Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_06.09.2017Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas June 9, 2017 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 86, Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members: Steve Johnston - Chair, Ron Bindas - Vice Chair, Donna Courtney - Secretary, Mark Allen, Troy Hellmann, John Marler, John Hesser and Sheila Mills Board Members Absent: Doug Noble Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Wesley Wright, Ed Polasek, Michael Hallmark, Mike Babin, Cindy Alejandro, Mark Miller, Andreina Davila -Quintero, Nathaniel Waggoner, Tristan Whitmire Others Present: Trae Sutton - KPA, Carl Norris, Dennis Hegeberth, Alyson Demaio, Wendy Dew, John Milford, Lori Ford - ACC, Lucia McClain, Dave Lukas - Aguirre and Fields, Erin Gray Regular Session A. Call to Order: Mr. Johnston called the regular GTAB Board Meeting to order on Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:01 AM Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. B. Introduction of Visitors C Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates - Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator TXDOT has submitted their ten year unified planning work program which included the I-35 frontage road from Williams Drive to Lakeway and the DB Woods and SH 29 intersection improvements for the first time. D June 2017 Project Updates - Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager Mrs. Demaio spoke on this item. E Discussion regarding the Airport Monthly Report and Project Time Lines. - Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Octavio A. Garza, P.E, C.P.M., Public Works Director Mr. Norris and Ms. Dew spoke on this item. Both of their comments are at the end of these minutes. F Presentation and discussion of Austin Ave Bridges Public Meeting #3 and Environmental Clearance process - Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Mr. Polasek gave a presentation on this item. Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: G Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GTAB Board meeting held on May 12, 2017. - Cindy Alejandro - GTAB Board Liaison Motion by Marler second by Hellmann to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 8-0-1 (Noble absent) H Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a contract with Cholla Pavement Maintenance, Inc. of Apache Junction, Arizona for 2017 Two Course Surface Treatment with Fog in the amount of $1,066,087.50 - Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager. Motion by Hellmann second by Marler to approve a contract with Cholla Pavement Maintenance, Inc. of Apache Junction, Arizona for 2017 Two Course Surface Treatment with Fog in the amount of $1,066,087.50 Approved 8-0-1 (Noble absent) Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a contract with Cutler Repaving, Inc. of Lawrence, Kansas for 2017 Street Maintenance (Hot in Place Recycling) in the amount of $1,060,008.35 - Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager. Motion by Courtney second by Bindas to approve a contract with Cutler Repaving, Inc. of Lawrence, Kansas for 2017 Street Maintenance (Hot in Place Recycling) in the amount of $1,060,008.35 Approved 8-0-1 (Noble absent) Presentation, discussion and possible recommendation to City Council for acceptance of the CAMPO/City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study Final Plan - Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Transportation Analyst, and Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator Motion by Marler second by Hellmann for the acceptance of the Williams Drive Study and short-term implementation plan, with a further recommendation that the City Council review the recommended mid-term and long-term projects prior to adoption Approved 5-3-1 (Bindas, Hesser and Johnson oppose, Noble absent) Adjournment Motion by Johnston second by Hellmann to adjourn meeting Approved 8-0-1 (Noble absent) Meeting adjourned at 12:02 PM App ved: Steve Johnston Chair ed: Donna Courtney - Secretary Cindy Alejandr GTAB B ar Liaison GTAB STATEMENT JUNE 09, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 'E" AIRPORT MONTHLY REPORT AND PROJECT TIME LINES Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board; city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). ACC members have since January 2014 made multiple public statements to the city council and/or the GTAB demanding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding federal funding and fiscal transparency for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). The GTU is a documented health and safety hazard and subject of public controversy and any action for maintenance and/or expansion should be addressed through preparation of aNEPA provided Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). My comments this morning relate to Item "E" of the agenda and address a more personal issue associated with the GTU,NEPA and the EIS preparation process. it has come to my attention that an old blatant and totally unfounded lie concerning me, personally, remains in active circulation within city and other public officials. The lie is that I personally desire to close the GTU and, in some extensions of the lie, that the desire drives my influence with the ACC. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Unfortunately, not only has the lie come to me directly from city officials, but it has circulated in state and federal offices even to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the President in Washington, D.C. At every tum and instance where I have encountered the lie I have rebuked it as such and countered that it is an example of scoundrel behavior of those unwilling to publicly debate what for them is an uncomfortable issue and instead attack a proponent of that issue. This unsavory behavior is not new and is atime worn practice of bullies to demean and marginalize individuals to shut them up and drive them away. My early experiences with this lie began with my letter and statement dated January 14,2014 to the mayor and city council, statement to GTAB dated February 14, 2014, statement to city council dated March 25, 2014, and GTAB statement dated April 11, 2014. 1 request these documents be added as attachments to this statement for official minutes of this meeting. Let me be very clear. It has never been my desire or goal to see this city denied a quality, regional, reliever airport. I totally support that need for the long term economic prosperity of our community. I totally object to the location of the GTU being in the heavily developed heart of our growing city and totally atop the Edwards Recharge Zone. If new airport were being considered no one in their right mind would select the GTU's location. I totally support the intent of the Congress with its passage of the NEPA that the citizens of a community receiving federal funds have every right through proper hearing processes to consider the social, economic and environmental impacts of any proposed federal funded action, mitigation for elimination or reduction of adverse impacts and examination and evaluation of all practicable alternatives to the proposed action, The Congress further established the CEQ to aid federal funding agencies in carrying out the law and oversee its application. With CEQ oversight, agencies have developed NEPA compliance regulations establishing the EIS preparation process. Without an EIS for a single GTU federal grant in the past 37 years of such funding, I and others have demonstrated that NEPA compliance does not exist for GTU funding. There exist a number of alternatives to continued state and/or federal funding for GTU expansion of aviation operations. I personally believe that the best alternative was included in the non-professional October 2002 Airport Closing Project report by the old Airport Advisory Board that the GTU's aviation operations should be relocated to a superior, rural site using the combined interests of the State Legislature and the city. The real estate value of the GTU site is over $100 Million. Conversion of the GTU to its highest and best real estate use would generate ad valorum and sales taxes to the city's treasury in perpetuity. What is needed is a professional developed feasibility study showing how such a Mueller to Bergstrom seamless relocation could, in fact, be accomplished. The ACC has made past presentations on this issue and the GTAB has the responsibility to recommend this action to the city council. Hopefully, my personal desires and positions regarding the GTU are clear. Mr. Chairman, I welcome any questions or comments. January 14, 2014 Honorable George Garver Mayor, City of Georgetown and City Council Members 10 1 E. 7th Street Georgetown, Texas 78628 Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item I Request for Public Participation Process Georgetown Municipal Airport Capital Improvements Program Dear Mayor Garver and City Council Members, This is a request to pull Item I from tonight's meeting agenda and place it and all other components of the Georgetown Municipal Airport Capital Improvements Plan in abeyance pending completion of public participation process through a series of public meetings to determine apublic consensus regarding this important capital improvements program. The airport capital improvements program has never been publicly vetted to determine its approval by our citizens. Ithas flown below the public radar and remained virtually unknown to the general public because it is not a bond program. 90% funding for this program is provided by federal funds administered through the Federal Aviation Administration and locally managed and executed by the Aviation Division of the Texas Department of Transportation. The remaining 10% of funding is provided by the city. Since the program is not a bond funded program such as those for schools or their improvements, public libraries, parks, roads or bridges there have been no public discussion in local publications, no opposing or opposition discussions or articles, no pro or con ad signs, and no public election votes. When approached for the official rationale for this capital improvements program it is described as only for general repairs, safety and maintenance to support existing air operations. Yetwhen the program is examined in detail of its over $7 million dollars of current funding being poured into the site, it has all the appearances of construction of a sound, substantial 24 hour operating facility for a vastly expanded number of aircraft and operational capability. This assessment is strengthened by review of the recently completed Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis by CH2MHil1 Engineers, Inc. which describes a solution to the airport's fiscal problems by growing out of its current restraints by increased fuel sales, hanger rentals, tie -down fees, and new land leases.and other improvements. The existing airport is in the wrong location. It is in the heart of the expanding population and land use of the city. We need a fully functional airport for general aviation and business purposes. But, having an expanding aviation industrial center in the heart of our future city is not the highest and best use of the airport's 640 acres. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City Council place the airport's capital improvement program on hold pending the outcome of a public participation program wherein, through a series of public hearings, the general public can come to a consensus on the future of this citizen owned facility. Attached hereto are documents provided for your review and consideration which provide more detail regarding this request and offer suggestions for airport alternatives and guidelines for special studies. Respectfully Submitted, Hugh C. Norris_ Jr. CC: Mr.Paul Brandenburg, City Manager Mr. David Fulton, Director, Aviation Division, Texas Department of Transportation Attachments: Comments -Proposed improvements Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) Evaluation f=actors - Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) Capital improvements Program (CIP) Alternative Concept-ForGeorgetownMunicipal Airport Guidelines -Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) Capital Improvements Program (CTP) Public Participation Process (PPP) STATEMENT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,JANUARY 14, 2014 Mr.Mayor, members of the City Council, Mr.City Manager, m embers of the city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hugh Carlton Norris, Jr.My wife, Nancy, and i have lived for the past 15 years at 4400 Luna Trail in Serenada Estates. I come here ton ight as a representative of a group of an ever growing number of concerned citizens to deliver a letter with attachments to our city council requesting you to pull agenda item T' from the agenda for further discussions and consideration. The letter also requests that item "I" which is an invoice from the Aviation Division of the Texas Department of Transportation (or TxDOT Aviation) in the amount of $87,500 to cover the city's increased cost share for the doubling ofestimatedcosts forlandacquisition includingcondemnationrelativetorunway 11/29 at the Georgetown Municipal Airport from its original estimate of over $400,000 to anew estimate of over $9000.000 be held in abeyance alongwith all other components ofthe 20 year airport capital improvements plan program pending outcome of a public participation process concluding with acitizen consensus on the program. The 20 year airport capital improvements program as described in the 2005 Master Plan Update by GRW Willis, Inc. and the August 20B Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis by CH2MHill Engineers has never been vetted by the general public for acceptance. The reason is that it is not a bond program. It's cost is split by 100 local city share and 90% federal funds as sourced through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as managed and executed by TxDOT Aviation. If the airport program were a bond program such a new school, school improvements, new library, public park, new bridge or roadway or any other public bond funded improvement it would be exposed to numerous reviews in publications, interviews between opponents and proponents, yard and roadway signs and finally a public election to determine public approval or denial. The portion of the airport's current 20 year improvement program included in the current TxDOT Aviation 2014/2015 capital improvements program has had no public exposure, review, or acceptance. The airport has been the property of the citizens of this city for over 70 years and its current 20 year plan will have more of a permanent and profound impact on the fixture long term safety and environmental status of this city than any other capital improvements program of this generation. A properly vetted program would determine whether the program is acceptable or whether alternatives including possible relocation of the airport are preferred by the airport's citizen owners. This group of concerned citizens I mentioned strongly supports a viable municipal airport for our community and its economy both for private, recreation and business needs. But our city and county are rapidly growing.A child born today ,,vho lives to my age will see a completely different city when he or she becomes my age. By then Georgetown may be the size of Akron, Ohio. Because of increasing use of aviation services by business it is probable that aviation services will will grow at a faster rate than the population growth curve for the general population. Ifwe consider no changes to the airport our future city will have a surging 640 acre aviation industrial complex existing inits geographic heart. It is highly questionable that such a future is the highest and best use for the citizen owned 640 acres currently occupied by the airport. We have no problem with TxDOT Aviation which ranks our airport as a highly ranked Reliever Airport and has responded to requests from the city as an official sponsor requesting its authorized financial assistance. Regardless of the outcome of a citizen consensus on the airport program we encourage coordination, respect and compliance with that agency and its FAA oversight. Our city will need their continued assistance. Regarding the requested public participation process, it is requested it be conducted in full compliance with applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FAArules and regulations. For that reason it should not be a burden other than oversight placed on the city staff already fully loaded with assigned tasks. Rather, it should be performed by a contracte4 consulting firm with demonstrated expertise in planning, conduct and completion to public consensus status of federal funded projects having long term public impacts. Toward that end, we have attached to our reference letter several attachments which will serve as requested guidance. Thankyou one and all forproviding an opportunity forthis presentation. REQUEST TO GEORGETOWN TRAFFIC ADVISIORY BOARD (GTAB) FEBRUARY l4, 2014 Mr. Chairman, members ofthe board of the Georgetown Traffic Adv i sory- Board, city staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hugh Carlton Norris, Jr.My wife,Nancy, and I have lived for the past 15years at4400LunaTrai 1 in SerenadaEstates. I appear before you today as a representative of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC), a group of an ever growing number of concerned citizens opposed to the city's plans to expand aviation operations at the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). The ACC requests that all components of the city's 20 year airport capital improvements plan program as described in the 2005 Master Plan Update and included in the business analysis study by CH2MHIU Engineers, and as may be amended by the pending GTU master plan update be held in abeyance pending outcome of a public participation process concluding with a citizen consensus on the program. Itis our understanding that staff was requested by the City Council to implement portions of the 2005MasterPlan Update andthe business analysis study with no qualifications forremoval or deletion ofanyprojects contained therein. Nor,were any instructions issued to staffto implement only sufficient projects for safety and maintenance service to supportthe existing286 aircraft based atthe airport, the 19 private businesses and 15 private leases thereon. With no official documentation to the contrary, implementation instructions to staff areunderstood to implement all components ofthe20yearprogram. Itis our understanding that the funding program of the Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division (TxDOT CIP) in support of the airport currently contains 17 projects. Three of these contracts being the revised land acquisition with condemnation approved by City Council on January 14, 2014, a design contract with Garver Engineering, a GTU master plan update and 14 "elements" included in the 2014 and 2015 TxDOT CIP.The 20 year plan contained in both the above described engineering studies contains an additional 48 projects. With no official documentation to the contrary we understand that the remaining 48 projects will be implemented by staff as quickly as funding assistance from TxDOT becomes available. The 20 year airport capital improvements program as described in the 2005 Master Plan Update by GRW Willis, Inc. and incorporated in the August 2013 Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis by CH2MHi11 Engineers has never been vetted by the general public for acceptance. The apparent reason for such non -vetting being that it is not a bond program. it's cost is split by 10% local city share and 90% federal funds as sourced through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as managed and executed by TxDOT Ifthe airport program were a bond program such a new school, school improvements, new library, public park, new bridge or roadway or any other public bond funded improvement it would be exposed to numerous reviews in publications, interviews between opponents and proponents, yard and roadway signs and finally a public election to determine public approval or denial. None of the entire 20 year program contained in the two engineering docments or the portion of that program included in the current TxDOT 2014/2015 capital improvements program has had public exposure, review, or acceptance. The airport has been the property of the citizens of this city for over 70 years and its current 20 year plan will have more of a permanent and profound impact on the future long term safety and environmental status of this city than any other capital improvements program of this generation. A properly vetted program would determine whether the program is acceptable or whether alternatives including possible relocation of the airport are preferred by the airport's citizen owners. The ACC strongly supports aviable municipal airport for our community and its economy both for private, recreation and business needs. But our city and county are rapidly growing. A child born today who lives to my agewill see a completely different city when he or she becomes my age.By then Georgetown maybe the size ofAkron, Ohio. Because of increasing use of aviation services by business it is probable that aviation services will wi I I grow at a fasterratethan the population growth curve forthe general population. Ifwe considerno changes to the airport our future city will have a surging 640 acre aviation industrial complex existing in its geographic and cultural heart. Itis highly questionable that such a future isthe highest and best use forthe citizen owned 640 acres currently occupied by the airport. We have no problem with TxDOT which ranks our airport as a highly ranked Reliever Airport and has responded to requests from the city as an official sponsor requesting its authorized financial assistance. Regardless of the outcome of a citizen consensus on the airport program we encourage coordination, respect and compliance with that agency and its FAA oversight. Our city will need their continued assistance. Regarding the requested public participation process, it is requested it be conducted in full compliancewith applicableNational Environmental ProtectionAct (NEPA) andFAA rules and regulations.For that reason it should not be a burden other than oversight placed on the city staff already fully loaded with assigned tasks. Rather, it should be performed by a contracted consulting firm with demonstrated expertise in planning, conduct and completion to public consensus status of federal funded projects having long term public impacts. The ACC has qualified personnel with experience in selection and contract negotiation with consultants and desires to participate with city staff in the process for selection and oversight of the work. Toward that end, we have attached a set of suggested guidelines for such a process as an attachment to this presentation. We would look forward to working with you in final development and execution of that process. Thankyou one and all for providing an opportunity for this request presentation. STATEMENT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014 Mr.Mayor,members ofthe City Council ,Mr.CityManager,members of the city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hugh Carlton Norris, Jr.My wife and I have lived at 4400 Luna Trail, for the past 15 years. I come beforeyou tonight as a representative ofthe Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) to request that item "S" on tonight's agenda be pulled for further consideration and returned to the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) not forfurther discussion, but for full implementation of the requests made in my presentation to you on the meeting ofthe City Council on January 14, 2014. That request made no inference or mention of any actions related to "closure /relocation of the airport",but rather was a specific request that the funding for the agenda item specifically identified in that statement "be held in abeyance along with all other components of the 20 year airgort cal2ital im rI] C vrments p I an pending outcome of a pub Iic„l)ai'tici1)ation process concluding with a citizens consensus on the promm”. The statement also contained a final paragraph describing how the consensus should be attained for the purpose of being conducted by a professional consultant free from bias and charged with the duty of attaining a true citizens consensus of the airport program. The master planning and methodical construction of the city airport has been carefully and quietly accomplished by a small group of the city's population who have treated the airport and its property as their own for over the past 70 years and continue to this day. Inthe ACC opinion this has been done steadily, methodically, and hidden from the view of the general public in order to create what is endorsed by the FAA and TxDOT as a needed regional Central Texas Reliever Airport (CTRA) and do it inthe very center of our growing city. The work of this small, but highly effective group continues to be very effective at shielding airport activities from the general public.Read the city's own ordinances on Noise and Nuisance - not a single reference to noise or offensive impacts from the airport -not even in the Exceptions. Read the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan- only vague, benign references to the airport and no mention that it is designated a Planned Unit Development, zoned Industrial and located atop the Edwards Recharge Zone. Search the Airport under the city departments - one can locate the current 2005 Master Plan Update, but no overview information is provided on the the plan's role of providing the services of a CTRA. Apparently,the mere thought of a citizens consensus on the future of what and where their airport should be chills the airport program supporters to the bone. The GTAB recommendation to be presented to you tonight by Mr.Ed Polasek and perhaps others of the city staff was conceived behind closed doors, without public participation or prior GTAB discussions with the public including the ACC and was a surprise appearmce on the GTAB March agenda. Further, it was premised on fabrications, and misstatements cited by Mr. Polasekasbased onmyJanuary 14,2014 statement to Council in which hewas in attendance.He was also present at a similar requestImade totheGTAB meeting onFebruary 14,2014wherein I made exactly the same requests in the same wording for a public consensus on the airport program. There is no justification for any misunderstandings of my request. The GTAB at its March 14,2014 meeting relied upon misrepresentations of my earlier comments and acted upon those. I at no time recommended "closure/relocation" of the Georgetown Airport. I requested a "public consensus on the airport program".The presentation and resultant action by the GTAB do a great disservice to both the City Council and the citizens of Georgetown. Citizens of this city have virtually no knowledge of the extent and long range permanent impacts of the airport's capital improvements program on the future of our city.lfyou believe that our citizens have a comprehensive understanding of the airport program including its effects on the safety, environmental, health and cultural impacts on the city you would be misinformed. I challenge you to verify your opinion! Go out anywhere on the streets of Georgetown and query citizens on airport issues having long range, permanent impacts on the city.I dare say you will get 'blank stares". Further, the ACC intends to hold the City of Georgetown to strict compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related to Federal grants and any airport construction by the City, especially compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA),which addresses past discharges of hazardous materials on airport property affecting groundwater. Without repeating the second paragraph of this statement you are respectfully requested to pull Item "S" and send it back to the GTAB for full implementation of the entire request statement. Thankyou for this opportunity to make this statement. - Coversheet City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda March 25, 2014 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action regarding operational options for the Georgetown Municipal Airport -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Curtis Benkendorfer, Interim Airport Manager, Bridget Chapman. Cit; Attorney, and Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel. ITEM SUMMARY: At the January 14.2014, City Council Meeting, Council heard a speaker and received a Jetter related to the possible closure/relocation of the Georgetown Airport. The Council asked staff to take the item back to GTAB for consideration as part ofthe implementation process of the Airport Business Case Analysis. Attached you will find the Resolution creating the Georgetown Municipal Airport, a2002 Report on the possible closure relocation of the Georgetown Municipal Airport and an updated grant history for the Georgetown Municipal Airport. In 2002, the thought of closing or relocating the Airport would be between $30 to $50 Million dollars. and would not be supported or approved by the TxDOT and the FAA. Today, TxDOT and the FAA still would not support the closure of the Airport, and relocation would cost the same amount ofmoney, plus the cost of rebuilding the existing infrastructure at a new location if it could even get environmental clearances. Also, in most cases of airport closures, property purchased for the existing GTIJ will belongto the Federal Government; not the City of Georgetown, for redevelopment. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Motion from the GTAB Board was for staff to continue with implementation of the Airport Business Analysis for the orderly management of the Georgetown Municipal Airport through recommendations made by G'fAB to City Council. And was unanimously approved at the March 14,2014 GTAB Board Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Continue with implementation of the Airport Business Analysis for the orderly management of the Georgetown Municipal Airport. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: EGP ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Creating Airport 2002 Closure ReUort I'pdaled Grant History for GTU Executive Sumrnal-�, 6T[1 - C -.S Annendix A GTU - ES Apoend ix B hap:Hagendas. georgetown.orgBluesheet.aspx?ltenlID=6209&Meetin-ID =631 6/7%2017 STATEMENT TO GTAB APRIL 11,2014 Mr.Chairman, GTAB members, city staff, ladies and gentlemen.My name is Hugh Carlton Norris, Jr. My wife and I have lived at 4400 Luna Trail for the past 15years. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). At last month's GTAB meeting, Mr. Polasek prefaced a recommendation with 'At the January 14, 2014 City Council Meeting, Council heard a speaker and received a letter related to the possible closure/ relocation ofthe Georgetown Airport." Upon that preface,GTAB approved and sentto the March 25,2014 City Council MeetingAgenda Item "S" arecommendation of"Continuewith implementation ofthe Airport Business Analysis forthe orderly management ofthe Georgetown Municipal Airport." which was then unanimously approved by City Council. The Airport Business Analysis includes the 20 year capital improvements plan of the 2005 Master Plan Update and financial recommendations by CH2MHil1 Engineers. Itis a combined report and Council's approval clears the way for full implementation of all current and future airport funding authorized by FAAffxDOT. Itelinninates any consideration of any alternative airport with exception of the city's current 30 year old Airport Advisory Board (AAB) plan aimed at constructing a Central Texas Regional Airport (CTRA) with full service authority for every component of passenger and air cargo general aviation except regular scheduled air passenger service and do it in the very heart of our city.All this with no concern for the damage to be unleashed on our future city and do it below the radar of public awareness with no public endorsement. You know that speaker and sender of the referenced letter was me. My statement to the Council, modified for the GTAB February meeting, was that all pending components of the airport plan be held in abeyance pending outcome of a citizen consensus on the airport program. The City Council heard me, GTAB heard me, and my statements are embedded in minutes of both public bodies. My requests to both bodies made no mention of the words "closure or relocation" nor even by inference anywhere in the body of the statement's text. Therefore, I am outraged! This misuse of my request statement can not be justified as a misstatement. This action is what it is -a cold, intentional lie done to disenfranchise me and the ACC because we had the audacity to challenge on behalf of all our citizens the ever expanding AAB - CTRA dream airport in the middle of our city. To support Mr.Polasek's lie based recommendation he dragged up 6 attachments which he and you knew to be totally irrelevant to my request and statement text.All 6 of them should be made public. Four are of historical interest. Two have special significance for public review. The Airport Project History, tracks progress of master plans from 1980 through 2005 and individual projects following each plan to methodically build the CTRA. Italso hides from the public the new 20 GTU projects funded at over $9 million by TxDOT's 2013-2016 CIP including a new GTU Master Plan Update for the future. But the real problem is the '2.002 Georgetown Airport Advisory Board's,Airport Closing Project, October 2002".There is no docu mentation of anyone proposing to "close "the airport. A phased relocation of all aviation operations to a safe and secure site outside the city,yes, but not stand alone "closing". The report's preamble alludes to problems with the then City Council of the AAB's plan of a mid -city CTRA and consideration of an offer by a local rancher to donate at no cost to the citizens an alternate airport site outside the city. The report distorts its three examination issues: so called examination of loss of airport revenue and lease lawsuits as if such revenue and leases could be not be continued at another site; statements of FAA/TxDOT officials not approving "closure", but not describing to them phased continuation of aviation services at another site; and a non - engineering estimate of $30 to $50 million to move the airport designed to panic into submission any then or future City Council or board. Not examined by this site retention report is a host of issues including degrading community impacts, increased traffic congestion, NEPA, CERCLA, Edwards Recharge Zone problems, no evaluation of the sales value of the existing site to pay for site transition, and no mention of the perpetual flow of property and sales taxes to the city should the airport site be sold for development. The purpose of this report was to beat City Council's into submission to the AAB plan and it has been successful in that purpose to this day as evidenced by the GTAB's and City Council's cowering before it last month. This report is invalid for long term political airport decisions. Because ofGTAB's lie poisoned and bogus supports for its recommendation to last month's City Council, I request a GTAB request to the April 22, 2014 Council Meeting that the Council's resultant decision regarding the before said Item "S" be revisited and voted to be made null and void. Thankyou. Wendy Dew ACC June 9-2017 30109 Spyglass Circle Georgetown Tx 78628 City/TxDot AVN Wildlife Hazard Assessment Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of he GTAB, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Wendy Dew I live at 30109 spyglass circle Georgetown Tx 78628. And I am a member of the ACC. My comments today are in regards to the Wildlife Hazard Assessment that is estimated to cost 100,000 and its probable resultant recommendation for a Wildlife Hazard Management plan (WHMP) of current unknown cost. It is reasonable to assume that with the GTU located in the planned heavily developed heart of our city and on the Edwards Recharge Zone has created numerous problems with more to come. While I and others in the ACC have no objection to completion of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment, but we do object to the city, TxDOT and FAA favoritism to study wildlife hazards to pilots but do nothing to do studies of hazards to those of us on the ground caused by aviation operations, the timing and violations of established grant requirements for this study are a concern. This study will spend time, tax payers money and expertise studying aviations hazards of deer, bugs and bunnies but the city totally neglects the citizens of this community by not mitigating health and safety hazards by aviation operations on homes, schools, churches and businesses that are all adjacent to the GTU. On the FAA fact sheet describing the Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and the Wildlife Hazard Assessment plan (WHMP) it clearly states that a WHA is necessary when there has been a "Wild life strike". Such an incident could be cause of an emergency and issuance by the sponsor of a hazard Notice to Airmen and/or a deficiency noted on an FAA inspection report or a written recommendation or even a suggestion to the sponsor for the study. No such FAA or TxDOT documentation has been presented to the public by staff. TxDOT rules and procedures require that all state and/or federal grants must originate by a TxDOT reviewed and approved sponsor request for a specific project, be described on a TxDOT Airport Development Worksheet, and be included in a Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) prior approved Aviation Capital Improvement Program for a specified fiscal year prior to any consideration for a grant approval Minute Order by the TTC. None of these requirements have been met for this proposed taxpayer grant project. In spite of these deficiencies, TxDOT conducted a public hearing on June 01, 2017 for approval of this project for recommendation to the TTC for a Minute Order. The Airport 2017-2018 CIP budget approved by GTAB on May 12, 2017 includes an item description of the Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) but no funding amounts are shown for any specific fiscal year. Given the lack of justification, improper timing and lack of financial planning for the Wildlife hazard Assessment (WHA) and its potential Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) this grant project should be deferred and included in the current 20 Year (2016-2036) GTU Master Plan Update,16MPGRGTN, whereby opportunity for proper and appropriate NEPA level reviews can be provided and TxDOT rules observed. I have read the TxDOT and FAA websites, and on their websites they portray strict guidelines and procedures, especially as regards NEPA compliance and public funding procedures. However, I have witnessed them both doing everything 100% contrary to those compliance and funding procedures. They avoid the NEPA and preparation of EIS's of entire planned programs by segmenting the program into smaller units and use unjustified categorical exclusions for each segment. The result of these practices is to hide airport aviation expansions, deny public and agencies participation in state and federal funding and ignore their own guidelines and procedures. Our city TxDOT and FAA expect us to follow proper guidelines and truthfulness or have our objections and concerns denied recognition, but everywhere I look I see lies and deception that they exhibit every day. I am ashamed and embarrassed for them all for their constant lack of integrity.