Battle Against Airport Capacity Expansion Continues

The Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) continue their battle against the city of Georgetown and the Texas Department of Transportation to stop the capacity expansion of the airport. The airport has applied for a grant from TxDOT for a new refueling and storage capability that increases the fuel storage by 60%. The cost of such improvements are usually split with TxDOT, which gets the funds from the FAA, with TxDOT paying 90% and the city paying 10%. The following email shows the funding sources the city has used for past airport projects and questions the propriety of the whole funding process.

ACC,

The December GTAB meeting is set for Thursday, December 10, 2015 , GMC Bldg, 300-1 Industrial Ave., in lieu of the usual 2nd Friday of each month.  ACC will have a presentation.

 

Access to the agenda is available via georgetown.org – government- agendas city council, boards and commissions.

 

Your attention is directed to Item E, Airport Progress Report, Mr. Russ Volk, Airport Manager. The last item in his eight briefing papers is a response to Councilman John Hesser’s request at the September GTAB meeting for information on the sources of funds identified by the city for payment of the city’s share of federal grants for the airport.  After 3 months staff has prepared a response for Mr. Hesser and others by listing sources of payment for five (5) grants.  The first four are current executed and one still pending, 1514GRGTN (this is the proposed $10 Million, 25 component grant of which the Fuel Farm is one of the components.)

 

The listing shows the fiscal pocket being used for payment as (1) the Airport Fund for 1114GRGTN and 1214GRGTN, (2) Bond issuance for 1314GRGTN and 1514GRGTN, and (3) Cash from the general fund for 1414GRGTN.  These sources raise questions.  Were the payments for 1114GRGTN and 1214GRGTN identified in the most recent Airport Fund Audit?  What bond issue or bond issues authorized airport grant payments? What ordinance or ordinances authorized these payments and authorized cash payment from the general fund for 1414GRGTN?

 

For your reference, these identified grants are as follows:

1114GRGTN - $1,248,644 GTU improvements in 2011 for operations expansion;

1214GRGTN - Approximate 13 acre land taking under threat of condemnation for RW 11/29 – no final status or cost available.  Cost estimated in excess of $1 Million;

1314GRGTN- Garver Engineering Contract – Design of GRU 2014 and 2015 CIP’s- no final status or cost available- Cost estimated in excess of $600,000;

1414GRGTN – Airport Lighting Improvements (GTU 2014 CIP) – no final status or cost available – Cost estimated at about $1.4 Million;and

1514GRGTN – GTU 2015 CIP- remains pending for grant execution. Program is 25 component, $10 Million, and includes the Fuel Farm.

 

Your attention, interest and questions of your own are encouraged in the above. Please make plans to attend this meeting.

 

Carl

 

There is no question that the fuel farm project is geared to supporting expanding the airport capacity. The City Council has directed the airport manager to make the airport self-supporting. To generate more revenue, the airport must sell more fuel which means it must attract more aircraft to the airport. Thus the airport manager is following the Council's directive! Doubling the load bearing capability of the main runway also supports the objective of increasing airport revenue by attracting larger and heavier airplanes to the airport that also use more fuel.