Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_11.15.2016Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas November 15, 2016 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 811, Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members: John Pettitt — Chair, John Hesser — Vice Chair, Ron Bindas — Secretary, Donna Courtney, Doug Noble, Mark Allen, Troy Hellmann (arrived at 5:35 PM), Vacant Spot Board Members Absent: Steve Johnston Staff Present: Mike Babin Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Russ Volk, Wesley Wright Others Present: Catherine Bindas — Citizen, Carl Norris, John Milford, Dennis Hegebarth, Terry Reed, Nena Young, Marilyn Richards, Wendy Dew — ACC, Ken Mabe — Texas Aviation Partners/GTU Jet. Regular Session A. Call to Order: Mr. John Pettitt called the Special GTAB Board Meeting to order on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 5:30 PM. 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. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines — Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director D. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Mr. Norris spoke on this item. His comments are at the end of these minutes. Ms. Wendy Dew spoke on this item. Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: E. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on October 14, 2016 — Jana Kern Motion by Noble second by Hellmann to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7-0-1 (Johnston absent, vacant spot) F. Consideration and possible recommendation for the composition of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Airport Master Plan Project. - Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Volk informed the board what the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) responsibilities are and who the members will be. Motion by Hellmann second by Bindas to approve the composition of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Airport Master Plan Project. Approved 7-0-1 (Johnston absent, vacant spot) Adjournment Motion by Hellmann second by Noble to adjourn meeting. Approved 7-0-1 (Johnston absent, Vacant spot). Meeting adjourned at 5:49 PM. Approved- Attested:, hn Pettitt -Chair ' J �Zon Bindas- Secretary Jana R. Kern - GTAB Board Liaison GTAB STATEMENT NOVEMBER 15, 2016 AGENDA ITEM "D" AIRPORT MONTHLY REPORT AND PROJECT TIME LINES Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB board, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). This is the 59th presentation by ACC members to the city council and/or the GTAB since our first public presentation on January 14, 2014 to city council demanding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding federal funding and fiscal transparency for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). Over the course of these presentations, public opposition statements, and volumes of written communications with local, state and federal officials by the ACC, our critics allege that ACC's agenda remains unclear. The GTU is a documented health and safety hazard, subject of public controversy and any action for maintenance and/or expansion should be addressed through preparation of a NEPA provided Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Hopefully, any ACC agenda confusion will be eliminated by this presentation. The ACC demands full compliance with the NEPA and regulations applicable to the FAA for use of federal funds for the GTU. The NEPA set the environmental standard for use of federal and state funding for local use. NEPA requires that federal funding agencies must determine prior to any funding action determination of potential social, economic, and environmental impacts, mitigation measures for reduction or elimination of adverse impacts, and examination of all practicable alternatives for the action. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to coordinate with federal funding agencies for development of agency regulations for compliance with the law and to enforce the law. Local bond financed projects require a public vote for acceptance or rejection following a period of extensive public information, public input and participation. Federal funded projects or programs for local use require compliance with the NEPA. CEQ approved FAA NEPA compliance regulations include for each federal funding action an EIS or Environmental Assessment (EA) showing an EIS is not required or an agency developed Categorical Exclusion (CE) showing that no adverse impact will occur from the proposed funding action. FAA Orders 5050.413 and 1050.11' describe 12 categories of Extraordinary Circumstances that demand an EIS if one or more is present for a given funding action. The ACC has identified at least eight of these categories directly applicable to federal funding for the GTU. During the past 39 years of state and/or federal funding which included 37 years of federal funding for the GTU there has not been one single EIS or EA for the 38 separate project or program funded actions. During that period TxDOT and FAA have classified the GTU as a Reliever Airport for the Central Texas region and the ABIA and authorized to accommodate every type of general aviation aircraft capable of FAA operations on GTU runways and facilities except for regular scheduled passenger service such as American or Southwest Airlines. Private, corporate, charter passenger aircraft, cargo and military aircraft are approved for service within GTU's runways and facilities capabilities. During that 39 year history the GTU, located in the heart of our growing city and atop the Edwards Recharge Zone, has been transformed by state and federal funding from socially acceptable to a documented public health and safety hazard and subject of public controversy. To date, 30 air crashes, 11 deaths with four deaths within the city established GTU "noise sensitive areas" are associated with the GTU. Although the city, TxDOT and FAA consider GTU's location and reliever airport status to be irrelevant for community safety and environmental concerns, public opposition is documented regarding potential adverse impacts including issues of debilitating noise, threats to health and learning of children, air quality, neighborhood disruption, thousands of gallons of toxic and hazardous materials threats to public drinking water and special species, impact on special purpose law, surface traffic impacts, storm water runoff, lack of examination of practicable alternatives to GTU funding and others. Despite such a history of public health and safety controversy, there has never been any comprehensive public information on federal funding for development of the GTU and public opposition to such funding. For clarity, the ACC's primary agenda is compliance by the city, TxDOT and FAA with the NEPA through preparation of fully scoped EIS's for use of federal funds for the GTU. Only through such processes for such a health and safety hazard and subject of public controversy would the general public and interested agencies be informed for input and participation on issues of adverse impacts, mitigation, and examination of all practicable alternatives. Mr. Chairman, I welcome questions and/or comments from the board. AGENA ITEM D AIRPORT PROJECT AND TIMELINE 11-15-16 WENDY DEW 30109 SPYGLASS CIRCLE GEORGETOWN TX 78628 I SPOKE AT THE TTC MEETING WITH OTHER ACC MEMBERS WHEN JIM BRIGGS AND DIRECTOR FULTON FROM TxDOT SPOKE TO GET THE 10 MILLION GRANT. JIM BRIGGS WAS ASKED IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS ISSUE AND HE MISS REPRESENTED HIMSELF TO THE TTC AND SAID: "YES THE CITY HAS NOT ONLY MET BUT EXCEEDED THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THAT THREE DIFFERENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS WERE HELD. AND THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS DESIGNED FOR TRAFFIC CURRENTLY USING THE AIRPORT. THERE HAD ONLY BEEN ON MEETING AND THAT WAS ONLY ON THE FUEL FARM, NOT THE WHOLE 25 COMPONENT PLAN. QUESTION IS THEY WOULD THEY NEED TO EXPAND THE THE FUEL TANKS BY 60% IF IT "WAS" FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC? THEN MR FULTON GOT UP AND SPOKE AND THE TTC MEMBER STATED THAT: "IT STATES HERE THAT THIS IS A PASS THROUGH GRANT, IT HAS FOR PAVEMENT ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS AND TO PREPARE AN UPDATE TO THE MASTER PLAN. IS THIS FOR EXPANSION?? DIRECTOR FULTON MISS REPRESENTED HIMSELF AND SAYS: NOT IN ANY WAY NOWHERE IN WHAT WAS GIVEN THE TTC BOARD WAS THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FUEL FARM FO YOU WHY?? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU ILLEGALLY GET AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. THEY DO WHAT IS CALLED SEGMENTING WHERE THEY TAKE ONE ASPECT OF THE PLAN AND PUT IT BY ITS SELF AND AS A SINGLE ISSUE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY PRETEND THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, THE INTERESTING TRUTH ABOUT THIS WHOLE MESS IS THAT G.R.W. WILLIS THE ENGINEER THAT DESIGNED THIS MASTER PLAN CLEARLY STATES IN HIS PLAN THAT THE THE EXISTING CAPACITY OF THE FUEL FARM IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PLANNING PERIOD. NOT ONLY DOES THE CITY AVOID TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE EXPANDING THE TANKS, THEY PUT OUT THIS LITTLE SING SONG ABOUT WHY THEY ARE EXPANDING THE TANKS IS TO SAVE ON DELIVERY. I CALLED AVEFUEL AND ASKED THEM HOW MUCH GTU WOULD SAVE ON DELIVERY BY EXPANDING THE TANKS AND SHE SAID NOTHING, IT WOULD INCREASE DELIVERY COSTS BECAUSE THE TRUCKS THEY HAVE NOW DO NOT FILL EXISTING TANKS. SO THAT IS A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD FROM OUT ELECTED OFFICIALS!! ALSO THEY HAVE THIS BIG RUSH TO DO THIS BECAUSE MR. POLASIC SAID THE TANKS ARE LEAKING, I EMAILED MR VOLK AND ASKED HIM FOR THE INSPECTION REPORT THAT INDICATES LEAKAGE, AND HE SAID THERE HAS BEEN NO INSPECTION AND TO HIS. KNOWLEDGE THEY DON'T LEAK. SO WHY ARE WE DOING THIS!!!! OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE ALLOWING THIS COMMUNITY TO BE IRREVERSIBLE COMPROMISED BY: ACQUIRING THIS GRANT BASED ON INTENTIONAL FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE CITYS INTENTIONS AT THE AIRPORT. NOT GETTING PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES NOT USING PROFESSIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT NEEDING TO REPLACE FUEL FARM INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SAVE ON DELIVERY COSTS. INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT NOT ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL LAND INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT THE 60% EXPANSION OF FUEL TANKS INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD ABOUT CONDITION OF THE RUNWAYS AND NOT GETTING ADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPUT BEFORE THEY DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING. NOT ONLY ARE THERE 25 SIGNIFICANT PROJECT ELEMENTS PERTAINING TO AIRPORT EXPANSION THAT NO ONE EVER HEARS ABOUT, THERE ARE 101 CONTRACTS PENDING 101, ALSO THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF TREES REMOVED RECENTLY ALONG LAKEWAY DRIVE. AND LOTS OF PROPERTY WAS JUST ACQUIRED UNDER THREAT CONDEMNATION, AND YOU THINK THIS IS ABOUT THE FUEL FARM. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COMMUNITY AND SO SHOULD YOU BE.