Public Hearing on Airport Fuel Farm

The Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and Governing Body held a Public Hearing for a new fuel farm at the airport on Friday, October 9. Approximately sixty citizens were in attendance. There were twenty nine speakers of which twenty eight were adamantly opposed to increasing the airport capacity and they viewed the movement and sixty percent capacity increase in the fuel farm as the "camel's nose under the tent" for additional increases in take-off and landings and ground engine tests. One speaker was neutral on the fuel farm. He was concerned about the wait line for aviation gasoline and the starting and stopping of the aircraft engines as the line moved forward to the filling station. He viewed this as a hazardous operation which the proposed plan does not address. 93 percent of the speakers lived in neighborhoods around the airport.

The Board chairman told the audience at the beginning that the Board would not ask any questions, comment on any testimony, or engage the citizens in any manner. Par for the course!

Several people commented on the lack of adequate communication to the people living around the airport about the Public Hearing. They indicated that multiple methods of notification should be used including mailings to all the affected residences. Several people complained about the time of day for the Hearing as it precluded working people the opportunity to provide input. Again, not very considerate of the citizens who pay taxes and form the backbone of the community.

Many issues were raised including the concern that property values will be adversely affected by an airport with increased operations. There was growing concern expressed about safety and increased noise and its effect on children in the home and the nearby schools. It was also pointed out by several speakers that the location of the airport near the center of Georgetown is unsuited for a growing community and an expanding airport. It was pointed out by at least two speakers that increased airport operations would have a negative effect on wildlife in the designated wildlife habitat areas.

Finally, almost all speakers spoke against a Finding of No Significant Impact. They all wanted a full Environmental Impact Study for the fuel farm and the other planned capital improvement projects before any other actions are taken.

As a final insult to the participants, they were informed as they were leaving the Hearing that they would have to submit written copies of their testimony for the testimony to be included in the official records of the Public Hearing. Many participants spoke extemporaneously without the aid of notes or prepared testimony. This places an additional and unnecessary burden on those citizens as the Hearing was recorded and that recording could easily be incorporated into the official record.