HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES_GTAB_08.08.2014Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
August 08, 2014
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you -require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East Stn
Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Present: Truman Hunt — Chair, Rachel Jonrowe — Vice Chair, John Hesser — Secretary,
Ray Armour, Chris H`Luz, Scott Rankin
Board Members Absent: David Johnson, Steve Johnston, John Pettitt,
Staff Present: Paul Brandenburg, Jim Briggs, Ed Polasek, Wesley Wright, Mike Babin, Mark Miller, Sasha
Lockarny, Chris Foster, Paul Diaz, Nat Waggoner, Curtis Benkendorfer, Laura Wilkins, Skye Masson
Others Present: Carl Norris, John Milford, Beth Jenkins, Daryl Dressler, Steven E. Haskett, Pablo
Holguin, Bob Burczak - ACC members, Lacy Keeling — Genesis Flight Academy, Ron Bindas — Airport
User, Mark Ramseur — Pape -Dawson, Matt Loeschman — The Williamson County Sun, Bruce Barton —
Omni Properties Inc., Mark Allen — Hall Properties
MEMEM=
A. Call to Order — Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday,
August 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to
convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager,
Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government,Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: Polasek gave update. CAMPO - To have a decision on STP -
MM by October Board Meeting. TxDOT - Mike Walker Environmental Austin District announced
retirement. His retirement is a loss to TxDOT and the region. No other info about his
replacement.
Road Bond Committee has met three times so far. Reviewing project list. Going through the list
and including more detailed questions about projects. This info is very useful. Will help in
making recommendations.
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines — Bill Dryden, P. E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP 0
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Updates given by Dryden
Miller presented info from the paving report.
Waggoner gave update on Downtown Sidewalk Plan — Side Walk Open House to be held on
September 251h at the Library - Friends Room from 5:00 until 7:00 PM.
Safe Routes to School 10/8/14 International Walk to School Day — idea to publicize this — partner
with GISD, police and maybe PTA's to encourage participation of the neighborhoods around
Mitchell School for children to walk to school on that day.
Signed CDBG Task Order for Sidewalk projects from IH -35 to just east of Scenic along south side
of University and another portion from around the Madellia Hilliard center to MLK.
Comment from Jonrowe that she has received positive feedback on Austin Avenue sidewalk.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
The following persons signed up and addressed the Board related to this item:
Carl Norris
John Milford
Benkendorfer — gave update on Airport.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following
items:
F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting
held on July 11, 2014 — Jana Kern
Jonrowe — noticed votes are listed as Approved 6-3 — does not say who was for or against —
would like it to say in favor of, against, or unanimous. Motion: by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to
approve as amended. Approved as corrected - Unanimous 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, and Pettitt
absent)
G. Presentation of questions regarding Lone Star Rail—Steve Fought, Councilmember, District 4 and
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Brandenburg — Council Member Fought could not be here. No action necessary by the board.
Brandenburg read Council member Fought's request. Mr. Fought is looking for three things:
that the board acknowledge that they have received his request; that the 7 questions/concems he
has are entered into the record; and that staff has a heads -up on these issues as they head into the
process with Lone Star Rail. Jonrowe ethics training recently — addressed relationship between
Boards and Commissions with Council. Appreciate Council Member Fought's comments and
concerns — but we should be careful not to allow undue influence from Council members during
the process. Hessen— Georgetown's decision affects us directly — would suggest that the Board
consider using outside consultant on this to evaluate this decision. Jonrowe - this is not posted
for action — possibly add to an agenda later on. Brandenburg — will add this to the next agenda.
Armour — These questions bring up other questions - appreciates the questions. Helps possibly
save time and think it through better. Jonrowe — just a comment to be aware and not give more
weight to those questions from an individual in making decisions for recommendations. NO
ACTION TAKEN
H. Consideration and possible recommendation on a Texas Water Development Board Flood
Protection Planning contract. — Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director
Wright explained the item. Last Fall submitted grant application for flood plain planning. It was
approved a couple of months ago. We budgeted $400,000 next year's CIP for this. Now we will
have a floodplain master plan. Cost sharing 50/50 - we are allowed in-kind contribution so if
staff spends time working on this we could receive credit for that and cash out could be a little
less — remaining money rolls back into the drainage fund. Water Development Board wants
approval before Labor Day — we will bring contract forward for council approval. H'Luz — Was
KPA the engineer on this?— Answered by Wright - no KPA was the engineer on the Smith Branch
project. Raymond Chan & Assoc. — helped with the evaluation for the grant application — made
us aware of the grant and put application together for this. H'Luz — is Smith Branch a part of
this? Wright — Yes, we expect the Chan study to build from what has already been done. All
modeling to be shared. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Armour to recommend approval.
Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent)
I. Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of a Sublease Agreement between
Aircraft Systems and Manufacturing, Inc. and Genesis Flight Academy, LLC for a portion of the
premises at 301 Toledo Trail, Georgetown Texas—Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager
and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Polasek explained the item. Subleases must be approved by the board and submitted to Council
for final approval — staff recommends approval. Question by Armour on the lease rates —
clarified by Polasek. Armour - sublease assignable to the City? Polasek — answered with
clarification by Masson. Clarification by Masson — we will be paid for all of the property by ASM
— the City does own the hangar — City will enter into a new agreement at the end of the lease.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Rankin to recommend approval. Approved unanimously 6-0
(Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent)
Discussion and possible recommendation on Fuel Rates and Fuel Discount Policy at the
Georgetown Municipal Airport. - Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
The following persons signed up and addressed the Board related to this item:
Beth Jenkins, Daryl Dressler and Steven E. Haskett
Polasek explained the item. The discount being discussed is for AvGas only. Council has
approved all fuel rates but has never approved a discount policy. Council sets all rates and fees
through Special Ordinance or through the budgetary process. What info does the Board need to
discuss and or make a decision for recommendation related to a fuel discount? Hesser - What are
customers currently paying? Polasek — today $4.95 with discount $4.64 = $0.31 cent discount.
Jonrowe — who gets the discount? Polasek — certain hangars, flight schools, large volume, who
ever had a pre -pay account. Jenkins - Airport Board had in 2003, suggested a cap on the
discount — at 31 cents/gallons. Jonrowe would like to know what other airports are doing.
Hesser - Taylor $4.83 - Kyle $5.00 - Austin Exec. - $5.55 — does not appear to be any discounts
being given. Polasek — City is on contract — we pay flat rate — no discount from the supplier.
Jonrowe - how much has been given in discounts — Diaz approximately $24,000 every year over
last 10 years in discounts. Hesser — have we evaluated options? Diaz - yes we have — need
direction for business model - as of right now we could lose $200K this next year the way we
currently do business. If we adjust operations we could sell less gas but still make a profit.
Various comments and questions by Board members. Set the fuel policy and rate as an agenda
item for the September GTAB meeting. Polasek — If we want to do an interim rate — staff will
need recommendation from the Board to take to council for approval. Brandenburg — Board
could recommend that Council approve an interim rate until final policy and rate structure is
developed. Hesser would like to propose a temporary rate while staff has opportunity to come
up with policy for fuel rate at Airport and come back to GTAB for review. Motion by Hesser,
second by Jonrowe to make recommendation to Council to establish an interim rate, developed
by staff to allow time for staff and the GTAB Board to develop a policy and rate structure for fuel
rates. Further that staff will bring the final policy and rate structure to the GTAB Board for
recommendation to Council. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent)
K. Consideration and possible recommendation concerning the transportation elements of the
Flillwood Wolf Ranch Development. — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Presentation to Board by Polasek. H'Luz 8 foot wide trails —shouldn't that be 10 foot? Answered
by Consultant — 8 foot in line with other city projects. Additional discussion. NO Action on this
item
Regular Session adjourned at 11:48 am
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 subjected to
action in regular session.
Executive Session - Called to order at 12:02 pm by Hunt
Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney
- Airport/Aero Centex — Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- Deliberation concerning the proposed purchase of real property in connection with the Smith
Branch Drainage Buy -Out Project. — Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Terri
Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator
Executive Session adjourned at: 12:32 pm
Reconvene Regular Session at: 12:34 pm.
M. Action from Executive Session — Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve as discussed in
Executive Session. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent)
Adjournment
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 12:35 PM. Approved
unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent)
Approved:
Truman Hunt - Chair
Attested:
7
John Hesser — Secretary
Jana R. Kern — GTAB Board Liaison
AGENDA ITEM "E"
AIRPORTAND TIME LINE
POINT
� Name: Hugh C. Norris, Jr., 4400 Luna Trail
-k This is 15th presentation by ACC to GTAB since February 2014
-k Recent letters to government and elected officials:
July 17, 2014 to David Fulton, Dir. TxDOT AVN
July 28, 2014 to David Fulton, Dir, TxDOT AVN
July 28, 2014 to Michael Boots, Acting Chair, CEQ
July 28, 2014 to Clayton Foushee, Dir, FAA OAE
July 28, 2014 to Honorable John Carter, Congressman TX Dist. 31
July 28, 2014 to Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
August 01, 2014 From Greg Miller, TxDOT AVN
August 08, 2014 to Greg Miller, TxDOT
August 08, 2014 to Michael O'Harra, FAA, SW Dep. Reg. Administrator
August 08, 2014 to Ms. Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator
Cite ACC reasons for letters — appeal for GTAB discussions with ACC- Conflict with GTAB not an
ACC desire
GTAB July request for project management document -Staff Response?
Staff remains silent on ACC requests for project descriptions and time lines. GTAB indifference.
-c Closing Remarks
July 17., 2014
Mr. David Fulton
Aviation Division Director
Texas D epartment of Transportation
125 E. I Vh Street
Austin; TX 78701
Re: Letter dated June 27, 2014 from -Office of Secretary of Transportation
Notification of Affected Parties
Dear Mr. Fulton,
You and the City of Georgetown were provided a copy of my letter dated June 23, 2014 to the
Secretary of Transportation. Attached is a copy of a letter dated June 27., 2014 responding to me from the office of
the Secretary of Transportation.
It is your and the city's responsibility to provide notification of this correspondence to all parties proposing to
enter into federally funded contracts associated with the GTU program.
Respectfully,
Hugh C. Norris, Jr.
4400 Luna Trail
Georgetown, Texas 78628
CC:
The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
Mr. Paul Brandenburg, City Manager, City of Georgetown
10
July 28, 2014
Mr. David Fulton
Aviation Division Director
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDC)T)
125 E. 1111, Street
Austin, TX 78701
Re: City of Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU)
Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC)
TxDOT 2014/2015 CIP for GTU
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
Dear Mr. Fulton,
Attached are copies of my letter dated June 23, 2014 to the Secretary of Transportation and the
response from his office by letter dated June 27, 2014 from Mr. Angeles, the Associate Administrator of
Airports. Mr. Angeles has encouraged me to communicate with the GTU grant sponsor, the City of
Georgetown, and you regarding my letter to the Secretary. It is my intent to do that on a continual basis
on behalf of the ACC and the general public within and outside the City of Georgetown in pursuit of
our moral and regulatory rights for a citizens consensus on the FAA federally funded expansion of
aviation operations at GTU.
As the managing agent for FAA's Texas State Block Grant program VOL] are aware of federal regulations
0 - 0
and FAA requirements for compliance with NEPA and requirements for structured public hearings for
federally funded projects having g significant short-term, long-term, primary, secondary, and Cumulative
0
environmental impacts. Also as FAA's managing agent for Texas you are well aware of
your responsibilities for advising grant sponsors of their, obligations regarding all applicable FAA
federal grant regulations. Therefore, given your expertise in such matters and on behalf of the ACC and
the general public, this letter is addressed to you with the same request I made of the Secretary of
Transportation.
The GTU is located in the heart of our growing and expanding city and its 652 acres (with 1.2 acre FAA
90% financed property expansion) lie totally atop the environmentally sensitive Edwards Recharge
Zone (ERZ). The City of Georgetown lies within the fastest -rowing metropolitan area in the nation and
its population will continue to expand for at least through this century. In apparent indifference to
these facts it is our understanding in our meeting with you and your staff on May 5, 2014 that your staff
made a determination that the federally funded GTU 2014/201.5 CIP was composed of project elements
designated as "Safety" and "FAA standards" related and declared them" Categorically Excluded" from
0 1
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. We strongly object to this finding and
believe an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Must be prepared.
When considered as separate "project elements" as shown in the TxDOT 2013-2015) CIP these 17 elements
selected by the city Out of the partially FAA federally funded GTU 2005 Master Plan Update and d scribed
3
a "Safety" or "FAA standards compliance" for -rant application purposes they seem benign and intended
s 0
for safety of the existing, airport's service status quo. But when these 17 elernents are combined and
implemented they form an operations expansion program designed to virtually double the current
aviation operations day and night time take offs and landings.
For example, in our opinion the GTU 2014/2015 pro -ram will:
C7
• light up the airport for over 20 miles for night visual sighting to attract more night take offs and
1") 0 sighting
landings;
• provide runway special instrumentation to provide improved guidance to pilots for successful low
level airport landings in lieu of smashing into dense residential areas, schools, hospitals and
commercial developments (FAA is providing similar instrumentation for tower operations);
• virtually_ double to near 40,000 gallons aviation and jet fuels storage and faster selfserve
aircraft fueling over the ERZ inviting contamination of groundwaters;
• increase the total numbers of hard surface aircraft tie downs and hanger parking spaces;
® facilitate more aircraft taxiwav traffic;
• increase acreage of lease land for aviation industrial, commercial and air cargo uses;
• increase terminal parking for limousine taxis and executive passenger parking; and
• improve terminal dining and Customer service facilities.
Additionally, included in the TxDOT Aviation 201.3-201.5 CIP is the near $IN/lillion approximate 12 acre land
acquisition expansion of GTU property mandated by FAA for obstacles clearance for runway
11129. This project was explained to the City Council by staff as a result of an FAA safety inspection
deficiency and unless corrected FAA would close the airport. No Such deficiency had been noted by FAA
in the 70 years prior to,rxDOT's approval of the GTU 2014 CIP ,vhich funded runway and
taxi bv lighting for night takeoffs and landings. No FAA inspection deficiencies for safety or
otherwise have been issued since such federal funding approval. Clearly, FAA is not concerned about such
inspection deficiencies for GTU's existing operations status quo, but is very concerned about a substantial
increase in new GTU night operations.
In addition, the TxDo,r 201.5 CIP for GTU includes a GTU Master Plan Update currently estimated at
4 times the cost of the sum the city paid for the 2005 Master Plan Update. (TxDOT provided 90% FAA
federal funding for the Airport Layout Plan portion). Based on engineer recommendations of the 2005
Master Plan Update, the 2013 airport financial Study and our estimates this new 20 year master plan
update will include planning for:
• new general aviation service projections, statistics and needs for GTU to or about the year 2045;
• identification of new safety concerns for general public due to increasing aviation operations in
heart to growing city;
• identification of new runway, taxiway, aircraft parking and terminal project elements and their
costs for -the 20 year planning period;
• planning for over 100 acres of new land lease areas for more aviation commercial, air cargo and
industrial enterprises;
• justifications and recommendations for runway extensions for both runways 18/36 and 11/29
including discussions for condemnation of large numbers of residential properties;
• planning for increasing aviation fuels storage to or about 60,000 gallons on the ERZ;
• increased terminal customer service accommodations and terminal auto parking.
4
We are also concerned about other potential impacts of the GTU g program including effects on property
Z!7 0 -
value, noise levels, air quality, surface water and groundwater quality concerns related to the ERZ
involving fuel storage, fueling, hazardous materials usage by aviation industrial operations and waste
disposal.
Weare totally opposed to the GTU alternative as an attempt to meet the Georgetown community's
aviation needs, and we totally believe there are other, more environmental sound alternatives for meeting
those needs. Preparation of an EIS is the only appropriate process to adequately identify and explore
environmental issues associated with the proposed project and its alternatives, identify all appropriate
mitigative and precautionary measures and provide for sufficient and effective public participation. The
proposed Federal actions related to the expansion of an airport in the middle of a thriving community
cannot be excluded from complete NEPA. review.
We respectfully request that the TxDOT Aviation Division re-evaluate its exclusion of the GTU program.
from legitimate and complete environmental review. Further, we request you place a hold on all federal
funding for the GTU improvements in the TxDOT 2013-2015 CIP and require appropriate environmental
review be conducted including preparation of an EIS and conduct the mandated public hearings process
described in applicable federal regulations.
Res b tfully,
yz
I Jr.
4400 Luna Trail
Georgetown, Texas 78628
cc:
The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
Mr. Michael Boots, Acting Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality
Mr. Mr. H. Clayton Foushee, Director, FAA Office of Audit and Evaluation
5
July 28, 2014
Mr. Michael Boots
Acting Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality
Officeof the Acting Chairman
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
Re: Letter dated June 23, 201.4 to Secretary of Transportation
Letter dated June 27, from DOT Associate Administrator of Airports
Letter dated July 28, 2014 to Director ofTxD0T Aviation Division
Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU)
Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC)
Dear Mr. Boots,
On behalf of the ACC, a group of Georgetown citizens, and the general public both within and outside
I
the City of Georgetown, Texas, please use your influence and authority of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to correct what may be the worst environmental governmental action during the tenure
of your leadership of the CEQ.
We have a long standing situation in Georgetown that is a textbook example of why Congress passed the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and created the (CEQ). It is difficult to image that in this
day and time that we have a city government accepting lavish federal grants from a major government
agency and neither party caring a moment about major negative environmental impacts on the receiving
Community.
Georgetown is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. It lies within the heart of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the nation. The city's population has more than doubled in the past 1.0 years to more
than 55,000. GTU is a city owned, over 640 acre Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) designated
reliever airport, acquired from the government at the end of WWII. Trouble is —this public airport is
located in the middle of our growing, expanding city and totally atop the Edwards Recharge Zone (ERZ),
the geologic source for the Edwards Aquifer, the drinking water source for over one million people.
1 0
The State of Texas is a participant in the FAA State Block Grant Program. The Aviation Division of the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), is managing agent for FAA in Texas and is providing
90% federal grants for GTU improvements. TxDOT has determined along with city leaders that GTU
improvements are Categorically Excluded from NEPA. We strongly object to that finding.
The ACC believes that the city will be environmentally degraded by the FAA/TxDOT determination and
that numerous FAA regulations requiring federally structured public hearings have been violated by the
city, the state and federal governments. We strongly believe that if the city is destined for environmental
degradations by GTU improvements that decision must be made by the citizens of Georgetown in a
federal structured public hearings process and not forced upon the populace by city and the state and
federal governments.
0 6
We request that you review the attached documents and require the FAA/TxDO'-r to immediately hold all
federal funds designated for GTU improvements pending preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) including a federally structured public hearing process to attain a citizens consensus on the
GTU program.
The attached letters speak for themselves regarding, what we believe to be basic violations of applicable
NEPA and FAA federal grant requirements. If additional information is desired regarding this request please
advise.
Respectfully,
Ug Norris, Jr.
4400 LunaTrail
Georgetown, Texas
78628 (512) 868-2718
cc:
Congressman John Carter, U.S. Representative, 31st District -Texas
The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
July 28, 2014
Mr. H. Clayton Foushee
Director, Office of Audit and Evaluation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Letter dated June 23, 2014 to Secretary of Transportation
Letter dated June 27, 201.4 from Edward A. Angeles, Associate Administrator for Airports
Letter dated July 28, 201.4 to Director, Aviation Division, Texas Department of Transportation.
Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC)
Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU)
Claim: DOT140718-03.:USD001-SCQSupDst'I'X'I'I
Dear Mr. Foushee,
This is in response to my phone call on July 18, 2014 to the staff of Mr. Calvin L. Scovell III,
Inspector General, US Department of Transportation and staffs computer response dated July 22, 2014 with
above referenced claim number. The Inspector General's staff advised that you were the appropriate party
to whom my request Would be investigated and responded.
My claim is made on behalf of the ACC, a group of citizens of the City of Georgetown, Texas, and the general
public both within and outside the City of Georgetown, Texas. We request your office perform an
investigation to determine the extent of violations of FAA and federal regulations related to the GTU
1
2014 2015 CIP for mandatory Public hearings related to federal grants for public improvement
programs community.
Georgetown
having long term environmental impacts on the receiving
Georgetown is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. It lies within the heart of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the nation. The city's population has more than doubled in the past TO years to more
than 55,000. GTU is a city owned, over 640 acre Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) designated reliever
airport, acquired from the government at the end of WWII. Trouble is -this public airport is located in the
middle of our growing, expanding city and totally atop the Edwards Recharge Zone (ERZ), the geologic
0
source for the Edwards Aquifer, the sole drinking water for over one million people. Location of the GTU is
a critical factor.
The State of Texas is a participant in the FAA State Block Grant Program. The Aviation Division of the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), is managing agent for FAA in Texas and is providing
90% federal grants for GTU improvements. TxDoT has determined along with city leaders that GTU
improvements are Categorically Excluded and from NEPA. We strongly object to that finding. We contend
that an airport in the center of a growing expanding city and atop the ERZ cannot be excluded from NEPA.
8
In 2004 the city entered into a contract with GRW-Willis, Inc. for development of a 20 year master plan
update for the GTU. TxDOT participated with a 90% grant for preparation of the Airport Layout Plan
portion of that master plan. Upon completion of that plan titled Airport Master Plan Update, July 19,
2005, and following a 2 minute public hearing on an August 2005 City Council agenda item it was
approved and embedded in the city's Century Plan as the one and only non -alternative airport plan for
the city's future. All future airport capital improvements and all federal grant applications for same were
destined to originate from that plan and its subsequent amendments or updates.
The ACC contends that federal regulations including Title 49 USC 47106(c)(1)(A)(i) and FAA orders,
circulars and letters require federal structured public hearings early in the planning process for capital
improvement programs having long term impacts on the receiving community. Such hearings were
required prior to the approval of the 2005master plan by City Council. None were conducted. None have
been conducted since even though the city has over $9.5 million in FAA federal grant funded GTU
improvements currently in the TxDOT Aviation Division's 2013-2015 CIP. This FAA approved funding
includes a near $1 Million land acquisition by condemnation if required to add about 12 acres to the.
GTU property. The FAA and its managing agent in Texas, TxDOT, are required to hold the grant sponsor
and themselves accountable for enforcing applicable federal regulations:
ulations.
0 -
The ACC requests your office investigate the full extent of violations of applicable federal regulations
relative to required public hearings and public consensus of the GTU program and support our request
to the Secretary of the US Department of Transportation to place an immediate hold on all federal funds.
for GTU improvements pending completion of an Environmental Impact Statement including federally
structured public hearings on the GTU CIP program.
We believe the attached letters speak for themselves. However, if additional information is desired for
this request, please advise.
tfully,
Hugh C. Norris, Jr.
4400 Luna Trail
Georgetown, TX 78628
(512) 868-2718
cnorris29@suddnlink.net
cc:
Congressman John Carter, U.S. Representative, 31st. District -Texas
TI-te Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
0-
ffTexas Department of Transportation
125 EAST LITH STREET I AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2483 1 (5-12) 463-8580 1 WWW.TXDOT.GOV
August 1, 2014
Mr. Rugh C. Norris, Jr.
4400 Luna Trail
Georgetown, TX 78629
P
T--UlIWMTM,1kr*TM
Mr. Fulton asked that I respond to your July 28, 2014 letter regarding projects at the Georgetown
Municipal Airport (GTU) and the environmental review process.
We have evaluated the projects currently planned for GTU and those currently underway as well as
their associated environmental reviews. As a result, it is our opinion the appropriate level of analysis
has been undertaken and that no further action is required at this time.
It is important to note that projects identified in a Master Plan are considered "pre -NEPA" and "will
typically not be as detailed as that in subsequent environmental reviews." [FAA Advisory Circular
150/5070 -68 -Airport Master Plans (2007), Section 501(a)] Because airport master planning is the
responsibility of the City of Georgetown we encourage you to direct further inquiries regarding those
efforts to your local officials. -
Sincerely,
'y
II, e� il4ler'
TxDOT AVN Planning & Programming Director
OUR GOALS
MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM - ADDRESS CONGESTION - CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES - BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY
An Equal Oppotfunity Employer
August 8, 2014
Mr. Greg Miller
TxDOT AVN Planning & Programming Director
C� Z:1 t-1
Texas Department of Transportation
125 E. 11"' Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2483
Re: My Letter Dated July 28, 2014 to Mr. David Fulton., Director, TxDOT AVN
Your Response Letter Dated August 1, 2014
Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC)
Dear Mr. Miller.
On behalf of the ACC and the general public both within and outside the City of Georgetown and with
all due respect, we believe your referenced letter is not responsive to our concerns. We are not aware
of any documentation of appropriate level of NEPA environmental review having been conducted prior
to commitment of federal financing or funding for Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) projects.
You state that all projects planned and underway for GTU as well as their environmental reviews have
been evaluated, but you did not describe what those evaluations entailed or why such projects are
somehow exempt from legitimate and complete NEPA review prior to federal financing or funding
action. As you are aware, NEPA review including public participation and interagency coordination are
required to be completed prior to commitment of federal funding. If such documentation of your
determination exists please provide me with same. Also, since FAA can not delegate its NEPA
responsibilities, please forward along With Such determination documentation the official FAA approval
of your determination. Please consider these two documents requests to be a formal Request for
Information (RFI) pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 552.
You further state that all projects identified in a Master Plan are considered "pre -NEPA". We
understand that term to mean that the action of "planning projects" can be excluded from formal
environmental review, since planning in and of itself does not constitute an action affecting the hurnan
environment. Such concept is problematic in light of numerous federal and FAA regulations, orders,
and other directional guidance that clearly state that FAA has responsibility to provide guidance and
financial support to sponsors during the airport planning process including the FAA Advisory Circular
you described in your response letter. Please refer to Chapters 1-5 of that document. You should also
note "TxDOT Aviation Division Public Involvement Policy for Environmental Impacts", FAA Order
1050.1 E.
Your agency, acting as the FAA agent for Texas, participated directly with the City of Georgetown in
the preparation of the GTU 2005 Master Plan Update with FAA guidance and direct 90% cost coverage
of its included Airport Layout Plan. That master plan which, upon approval by the city in 2 minutes,
was immediately embedded by the same city council action in the city's Century Plan. Due diligence
3
would have encouraged TxTOT (FAA) to require the City to include a NEPA consistent review as part
of its planningprocess, assuming the City would subsequently seek federal funding for any pro
l ject
selected to be undertaken as part of the plan. Any such project entailing significant impacts to the
environment would require NEPA review prior to commitment of federal funds and such review could
cause changes to the project or make it ineligible for federal funding. Completion of City planning
without NEPA consistent review, or recognizing that projects are somehow already committed to by the
City does not exempt, preclude or otherwise relieve TxDOT and FAA frorn requirements for NEPA
review of any projects they are considering for permitting, financing, or funding.
Even a cursory examination of the GTU shows it to be in the middle of our growing and expanding
community and its 640 acres totally atop the Edwards Recharge Zone. Given the potential impacts of
the proposed GTU project, an appropriate level of NEPA review is warranted. We believe Such review
should include preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) consistent with NEPA prior to
any permitting, approval, of provision of financing or funding for the project. Segmenting of individual
projects or elements from the GTU master plan for review as separate projects is inappropriate and
inconsistent with NEPA review requirements, particularly given that all parts of the
GTU plan comprise one large airport upgrade and aviations operations expansion project. FAA/TxTOT
should not have made formal commitment to funding of any GTU improvements including the FAA 12
acre land acquisition project until the appropriate level of NEPA review is completed. Please note that
compliance with NEPA is required as part of the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act (42 U.S. Code
Chapter 6 1) as well as with FAA regulations. Obviously, TxDOT should not issue any notice to proceed
or commitment or payment of funds until the legitimate NEPA process is completed.
We again request that FAA/TxDOT honor our request to the Secretary of Transportation by letter dated
June 23, 2014 to place an immediate hold on all federal funds for GTU improvements pending
preparation of an EIS including Sufficient public participation and interagency coordination.
Z-1
Res ectfully,
ughC Norris, Jr.
4400 Luna Trail
Georgetown, TX 78628
cc:
Mr. Michael Boots, Acting Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality
Mr. H. Clayton Foushee, Director, FAA Office of Audit and Evaluations
Mr. Michael O'Harra, FAA Southwest Region Deputy Regional Administrator
Ms. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
The Honorable John Carter. Congressman -31st. District for Texas
The Honorable Date Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
EI
August 08, 2014
Mr. Michael O'Harra
Southwest Region Deputy Regional Administrator ASW -I
US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation
Administration Southwest Region
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Ft. Worth, TX 76137-4298
Re: Letter dated June 23, 2014 to Secretary of Transportation
Letter dated June 27, 2014 frorn Associate Administrator for Airports
Letter dated July 17, 2014 to TxDOT
AVN Letter dated July 25, 2014 to
TxDOT AVN
Letter dated August 01, 2014 from TxDOT
AVN Letter dated August 08, 2014 to
TxDOT AVN
Dear Mr. O'Hara,
The above letters speak for themselves. The City of Georgetown and TxDOT Aviation Division
have ignored our letter dated June 23, 2014 as if it had never been written. They are proceeding
now with a contract with BC Company for an airfield runway and taxiway electrical improvements
contract for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (CITU) that constitutes the City's federally funded
Airport 2014 CIP and proceeding with plans to advertise for the City's federally funded Airport 2015
CIP in the first fiscal quarter of20 15. These actions are contrary to requirements of NEPA.
In behalf of the ACC and the general public both within and outside the City of Georgetown, Texas
we request you ensure our request by letter dated June 23, 2014 to the Secretary of Transportation
is immediately honored.
Please contact me should you have need of additional information from me.
Re pectfully, /7
A
Hu rris, Jr.
4400 Luna Trail
Georgetown, Texas 78628 (512) 868-2718
cnorris29a
,,suddenlink.net
cc:
The Honorable John Carter, Congressman, 31st5District, Texas
The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
August 08, 2014
Ms. Gina McCarthy
Administrator
Office -of the Administrator -Mail Code 1101-A
Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
Re: Letter dated June 23, 2014 to Secretary of Transportation
Letter dated July 25, 2014 to TxDOT AVN
Letter dated JuIN, 28, 2014 to Michael Boots, CEQ
Letter dated July 28, 2014 to H. Clayton Foushee, FAA OAE
Letter dated August 01, 2014 from TxDOT AVN
Letter dated August 08, 2014 to TxDOT AVN
Dear Ms. McCarthy,
The referenced letters speak for themselves. The City of Georgetown, Texas and TxDOT Aviation, FAA agent
for Texas for the State Block Grant Program, are currently entering into federally funded construction
contacts and planning to advertise and construct others within the next few months. No documentation has
been presented or made available to the general public and interested agencies demonstrating that such
federal funding for capital improvement projects has been determined by an adequate, fu.11. and proper
NEPA review process.
Please review the attached letters and support our request to the Secretary of Transportation for a hold on
all federal funds for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) pending completion of a complete NEPA
process for the GTU capital improvement program (CIP).
Should you or your staff desire further information from me please advise.
Respectfully,
4400 Luna Trail
C(5Ceog
to, exas 78628
1
cc:
The Honorable John Carter, Congressman -Texas 315Dstrict
The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown
n.
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS AND TIME LINES
POINT PAPER
John Milford — 4307 Cordoba Circle Georgetown, TX
161h ACC presentation since February 2014
Discussion of (8) ACC requests for GTAB action — so far ignored:
Request for hold on Airport CIP funding pending citizen consensus of program;
Request for bar chart monthly presentations on status of Airport CIP;
Request for staff briefings on 12 acre airport property condemnation project;
A Request for off -agenda Workshops between GTAB, staff and public on Airport CIP;
Request for professional engineering study for viable regional airport as alternative to the
current airport program for use in citizen consensus process,
Request for professional consultant management contract for citizen consensus process;
Request for select City Council committee for oversight and management of the two requested
professional contracts: and
Request for documentation of workshops or hearings held pursuant to Federal regulations for
FAA federal funded capital programs.
With the exception of the first of the first, none of these requests have been addressed or even
committed on by GTAB.
7