� I of 588 n Oo mm0 -m- Orlwwmw ��zG�� lu 20 -d- W N.� o =r= �� W o o W N ((DD j N QIcn W CO CO N a D° O »�z X (D n� zID m U co '�� a000c)°:m°1 »ern xa) co oo ��n o� m y o- m w 00 W 0 oa,a) 01 0)�� 3 x M :3CO ni C7 x n n n m vv 00v"� n oovvov v pr vv v x � o v O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-� o 0 OO O O A .A Cn W N N Q\ — Qo Q7 O O O � 0 0 0 N� O O j O j 0 � W s W� (O �� (ll � W 0 O W� (O (D (O (O (D (O CO fD (O (O (O OD 00 00 OD MAN 0 O V 1 O N N 00 W CA W A O (O V 1 O O W A N V A O N (4O I W N (O N O) A I O A i Lj CD (07 (VO O O W I W (T m ()7 V O N O O V I O Ut W o� 00 - b) A CM CD I O it O 000 IQ CD W N I W O O X ar' Q 01 CD m c m N 0 O p� W C Q O N C O N OI O CD 7 C fD 0 07 'm W � O V 7 it x N n 0. CO)+ o y i o q 'o O 6 C! N O cu y OF G) O (p N a y m � O fn � C— n fD � w D o N O 0 CDs CO O m a Page �h of 588 mm W rmrgx*Orlw nmw-I-Iz0C- .O. CC=Q�m m m ((P vrc Mc U)X x (B IN W O (� (D 7 m' m o w vSi. C N '� O 0 7 0 fA cCo = a '�' cn W Inc a a m a D O CO N � ri) (n M w n w z m M a (o co W c) °: W w „O„ 7c m CO 00 COW 7C (") w w p o w y W W C� o' >> w� 3 7'c7'c 7'cnWi > > p� 7c7c�7c DEN vv Im n WOOOO Dn W v� x =r v v 69 10 O En W O O fR N O W N W O 00 cn 5n N GI w IIen mio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0>> 0 0 00 m W A A W W �7 N N> > OG O O O O O O O N 0 0 8 0> O > W > W > (O > > fr > W 8O W --� (O (O (O (O t9 f0 (O (O (O c0 t0 00 OD OD W V > O O O (D W N (O CT O �1 N W A CT7 O CJ N 01 O w c>, 0 N O A A O O W v O (77 N O A O_ A (r, A 00 m W 69 69 w 69 o L. n O O � O � O W � O _ CL N O 3 CO o pr m :3 m c CD OM �% O m CD E �' .�. 0 y O N M O w w p n 0 N O O co H n 0 N O i�l Page �13 of 588 CD CD 0 0 CD CD O MCCMC (� CD CL W Ol U C C C C X X X CD fA G G G 'C CD 0 y N N T. � 00 [D = w w w CD CD ci " CD z CD CD N CD CD .Z1 x 07 d N= m m W W W co () WMd0 W Wes==�°>> ��� 0 _ max; X77 > 9 (n' X x N 0 0 n n D CD 0007ro n 00000 0 o� W n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o Cb m A W W N N N> > Oo OD m O O O OO > O NCJ1 > � 0 W 0 m OW > ...•> O O > W > > CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO fD m m m m m 69 A > W W W m Cn > m m V W W A m to W fn W O OD A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 0 0 0 00I N W O O W COO � A W A> O O0i A O O CD O m O O o N> O> V N 1 N V m W O O O M W O A W m N_ W M W A A O Ul >-4 0 0 CO A N O CO OD CT OD A A 69 W W CT CT > m m W W A m CT W A W V OD A 0 0 0 0 Cn o o O CDO_ 0 0 (JT oD �_ o o 0 0 0 CD 0) CO CT W > A W N O m A m m CO O OD O O N m> V N to N O Un W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > O V> N O O m OD O A W A M CT Cn W CT CO m N m 0 CO O W N O OD A O W m AAOCT> V O COANO(fl00 CnCTODAA w 69 69 to O O D) a 3 » CD rt C 01 C CD 7 N y CD CD M 0 O N n O 7 N O LZ 01 CD ID a 0 mM CD N CD O C7 CD N C O_ lu A m M 52� M G W 7 CD 10 Q N CD m C rn O M MCD cr Page ��4 of 588 -I mmmr3;U*0(r-mwmww-I-Iz0C- M ((1)) cn ca to CO N fD 01 & (D Q C C N C C x x X C G< D 7 (/1 7 O 3 C S O CO 0 0 Ul `G j 7C O y y. C y N D 0 7 CO co M N�!. 0 lD 7c . W W ca W W C-) 6=1 G71 OW) Co W d n 0 7 7 d 7 7 N 7C x 7C y 01 > 7 x 7< x X cn : 0 voo7C� 0 C 00000 0 o0 0 p cn 0 0 O O O O O N j 0 0 8 O Z3 0 0 � W � f0 � � UI � W O 01 W > (O (O (O (O (O (O [O (O (O OD 00 OD OD OD lea W O N 1 [W O VI C is rn � I w W fA N 0 UI a 0 N x N y O N C1 (D l 0 CD y N i (%! CO) N 0 p 3 a a 0 CDO N C O_ W W o0 0 N 0 i N CN (a 0 N O 0 cn m D (n 0 N O ul N n (n G) 0 t O 7 7 C a Page �5 of 588 ,4 mmmr— x*Or—wwmww ��z0- M 0 .may. N CD DW1 �. fD 0-C cw C C M M W fD � fD o N 2CD m �' Cj)00xaa0 as D4x W en r CD CCD)- n m Z CD m m CD ;0 > W W Ooy �"n) co a) W a)a)DWi WDWi co p> xxx� Day CD n C7 W O O D O O n ov v M v III N N co N QI co w O co 0 co A a 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 0�� 0 0 0 00 Q A W W N N N — W W O O O O O N� 0 0 8 0 � 0 0 � W � f0 � � U7 � W CD 01 W � � wwwwwwwwwwwwww n N < j fD O ,..• .a 7 Ql A C 0 Q ca m w CD rn U7 :e N O (O _C y 0 O I lw A A CA 0 N CEO A (T m SA N X O O p� y 0 N C O_ O1 O! W CD 7 W vd o CD O � 7 TI D) n co,CD :3 tfDn N D v 00 3 n N O D) V 1 N O Vn N & O V 01 Q 7c O N � Page �N of 588 O cn Nc u O � d. (D U C C N C C x(CD CD� W 0 aarn Qa .��'.UUfD C nd v m m co m cXi 0m xd m W w00 v � My xx= xx n n n x x x 000 " 0 n v v v v v v ov v n v 40 N f0 W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Oo O A W W N N N — OD W Q O O O O O N ;5- 0 0 8 0 j O O � W� f0 � � U1 � W O O W� (O O (D f0 (O �O (O c0 (D 00 OD OD 0o W Cl O O O O O m - m G W O x W N > > �n D N CD m Vl O n � O m V 00 _ rr CD C W co 1 C1 OD � O N � O 4 _ M O Z1 Ut (O O N OO C C N (O Page ��7 of 588 m CD m O N O O O O O O w cn rn O O O O O O O O I O O O (D — — — X CD — -V O O 0 rn w 0 6 6 W W W = O CD 0 to rF CO G y� O DJ CL Page �N of 588 o CCD r 0 C , R r" c CD n w m ID �. CD «fin ccb CD 0 0 ti O w n < o N CD CDCD a �' CD N• C � M O n. N pi 7 rn O 7 CD CD 7 ID CD cb c 6, cb w oC.,�(D .�Io CD CD n O ti CL CD w CD a aD co o <c° w CD � o � m CD rn ao o m o lfj 0 CD CD C C CD • CD CD c CD 0 '71 o • o. o o' C � CD CD G) CD 0 Y o va co o. C CD w CD o 0CD b � ECD o � w CCD o CD o w f M n 0 0 rn C b � C or°o o~o t�J r r � n Page �N of 588 a n 0. 0 CD 13) CD CD m n m y -< 0 o a p n m o � � c n D m S fD a N O f0 c N N fD ccc CD cD N n c N 07 n N � 0 0) C N O_ CD n N O co CD N c 61 N C m CD C n rn m r n n � N CD o n -1 Q 0 cD x n N � m E n CD m � n � c' n N CL Q O CD O' N 0 0 03 CD CD N 07 w O n n CD rn (n E =3 3 0 m rn � 0) N m ci 07 N O O N O1 n 0 O C 3 0 m CD n Q C1 N O a (D Q 3 U) 0 C) N CD CD O rl- 0' � 3 c, X CD K9 O O fD fD y N 0 0 5' ED. O Q Q O 1 1 1 N OODD O o 0 n o 0 O 0 � c N H (D CD N CD �G CD 0 C1 y (A Efl W 1 1 0 (D W O O _ X 0o OONO G -1 O -4 O_ A W O C O) (D O ID 00 co CD � 1 1 (0 W a) io 1 N (21. 00 V O v Ai CD 0) OO 00 00 <o fD E c as m 7 Q m N C y CT NC C y rt CD C! r+ :r0 W 0) rt CD o CO 1 C � O < CD p� CA CD co_ O' C1 3 N X CD d O. Q (D — O O D C9 CD CD x C O N 1 0 L C 0 p) + o w O O O C) CD o N N — O 0 0 -a) 1 0 1 co 7C CD :,4N) cn W o fD fD Q O O N A —1 W N Q Q 0' n O N Co < 00 CD 4A {.9 CD C1 1 Ul U1 Ul W O W -4 M O 00 O ? O 1 c \\ \C. O co C .lN Cn C1 N to A O C N A -I ID O N Co Page ��O of 588 O O N N W W A A 51 U, SP O 0 o m O Cn O Cn O Ln O m a O O O O O O O O O O O O 06 sA o� Ab d 'poAO S m CD Q �a. O O -. N N W W O O O O O O O O 00, 400 // 1 s i r ` 1 • t 1 � S S O < O ' ao � w c m N N O V 09. I ID C. N N o m � f'1 <D N O I O O co 7— 71 N N W O O O O O 1 1 1 � 1 ( 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' ` 1 1 I 1 1 1 N N N N W W Q N N J O I cn � O N Cn J O N qqC�� (T O CT O (T O (T O (T O (T O CT 'J O O O O O O O O O O O O C. O O OBC, 7 2 QPC, I? Oe F S oec7 s N 90 a cn O O n CD (7 fD c T 3 O fD (p a o TZ 0 8-0 m ao o3n� o 3 a C O N 3 CO�1 3 C 3 cOi -on O O 0 C 0 2 0 a N w Dl O o, o �: a S M S CD (D N G) T a v c \ O T c D7 •0 O fD N wcno CD o fD :3 a (/1 ac j x p 7 K m m fD O U1 F to rt o CD N O '0 O' O <O (D 'G o Q a�•m =rCD CC o _ (O O C (O] y (p CD Cr .Os C T N N N 01 f0/i a T O- CD 7 m a O m 3 �° 0 rt a �3ca 06. ,O 3 + m � o_ j 3 a N (D C CD 3 CD a v c a 3 5' m CD CD N. m O ID - o j ID C 3 n W CD @ a O' W 0 o en m D] y a(:n:rCD x < 5R. CDi N c a { a O O fn CD 0 w SL fD Q N m 0 0 0 0 m 0) Page M 1 of 588 N cc CD m 0 v O a L L N D U2 02 a = a c. CD c < aU2 go CD CD m � =ra CD 0 0 � 3 � � m c o 3 CD O N 7 � O ? CD N C C (SU O CD C a = m 53, o a to < f� N < E3 -Z 0 N a O < C fD < 7 d fD N O (p -03 CD O 0)= O_ y C _ cr N a rn 77 3 O' N o W c0i CD o d C 7 3 7 in N `1 O O CD C O_ N C CD N N a Q N CJ CL °0 3 O W o V W CD cn � O CD 3 0) m fA CD j O 1 CL N CA a m O V y cn (p N N m cn O CD 3 cc n a 01 O cn w G O CD N 7 IEA N O w 7 n fD Q < a a) NC m ' a c i O N m @ N O CO O 0 X G) m m m v N CO U) 0 � :3 a) � 0 o° X, � D D (n O 00 00 i CD CD --J W 0 0 0 0 0 I O 0 0 0 0 co ` ` -1 -4 1 N 0 CD 0 CD co 00 00 00 00 O O O O O 00 C) OA of OA LJ � � 1 N W W W W W s N 0 0 0 0. co 00 00 00 {p i W N Jb� W W ' cn CO O W ' v O rn O 1 ? w W CD W 1 ? N O CD CD N -1 Jh- W A 09 W N � W O , m CD d) W -4Ocnrn= N W W " O ? W W CO W N v A W A 1 O O 0 iD 0 0 O O O O O 4A 1 ul co O W 1 v O Ul 0) t W W CD W N O CD CD � 1 (0 fn O -+ 00 00 CD CD —1 W i 0 0 0 0 0 = cn 7 1 CD 1 D c► 7 Cp 7 L � C � CD N rt O (D O '�'r j T O C Q 5 U2 CO) Page ��2 of 588 m D7 CD 00 . LA E9 fA Efl N N CT O (T O CT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y! m 0 T O X O r O W D r D Z n m U) Page �13 of 588 x 0z�� v 0 co O X X X y O r = O W U)-U = N � O n ° n v 'o v = D D 20 N N vi O CT o � 00 W n c CD CD V W O O 7 O O O O O �:Zl;;v� N N O O O O \ y C (D O co 00 00 Cb 00 {� { 'v n CD CD W N -N W Cn n V 00 � O O 0o0W C P. W N " OD -I CD 7 000 00 co N coOm - �09 ic p1 .a CD W N W UI pr CD W CT 00 W G 00 O CA OD -N CO sm V O 00 M C Cif CWO -4 W N v CD 00 00 N O Ul -N ic CN C1 S W N O S. 00 n Q O 42 0 _O O O O 1 — o) W W Cil Cn 00 O 4R w 'v n CD I D V N CD W 1 0 C 0 r_ N W COWO -N N CDO O CA CO C N -1 A CO ? C-1 CD — 3 N Cu cCD N O W N W W � co 00 CD a) �_ U1 CO CA W M VN W Ul O < CVO C O W CD N -4 4 41CD 3 o x 0z--- � v W W CD Win-00 00 r co �o < v = O sm D O O D n ■ice N N O O En W 4A 40 N N — — Cn O — 0o co co co V W 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O CD CD �I v � � N O O O O CD co 00 C" OD W N -ph, W Ul Ul OD W 1 O W 00 -ph, co O Cb — — U1 CWD �I CO N � 0 N co U1 -th, {fl W N A W CT O W w � CD O CO Ul w N O v CD �l CD N —1 co N 00 CT A -00 A) CD � D 0 O CD n L-_ =r W ..a W N O O O co � co d C CD O O 0) 7 CD � U9 CA CA N '* y CA W U1 W 00 O n N 01 d_ C CD Cn mD � Q � C -an M CD W N W W D < WO N CAD W O b, W W CO W CD C -ph, N N O CD CD -4 D6 W A C� W O W N r%. W CA 0 -� C.II CO 0 W v O C%i W < N CO W O CN A W W CO W ? N O CO CD CD N -I � W -1�, Page ��4 of 588 CD O. a o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 n CD C C 0 0 p o w o C o rA CD 'n C (D "7 CD D y. ("D c CD •C CD o cnD CD E CD w � o 5' CD O CD �' y n 00L CDCD CD CL CD CD C7 D ° COD CD o o in CD i7 O. 'CS CD O z n C O n n �acc) o¢ CD PL CDCD n CD a^ EL IRD c� 0 IDCD C �CD o � o CD CD o CD 0 ❑ N CD r C CD •rCD CCD n n CD CD o w CCD 0 n CD O CD w n 4 0 CD A CD CD o' CD a CD O CD a CD CD CCD 0 o��-• CD y o d 0 CD ITI CD c� d rCDO n CDCD D I O O CD CD �rITI C O c e D r CD QQ � r Page �5 of 588 / §/ - \E� k 0� Wcc � CD 5' ® m w cam[ n q _ ))E CD $% eE@ 00 !- �% § a ¥ o E E E CD CD E CD n U) U ƒ ) 2 j « @ / kk f\ 2 0 _CD \ CL k/ k L 2 k / C CD [ k CD\ CL f / # < [ § # s K ( 0 } ;0o 2 < 2 \ CD � 2 a m =CL 7 r CD C0 ®�0 a m%a' o 0)/ E \_ § 0 % § -0 �� «a\ k �0 E£m 2 g b } d \ B/a o00o « \( aa* a � 2 / -pK \> � k � (D 4003 # 0 a)#r-,)i cc kn ekwE S2Ecn � e #| c wkk im wkk < /(� «*� a 40 _ � o c Irm sae<m -Aq Eo co o»N _ --a ■ # N) � k� ■ _ � � CD Page 6 0 588 N �n CD !i m o cn o 0 o m 0 0 0 g 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o� •Oo Aa O O O O O O O O O O 's v d7' s 00 f • 1 i 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \ O O — — N N O O O O O O O ' s�0 �yF 9p 1 c C m 1�9� 1 cn c C N 1 CD O F 9� 1 I 1 0 0 a N y o 7 n I I 01 co `4 q 1 1 Q N (.T (T 0 0 O U 0 O N m (T O N O W O 0 0 C' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Odc 117 Off, c� OBC, Oec' A OQC J s Oec' s WO 0 0 N M N (D c O N TI N U1 7 O_ �•� m a m o d Q C O 3 3 fD 3. o 3 CD - � 0 3. CD 0 a N CN N CD CD 0 N Q = CL 0 0 3 m c � m• G� T f/ O Q_ O. y m c T +3°1� N ,j 4D V C,ID O N p'f0 (0 fD m a (n O_ c :3 x = m K ' 0 V N N O Ul -CD N O co' 0 o 0 co �c o c�3'm _� o it (D Q O W O it CD Q N C. c (D C N C CD N w N in O- . 3 T Cr N N j N O N =• O fD 3 O. fD m,.o �3tc (O O 3 + N 3 _L7 CD M (O 3 � 3 � y 3 rn a Sp v�o_ ,o 3 o: cn 3 m O fD W. o N N CD C �oCD j 7 C � 0 CD m m v w o °7 m m rn 0 o N CD a C=nr m CD x CD ='. CD inV/ N c a a C m N CD o0i m CD a N m 0 O 7 0 O CD CCD G Of W O N O CD Page �§7 of 588 d CD CD ID o CD CD 0 tG IQ 0 a � a a a fD < < 0 0 m' 'm � m m �G — '< m' a a a' o 3 v CD N ' COD 0 rn O N 3 m 0 7 C coCD pj N a f0 < CD m 7' o CO CD CD c ,G a M= rD < 0 o Co 0 3 fD 7 C ID f%� 7 O N 7C N , , N 0 01 (D O a O. C 7 3 7 w 0 y O> n '< N O On cn 3 aw 07 d 7 o n N 0 3 O c x O 7 n nGiCD 40 SD 3 01 cn rn cn N C d 7 O aN O CD c m 7 O) N N CD 3 d d N O N=r 40 _ N CD CD = f(DA 7 O ..f N 7 7 CD 0_ aCD 3 N � O G CD c d n G 0 0 Z N io m N wOD cn 0 0 -4 � 0 0 00 00 0 0 O O w w O O ; i N N N rLn -p� In 1 0000 — N O co N EA ""`. U1 O cD N O O O O O O {,q 0im"LE Cn 4 cn 00 — N O co N 9 v� m c m N C v �* �f fD CD 7 M d W O = O Pr - - N < w OD cOncDO D O 0 0 o a Page �U of 588 ry D 0 o y m m 0 0 x x CD U) w D � � CD Page S�9 of 588 a � ��c) 3 D � U) r y0W CD � x- O CD O D n O 3 y 1 1 N O bo bo O 3 W cn (o 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 1 1 \\ \ 1 1 1 00 00 00 O N N N W N O O W O W W c0 �l O Cn p� � rnrnCWn= W 00 -I (O W i N O Of N N N coo W N O O W O W W 10 74 O Cn Of O O W � O 1 Cn W 00 -1 (O o� � c) v o0 X X (D CD D ai � O r ;0 m o 77 _ D O a� y 00 O 1 1 N OD bo O n c wcnw O-0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 i O O O 1 1 1 \ \ \ CD 1 1 1 00 00 -an 0 (D W � W W of ic 30 4 O Cn F O of w � C) W (D C 0 A W O) 1 Cn 00 —1 CO C- S W +� 4.9 i W n% O O O) N N N O i OD W N O O W 09 W W C (0 1I O Cn C1 a) 0 0) W C A 0) 1 Cn (D W 00 -1 (O W 1 A V V EA {� ffl nA I W N O O wOD 00 C A A CO CO -4 4 1 O (D V N N W N N N 0 00 1 N O (O N W O 4.9 N O i N N N O Cn O O Cn 1 CO 1 N O (O N C � w00 00 (O v 1 O 0) p.' (` N N W N n CO) O d obi D a c ffl TI -an Ln N N N OA w (D A 1 A O<f O C - O O 0000 N O (O N (D W O 69 W N O O N N N O OD Cn O O I',' O d .A Cn 1 00 1 N (D O CO N Page ` 40 of 588 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Grant/Federal Funding Report as of June 30 2018 Active Federal Grantor Pass -Through Agency IdentifNing Number COG Name/Purpose YTD Expenditures YTD Revenue Recognized Airport Federal Aviation Texas Department of 1514GRGTN Construct Parallel Taxiway and 621,143.96 - Administration Transportation -Aviation Fuel Farm Airport N/A Texas Department of M1814GEOR RAMP Grant - Routine Airport 61,477.81 20,341.16 Transportation -Aviation Maintenance Program Airport Federal Aviation Texas Department of 16MPGRGTN Airport Master Plan Update 42,090.00 - Administration Transportation -Aviation Airport Federal Aviation Texas Department of 1814GRGTN Runway 18/36 Rehabilitation - - Administration Transportation -Aviation Airport Federal Aviation Texas Department of 17WAGEORG Wildlife Hazard Assessment - - Administration Transportation -Aviation Fire Federal Emergency Texas Department of Public LPDM-PJ-06-TX-2008-011 Prehazard Mitigation - Sirens 8,351.71 - Management Agency Safety - TDEM Fire US Department of Homeland Texas Department of Public 17TX-EMPG-1421 EMPG Salaries (Berg, Shell 129,991.95 - Security Safety - TDEM and Gilliam) Gus - Electric N/A Bloomberg Philanthropies 2017 Mayors Challenge - 100,000.00 Library Institute of Museum & Library Texas State Library & LS-00-17-0044-17 TSL Resource Coordinator - 53,152.32 53,152.32 Services Archives Commission 2nd year (Patrick Lloyd) Planning US Department of Housing & Williamson County 322P Georgetown CDBG 6th & Scenic Sidewalk 130,664.00 114,919.90 Urban Development Police Bureau of Justice Assistance N/A KXPIIIA Bullet Proof Vests - Supply 11,098.48 5,549.24 Police with new vests Public Works Dept. of Transportation Texas Department of CSJ-0914-05-187 Highway Planning & - - /Federal Highway Transportation Construction (Austin Ave Applications Pending Award Division Gran COG Name/Purpose Status Fire Texas Department of Public Urban Search and Rescue Council Approved MOU Safety - TDEM (US&R) April 10th. Fire US Department of Homeland SAFER Application Submitted Security Gus - Electric Department of Energy (DOE) Battery Storage Project Under DOE Review Library Institute of Museum & Library Resource Coordinator Considering 3rd year Services Parks Texas Parks and Wildlife Recreation Trails Environmental Review Department (TPWD) Process Planning Williamson County (CDBG) Sidewalks and Ramps along Council Approved Feb 27th. 17th St App submitted Apr 4th. Funding approved Jun 26th. Reviewed By: Date: 7/31/2018 Page 541 of 588 42 Capital Improvement Projects For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2018 CIP • • GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS Year . Date 120-9-0280-90-022 RIVER TRAIL EXPANSION - 26,473 (26,473) 120-9-0280-90-039 RADIO REPLACEMENT, PARKS 64,333 (64,333) 128,666 120-9-0280-90-045 SAN GABRIEL PARK IMPROVEMENT 3,795,205 919 3,794,286 120-9-0280-90-046 GAREY PARK 912,359 784,642 127,717 120-9-0280-90-047 SIDEWALKS 716,514 37,738 678,777 120-9-0280-90-051 LIBRARY CANOPY 155,000 - 155,000 120-9-0280-90-053 GRACE HERITAGE REHAB - 24,891 (24,891) 120-9-0280-90-059 ADA FACILITIES 326,345 2,685 323,660 120-9-0280-90-060 ADA PARKS 173,137 2,099 171,038 120-9-0280-90-061 ELECTRIC PROJECTS 89,920 - 89,920 120-9-0280-90-066 KATY CROSSING TRAIL 500,000 7,500 492,500 120-9-0380-90-046 FIRE STATION, DESIGN - 140 (140) 120-9-0380-90-156 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 27,100 68,526 (41,426) 120-9-0380-90-159 FIRE STATION 7 2,000,000 1,885,575 114,425 120-9-0380-90-160 EOC SIREN SYSTEM 21,798 18,119 3,679 120-9-0380-90-163 FIRE STATION 6 ESD 600,000 - 600,000 120-9-0380-90-167 GMC SPACE NEEDS STUDY 200,000 - 200,000 120-9-0380-90-168 TRANSFER STATION/LANDFILL 11,337 - 11,337 120-9-0380-90-169 ERP PROJECT 2,950,000 31,599 2,918,401 120-9-0381-91-022 RADIO REPLACEMENT 500,000 - 500,000 120-9-0480-90-003 RADIO REPLACEMENTS, FIRE - (209,183) 209,183 120-9-0680-90-006 DOWNTOWN FESTIVAL AREA 460,000 - 460,000 120-9-0680-90-008 MUNICIPAL COURT/CVB REDESIGN 405,000 - 405,000 120-9-0680-90-012 DOWNTOWN WEST 25,990,682 11,318,694 14,671,988 120-9-0680-90-013 DOWNTOWN WEST SIGNAGE 125,000 - 125,000 120-9-0680-90-014 DOWNTOWN PARKING EXPANSION 250,000 - 250,000 120-9-0780-90-039 RADIO REPLACEMENT, POLICE - (214,462) 214,462 120-9-0880-90-054 AUSTIN AVENUE BRIDGE 88,132 - 88,132 120-9-0880-90-087 FM 971 3,900,000 - 3,900,000 120-9-0880-90-088 FM 1460 2,529,985 - 2,529,985 120-9-0880-90-091 SW BYPASS/WOLF RANCH PKWY 2,324,866 602,986 1,721,880 120-9-0880-90-092 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP - 2,280 (2,280) 120-9-0880-90-093 ACCESS RTW TO GOVERNMENT SRV - 34,740 (34,740) 120-9-0880-90-104 SIGNAL AT SHELL/VERDE VISTA 40,006 224,841 (184,835) 120-9-0880-90-105 NORTHWEST BLVD BRIDGE 10,500,000 141,150 10,358,850 120-9-0880-90-106 LEANDER RD_RIVER RIDGE -SW BYPA 1,550,000 - 1,550,000 120-9-0880-90-107 ROCK ST_6TH TO 9TH STS 23,000 23,000 120-9-0880-90-108 RIVERY EXTENSION 4,500,000 266,213 4,233,787 120-9-0880-90-109 SE INNER LOOP ROCKRIDE IMPRV - 560,000 (560,000) 120-9-0880-91-001 10TH ST (MAIN -ROCK) 94,000 - 94,000 120-9-0880-91-002 11TH ST. (MAIN -ROCK) 151,000 - 151,000 120-9-0880-91-003 8TH ST. (CHURCH -MYRTLE) 11,922 - 11,922 120-9-0880-91-004 8TH ST. (MLK-ROCK) 11,922 - 11,922 120-9-0880-91-005 AUSTIN AVE. (9TH-UNIVERSITY) 178,000 - 178,000 120-9-0880-91-006 AUSTIN AVE. (SH29-FM2243) 300,000 122 299,878 120-9-0880-91-007 CHURCH ST. (8TH-9TH) 11,922 - 11,922 120-9-0880-91-008 OLD TOWN NORTHEAST 786,876 8,013 778,863 120-9-0880-91-009 PH 1 SIGNAL & CURB RAMP IMPR. 309,103 266 308,837 120-9-0880-91-010 DTOWN SIDEWALK PROJECTS - 51,229 (51,229) GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS Total 67,584,464 15,613,460 1111111k 51,971,004 * The "Budget Column" presented reflects the budget as of June 30, 2018 - the end of the quarter. Council approved a mid- year budget amendment on July loth. Therefore, the budget column is not inclusive of the amendment. Page A2 of 588 Capital Improvement Projects For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2018 CIP • • GATEWAY TIRZ Year . Date 295-9-0602-90-001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 140,000 - 140,000 GATEWAY TIRZ To 1 000 - 140,000 CDBG GRANTS 215-9-0880-90-001 SCENIC DR SIDEWALKS 215,298 140,902 74,396 TS Total 215,298 140,902 74,396 GTEC 400-9-0980-90-022 SH 29 TO RM2243 SW BYPASS - 53 (53) 400-9-0980-90-024 SW BYPASS-2243 TO IH35 333,962 205,411 128,551 400-9-0980-90-036 ECO DEVO PROJECTS 1,643,750 - 1,643,750 400-9-0980-90-044 FM 971/ FONTANA (NW BRIDGE) 66,431 - 66,431 400-9-0980-90-047 WOLF RANCH PKWY EXTENSION 283,350 - 283,350 400-9-0980-90-059 IH 35/ HWY 29 INTERSECTION IMP 650,000 43,347 606,653 400-9-0980-90-060 MAYS STREET/ RABBIT HILL ROAD 3,252,729 251,036 3,001,693 400-9-0980-90-061 FM1460 WIDENING 501,260 294 500,966 400-9-0980-90-062 RIVERY EXT (WILLIAMS DR -NWEST 767,678 29,527 738,151 400-9-0980-90-063 PECAN CENTER DR./ AIRPORT RD. 5,390,290 2,900,709 2,489,581 400-9-0980-90-064 RIVERY TIA IMPROVEMENTS 1,016,790 633,908 382,882 400-9-0980-90-065 TAMIRO IMPROVEMENTS 410,000 - 410,000 GTEC Tot smorr-14,316,240 qP 4,064,286 10,251,954 PARKLAND DEDICATION 229-9-0280-90-014 FOUNDER'S PARK - 21,209 (21,209) PARKLAND DEDICATION TAN 21,209 (21,209) STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 640-9-0880-90-005 CURB & GUTTER 962,150 433,793 528,358 640-9-0880-90-069 STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE UPG 224,000 223,662 338 640-9-0880-90-076 REGIONAL FLOOD STUDY - 52,024 (52,024) 640-9-0880-90-078 18TH AND HUTTO DRAINAGE 77,977 - 77,977 640-9-0880-90-079 2ND AND ROCK POND 13,876 1,080 12,796 640-9-0880-90-080 SERENADA CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS 176,000 115,862 60,138 640-9-0880-90-081 VILLAGE PID INLET 75,000 - 75,000 640-9-0880-90-082 18TH_HUTTO DRAINAGE STUDY STORMWAT�L IMPROVEMENT Total 50,000 - 50,000 STREET TAX SRF 203-9-0880-90-071 STREET MAINTENANCE 3,858,676 489,521 3,369,155 203-9-0880-90-075 ASPHALT RECYCLING STREET -TAX SRR o a INL3,858,676 - 48 (48) * The "Budget Column" presented reflects the budget as of June 30, 2018 - the end of the quarter. Council approved a mid -year budget amendment on July 10th. Therefore, the budget column is not inclusive of the amendment. Page �13 of 588 Capital Improvement Projects For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2018 CIP • • WATER SERVICES Year . Date 660-9-0580-90-049 SOUTHLAKE WTP 950,260 - 950,260 660-9-0580-90-071 TANK REHAB PROJECTS 399,958 466,727 (66,769) 660-9-0580-90-072 CEDAR BREAKS EST - 9,333 (9,333) 660-9-0580-90-097 SUN CITY ELEVATED STORAGE TANK 3,224,047 3,224,000 47 660-9-0580-90-125 SHELL ROAD WATER LINE 6,039,578 5,928 6,033,651 660-9-0580-90-146 LWTP - DEWATERING FACILITY - 89,823 (89,823) 660-9-0580-90-155 WATER - STREET REHAB 330,000 - 330,000 660-9-0580-90-158 RABBIT HILL EST - 0 (0) 660-9-0580-90-166 LEANDER INTERCONNECT 575,000 - 575,000 660-9-0580-90-167 WEST LOOP (H-1A) 2,119,000 - 2,119,000 660-9-0580-90-168 LWTP RAW WATER INTAKE REHAB 440,411 784,745 (344,334) 660-9-0580-90-169 SEQUOIA GROUND STORAGE TANK 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 660-9-0580-90-170 CR 255 (WD14-2) 2,980,000 330,831 2,649,169 660-9-0580-90-171 DOMEL PS IMPROVEMENTS 1,805,692 164,711 1,640,981 660-9-0580-90-175 BRAUN EST 4,750,000 379,083 4,370,917 660-9-0580-90-176 MISC. LINE UPGRADES 250,000 - 250,000 660-9-0580-90-177 PARK WTP CLEARWELL 170,000 - 170,000 660-9-0580-90-178 S. LAKE WTP 2018 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 660-9-0580-90-179 SW BYPASS WATER H24-1 500,000 - 500,000 660-9-0580-90-180 TANK REHABILITATION 480,000 - 480,000 660-9-0580-90-200 WATER MAINS 3,842,303 1,207,248 2,635,055 660-9-0580-91-105 CIS SYSTEM 5,178 - 5,178 660-9-0581-90-037 EDWARDS AQUIFER TESTING - 149,000 (149,000) 660-9-0581-90-051 PECAN BRANCH PH 2 - 57,688 (57,688) 660-9-0581-90-154 WESTINGHOUSE LS & FM 1,207,067 29,739 1,177,328 660-9-0581-90-160 BERRY CREEK INTER. (BC- 4-6) 8,328,900 5,201 8,323,699 660-9-0581-90-162 BERRY CREEK INTER. (BCI-3) 12,000,000 1,649,325 10,350,675 660-9-0581-90-163 SAN GABRIEL BELT PRESS 2,207,000 306,068 1,900,932 660-9-0581-90-164 PARK LIFT STATION & FORCE MAIN 3,585,740 - 3,585,740 660-9-0581-90-165 BERRY CREEK INTER BCI-3 1,000,000 4,199 995,801 660-9-0581-90-166 EARZ 1,000,000 953,577 46,423 660-9-0581-90-167 SAN GABRIEL INTER SGI-2 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 660-9-0581-90-200 WW INTERCEPTORS - 2,500 (2,500) 660-9-0581-90-220 LIFT STATION UPGRADE 900,280 - 900,280 WATER SERVICES Total 65,090,414 9,819,726 55,270,688 Page A4 of 588 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Long-term Commitments, Reservations, and Other Unfunded Liabilities June 30, 2018 Unfunded Liability & Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates - 3/31/18 Status Updates - 6/30/18 Commitments The columbarium construction bid of $121,432 was approved by City Currently cemetery operations are self -funded through plot Council on February 27th. The niche units had a substantially long sales of approximately $SOK per year. The cemetery is The columbarium construction bid of $121,432 was approved by City lead time for fabrication but are complete. The notice to proceed Cemetery Special Revenue managed through Parks Administration. In 2015, Council Council on February 27th. Construction will begin in May and is for construction of the columbarium is scheduled for the week of Fund elected to reserve $75,000 annually for future costs expected to be completed in 60 days. 7/23. Construction is expected to take 60 days. The $75,000 associated with maintaining the property. The General Fund perpetual reserve transfer from the General Fund is included in the has made this transfer in 2016, 2017, and 2018. FY2019 Proposed Budget. Recognizes the outstanding liability for the City's employee Unfunded Actuarial Accrued retirement plan through TMRS. The City contributes As of 12/30/16, the UAAL was $22M and is considered 83% funded. Liability (UAAL) monthly to fund the UAAL, based on an annual percentage The 2018 TMRS total combined contribution rate is 12.54. No change, updated once annually. of payroll. Actual % of payroll costs is recognized within each fund. The UAAL is provided by TMRS and lags one year. While the City has no obligation to offer additional retiree benefits, retirees are eligible to participate in the City's Other Post Employee Benefits health insurance program. That ability represents a subsidy GASB requires updates every other year. Until the review is GASB requires updates every other year. Until the review is conducted again in 2018, the estimate is $1,148,194, an increase of conducted again in 2018, the estimate is $1,148,194, an increase of (OPEB) that impacts health insurance costs to the City. Retirees pay $175,618 over the prior year. $175,618 over the prior year. their monthly premiums to the ISF who in turn processes their health insurance claims. Future costs associated with benefits such as vacation, and sick leave for City employees. Compensated Absence is The midyear budget amendment has appropriated the full $222,000 accrued annually to each proprietary fund type on a GAAP Staff will bring forward an FY 2018 budget amendment to reserve to the General Fund for 4 Police department retirements. Compensated Absence basis and accounted for on the balance sheet of each fund. appropriate use of this reserve for several large payouts in Police. The Benefit Payout Reserve is funded at $252,000 in the FY2019 For governmental funds (and for budgetary basis), the Proposed Budget. expense is recognized when due and payable. The 2018 cost of service rate study recommends a minimum cash balance of $17 million for various purposes. Staff presented new In FY 2018, staff recommended changes to the ratio of cash and reserve policies for the Electric Fund to GGAF and Council in June.The Intended to mitigate potential rate impacts due to increased debt financing of utility CIP projects, and evaluated several projects FY 2019 Propooed Budget includes funding for the 90 day Electric Fund Rate Stabilization fuel costs or other external factors. The RSR is maintained for timing to improve the position of the fund balance. The rate operational reserve, and partial funding for the non -operating Reserve within the Electric Fund and is budgeted to be $S.SM in study results and proposed changes to the fiscal and budgetary FY2018. policy will come to GGAF, GUS Board and Council in the early reserve for debt and capital. The remaining amount will be funded as the cost of service rate is implemented. The Rate Stabilization summer. Reserve, up to 10% of Purchased Power costs, will be built over the next few years. 46 Page 545 of 588 Unfunded Liability & Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates - 3/31/18 Status Updates - 6/30/18 Commitments The Airport Fund has a positive ending balance and is able to fund The Airport Fund has a positive ending balance, is able to fund capital projects going forward as well as support a contingency reserve. The parallel taxiway and fuel storage facility are complete. Fund on -going maintenance of the Airport grounds, runways capital projects going forward, and can support a contingency The current Airport Master Plan effort has produced a draft Final and taxi ways. Terminal and Tower included in Facilities ISF. reserve. Finance staff propose removing the Airport from the Plan moving forward for consideration by the City. The Wildlife Airport Maintenance unfunded liability list. The parallel taxiway and fuel storage facility An Airport Master Plan was developed to address longterm are complete. The current Airport Master Plan effort has produced Hazard Assessment has begun and should be completed late 2018. capital maintenance project prioritization. a draft Final Plan under review by the FAA. The Wildlife Hazard The Airport is working with TxDOT Aviation to begin the design and Assessment has begun and should be completed late 2018. eventual construction of a rehabilitation of the airport main runway. Staff recommends removing this item from the unfunded liabilities list. As facilities are built or repurposed, meeting ADA compliance will be included in Project Costs. Funding for program expansion will be needed (General Fund sources). The 2017/18 Capital Improvement Plan for sidewalks is Americans with Disabilities Act The City has an adopted policy, as required by Federal Law, developing projects related to ADA ramp and access (ADA) Compliance Needs that it will make reasonable accommodations and improvement in Downtown in areas around 7th and 8th The City is continuing the work on the CIP ADA projects. modifications to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy its programs, services, and street. activities. The City does not maintain a reserve for these modifications. Scenic CDBG sidewalk is 95% complete. We held a walk-thru this Currently, new sidewalks are built as development occurs. morning and will have the TDLR inspection scheduled early next Scenic CDBG sidewalk is complete. All punch list and TDLR items are Repairs are funded as needed or if funding is available, week. Any punch list items will be address in the coming weeks by complete. The only remaining item is vegetation in a few areas of when major roads are repaired. Useful life of a sidewalk is Patin Construction. the project. Old Town NE is in process. All 7 easements are being Sidewalk Maintenance estimated at 40 to 50 years. The largest revenue source Old Town NE Sidewalks are ongoing in design. We are working to finalized. An additional area for the sidewalk has been added to the comes from the City's General Fund, but there has been obtain 7 easements needed to finalize the design for the 8' sidewalk scope of work along 7th from Maple to Smith Creek Rd. WPAP has some debt funding as well. along 7th street. Design near Project estimated to go out for been submitted to TCEQ for approval. bid is still 5-8 months due to easement needs. Over the past 5 years, funding for Park Maintenance and Pavilion renovations and playground replacement are scheduled to Renovations to Meadow's Park are nearing completion and the Replacement has increased. $200K transfer from General Park Equipment Maintenance Fund included in FY2018 budget. Staff has listed all assets & be completed this spring at Meadow's Park. Additional sidewalk Williams Drive Pool filters have been installed. Village Pool and the & Replacement a la nt replacement funded by the General developedelacement s work Ork will be completed to meet ADA compliance as well. The pool outdoor Recreation Center Pool will be re -plastered after the 2018 Fundsoon on filters at Williams Drive Pool will be replaced in before the upcoming pool season. pool season. Village pool and the outdoor Recreation Center Pool will be re -plastered after the 2018 pool season. 47 Page 546 of 588 Unfunded Liability & Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates - 3/31/18 Status Updates - 6/30/18 Commitments As of June 30, 2018 EMS revenue collections are $1.84 million, which is slightly under budget for FY2018. Year-end revenue is projected to come in at $2.48 million, budget is $2.61 million. The shortfall in 2014/15 Annual Budget assumed EMS Program to be As of April 30, 2018, EMS revenue collections are about $1.18 revenue is primarily driven by vacancies that have kept EMS from being able to activate the peak unit in FY2019. Staff continues to Emergency Medical Service operationally active by June 2015 with revenues to offset million, which is behind budget projections. At this time, year-end monitor operational expenses monthly. EMS revenue is projected Special Revenue Fund operating and capital costs. Operating deficit would be revenue is estimated to be $2.4 million, budget is $2.6 million. Staff to be $2.56 million in FY2019. The fund continues to improve it's funded internally until capital costs were recovered in 5 continue to monitor EMS revenue, overtime, and medical supply position as collection rate and demands for service grow. Since Fire years. expenses monthly. and EMS are an integrated system, staff is recommending to move the EMS fund into the General Fund in FY2019. The General Fund will be able to cover the 90-day contingency requirement currently not being covered in EMS. The FY 2019 proposed budget includes funding for the technology replacement reserve, next year's planned replacement and CIS billing to be replaced in 2016, funded by utility funds. maintenance, and the back-up data center. IT has adopted a five - Major Technology Enterprise Resource Planning System (Finance and HR) Staff are developing the FY 2019 IT budget with the goal of funding year strategic plan, and the revised allocation methodology in use Replacement (IT Internal selection consultant funding included in the FY2017 budget. the asset maintenance reserve, increases for major subscription since 2017 fully recovers IT's hardware and software costs based on Service Fund) The FY 18 budget includes $2,700,000 for acquisition of the contracts, and improving disaster recovery by adding a backup data actual usage by customers. As software systems are replaced or new Enterprise Resource Planning system(s). The final price center. newly acquired, IT is phasing products to the cloud subscription has not been agreed upon in the bid process. service model, reducing the need for future asset acquisition and replacement. Staff recommends removing this item from the unfunded liabilities list. Communication system consisting of 500 on -body and in - The 2017 radios are received and being programmed and deployed. Radio Equipment Replacement vehicle radios for Police, Fire, parks and utilities. The Emergency Management Coordinator is working on the Year three of the four-year radio replacement program is funded in Replacement radios are compatible with newer technology. procurement of phase II in FY2018. Phase III will be included in FY 2019 Proposed Budget. preparations for the FY2019 budget. The City funds street maintenance in the General Fund, supplemented by a 1/8th Street Sales Tax special revenue fund. In 2017 and 2018, the Council and GTAB reviewed Street Maintenance budget totals $4.3M in the FY2019 Proposed various methods for enhanced street maintenance and Staff are reviewing funding alternatives to match this level of Budget. This is a similar funding level to recent years. Other major Street Maintenance costs. Direction from Council is to use high performance maintenance and will bring recommendations forward as part of the , items in the General Fund budget did not allow for a significant surface seals and pavement wearing courses and begin budget process. increase. Staff continue to explore funding sources. programmatically addressing the street network's deferred maintenance backlog, creating a need for approximately $2 million more per year for street maintenance. 48 Page 547 of 588 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion concerning ethics -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: At the October 24 meeting, the City Council took action to amend the City's Ethics Ordinance. The Council also appointed the members of the standing Ethics Commission to an Ethics Ad Hoc Committee, tasked with reviewing the City's Ethics Ordinance and making recommendations to the City Council for amendments to the ordinance. The Council asked the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee to make recommendations for a new ordinance. Those recommendations were presented to Council on June 12. At the June 12 meeting, City Council directed staff to return with an analysis that compared current state law with the proposed ethics ordinance. Staff is seeking direction on each of the following topics to include in a new ordinance: • Gifts • Conflicts of Interest (Financial Interest and Economic Interest) • Disclosure Requirements • Definition of Family • Ethics Commission • Sanctions • General Conduct FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Jack Daly ATTACHMENTS: DRAFT Presentation Draft Ordinance Proposed by Ad -Hoc Ethics Commission Governance Policy Role of City Council and Rules of Engagement Page 548 of 588 Ethics Workshop August 14, 2018 f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS Agenda • Background • State statute vs. local ordinance • Direction/Discussion f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS Background • Oct. 24 — Voted to overhaul ethics ordinance • June 12 — Reviewed recommendations from ad hoc committee • Staff committed to return with a review of ethics ordinance by topic and compare to state law EST 1848 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Topics • Gifts • Definition of Family • Conflicts of Interest • Ethics Commission — Financial Interest Sanctions — Economic Interest . General Conduct • Disclosure Requirements EST.1848 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Gifts Gifts are a benefit from a person or entity you know is getting something from the City or is interested in getting something from the City (purchase, contract, zoning, etc.) Exceptions include: Gifts from people with personal, professional, or business relationship independent of official status EST.1848 GEORGETOWN TEXAS Gifts • State Law — Penal code - Clas6 A misdemeanor • Value more than $50 • Exemptions for — Transportation — Lodging — Conference • Requires reporting f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS • Council Direction — Differing opinions on gift amount $25 1 A $50 — Discussion regarding exemptions for Transportation • Lodging • Conferences Conflicts of Interest • You should not be voting or making decisions that benefit you in your personal or professional life • Distinguishing what a personal or professional benefit is can be tough EST.1848 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Conflicts of Interest • State Law 0 Council Direction — Chap. 171 - Financial Interests — Chap 176 • Discic5ure Requirement f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS — Council members are real life people interacting in the community — Ambiguous definitions are hard to understand and enforce Financial Interest • State Law — Chap 171 — Business entity interest 10% or more of voting stock or shares • 10% or $15K+ of business entity • Proceeds exceed 10% gross income — Substantial interest in real property • Interest is $2,500 or greater — Related by first degree f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS • Council Direction — Historically mirrored state law — Thresholds included in ethics ordinance Economic Interest • Local regulation above state law There are some things that could be perceived as a conflict that are not necessarily tied to money or fall under the State's thresholds EST.1848 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Economic Interest • State Law — Not in statute f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS • Council Direction — Too broad to include all "negotiations pertaining to business opportunities" — Tough to enforce "reasonable person" standard Economic Interest Examples • Interest in property — Contractual interest • Involvement in business — Offers of employment — Any investment in business before Council • Le55 than J[aLe 5 thresholds — Amend language related to "business negotiations" • Family involved — State law only speaks to first degree GEORGETOWN TEXAS Disclosure Requirements 9 Council Direction — Exceed state law if Council adopts economic interest standard — If quorum issues arise, disclose conflicts, but then vote k.annot waive state law requirements GEORGETOWN TEXAS Definition of Family • State Law 0 Council Direction — First Degree • Parem, Child, Spouse, Spouse's parent or child — Define family member by name — Include domestic partners — Relatives from current and past marriages - Step uaughter-m-idw GEORGETOWN TEXAS Ethics Commission • State Law 0 Council Direction — Not in state statute f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS — General consensus on having commission • review and investigate complaints • Recommend sanctions • Regular review of ordinance Sanctions • State Law — Class A misdemeanor — Criminal process handled by County Attorney f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS • Council Direction — Depending on severity _otter of notification • Reprimand • Recommend removal — Board or Commission — Appointed employee • Recommend recall — City Council — Notification to media • Maybe a Municipal Code violation General Conduct 9 Standards of conduct — Some covered by state law — Generally, don't use position for personal or professional gain 9 Other items to include? — Governance Policy — Role of Council/Rules of Engagement f ST. 11411 GEORGETOWN TEXAS Questions? EST.1848 G EORGETOWN TEXAS CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS Sec. 2.20.010. - Declaration of Policy. A. It is the policy of the City that the proper operation of democratic government requires City Officials to be independent, impartial, and responsible; and that no City Official permit any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engagement in any business, transaction, or professional activity to conflict with the proper discharge of duties in the public interest; that governmental decisions and policies be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for illegal or improper personal gain; and that City Officials shall at all times strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partisanship. The City Council shall be maintained as a nonpartisan body. B. This Chapter has four purposes: I . To establish high ethical standards in official conduct by City Officials; 2. To establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all City Officials; 3. To require disclosure by City Officials of private financial or other interests in matters affecting the City; and 4. To provide discipline for those who violate this Chapter. C. The City recognizes that City Officials are also members of society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without any personal and economic interest in the decisions and policies of government; that City Officials retain their rights as citizens to interests of a personal or economic nature and their rights to publicly express their views on matters of general public interest. It is not the intent of this Chapter to diminish the rights of City Officials as citizens of the community. D. The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to political contributions, loans, expenditures, reports, or regulation of political campaigns or to the conduct of candidates in campaigns. E. This Chapter defines two types of conflicts of interest and treats them differently. A "substantial financial interest" follows Section 171.002 of the Texas Local Government Code, and the provisions applicable to local Public Officials who have a "Substantial Financial Interest" are set forth in Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code. This Chapter is intended to go beyond the requirements of Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code by addressing "Substantial Economic Interests." A Substantial Economic Interest is more comprehensive than a "Substantial Financial Interest" and covers various kinds of economic benefits that might accrue to a City Official that are not included in the Texas Statute. Sec. 2.20.020. - Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter the following definitions apply: 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 1 Page 567 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS A. "Business Entity" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, firm, corporation, holding company, joint-stock company, receivership, trust, or any other entity recognized by law. B. "City Official" means the Mayor, every member of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Secretary, the City Attorney, and all members of any commission, committee, or board appointed by the City Council. C. "Confidential Information" means any information that a City Official would be privy to because of the official's position but otherwise is not available to the public under the provisions of the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code ch. 552). D. "Economic Benefit" means any money, Property, contract rights, sale, lease, option, credit, loan, discount, service, or other tangible or intangible thing of value, whether similar or dissimilar to those enumerated. E. "Family Member" means a person who is related to an officer or employee as spouse or as any of the following, whether by marriage, blood or adoption: parent, child, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, step son-in-law, stepdaughter, step daughter-in-law, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, brother-in-law or sister -in law. For purposes of this Chapter, spouse of a City Official includes a domestic partner, which means an individual who lives in the same household and shares common resources of life in a close, personal, intimate relationship with the City Official if under Texas law the individual would not be prevented from marrying the City Official on account of age, consanguinity, or prior undissolved marriage to another. A domestic partner may be of the same, or opposite, gender as the City Official. F. "Gift" means a favor, hospitality, or Economic Benefit, of a value in excess of $25.00 other than compensation but which does not include campaign contributions reported as required by state law, gifts received if given on account of kinship, or any value received by will, intestate succession, or as a distribution from an inter vivos or testamentary trust. G. "Income" means Economic Benefit received. H. "Property" means real estate, personal items, equipment, goods, crops, livestock, or an equitable right to income from real estate, personal items, equipment, goods, crops, or livestock. I. "Source of Income" means any business entity, employment, investment, or activity which earned or produced income, including salary, fees, interest, dividends, royalties, or rents, which has been paid to or for the credit of a City Official, or family member or which would be taxable to said City Official, or Family Member under the United States Internal Revenue Code, as amended, even though not actually paid or credited. J. "Substantial Economic Interest" may take several forms. It may be established by a legal or equitable interest in Property, which includes but is not limited to the interest of a stockholder, co-owner, or beneficiary. Substantial Economic Interest may also be established by a fiduciary obligation to Property, which includes, but is not limited to, 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 2 Page 568 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS the interest of a trustee or executor. Substantial Economic Interest may also be established by a contractual right in property. A City Official and/or Family Member has a Substantial Economic Interest if the City Official and/or Family Member has a legal or equitable interest, fiduciary obligation, or contractual right in Property that is more than minimal or insignificant and would be recognized by reasonable persons to have weight in deciding a case or an issue. Service by a City Official as an officer, director, advisor, or otherwise active participant in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization does not create a Substantial Economic Interest in the Property of that organization. Ownership of an interest in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities or other assets is not a substantial economic interest in the securities or other assets unless the City Official participates in the management of the fund. A City Official does not have a Substantial Economic Interest in a matter if the economic impact on the City Official is indistinguishable from the impact on the public or on the particular group affected by the matter. K. "Substantial Financial Interest" means: 1. An interest in a Business Entity if: a. A City Official or Family Member owns: i. Ten percent or more of voting stock or shares of the business entity; or ii. Fifteen thousand dollars or more of the fair market value of the Business Entity; or b. A City Official or family member receives funds from the Business Entity, customer or client that are ten percent or more of the person's gross income for the previous year (e.g. receives funds from an employer, customer, or client); or 2. An interest in real Property, if a City Official or family member has a legal or equitable interest in the property with a fair market value of $2,500.00 or more. Sec. 2.20.030. - Standards of Conduct. A. General Provisions. 1. No City Official shall disclose any Confidential Information gained through the official's position concerning Property, operations, policies, or affairs of the City, for gain or advantage in a Substantial Economic Interest or a Substantial Financial Interest of the City Official or the persons identified in Section 2.20.030.C.2.b. of the conflicts of interest section of this Chapter. 2. No City Official shall use the official's position or City -owned facilities, equipment, supplies, or resources of the City for gain in a Substantial Economic Interest or a 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 3 Page 569 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS Substantial Financial Interest of the City Official, for a political campaign of the Official, or for any of the persons identified in Section 2.20.030 C.2.b. of the Conflicts of Interest section of this Chapter. No City Official shall, except as specifically authorized by City ordinance, appear before the body of which the official is a member to represent the City Official or any person identified in Section 2.20.030.C.2.b. of the conflicts of interest section of this Chapter. The City Official may designate and be represented by a person of the Official's choice in any such matter. 4. No City Official shall act as surety for any person or Business Entity that has a contract with the City, or as a surety on any bond required by the City for a City Official. 5. No City Official shall acquire an interest in, any contract, transaction, zoning decision, or other matter, if the official knows, or has reason to know, that the interest will be affected by impending official action by the City. 6. No City Official shall enter into an agreement or understanding with any other person that official action by the official will be rewarded or reciprocated by the other person. 7. No City Official shall assert the prestige of the official's City position for the purpose of advancing private interests. 8. No City Official shall state or imply that he or she is able to influence City action on any basis other than the merits. 9. No City Official, other than a person who is classified as an official only because he or she is an appointed member of a committee, commission, or board, shall represent any person, group, or entity, other than himself or herself, or his or her spouse or minor children, in any litigation to which the City is a party, if the interests of that person, group, or entity are adverse to the interests of the City. 10. No City Official shall intentionally or knowingly assist or induce, or attempt to assist or induce, any person to violate any provision in this Code of Ethics. 11. No City Official shall violate the provisions of this Code of Ethics through the acts of another. 12. These General Provisions do not prohibit a City Official from representing the City Official's interest in the City Official's owner -occupied homestead before any City body, except the body of which the official is a member. B. Gifts. No City Official may solicit or accept any Gift that is offered or given with the intention of influencing the judgment or discretion of such official; or given in consideration of the favorable exercise of the official's judgment or discretion, in the past. 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 4 Page 570 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS C. Conflict of Interest. Substantial Financial Interest. No City Official may vote on or participate in any decision -making process on a matter if the official has a Substantial Financial Interest in the outcome of the matter under consideration. 2. Substantial Economic Interest. a. No City Official may vote on or participate in any decision -making process on a matter if the Official has a Substantial Economic Interest in the outcome of the matter under consideration. b. To avoid the appearance and risk of impropriety, a City Official may not take any official action that the Official knows is likely to affect the Substantial Economic Interests o£ i. The City Official's Family Member; ii. A Business Entity for which the City Official serves as an officer or director or services in any policy -making position; or iii. A person or Business Entity from whom, within the past 12 months, the City Official or the official's spouse, directly or indirectly, has solicited, received and not rejected, or accepted an offer of employment. D. Disclosure of Interest and Recusal. 1. A City Official who has a Substantial Economic Interest in the outcome of the matter under consideration shall disclose that the official has a Substantial Economic Interest and shall recuse himself/herself from discussion of and voting on the matter. The City Official shall also promptly file an affidavit with the City Secretary disclosing the nature and extent of the conflict, and the affidavit shall be included in the official minutes of the body. 2. A City Official having a Substantial Financial Interest in the outcome of a matter under consideration shall disclose that the official has a Substantial Financial Interest and recuse himself/herself immediately from voting and from the discussion of the matter. The City Official shall also promptly file an affidavit with the City Secretary disclosing the nature and extent of the conflict, and the affidavit shall be included in the official minutes of the body. 3. If abstention would leave City Council or a commission, committee, or board appointed by City Council, with less than a quorum capable of acting, members must disclose their conflicts on the public record, but they may then discuss and vote on the item(s). Sec. 2.20.040. - Ethics Commission. A. Creation of Ethics Commission. This Chapter creates an Ethics Commission that consists of eight members, all of whom must reside within the corporate limits of the City. Each member of the City Council may 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 5 Page 571 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS nominate a citizen from his or her district to serve on the Commission, and the Mayor may nominate one citizen from the City at large. Nominations must be confirmed by a vote of the City Council. 2. A vote to reject a nominee requires a super -majority. Members of the Commission may not hold or be a candidate for any City elected or appointed office at the time of their service on the Commission. B. Terms of Service. 1. Except as provided below, members of the Commission shall serve two-year terms. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms. 2. The terms of the initial Commission members shall begin on the day that is one day after the date that the City Council approves the appointment of the first eight Commission members. The terms of the initial eight Commission members shall be staggered by members drawing lots at the first Commission meeting such that four members serve until March 1 of the calendar year that is one year following the calendar year that the Commission members were initially appointed, and four members shall serve until March 1 of the calendar year that is two years following the calendar year that the Commission members were initially appointed. Thereafter, all terms shall be for two years. 3. The second and subsequent appointments of members to the Commission shall be staggered and shall be for terms of two years. C. Commission Vacancies. All vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms. 2. Members hold office until their successors have been appointed and continue to hold office after a successor has been appointed for the limited purpose of disposing of all complaints unresolved during that member's term. 3. No member may participate in a decision regarding a complaint for which hearings have commenced prior to his or her appointment. D. Removal of Commission Members. In addition to the City Council's powers of removal, members of the Commission may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council for cause. E. Officers. The Commission shall elect a Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson, and Secretary at its annual meeting. 2. The Vice -Chairperson shall conduct meetings in the absence of the Chairperson or in the event of a vacancy in that position. The officers serve one-year terms. F. Quorum. Five or more members of the Commission constitute a quorum, but no action of the Commission shall be of any force or effect unless it is adopted by the favorable vote of five or more members. 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 6 Page 572 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS G. Meetings. The Commission shall meet when necessary to carry out its responsibilities, but in any event the Commission shall hold an annual meeting during March to elect officers and review this Chapter. 2. The Chairperson or three members may call a meeting provided that reasonable notice is given to each member. Notice of all Commission meetings shall be posted pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Sec. 2.20.050. - Role of the Ethics Commission. A. The Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over ethics complaints involving City Officials. B. The Ethics Commission shall have the authority to review and investigate complaints filed in accordance with this Chapter and issue a written finding of the Commission's determination when appropriate. C. Service on the Ethics Commission does not preclude a member from filing a complaint with the Commission. The Commission member filing the complaint must recuse himself/herself from the Commission procedure. D. The Ethics Commission makes recommendations to the City Council regarding revisions and changes to this Chapter. E. The Ethics Commission may seek any necessary assistance from the City Council and City Manager regarding financial support needed to carry out the Commission's duties. F. If warranted, independent legal counsel, a C.P.A., or other professional advisors may be utilized to advise and assist the Commission and take part in hearings. Sec. 2.20.060. - Role of the City Attorney. A. The City Attorney serves as legal counsel to the Ethics Commission. When complaints are filed relating to the Mayor, City Council members, City Manager, City Attorney, or other City Official on a matter in which the City Attorney has served as Ethics Advisor, independent legal counsel may be utilized to advise the Commission and take part in its proceedings. B. The City Attorney serves as Ethics Advisor to City Officials. As Ethics Advisor, the City Attorney is available to respond confidentially to inquiries relating to the Ethics Ordinance (this Chapter) and may render advisory opinions on potential conflicts of interest or violation of this Section at the request of a City Official. The advisory opinion in any subsequent charges concerning the matter may be used as a defense to an alleged violation of this Section unless material facts were omitted or misstated by the person requesting the opinion. C. If a complainant alleges a violation by the City Attorney, the complaint must be filed with the City Secretary, with a copy to the Mayor and the City Manager. 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 7 Page 573 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS Sec. 2.20.070. - Complaint Process. A. Filing. 1. Any person who believes that there has been a violation of this Chapter may file a sworn complaint. A complaint alleging a violation of this Chapter must meet the requirements of Section 2.20.070.A.2 and must be filed with the City Secretary. 2. Required Contents of a Complaint. An ethics complaint must be in writing and under oath and must set forth in simple, concise, and direct statements the following: a. The name of the complainant; b. The street or mailing address and the telephone number of the complainant; c. The name of the person who allegedly committed the violation; d. The position or title of the person who allegedly committed the violation; e. The nature of the alleged violation, including, if possible, the specific rule or provision of this Chapter alleged to have been violated; f. A statement of the facts constituting the alleged violation and the dates on which or period of time in which the alleged violation occurred; and must contain the following: i. Documents or other material available to the complainant relevant to the allegation; ii. A list of all documents or other material relevant to the allegation and available to the complainant, but that are not in the possession of the complainant, including the location of the documents, if known; and iii. A list of all documents or other material relevant to the allegation, but unavailable to the complainant, including the location of the documents, if known. g. If the complaint is based on information and belief, the complaint shall state the source and basis of the information and belief. 3. The complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the information contained in the complaint is true and correct and that the complainant has good reason to believe and does believe that the facts alleged constitute a violation of this Chapter. 4. Upon request, the City Secretary shall provide information to persons about the requirements of a complaint and the process for filing a complaint. B. Confidentiality and Ex Parte Communications. 1. No City Official shall reveal information relating to the filing or processing of a complaint except as required for the performance of official duties. 2. All documents relating to a pending complaint are confidential, unless they are required to be disclosed under the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code Ch. 552). 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 8 Page 574 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS 3. After a complaint has been filed, and during the consideration of a complaint by the Commission, a member of the Commission may not communicate directly or indirectly with any parry or person about any issue of fact or law regarding the complaint, except at a meeting of the Commission. This provision does not prevent a member of the Commission to consult with the City Attorney regarding procedure and legal issues. C. Notification. A copy of a complaint which meets the requirements of this Section shall be promptly forwarded by the City Secretary to the City Attorney, the Ethics Commission, and to the person charged in the complaint. 2. The person alleged in the complaint to have violated this Chapter shall be provided with a copy of the Ethics Ordinance (this Chapter) and informed that: a. Within 14 days of receipt of the complaint, a sworn response must be filed with the City Secretary; b. Failure to file a response does not preclude the City Attorney from processing the complaint; c. A copy of any response to a complaint must be provided by the City Secretary to the complainant, who may within seven days respond by sworn writing filed with the City Secretary, who shall provide a copy of the sworn writing to the person charged in the complaint. Copies of all responses shall also be provided by the City Secretary to the Ethics Commission. City Officials have a duty to cooperate with the City Secretary, the City Attorney, and the Ethics Commission in any proceeding under this Chapter. Sec. 2.20.080. - Hearing Process. A. Preliminary Hearing. As soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than 60 days after receiving a complaint, the Commission shall conduct a Preliminary Hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this Chapter has occurred. 2. The complainant and the City Official named in the complaint have the right of representation by counsel. 3. Statements at a Preliminary Hearing shall be under oath, but there shall be no cross examination or requests for persons or evidence issued for the hearing. 4. The person filing a complaint shall state the alleged violation and describe in narrative form the testimony and other evidence which are presented to prove the alleged violation as stated in the written complaint. The City Official named in the complaint shall have the opportunity to respond but is not required to attend or make any statement. The official may describe in narrative form the 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 9 Page 575 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS testimony and other evidence presented to disprove the alleged violation. If the official agrees that a violation has occurred, the Commission may consider the appropriate sanction. 6. Only members of the Commission may question the complainant, the independent counsel for the Commission, or the City Official named in the complaint. 7. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing one of the following actions shall be taken: a. If the Commission does not determine that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, the complaint shall be dismissed. b. If the Commission determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, it shall schedule a final hearing. c. If the City Official has agreed that a violation has occurred, the Commission may proceed to determine the appropriate sanction. B. Final Hearing. A final hearing shall be held as expeditiously as possible following the determination by the Commission that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this Section has occurred, but in no event shall it be held more than 30 days after said determination. The Commission may grant two postponements, not to exceed 15 days each, upon the request of the City Official named in the complaint. 2. If a complaint proceeds to a final hearing, the Commission may request witnesses to attend and testify, administer oaths and affirmations, take evidence and request the production of books, papers, records, or other evidence needed for the performance of the Commission's duties or exercise of its powers, including its powers of investigation. Failure to comply with these requests becomes part of the material to be considered by the Commission in making this determination. The issue at a final hearing is whether a violation of this Chapter has occurred. The Commission shall make its determination based on the evidence in the record. All witnesses shall make their statements under oath. If the Commission determines that a violation has occurred, it shall state its findings in writing, identify the particular provision(s) of this Chapter which have been violated, and within five working days deliver a copy of the findings to the complainant, the person named in the complaint, and the City Secretary. The City Secretary shall deliver a copy of the findings to the City Council. Sec. 2.20.090. - Sanctions and Violations. A. If the Commission determines that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, it shall consider appropriate sanctions. The Commission may receive additional testimony or statements before considering sanctions, but is not required to do so. B. If the Commission determines that a violation has occurred, they may impose the following sanctions: 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 10 Page 576 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS a. A letter of notification when the violation is clearly unintentional, or when the respondent's conduct complained of was made in reliance on a public written opinion of the City Attorney. A letter of notification may advise the respondent of any steps to be taken to avoid future violations. b. A letter of admonition when the violation is minor or may have been unintentional, but calls for a more substantial response than a letter of notification. c. A reprimand when the violation has been committed intentionally or through disregard of this article. A reprimand directed to a City Official will also be sent to the City Council. d. A letter of censure when a serious or repeated violation of this article has been committed intentionally or through culpable disregard of this article by a City Official. A letter of censure directed to a City Official will be transmitted by the Commission to the City Secretary, published by the City Secretary in a local newspaper, of general circulation, and sent by the Commission to the City Council. C. If the Commission determines that a serious or repeated violation of this article has been committed intentionally or through culpable disregard of this article by a City Official, the Commission may recommend to City Council the removal from office or suspension from office, including a recommendation for the length of a suspension. The final authority to carry out a recommendation regarding removal of a City Official is the City Council. D. If the Commission determines that a serious or repeated violation of this article has been committed intentionally or through culpable disregard of this article by a City Official, the Commission may recommend the recall of the City Official from office. A recommendation regarding the recall of a City Official will be sent to the local newspaper. The final authority to carry out a recommendation regarding recall of a City Official rests with the citizens. E. A violation of any provision of this Chapter by any City Official as defined above shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable as provided in this Code. F. Copies of all sanction letters issued by the Commission under this Section shall be sent to the City Council. G. In addition, when the seriousness of the violation warrants, the Commission may recommend to the City Council the suspension or removal from office of any official serving in a Council - appointed position. Sec. 2.20.100. - Distribution and Proof of Compliance. A. The City Secretary shall make available to each new City Official designated in this Chapter, a copy of the text of this Chapter 2.20; Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code pertaining to conflicts of interest; the Texas Open Meetings Act (Tex. Gov. Code ch. 551); and the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code ch. 552) (collectively referred to in this Section as the "ethics statutes"). 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 11 Page 577 of 588 CODE OF ORDINANCES Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 2.20. - ETHICS B. The City Attorney shall conduct one or more annual seminars devoted to educating City Officials on the meaning and legal significance of the ethics statutes. C. Each City Official shall file with the City Secretary a signed affidavit in which the City Official acknowledges the existence of the ethics statutes. 100009846 / v6 / CMCNABB / COUNCIL / ETHICS / 5/17/20181 Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances Page 12 Page 578 of 588 CITY OF GEORGETOWN GOVERNANCE POLICY INTRODUCTION The Georgetown City Council, including Councilmembers and the Mayor, is the governing body for the City of Georgetown. Therefore, the City Council must bear the initial responsibility for the integrity of governance. The Council is responsible for its own development (both as a body and as individuals), its own discipline, and its own performance. By adopting this policy the Council acknowledges its responsibility to each other, to the professional Staff, and to the public. This policy will be reviewed annually. GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES The City Council will govern the City in a manner associated with a commitment to the preservation of the values and integrity of representative local government and democracy, and a dedication to the promotion of efficient and effective governing. The following statements will serve as a guide and acknowledge the commitment being made in this service to the community. The City Council shall: • be responsive to the needs of the citizens and the Georgetown community by providing pro -active visionary and strategic leadership and focusing on the future rather than the past; • recognize its responsibility to future generations by developing goals that address the interrelatedness of the social, cultural, and natural characteristics of the community; • communicate and serve with respect, dignity and courtesy in relations with Staff, all Councilmembers, members of the boards, commissions, committees, and the public; • endeavor to keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communication between citizens and the City Council; • strive to develop strong working relationships among Georgetown, Williamson County, Southwestern University, Georgetown Independent School District, Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, and other community and civic organizations; • be committed to improve the quality of life for the individual and the community; and • be dedicated to the faithful stewardship of the public trust and seek to improve the quality and image of public service. City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 1 of 7 Page 579 of 588 GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES The office of elected official is one of trust and service to the citizens of Georgetown. This position creates a special responsibility for the City Council, and the following principles shall govern the conduct of each Councilmember and the Mayor. A Councilmember and the Mayor shall: • be loyal to the interests of the citizens of Georgetown, superseding conflicting loyalty to advocacy or interest groups, membership on other boards, employment with other organizations, and personal interests as an individual citizen of the City; • be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships and conduct themselves, both inside and outside City service, so as to give no occasion for the distrust of their integrity, impartiality or of their devotion to the best interests of the City and the public trust, to merit the respect and confidence of the citizens of Georgetown; • refrain from any activity or action that may hinder the ability to be independent, objective and impartial on any matter coming before the Council, such as accepting gifts or special favors; • not condone any unethical or illegal activity, such as using confidential information for personal gain or misusing public funds or time; • recognize that public and political policy decisions, based on established values, are ultimately the responsibility of the City Council; • comply with the City's Ethics Ordinance (Chapter 2.20 of the Georgetown Municipal Code) and other applicable rules and laws governing the conduct of elected officials; and • conduct business in open meetings for transparency and direct accountability to the citizens of Georgetown. COUNCIL MEETINGS Each Councilmember and the Mayor shall: • be familiar with and follow the Council Meeting Procedures Ordinance (Chapter 2.24 of the Georgetown Municipal Code); • be familiar with and follow parliamentary rules applicable to the Council process and procedure; City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 2 of 7 Page 580 of 588 • effectively use the Consent Agenda; • be prepared for meetings and for discussion of the Agenda; and • be informed about action taken by the Council when the Councilmember is absent. MAYOR'S ROLE The Mayor is responsible for the integrity of the Council's process and is the authorized speaker for the Council. The Mayor shall be the presiding officer at all meetings, shall preserve order and decorum and encourage all Councilmembers to participate in discussion. The Mayor will act as mediator in any conflict and will seek consensus of Councilmembers. The Mayor is responsible for dissemination of ongoing information on Council procedures, current agenda items and meetings. COUNCIL COMMITTEES In order for the Council to maximize its effectiveness it may choose to utilize any or all of the following processes: • Council Subcommittees or Ad -Hoc Committees assist the Council by preparing policy alternatives and implications for Council deliberation. • Citizen Advisory Committees assist the Council or Staff with technical expertise to resolve specific policy decisions. • Advisory Boards, Commissions, and Committees thoroughly investigate, discuss and deliberate issues to make informed recommendations to Council. COUNCIL EDUCATION AND TRAINING The City Manager shall coordinate and facilitate the orientation of new Councilmembers. Continuing education and training of Council is a priority. The Mayor and Councilmembers are encouraged to attend continuing education and training programs focusing on city/county/regional/state/national issues, policy and governance. The City Manager, City Secretary and City Attorney shall coordinate and facilitate the continuing education and training of Councilmembers. NEWS MEDIA RELATIONS News media is an important link between the Council and the public. The Council desires a positive, professional working relationship with the media to inform and educate citizens about the issues facing the City. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is the City's official media City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 3 of 7 Page 581 of 588 relations representative on administrative and operational matters. The Mayor is the City's official media relations representative and primary spokesperson for the Council regarding policy issues. COUNCIL RELATIONS WITH STAFF The City of Georgetown recognizes the importance of a positive relationship between the City Council and the City Manager. The effectiveness of the organization is dependent on the respect of the flow of authority as established by the Charter: Public to Elected City Council to City Manager to Staff. In order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council/Manager form of government, the following guidelines shall be adhered to by the Council ("elected officials"), appointed officials and Staff of the City of Georgetown. Council authority is held collectively, not individually. The Mayor and Councilmembers have no authority to speak for or act on behalf of the Council without Council action or direction taken during an open meeting. The City Manager is the Council's link to the City operating organization. The City Manager is authorized to make decisions and take actions, as long as they are consistent with Council policies, applicable ordinances and other law. Items that may entail a change in administrative procedures or operational matters shall go through the City Manager. Items that entail a change in the overall policy or an ordinance of the City shall require City Council approval. The City Manager shall provide regular written updates to the City Council, City Attorney, and City Secretary informing them of the progress on projects, City events, and items of concern currently pending before the City. The City Manager is responsible for facilitating communication between Council and Staff. For purposes of this paragraph "Staff" does not include the City Attorney or the City Secretary. Elected officials shall not give direction or orders to Staff. Communication between Council and Staff shall be through the City Manager. Specifically: • The City Manager shall delegate Council action and/or direction to Staff, shall provide appropriate Staff attendance at meetings, and shall coordinate appropriate Staff response to Council action and/or direction. • Requests for Staff attendance at a meeting shall be made through the City Manager. The City Manager must approve the request for Staff attendance at the meeting. City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 4 of 7 Page 582 of 588 • Requests for public presentations and public informational meetings conducted or attended by Staff shall be made through the City Manager. The City Manager must approve the public presentation or public informational meeting. • Requests for information or questions to Staff shall be made through the City Manager. The City Manager will obtain the requested information or answers from Staff and will provide the request/question and the responsive information/answers to the Mayor and Councilmembers. • Requests for work to be performed or for other items of an operational nature either in a specific district, or city wide, shall be presented to the City Manager. Staff shall notify the City Manager of direct contact by an elected official concerning the above communication matters. The City Manager shall demonstrate professional and ethical behavior and shall be responsible for the professional and ethical behavior of Staff. The City Manager is responsible for appropriate education and training of Staff. COUNCIL RELATIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney is the legal advisor for the Council, its committees, commissions and boards, the City Manager, and all City officers and employees with respect to any legal question involving an official duty or any legal matter pertaining to the affairs of the City. The City Attorney represents the City, not individual Councilmembers, City officers or employees. No Councilmember shall request or direct the City Attorney to initiate an action or prepare any report that is significant in nature, or initiate any significant project or study, without the consent of a majority of the Council. The City Attorney shall determine whether or not a matter is significant. The City Manager and City Secretary shall be informed of any project, study, opinion or report requested by the Council and prepared by the City Attorney. The City Manager shall not prevent Councilmembers from communication with the City Attorney. COUNCIL RELATIONS WITH THE CITY SECRETARY The City Secretary is the record keeper of documents resulting from Council action including the minutes, ordinances, and resolutions. The City Secretary, and/or his/her designee, shall oversee Records Management within the City and ensure compliance with applicable local and state laws. City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 5 of 7 Page 583 of 588 The City Secretary shall serve Council as an administrative liaison and contact for citizens and City Staff in addition to assisting the Mayor with ceremonial activities, proclamations, and public appearances. The City Secretary, and/or his/her designee, shall work with the Mayor and coordinate the administration of Council appointed boards, commissions, and committees. The City Secretary shall serve as the Staff Liaison to the City's Ethics Commission, and concurrently with the City Attorney's office, assist in compliance and education related to local and state ethics regulations. The City Secretary is responsible for coordinating and managing the City's elections in collaboration with the City Attorney and Williamson County and shall communicate with current and prospective Councilmembers. The City Manager and City Attorney shall be informed of any project, study, opinion or report requested by the Council and prepared by the City Secretary. The City Manager shall not prevent Councilmembers from communication with the City Secretary. STAFF AND COUNCIL RELATIONS WITH BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Staff support and assistance may be provided to advisory boards, commissions and committees. Advisory bodies, however, do not have supervisory authority over City employees. While Staff may work closely with advisory bodies, Staff members remain responsible to their immediate supervisors and, ultimately, the City Manager. The members of the commissions, boards, or committees are responsible for the functions of the advisory body. The chairperson is responsible for committee compliance with the municipal code and/or bylaws. Staff members are to assist the advisory bodies to ensure appropriate compliance with the Charter, ordinances, state and local laws and regulations. Staff support includes: preparation of an agenda; preparation of reports providing a brief background of the issues, a list of alternatives, recommendations, and appropriate backup materials, if necessary; and preparation and maintenance of permanent minutes of advisory body meetings. Advisory body members should have sufficient information to reach decisions based upon a clear explanation of the issues. It is important to note that City Staff seeks to not influence boards, commissions and committees in their decision making process. Staff should provide information on options considered along with a summary of pros and cons of each option. Any prior direction by City Council on a particular issue should be provided by Staff to any board, commission or committee considering the issue. The role of the City's boards, commissions and committees is to perform the specific functions established in state statutes, City ordinances, resolutions, or minute orders as applicable and to advise the City Council about the topics assigned. If a Councilmember attends a meeting of a City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 6 of 7 Page 584 of 588 board, commission or committee, the Councilmember shall not take part in the meeting nor address the board in any manner, whether by questions or statements. A Councilmember shall not attempt to influence the decisions of boards, commissions and committees, either directly or indirectly, nor express an opinion to a board, commission or committee about its actions unless at a City Council meeting. This policy provision does not apply to a Councilmember who is participating as a duly appointed member of a board, commission or committee. All instructions to board, commissions and committees by the City Council shall be in writing or made on the record at a City Council meeting. City of Georgetown Governance Policy Page 7 of 7 Page 585 of 588 Role of Council As a representative democracy, we provide a voice for, and communication to, each district so that the Council can make decisions that serve the best interests of the City of Georgetown as a whole. • Set policy, and exercise sound financial responsibility, and hold staff accountable for results • Ensure alignment between vision, goals, and strategies • Identify and define key challenges and opportunities • Establish the organizational culture of the City by leading with integrity and upholding legal and ethical standards • Ensure that City services emphasize public health, safety, and opportunity Rules of Engagement • To treat everyone with respect, courtesy, and civility • To act collaboratively and promote and solicit an open, honest, transparent, respectful, and professional dialogue with each other, our citizens, city staff, and other interested parties • To honor our commitments • To actively advocate for our point of view, but also to recognize and respect the decisions of Council, even though we might not agree with that decision (we will not undermine the decisions of Council) • To recognize any preconceptions that we may have about certain individuals, groups, or organizations City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Sec.551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Escalera Ranch Owners' Association Inc. v Planning and Zoning Commission Members Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Quarterly Utility Financial Update ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Page 588 of 588