Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_AIRAB_11.25.2002 Minutes of the Meeting of the Airport Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, November 25, 2002 The Airport Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Monday , November 25, 2002. Members Present: Dennis Daley, Don Pfiester, Howard Fomby, Jeff Gilbert, Jerry Fye, John C. Bader, Mark Dietz Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Travis McLain Minutes Regular Meeting 1. Call to order. Chairman Fye called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. Consideration and Approval of Minutes of October 28, 2002, meeting. Motion by Don Pfiester and seconded by Howard Fomby to approve the minutes of the October 28, 2002, meeting. Motion approved 7-0. Corrections noted (2). Page 2, third line, should be “Badge” control and page 3, second line, should be “Airport” not Report. 3. Airport Manager’s Report: A. October 2002 Monthly Income and Expense Report (attached) B. Status of the Airport Security Subcommittee 1. Referred to Item (5) Recommendations from the Airport Security Subcommittee to be presented by Tim Sullivan. C. General Information Items. 1. Councilman Farley Snell’s Meeting Report (presented by Howard Fomby) Howard Fomby: Last month we made a presentation of our “Close or Move the Airport Analysis” to the group and I think that was well received. Quite a number of the airport opponents stated that the numbers were within the range of what they expected and was informational. I made an offer to them that this was a starting point and we would encourage them to challenge any of the information we had to provide more information. In order to make intelligent decisions about this airport we needed to have facts and information instead of guesses and opinions. In the last meeting, I offered to Mrs. Burt to include information she has from the FAA on grant assurances. (Mrs. Burt was not in attendance.) I also offered to let her come to this meeting and make the presentation. She is not here at this meeting. Mrs. Burt has been pushing for Georgetown to stop taking any federal and state grants; to do so would cause several hundred thousand dollars a year to this airport and a total obligation to the City of millions and millions of dollars. Her basis on that is that if we stop taking the grants that perpetual obligations will go away. Along those lines, in our report, we looked at FAA Rules and Regulations, David Fulton’s written response to us, and the body of evidence that exists on the Internet. The body of evidence suggests that the FAA is unyielding in perpetual grants. So when Penny asked to inform the Farley group that she had some counter evidence, I thought that might be helpful to us. But, she is not here to present that. Chairman Fye: That is too bad. That would be helpful if she has that information. Jerry Fye apologized for not attending the Snell meetings- November, the city council meeting and two sub-committee meetings due to business. Jerry Fye: In regard to the topic/report that you all put together on the moving vs. closing the airport. The City Manager has requested the Board to make presentation on moving the Airport at the City Council workshop. Jerry Fye: Mr. Peshak, would you like to speak to this item. Keith Peshak: I have two questions: 1) Is the Airport Fund in alignment with City fiscal polices? Travis McLain: The City’s budgetary and fiscal policies states that every enterprise fund has to maintain a revenue of one and a half times in excess of the bonding indebtedness, that ’s why the fuel price margins were increased on avgas and jet fuel on Oct. 1 to bring the airport in compliance with the budgetary policy. Keith Peshak: Second question: 2) Can I get copies of numbers or pages on that? Travis McLain: Yes. 4. Consideration and possible action regarding the request from Don L. Dison to lease airport property (approximately 2 acres). Don Dison: Project: Shade hangars that can be modified to full T -hangars. 16-28 spaces approximately. (Map provided) Jerry Fye: Location? Asphalt ramp? Don Dison: To the North is ramp, to the South is roadway. Don Dison: That drawing does not show the topography, it requires drainage work. Don Pfiester: One row or two? Don Dison: They should use extension of one taxiway. Mark Dietz: Who is Phelps Berger Yates? Don Dison: He is my counsel. Dennis Daley: Do you expect this to increase the number of inventory of based aircraft? Don Dison: Not significantly Dennis Daley: What is the size of plane that can fit into your shade hangars? Don Dison: Single and small twin. Don Pfiester: What is the time frame that you will be ready? Don Dison: Six months construction. Don Pfiester: What has the land been used for? Travis McLain: Vacant. Gantt declined to lease. Don Pfiester: If you needed to build a new taxiway, would you build a new taxiway? Don Dison: Certainly. I understand that the City Council’s current philosophy that infrastructure and development would be on the developer. Don Pfiester: Utilities? Don Dison: Electricity. Jerry Fye: Terms and Rate? Do we make a recommendation to Council? Travis McLain: The negotiating factor is the rental rate. Council will ultimately decide what the rental rate will be. Howard Fomby: 30 year Lease? Don Dison: Yes. Jeff Gilbert: How much time is left on your current lease? Don Dison: 17 year balance. Howard Fomby: Are you still pursuing expansion at present site? Don Dison: Yes. On the landlease, I have built only one half of ultimately what it could be on the entire development. Don Pfiester: Concrete floor, and steel sides? Don Dison: Yes. If you want to see an example, it would be similar to the Burnet Shade Hangers, not quite that high. Jerry Fye: Any Questions or comments? Mr. Peshak? Keith Peshak: 1) on the first item there was a Resolution passed by Council that no more development at the Airport. The resolution has not been reversed; there’s a moratorium ban. The motion would be against City Law. 2) Second item is Lease rates: has not been reviewed by the Economic Development. This origin of lease rate of @ 15.8 cents is out of date, and therefore does not reflect a fair and honest rate. For example, we once had an airport manager for $19,000.00 a year and now we spend $130,000.00 a year on salaries for city staff on the airport. That would indicate that 15.8 cents per sq. ft. is obsolete. It should be reviewed by the Economic Development Council. Jerry Fye: It’s not my understanding that new T-Hangar build outs are forbidden by law. Is it illegal to develop? Jeff Gilbert: I understood it was shot down. They got a reading from the legal department that said you couldn’t do this. Howard Fomby: The Resolution is not valid. Basically it’s under, correct me if I’m wrong, it falls under the category that if you pass a law, that is itself illegal, than you cannot pass it. The municipality cannot exceed the authority of a higher government. Jerry Fye: I suggest that we take this agenda item in two sections: 1. Approval of the lease. 2. To discuss a rate recommendation. Jerry Fye: Motion to approve the lease proposal by Mr. Dison. Seconded by John Bader. Approved 6-1. Jeff Gilbert voted against. Jeff Gilbert: It might not be legal for the expansion. The Snell discussions are continuing; we should wait until the Snell discussions are complete. I am not comfortable approving this with the current climate toward the airport. It is not the proper time. Jerry Fye: The first part of agenda item (4) passes with Jeff Gilbert voting no. The second part is to recommend a lease rate for the lease to the City Council. Mark Dietz: I would like to move that this lease not be submitted to City Council until such time Economic Development reports on an appropriate lease rate for this tract. Don Dison: I don’t disagree with that recommendation, however, I’d like to ask with that motion a request the Economic Development pursue it quickly. Mark Dietz: I move that we submit it to the Economic Development as soon as possible. Howard Fomby: I second the motion. Jeff Gilbert: I think the Economic Development could not arrive at a rate for Banner. Don Dison: What I remember at that meeting; the recommendation for the transfer of the Banner lease, the Economic Development Council recommendations at that was that it be converted or moved over at the existing rate. They could not justify changing the Banner rate. Jerry Fye: If Economic Development could not arrive at a rate for Banner; then we need to make a recommendation. Mark Dietz: Point of order, I have a motion on the floor. Jeff Fye: There’s a motion of the floor. Howard Fomby has seconded it. Motion approved 7-0. Jerry Fye: 1) Approve the proposed lease. 2) Defer to the Economic Development Council to establish a lease rate as soon possible. 5. Consideration and possible action regarding recommendations from the Airport Security Subcommittee. Don Pfiester: Tim, it looks like to me you all did an excellent job. Tim Sullivan: The Committee did all they could based upon the layout of the streets and hangars. Jerry Fye: Do you have something in mind to keep the pamphlet in front of pilots and the public? Tim Sullivan: We talked about mailing the pamphlet out to everybody that has any kind of business or connection with the airport. As well as keeping a supply at the Airport and to suppor t the Airport Watch program. Mark Dietz: Do we need to make recommendation to the Council, due to the expenditure of funds? Howard Fomby: A couple of items, I would like added: 1) Lighting – increased lighting not just for security but the safety of the aircraft, pilots and the visitors. Texas airports seem to be dark. 2) The brochure looks great, but there are a few grammatical errors. I volunteer to help. Tim Sullivan: We are prepared to meet further if you need us. Since we did not do anything about fencing, I think the cameras are going to be the most important security and the lighting in that area. When the gates open at night, the cameras will automatically operate. We considered fake cameras, but decided real cameras are a better deterrent. Don Pfiester: How will the cameras work? Tim Sullivan: The taping/recording will be at the Terminal. Don Pfiester: That’s obviously the most expensive thing recommended here? Tim Sullivan: Yes, that and the increased lighting. Dennis Daley: Can we recommend Georgetown Police to increase patrols? Jeff Gilbert: Currently they patrol once every three or four nights. John Bader: Police may be able to increase patrols. Howard Fomby: Note that it is a Federal offense to access certain areas of the airport. Tim Sullivan: Layout of the airport is difficult to restrict access. Howard Fomby: What kind of security is on the west side? It ’s very dark back there. Is that a realistic security? Tim Sullivan: If somebody wanted to do something, they’d do it. Terrorists are not easily deterred. Keith Peshak: Two issues: 1) Said he had recommendations, I would like to get a copy of the handout to see it. 2) Refers to break-ins. Council instructed me that it is a budgetary issue. The airport is a Police free zone. John Sommerfield: I would like to suggest that in addition to the handouts that Personal Vigilance is important. That if you do see something suspicious, having a phone number at your hand is difficult to acquire. Pamphlets are good from an educational standpoint, but are not immediately available. I suggest you print the phone number(s) on wallet size cards and adhesive back labels that can be applied on hangar doors. So when they see something they can address local police and have 800 numbers for national security. Beth Jenkins: The problem is still no police patrols. If a call is made, we need a police response. I reported a suspicious vehicle once and they could not send anyone out. Jerry Fye: Perhaps more awareness now for better security. Tim Sullivan: The City Manager could follow up with the Police Department if Council approves. Howard Fomby: Amendment #6 is to make police patrols a priority. Mark Dietz: I move that the recommendation provided by the Airport Security Subcommittee be submitted to Council with a favorable support from the Airport Advisory Board. Don Pfiester seconded. Motion approved 7-0. 6. Consideration and possible action to Acknowledge Georgetown Pilot’s Association and their contributions to the Airport. Paul Smith: I live in Berry Creek. I’m the regional representative for the National Business Aviation Association. Georgetown Pilot’s Association is a member of the National Business Aviation Association and a local regional group, to which they have by-laws and access to N.B.A.A. resources, network, and our voice. Jerry Fye: I asked that this item be placed on the agenda for this meeting. I realize we owe a past due debt to the Georgetown Pilot’s Association for everything they do for the Airport; including the purchase of a $7,400.00 shredder. My thanks to the Georgetown Pilot’s Association, we’re lucky to have them involved in the airport. Presentation of a plaque to Beth Jenkins, representative of the Georgetown Pilot ’s Association. Beth Jenkins: Thank you. There may not be anymore airshows here, but there will be in Te mple and Georgetown Pilot’s Association will benefit from those airshows as well; so that the money from the airshows will continue to benefit the airport. Jerry Fye: Mr. Peshak? Keith Peshak: No comment. 7. Consideration and possible action regarding the Airport Staff. Jerry Fye: I asked this item to be put on the agenda. Travis, we’d like to thank you for the service and support you’ve given the board and your hard work. Plaque presented. 8. Consideration and possible action regarding Airport Noise. Mark Dietz: Historically, the airport noise has been the primary concern about any airport that ’s voiced by it’s surrounding residence. The 1998 Master Plan addressed noise: 1) What can we do about noise at this airport? 2) Can we do something without the noise study? Or is it something that will be absolutely necessary? Things that can be done without a noise study that I’ve identified and they’re part of the Airport Noise Study: 1) Designate ground run up areas. 2) Use preferential runways when applicable. (11-29 primary runway at night.) 3) Use of maps displaying noise sensitive areas (which we already do.) 4) Specific pattern procedures and altitudes, maximum safe climb on take off (all things we currently do and are in the 1998 recommendations.) The problem is once you get past much more than that, you’re going to have a requirement that some dollars be spent on it. More than that requires a great deal of money to reduce noise (berms, long areas of fencing, restrict the times of operations of certain types of aircraft, construct run up pins, collect fees for aircraft of various weights, etc.). They all require a PART 150 Noise Study as a fundamental requirement. I do not know why the Noise Study didn ’t make it past Council’s approval. We need to determine what are the problems with the Coffman report and what do we need to do: 1) Misunderstanding of the conditions that are the assurances that are required in order to complete or adopt the noise study. A. Preservation of the approaches to the airport - both visual and instrument (this should not cause too much concern to the City as the airport owner) B. Compatible land use – (this I think caused the City’s concern) by accepting a noise study a city must take appropriate action including the adoption of zoning laws to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport, the activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, and in addition once it starts this noise compatibility adoption it will not cause or permit any change in land use within its jurisdiction that will reduce its compatibility. What does that mean? That means that if the Noise Study is adopted, then the City has a duty to go forward and say that within this area immediately adjacent to the airport, we’re going to have to make sure we zone appropriately. In the Noise Study maps, you ’ll learn there’s not much city land that surrounds this airport. Most of the land surrounding the airport is county land and the county has no zoning authority. So there ’s not a significant impact or requirement on the city to do a lot to the zoning requirements. There are some areas immediately adjacent to the airport that zoning could be an issue but it ’s not something I can perceive as a particular problem, other than if there is a decision being driven by a development interest; in other words, someone who wants to utilize land that is adjacent to the airport that will come into the City’s jurisdiction. It wants to make sure there’s not zoning or restrictions that will prohibit the use of single family dwelling under a fly over area. I don’t know whether or not that’s a driving factor, but that’s a common factor in the opposition to any adoption of a noise compatibility study. The second half of that, it won’t cause or permit any change of land use within it ’s jurisdiction that will reduce compatibility. This makes the assumption that there is property that’s immediately adjacent to a fly over or a used area that somebody wants to up zone; in other words make it more restrictive. That would impact how it would work within the environment of the airport. I don’t know what tract of land that would be, that is currently within the city zoning that has a zoning that could be up zoned, made more restrictive, that would impact the city’s ability to utilize grant assurances. There are two grant assurance areas that you have to look at if you are an airport owner that you’re going to have to comply with in the future. Now I know that there are considerations about no city land would be impacted by property within 65 DNL range; there ’s a likelihood that property that falls underneath that co uld be inversely condemned or you’re going to have to provide money for the renovations of those existing businesses or homes. I looked at the maps 1998 Master Plan (not a certified Noise Study, just a projection) and compared it to the Noise Study, there’s very little difference as far as the impacted properties between the two, even though we have a much greater number of aircraft. There’s really not much difference between the Master Plan of 1998 vs. Coffman Report of present. Going forward, if we have concerns about noise in and around the airport, the things that we can do, we are already pretty much doing. We may not be enforcing them very much but if we want to do more to really control noise around the airport, we’re going to have to invoke the protections of the Noise Study and spend the money necessary to control noise in and around the airport. I did not understand the problems with the Coffman Report. I know there are a number of deficiencies, my goal is to come back to this board next time (Jan. / Feb.) and having interviewed people, try and figure out all the problems that are identified with the Coffman Report. Then see if we can’t make recommendations to Council about what needs to be done to clear up the problems with the Coffman Report. I think it is a terrible waste that this City would take $200,000.00 and then have to give it back; after the work is done. If there are deficiencies in the Coffman Report because of their own work product, then they need to fix it. It should not cost any more money. If there are other deficiencies let’s identify them and make Coffman fix them and not waste $200,000.00 John Bader: What type of deficiencies? Mark Dietz: I think they overestimated the number of aircraft in the future. I don ’t see their projections are as high as they listed. There are other problems; they may have included information including a control tower. Jeff Gilbert: Has Council taken any action? Mark Dietz: No, I don’t think so. Don Pfiester: The City must pay back the $200,000.00 to TxDOT if we don’t complete the study. Mark Dietz: This board has a duty to make a good presentation to Council so as to not waste that money. In the long term we are going to need the Noise Study for significant Noise Abatement reductions. Howard Fomby: Comment(s): There’s a movement to do a new Airport Master Plan; 99% of that master plan already exits within this document. If we can ’t agree on this plan itself, then it is difficult for me to see how are we going to move towards a new Master Pla n. We need to get this behind us and use this document as a real projection of what we expect this airport to be. I agree with Mark on the aircraft projections. Coffman projected from a spike in aircraft population. They did not address the ability this airport has to control its growth. The constraints that a noise study imposes (obstruction clearance and compatible land use), but in looking at the general FAA Rules and Regulations, those constraints already exist because of our perpetuity grants. We have to maintain this airport in a way that it is safe. We cannot allow obstructions to appear at the end of our runways; we cannot allow incompatible land use. If we for instance allowed houses to be built on the airport, and that started impacting the safety and security or the viability of the airport then we would be in violation of federal grant assurances. What has changed from 1998 to now? The only change would be the availability of more federal funds. I recommend we spend a little more money to finish the study and support it. Jerry Fye: Did anyone of you make a presentation to the City Council? Don Pfiester: Yes. It was decided we needed to get it into a workshop. Mark Dietz: A workshop is an ideal place. Jerry Fye: I suggest that the Noise Study be “moved” into a City Council Workshop. One or two workshops? Mark Dietz: One workshop, two parts. Howard Fomby: There is no support on Council to close or move the airport. Jerry Fye: Any citizens signed up to speak? Mr. Peshak, your signed up to speak on this issue. Keith Peshak: I can’t comment within three minutes on deficiencies in the Noise Study. Jerry Fye: Thank you. 9. Consideration and possible action regarding an Airport Management Discussion Group. Jerry Fye: Address strategic and mid-level planning issues for the airport. Howard Fomby: Postpone until next meeting. 10. Consideration and possible action regarding Airport Safety. No action. 11. Citizens Wishing to Address the Board. Paul Smith: I wanted to offer two things in regard to the airport security. I have some resources in our organization that can help. I wanted to give you this airport ’s handbook from the NBAA. I’ve given one to Travis and Farley Snell. I will help when I can. Dennis Daley: Any money for airports in homeland security? Paul Smith: Not certain at this time. 12. Consideration and possible action on Agenda Items for the January 27, 2003, meeting. No meeting in December. January items will be submitted by January 20, 2003. Howard Fomby: People comment that they do not have opportunity to speak at the board meetings and that the board is not following Council Policy. Jeff Gilbert: Central Texas Regional Airport will not be close to Georgetown or San Marcos. There must be a new airport. It makes no sense to put a new airport close to Georgetown or San Marcos. Can it be City, County, or private? Will it mean less traffic (jet) in Georgetown? Don Pfiester: Do you know the effect general aviation has on the city? Do you all have studies? Paul Smith: I have not seen any studies on that, but I can tell you generally speaking, that an airport like this has a very definite impact on any city, whether here or down the road. For Austin to have lost their downtown airport is ludicrous. 13. Adjourn. Motion by Mark Dietz. Seconded by Howard Fomby. Approved 7-0. Submitted by: Travis McLain Airport Director Reviewed by: Howard Fomby Board Secretary