HomeMy WebLinkAbout0621989JUNE 2, 1989
SECTION-BY-SECTION SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
OF
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
TO
IMPLEMENT NOISE RULE AND USER FEE AT SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AS REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS TO CITY CHARTER ADOPTED MARCH 14, 1989
SECTION 1
Section 1 of the Proposed Ordinance (Ordinance) amends the
definitions section of chapter 3.5 of the City of Sebastian
(city) Code of Ordinances (Code), which governs the Sebastian
Municipal Airport (Airport), to add definitions for various terms
used throughout the chapter. The definition of "operator" would
exclude any pilot, unless such pilot also has legal control of
the aircraft as an owner, lessee or charterer.
SECTION 2
Section 2 of the Ordinance adds section 3.5-7 to chapter 3.5
of the Code which would create the position of airport officer.
The airport director would possess discretion to hire one or more
such officers on a full- or part-time basis. An airport officer
would be responsible for monitoring compliance with and
administering the aircraft registration requirements, the noise
rule, the user fee and performing other Airport-related tasks at
the direction of the airport director.
SECTION 3
A. Section 3 of the Ordinance adds section 3.5-8 to chapter
3.5 of the Code which would require that aircraft owners and
operators desiring to takeoff from the Airport first register the
aircraft. Such registration would require the submittal to the
airport officer of basic ownership and identification information
to be used in the enforcement of the noise rule and user fee.
B. Section 3.5-8 would obligate the airport director to
maintain an Aircraft Register which collates in one accessible
source the most relevant information submitted in the
registration process. The airport director periodically may
distribute a list of registered aircraft which may be relied on
by Airport Users to determine the registration status of the
aircraft.
C. Violations of section 3.5-8 would be punishable through
the imposition of a $250.00 fine. Upon three such violations by
the same owner or operator in any two-year period, such person
must be barred by the airport director, after opportunity for an
informal hearing, from operating any aircraft at the Airport for
30 days to two years, depending upon the particular circumstances.
SECTION 4
A. Section 4 of the Ordinance adds a new section 3.5-9 to
the Code. In accordance with section ?.4 of the City Charter,
section 3.5-9 would restrict the use of the Airport to those
aircraft which produce maximum noise levels on takeoff and
approach, as estimated using noise certification procedures
specified in Appendix C of Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36,
with :the conditions and assumptions specified in Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 36-3E (Advisory Circular),
of. not greater than 65.00 dB(A), which threshold is termed the
"Sebastian'Airport Noise Level Standard" (SANLS) for purposes of
this Ordinance.
B. To 'avoid any confusion as to whether a particular
aircraft meets ~he SANLS, section 3.5-9 would require the airport
director' to maintain a Noise Rule Compliance List of complying
aircraft, listed by make, model and engine type or other specific
reference. The Noise Rule Compliance List would consist on the
effective date of section 3.5-9 of all aircraft listed in the
Advisory Circular as producing estimated maximum noise levels on
approach and takeoff not greater than the SANLS.
C. Proposed section 3.5-9 oontains a'procedure whereby the
owner or operator of a particular aircraft, designated by make,
model and engine type, not otherwise included on the Noise Rule
Compliance List would be able to demonstrate, through the
submission to the airport director of professionally-prepared
noise data and analysis, that such aircraft meets prescribed
SANLS-based eligibility criteria for inclusion. To take into
account that noise estimates presented in the Advisory Circular
for actual flights at an airport could range, at a minimum,
within plus or minus 3 dB(A), the airport director must employ a
rebuttable presumption that aircraft shown to produce estimated
maximum noise levels on takeoff and approach of not greater than
68.00 dB(A) meet such eligibility criteria. This presumption may
be rebutted only through noise tests performed at the airport
upon the request of the airport director and at the expense of
the airport enterprise fund.
D. Proposed section 3.5-9 also contains a procedure whereby
any City resident or the airport director may demonstrate,
through the submission of professionally-prepared noise data and
analysis, that a particular make, model and engine type of
aircraft included on the Noise Rule Compliance List does not
comply in actual use at the airport with the SANLS-based criteria
used in determining eligibility for inclusion. Such aircraft
2
would be removed from the Noise Rule Compliance List by the
airport director upon such a finding.
E. Any determination by the airport director under section
3.5-9 removing any aircraft from or refusing to include any
aircraft on the Noise Rule Compliance List would be appealable to
the City Council.
F. Violations of section 3.5-9 would be punishable through
the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine for each violation. Upon
three violations by the same owner or operator, such person would
be barred, upon the receipt of written notice from the airport
director, from operating any aircraft at the Airport for a period
of three years as prescribed by section 7.4 of the City Charter.
SECTION 5
A. Section 5 of the Ordinance adds section 3.5-10 to
chapter 3.5 of the Code which would obligate the owner of any
aircraft to pay to the City a user fee of $5.00 for each
completed aircraft operation at the Airport. The term
"operation" means one turnaround of an aircraft from landing
through and including the next subsequent takeoff. Each owner
would be required to tender payment to the City at the end of
each month of the aggregate fees due from him for operations
completed during such month.
B. For compliance monitoring purposes, each owner would be
required to maintain for a period of at least three years a
record of each aircraft operation undertaken at the Airport.
Each owner would be required to disclose such records to the
airport director upon written request.
C. Section 3.5-10 would make it unlawful for any owner to
operate any aircraft at the Airport, upon the receipt of notice
from the airport director, if he is delinquent in the payment of
required user fees.
SECTION 6
Section 6 of the ordinance adds section 3.5-11 to chapter
3.5 which would exempt specified categories of aircraft, e.g.,
government-owned and operated, emergency response, etc., from the
registration requirement, the noise rule and the user fee.
SECTION 7
Section 7 of the Ordinance adds section 3.5-12 to chapter
3.5 of the Code providing procedures for the imposition of any
fine prescribed for a violation of the chapter. For first-time
violations, only a warning would be issued.
SECTION 8
Section 8 of the Ordinance repeals all parts of previous
ordinances in conflict with this ordinance.
SECTION 9
Section 9 of the ordinance expresses the intent of the City
Council to include all provisions of the Ordinance in the Code.
SECTION 10
Section 10 of the Ordinance provides for severability of the
Ordinance should any part be declared invalid or unconstitutional
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
SECTION 11
Section 11 of the Ordinance provides that the noise rule,
user fee and fine provisions of the Ordinance would become
effective no earlier than 30 days after enactment. All other
sections of the Ordinance would take effect immediately.
4
June 7, 1989
PROPOSED
AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
BETWEEN CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND FAA
1) Following approval on first reading, the Sebastian City
council would postpone final passage and enactment of t-he
ordinances implementing the March, 1989 amendments to the city
charter, including those ordinances imposing a noise rule and
user fees at the Sebastian Municipal Airport. The FAA, in
turn, would refrain during such postponement from commencing,
supporting or encouraging any legal action against the City of
Sebastian in connect'ion with the ordinances, charter amendments
or related airport matters.
2) The FAA would entertain a grant application for a planning
study funded under the FAA Airport Improvement Program, t/~at
authorizes 90% funding for planning studies, subject to a
reduction of $27,908 of allowable costs paid under a previous
FAA Master Planning grant. No further payment will be made on
outstanding Master Planning Grant No. 01-86. The proposed
study, when completed, would serve as a foundation for
negotiations between the City of Sebastian, and the FAA, with
input from other interested par~ies aimed at determining the
future role of the Sebastian Municipal Airport. The planning
grant study will focus on the colle=tion of data relating to
present and future activity levels, regional economic
projections, demographic patterns and environmental.
considerations on the basis which an appropriate role for the
airpor~ can be determined.
3) The sponsor of the ~tudy would be the City of Sebastian ,
operating through its chief administrative officer, the City
Manager.
4) The city of Sebastian would retain, through selection
procedures conforming to applicable local and FAA requirements,
highly qualified, recognized consultants for t~he engineering
and design, noise and other components of the analysis. The
FAA would reserVe ~he right to reject the selection for cause.
5) The FAA would make a good faith effort to provide adequate
funding for the needed planning study using available FY 89 or
FY 90 funds, and would suppor~ a ~tudy that can be completed
within one year from date of grant. The total federal share of
the cost of the study would be based on a review and approval
by the FAA of a proposed work scope, but in no event would
exceed $200,000, subject to the reduction referred to in
paragraph 2 above. The city of Sebastian would submit such
proposed study work s=ope within 60 days.
041¢,
2
6) The goal of t. he study would be =o generate recommendations
on the future role of ~he airpor~ and how the airpor~ ~hould be
modified or improved in order to fulfill tha~ role in a manner
compatible with a) =he city's overall community planning
objectives, b} federal statutory objectives and
responsibilities to adequately meet t~he needs of civil
avia=ion, and c) =he terms of the surplus property conveyance
by which the the City acquired the airport. An essential
premise of =he study would be that the airport's role and use
must be consistent with the overall goals and needs of the City
of Sebastian in a proper balance with such appropriate federal
objectives. Ra~her than fitting the City of Sebastian =o the
Sebastian Municipal Airport or vice versa, the study would
a~temp= to iden=ify ways =o fit the two together.
7) The scope of work would include an operations survey and
forecast, a noise study and analysis, an environmental
analysis, an economic analysis and forecast, and an engineering
and design analysis.
8) ~' The study would provide for significant opportunity for
input from the FAA, the airpor~ users, the citizens of the city
of Sebastian, and the citizens of the neighboring community of
Roseland.
9) If at any point during the study, comment and post-study
negotiation period the Council were to enact ordinances
implementing the March 1989 amendments to the city charter, as
a result of the order of a cour~ in an action against and
defended by the City, the FAA would be free =o take any legal
action it deemm appropriate, and to stop further funding of the
not comple=ed portion of t~e s=udy. The FAA would provide the
normal progress payments authorized under the terms of an FAA
plaru~ing grant for work completed a: the time of any such court
order, and the City 'bf Sebastian would promptly make available
to the FAA all work product performed under the planning grant
available at the time of any cour~ order.
10) If the Council were to unilaterally take any action to
terminate the study or to enact such implementing ordinances
prior to completion of the study and in the absence of a court
order requiring such ac=ion, or were to seek issuance of suc~ a
cour~ order, all grant progress payments will be returned to
the FAA and the grant voided. The FAA also reserves the right
to terminate the study if in the opinion of the FAA, adequate
progress is not being made or federal objectives are no= being
sufficiently considered. Tn the latter event, progress
payments would be authorized to the date of termination.
.The City of Sebastian would agree that FAA funding of a
planning study is being undertaken in ~he spirit of supporting
plarming effo~ in=ended. ~.o result in at leas= an objective
~ia__l_~si$ of. d~mand ~.or a.v~a=~on services.a= ~he Sebastian
· ~.-_~or= ana a comprehensive plan Sot sata~ing ~hat demand
12) During the study period, the City of Sebastian would not
remove any airpor~ lighting, would remedy any unsafe conditions
a~ ~he 'airport, and would operate ~he airpor~ in accordance
wi~h ~he conveyance agreement, a~d generally would no= ~ake any
ac=ion that will alter =he character of=he airport.
Doc. 2672b
o4 o '-'" y
G. BOGAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
P. o. BOX 3354
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663
TELEPHONE 714 - 721-1512
INTRODUCTION
On May 17 and 18, 1989, G. Bogan & Associates, Inc.
conducted noise monitoring tests in the City of Sebastian,
Florida (the City) to measure the noise impacts on the City from
aircraft using the Sebastian Municipal Airport (Airport).
Specifically, our goal was to determine whether and to what
extent aircraft typical of those in regular use at the Airport
produce maximum noise levels in the city, measured in A-weighted
decibels (dB(A)), on takeoff and approach in excess of the
maximum permissible noise thresholds set forth in section 20A-
7.4(G) of the Sebastian Land Development Code (Sebastian Noise
ordinance).
Briefly, the Sebastian Noise Ordinance establishes such
maximum permissible noise thresholds according to the zoning of
the lot adjacent to the lot on which the noise-producing use is
located. Further, such thresholds are set at lower levels during
the nighttime hours of 7:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. The following
table outlines the maximum permitted sound levels under the
Sebastian Noise Ordinance.
Zoning of
Lot on Which
Noise is
Produced
All Zoning
Districts
Except IN
TABLE- t
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels
In A-Weighted Decibels (dB(A))
Zoninq of Adjacent Lot
Residential
R-PUD Commercial
Industrial
7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m 7:00 a.m.
to to to to to
7:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m.
5O 45 55 5O 65
7:00 p.m.
to
7:00 a.m.
60
IN District 50 45 60 55 70
65
Two testing methodologies were employed, with noise data
gathered using a Bruel & Kjoer Sound Level Meter, Type 2208,
field calibrated immediately prior to use. On May 17, 1989, from
9:45 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., we conducted random ground-level noise
tests at five locations in the City to measure the noise levels
produced by aircraft on approach to and takeoff from the Airport
(random noise tests). The five Test Sites, A, B, C, D and E,
were selected: i) to afford a mix of zoning districts; and ii)
based upon their proximity to approach and takeoff tracks for
aircraft using the Airport.
TEST SITE A: Parking lot at Sebastian Municipal Golf
Course. Approximately % mile from the
end of runway 31, used by aircraft on
2
TEST SITE B:
TEST SITE C:
TEST SITE D:
TEST SITE E:
approach. Located adjacent to areas
zoned for residential uses.
Intersection of Park Avenue and Easy Street.
Approximately 1¼ mile from end of runway 31,
located at point where landing aircraft turn
onto final approach to runway 31. Zoned
residential.
Intersection of Fellsmere Road and Vocelle
Avenue. Located at point where aircraft turn
onto base leg for approach to runway 31.
Zoned residential.
Industrial area near landfill site.
Underneath departure track for aircraft using
runway 4. Zoned industrial.
Port-O-Woods residential area off of Roseland
Road. Underneath final approach track for
aircraft using runway 4. Zoned residential.
Test sites A, B, C, D and E are shown on the map attached hereto
as Exhibit 1. The weather on May 17 was clear, with winds from
the east/northeast at approximately 10 miles per hour (mph). The
temperature was in the mid-80's farenheit and humidity levels
were in the 70 per cent range.
on May 18, 1989, we conducted controlled noise tests at four
locations in the City within 1,300 to 2,000 feet from the ends of
the Airport runways (controlled noise tests). These Test Sites,
1, 2, 3 and 4, are shown on Exhibit 1. Each Test site is located
in or immediately adjacent to an area zoned for residential uses.
The tests were conducted using a Cessna 172 aircraft on a typical
approach to and takeoff from each runway at the Airport. The
Cessna 172 was selected as the test aircraft since, as listed in
FAA Advisory Circular 36-3E at 61.00 dB(A), it produces maximum
estimated noise levels on approach and takeoff below the proposed
65.00 dB(A) Sebastian Airport Noise Level Standard (SANLS) and,
thus, will be permitted to use the A±~port under the proposed
Airport noise rule. The weather on May 18 was good, with
scattered clouds, winds from the east/northeast at 8 to 17 mph,
temperatures in the low-80's farenheit and humidity levels in the
70 per cent range.
RESULTS OF RANDOM NOISE TESTS
Following are the results of the random noise tests
performed on May 17, 1989.
Test site A
(ambient noise--48 to 54 dB(A))
Estimated
Time Aircraft Maximum dB(A) Altitude (MSL)
0945 Piper PA-28 55 200 ft.
0948 ,, ,, 56 200
0955 ,, ,, 54 250
0957 ,, ,, 67 150
Test Site B
(ambient noise--42 to 50 dB(A))
Estimated
Time Aircraft Maximum dB(Al Altitude (MSL)
1017 Piper PA-28 58 700 ft.
1025 ,, ,, 62 500
1030 ,, ,' 56 700
Test Site C
(ambient noise-- 48 to 64 dB(A))
Time Aircraft Maximum dB(A)
1045 Piper twin eng. 60
Estimated
Altitude~MSL)
1000 ft.
Test Site D
(ambient noise--44 to 48 dB(A))
Estimated
Time Aircraft Maximum dB(A/ Altitude (MSL)
1125 Piper PA-28 56 400 ft.
1130 ', " 76 200
1133 " " 58 250
1136 " " 70 250
Test Site E
(ambient noise--42 to 48 dB(A))
Estimated
Time Aircraft Maximum dB(A) Altitude (MSL)
Piper PA-28 74
" " 76
1355 200 ft.
1358 200
Several conclusions may be derived from the foregoing
noise data. First, aircraft on approach to the Airport generated
maximum noise levels averaging 62.00 dB(A) (from a range of 54.00
to 76 dB(A)) as measured at Test Sites A, B and E. These Test
Sites are located in or immediately adjacent to areas zoned for
residential uses. Thus, observed aircraft in actual use at the
Airport consistently exceeded the maximum permissible noise
threshold of 50 dB(A) (daytime) and 45 dB(A) (nighttime)
established for such residential areas under the Sebastian Noise
Ordinance. Nonetheless, the only aircraft observed at Test Sites
A, B and E, namely, the Piper PA-28, would be permitted to use
the Airport after implementation of the proposed Airport noise
rule, since it is listed in FAA Advisory Circular 36-3E as
producing estimated maximum noise levels on approach and takeoff
5
Test
Site
.;
of 61.2 dB(A) and 60.4 dB(A) respectively.~ Such levels are well
below the 65.00 dB(A) maximum thresho'ld on approach and landing
established in the proposed Airport noise rule.
RESULTS OF CONTROLLED NOISE TESTS
Following are the results of the controlled noise tests
performed on May 18, 1989 with the Cessna 172.
TABLE 2
Runway
Distance Departure Altitude of
From or Aircraft Ambient
Runway Landing (Above MSL) Noise
04 1,300 ft. Departure 450 ft. 48-54 dB(A)
22 1,300 Landing 154 48-54
13 1,700 Departure 225 50-58
31 1,700 Landing 175 50-58
22 2,000 Departure 200 42-48
04 2,000 Landing 240 42-48
31 1,500 Departu re 275 58-64
13 1,500 Landing 200 58-64
Aircraft
Noise
68 dB(A)
62
74
66
78
7O
78
66
3These noise figures were derived by averaging those set
forth in FAA Advisory Circular 36-3E for the five engine and air
frame types (PA-28-140, PA-28-151, PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28-
200) incorporated in Piper PA-28 aircraft based at the Airport.
According to the Advisory Circular, none of the five models
produces noise levels on takeoff or approach in excess of 65.00
dB(A), the maximum permitted under the proposed Airport noise
rule.
As noted earlier, each of the four Test Sites for the
controlled noise tests is located in or immediately adjacent to
areas zoned for residential uses. The Cessna 172 test aircraft
produced noise levels averaging 74.5 dB(A) on takeoff and 66.00
dB(A) on approach according to the data set forth in Table 2.
These levels are well in excess of those permissible in
residential areas under the Sebastian Noise Ordinance. Again,
however, the Cessna 172 would be permitted to use the Airport
after the effective date of the proposed Airport noise rule since
it is listed in FAA Advisory Circular 36-3E as producing
estimated maximum noise levels on both approach and takeoff of
61.00 dB(A), 4 dB(A) less than the 65.00 dB(A) maximum threshold
prescribed by the proposed rule.
EXHIBIT
H
I
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ri SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330
M ~. M O R A N D O M
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 18, 1989
Mayor Richard Votapka
Members of City Council
Robert S. McClary
City ManaGer
Assistant City ManaGer
The City Council has directed me to appoint an Airport Director
pursuant to the City Code and recently enacted job description.
I request the City Council to expand this position to that of
Assistant City ManaGer by addinG the responsibilities of
Personnel Director and Project Coordinator. I feel with the
combined duties of Airport Director, Personnel Director and
Project Coordinator a full-time staff position is justified.
The City Council has indicated that a part-time Airport Director
should be paid $10,000 to $15,000 per year. Funds for the
position of Assistant City ManaGer could be transferred from the
Airport Fund to the General Fund since a substantial portion of
the Assistant City ManaGer's responsibility would be in the
capacity of Airport Director. Since the City will soon be
implementinG provisions of the City Charter, as amended by the
voters at the March election, it is clear that additional staff
efforts will be required in order to enforce the noise
regulations and to collect the operations fees. Additionally,
the City should pay closer attention to personnel administration
especially in the areas of hirinG procedures and administration
of personnel policies outlined in the S.O.P. and Collective
BarGaininG AGreements. Additionally, many projects need
coordination from the City ManaGer's office. While in the past I
have "borrowed" individuals from the Finance Department, City
Clerk's office or Community Development Department, the effect of
this practice has been to remove individuals from their regularly
assigned responsibilities. Additionally, an individual in this
position would be the key person in makinG Grant Applications for
1
various State and Federal programs the City may wish to apply
for.
While I feel I have been productive and effective in my position,
I have a limited amount of time. On my immediate pending
projects list are items such as:
* Negotiating with GDC for Units 16 and 17
* The Main Street realignment project
* Indian River County impact fee credit system and
other impact fee matters
Addressing airport matters such as hiring engineers
for slurry sealing and coordinating consultants for
environmental and economic studies
* Efforts to construct a new police station
* Putting a new Police Department retirement system in
place
* Negotiating a Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement
Developing the Barber Street Sports Complex project
with City Engineer, City Planner, Parks and
Recreation interests and Indian River County
* Negotiating three Collective Bargaining Agreements
* Implementing adequate disability policies for
Worker's Compensation disabilities
Negotiating with Indian River County to acquire
water and sewer facilities of private companies
franchised in Sebastian
Planning and implementing a Street Improvement
Program
Inspecting requests for services such as street
lights, potholes and drainage complaints (which in
most cases I will continue to do personally)
Preparing a City budget, and many other on-going
projects
Sebastian has been identified by the State of Florida as the
ninth fastest growing City in the State. With the growth-related
issues facing Sebastian we should be assuming a posture of being
pro-active rather than re-active. I am simply asking for the
resources to develop and maintain a positive pro-active
Management approach in our developing community.
2
In summary, I recommend and request City Council approval of the
position of Assistant City Manager. This position would be a
Staff position with line responsibility only in the capacity of
Airport Director. The minimum qualifications for this position
would be a four year college degree in Public Administration or
related field plus a minimum of two years professional municipal
management experience. The starting salary range would be
$25,000 to S28,000. Your approval of this recommendation is
respectfully requested.
sam
3
PRELIMINARY
FINANCIAL/OPERATING ANALYSIS
For:
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
Submitted by:
Apogee Research, Inc.
To:
Cutler and Stanfield
INTRODUCTION
This draft report reviews the current level of aviation
activity at Sebastian Airport, projects future traffic levels, and
then compares the expected level of revenues with options for
maintaining and/or improving the airport. This section describes
current use of the airport. The next section details the forecasts
of demand under differing assumptions about landing fees. A final
section discusses the implications of these estimates for the level
of capital improvements at the airport.
Because of the absence of adequate information on current
traffic at Sebastian Airport, Apogee monitored aircraft activity
at the airport during the period from May 18 to May 28. To our
knowledge, this represents the first systematic field survey of
actual takeoffs and landings at Sebastian Airport. These survey
data then became the basis for forecasts of future operations at
the airport and, thus, for estimates of potential revenues from
airport landing and takeoff fees.
Apogee's survey totalled 83 hours of daylight observation
beginning as early as 6:45 a.m. and ending as late as 7:45 p.m..
During this period 1713 aircraft operations were observed. Of
this, one day's data was discarded (10.5 hours and 30 observations)
since traffic was suspiciously light following a newspaper account
of Apogee's survey. Peak traffic times occurred in both the
morning and afternoon with up to 60 operations in one hour. This
raw data yielded average operations per hour of 22.3 for Monday
through Thursday and 22.5 for Friday through Sunday. This data
also showed that virtually all operations (91 percent) were
training.
No single survey period can be considered fully representative
of the entire year and, thus, the raw survey data must be adjusted.
in this case, the raw data were adjusted to reflect normal seasonal
fluctuations in Sebastian's population.! Because there was good
flying weather while the survey was being conducted, a weather
factor was included to account for normal patterns of rain,
thundershowers, and heavy fog on an annual basis. After these
adjustments, our baseline projection for all of 1989 calls for
95,000 operations (representing 47,500 aircraft cycles of one
i Seasonal adjustments were made based on Sebastian's
population. Other cities, such as Vero Beach where most flights
originate, have an even sharper seasonal variation in population.
takeoff and one landing).2
AIRPORT USE
More than 90 percent of aircraft activity at Sebastian
represents training flights -- almost all by aircraft from flight
training schools based in Vero Beach and Melbourne (Figure 1).
Among the nine percent of traffic that does not represent training
flights, the largest fraction (3.6 percent) is for visitors --
aircraft not based at Sebastian.
Aircraft from Flight Safety International, a flight training
school based in Vero Beach, account for 57 percent (54,000
operations) of the airport's traffic. The remainder of the
training flights are from other schools (24 percent), including the
Florida institute of Technology at Melbourne Airport. Training
flights conducted by Sebastian-based aircraft account for 10
percent (9,682 operations) of total operations -- most of these
appear to be flights by individuals rather than school-based
operations. (A break down by source of training flights is shown
in Figure 2.)
Visitor aircraft make up almost 4 percent (3,382 operations)
of the traffic. Other than training flights, only two percent
(2,311 operations) of the airport's operations can be identified
as by aircraft based at Sebastian. The remaining operations, three
percent (2,643 operations), could not be classified easily.
FORECAST OF DEMAND AND POTENTIAL REVENUES
Based on an analysis of aircraft operations at Sebastian and
a comparative analysis of training costs, three scenarios for
growth in operations at Sebastian were developed: Most Likely, Low,
and High. This section describes the sensitivity to fees by type
of operation and implied revenues for each forecast scenario.
SENSITIVITY TO FEES
Two categories of flight were considered in evaluating the
sensitivity of operations to fees:
training operations
operations) and
(more than 90
percent of all
o non-training operations.
2 This report follows FAA practice in counting each landing
and takeoff as a separate operation.
c ",,,,,, ,,.,
_.1 .
0
Training
in general, schools offer pilot training under one of two
methods: single lesson training, paid for at the time of the
flight, or complete training through to pilot's certificate with
payment in advance in a lump sum. Pilots using single-lesson
training clearly would be more sensitive to landing fees. Each
training flight -- exclusive of airport fees -- currently costs
approximately $60 per hour. Based on five practice takeoffs and
landings per hour, the new fees at Sebastian would add $25, or more
than 40 percent to this cost. Such an increase would encourage
most, if not all, of these flights to seek other nearby airports
for training flights.
The second method, complete training, involves classroom
instruction, has a much higher base cost, so that pilots who choose
a comprehensive training program should be considerably less
sensitive to landing fees. The total cost of training at three
local flight schools is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Cost of Complete Training to Pilot's Certificate by School
School Charge
Flight Safety
F.I.T. (Melbourne)
Coastal Flight Center
$3,668
2,800
2,895
Since Flight Safety is the main user of Sebastian among flight
schools, the effect of imposing fees should be calculated using
its cost. An increase in costs of $125 per student3 equals a 3.4
percent increase in total training costs. Two approaches can be
used to evaluate the possible effect of these costs on air traffic
at Sebastian. The first assumes that flight training schools will
continue to use Sebastian Airport and that the only impact on
traffic will come from reduced demand for training in general. A
3It is estimated that while training, a student will take-off
and land 5 times in an hour and that to secure a pilot's
certificate, the pilot must complete approximately 5 hours of
practice takeoffs and landings. Multiplying these last two numbers
by the cost ($5.00 for both taking-off and landing) yields a total
cost of $125 per student during the course of his flight training.
5
second approach assumes that, to the extent capacity exists,
training flights will use airports without landing fees.
Effects on Demand for Training Flights
To determine the effect of this cost increase on demand for
flight training operations at Sebastian, the concept of price
sensitivity or price elasticity of demand is used. The price
elasticity of flight training measures the percentage change in
the amount of flight training demanded for a one percent change in
training cost. Assuming the price elasticity of students' demand
for flight training is greater than one, a decrease in demand for
flight training operations at Sebastian of greater than 3.4 percent
could be expected. Although flying lessons would seem to be a
luxury item (with an elasticity significantly higher than one),
students at Flight Safety are more likely to be training for a
flying career than students at other flight schools.4 Thus, the
elasticity of demand for Flight Safety students is probably close
to one.
At the other schools, however, the effect of landing fees on
training operations may be higher. One reason is the lower cost
per student. At F.I.T., for example, the increase in total costs
from imposing fees is 4.5 percent. Also, Coastal Flight Center
allows studentsto pay for their training by lesson. Thus, for the
specific lessons which cover take-offs and landings, an additional
$25 per hour is a significant increase for hourly students and
should result in a lower demand to use Sebastian Airport.
Alternative Airports for Training Flights
Although the concept of price elasticity is important, the
diversion of training flights to airports that have no landing fees
would most likely be the prime factor determining the level of
training operations at Sebastian. The key to this decline is the
availability of other convenient airports that do not charge
landing fees. Three such airports do exist: Valkaria to the north
of Sebastian, Vero Beach Municipal to the south and St. Lucie
County International, slightly further south.
Valkaria appears to offer a likely alternative to Sebastian.
Despite Valkaria's shorter and narrower runways, it can still meet
the needs of small training aircraft. St. Lucie, though it has
longer (5000 feet) and wider (200 feet) runways than Sebastian, is
somewhat busier than Sebastian and thus may not be as attractive
an alternative. Vero Beach is another alternative, but it is
already so congested (with training operations and a few commercial
flights) that flight schools based there currently prefer to train
elsewhere. Veto Beach has more based aircraft than St. Lucie and
4 Flight Safety has been certified by the FAA as a Part 141-
approved school, and therefore a student can earn a commercial
license in less time than at non-Part 141-approved schools.
6
and the FAA projects operations to grow faster there than at the
other alternative airports.
On balance, however, there appear to be other airports that
are both nearby and without landing fees that offer feasible
options to Sebastian for many of the flight schools.
NOn-Training Flights
The second category, non-training operations, includes local,
visitor, and unknown. This categoryv which makes up 8.8 percent
of all flights, would be less sensitive to fees than training
flights, since these operations are generally dependent on the
location of the airport as a means of providing service to the
area.
THE SCENARIOS
Our survey of operations indicated that the current base level
of activity is about 95,000 operations annually. Table 2 shows the
forecasts for annual operations through the year 2009 for each of
three scenarios: Low, Most Likely, and High.
Low Forecast
The Low scenario assumes that once the landing fee is imposed,
all training flights at Sebastian would cease. In addition, non-
training operations would decline: local non-training by 20
percent, visitor non-training by 30 percent and unknown users by
25 percent. Local non-training would decrease by less than others
since they can only reduce their activity and not move it
elsewhere. The 25 percent decline in unknown operations is an
average of the local and visitor declines. This scenario may be
realized if sufficient capacity for training operations exists at
other area airports -- as appears likely --and if pilots find these
airports convenient.
Most Likely Forecast
The Most Likely scenario is a forecast based on a significant,
but not complete decline in the number of operations of all types.
The type of operation likely to experience the largest decline (as
a result of fee implementation) is training, since, as mentioned
above, some capacity for training operations exists at other
convenient airports (for example, Valkaria, St. Lucie, or Vero
Beach). This scenario combines the two effects described in the
previous section: the diversion of some flights to other nearby
airports and the effect of higher training prices on demand for
training flights at Sebastian. As a result, the Most Likely
scenario foresees Flight Safety training operations decreasing by
60 percent, local training decreasing by 30 percent, and other
training decreasing by 70 percent. Other training decreases by
more than Flight Safety since the additional $125 landing/takeoff
o
·
~0~
0
0 ~
000000~~~~
~~~~0000000000
~~~~0000000000
kO
0
fee is a higher percent of these other flight schools costs to
students (see cost table on p.5). Local training flights again
decreases less since they must complete at least one
landing/takeoff cycle just to leave Sebastian. Non-training
flights would decline as described in the low operations scenario.
High Forecast
The High scenario assumes that pilots are less sensitive to
the landing fee and that very little traffic will be diverted to
other airports. Under this scenario, operations would be reduced
only slightly, by 10 percent. No distinction was made by type of
operation.
FORECAST RATE OF GROWTH
The rate of growth in operations for each of the scenarios,
1.2 percent, is the rate forecast by the Federal Aviation
Administration for growth in general aviation activity. However,
this rate should serve as a conservative measure of potential
growth since the growth of nearby flight schools like Flight Safety
may be higher than the national average.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT AT SEBASTIAN
The capital investment program proposed in the Draft Master
PlanS could not be supported by the revenues implicit in the Most
Likely scenario. However, a series of capital investments aimed
at improving the safety and overall quality of airport services
without adding significantly to capacity would be possible. The
projects that could be completed under each of the scenarios is
shown in Table 3, below.
~ This plan was prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan,
Inc. in July 1988. It has since been withdrawn by the City of
Sebastian due to flaws in the air traffic estimates and financial
calculations. Although it covered many aspects of Sebastian
Municipal Airport, only the section covering possible capital
expenditure projects is referenced here. These projects are
referenced only to illustrate the number and cost of improvement
projects that could be funded under different revenue scenarios.
The Draft Master Plan is used for lack of a better source for such
expenditure figures.
9
Table 3.
Capital Improvement Projects That Could be
Completed Under Each Scenario
Draft Master Plan Proposal
Revenue Scenario
H~gh Most Likely
Low
Overlay runway 4-22
PAPIs on 4-22 *
MIRLs on 4-22 *
Overlay runway 13-31
Security fencing
Access road (west)
Overlay east access road
Rotating beacon *
Windcone *
5,358 sq. yd. parking apron
Nondirectional beacon *
Taxiway parallel to 4-22
MILS along taxiway *
25,772 sq. yd. parking apron
Automobile parking,
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Navigation Aids
The capital investment plan of the Draft Master Plan is
identified in Attachment A. Attachment B presents the forecast of
sources and uses under each scenario. Potential capital
improvements would be drastically reduced under the iow case, while
funds would be adequate for all proposed Draft Master Plan
improvements under the high case.
These financial forecasts do not take into account the current
airport enterprise fund balance in the evaluation of sources and
uses of funds.
~OST LIKELY
Under the most likely revenue scenario a $5 landing/takeoff
fee6 would allow Sebastian to complete many, but not all, of the
capital improvements outlined in the Draft Master Plan. Some of
these improvements would have to be completed later than proposed
/That is $2.50 for landing and $2.50 for taking off.
10
in the Draft Master Plan.
In the next ten years (1989-1999) the airport would be able
to resurface the east access road, install a rotating beacon,
install a wind cone, install a nondirectional beacon, overlay both
runways and build the smaller aircraft parking apron. The second
runway would not be resurfaced until 1995, three years later than
originally estimated. Our projections show that the airport could
afford to build a parallel taxiway to runway 4-22 and build the
larger parking apron in the period from 1999 to 2009. These last
two expenditures would, of course, depend on whether forecast
assumptions remain valid from 2000 to 2009.
OTHER SCENARIOS
The low operations scenario would not provide adequate funding
for the airport to complete most of the capital improvements. From
1989-1999, the airport would only be able to complete the
resurfacing of the east access road and install the three
navigational aids: a rotating beacon, a nondirectional beacon and
a windcone. Although runway 4-22 could be resurfaced, it would not
be possible until 2002, more than ten years later than proposed by
the Draft Master Plan. The smaller parking apron could be built
in 2009, but this would delay further the resurfacing of runway 13-
31.
In the high operations scenario, the airport could afford to
make all capital expenditures proposed in the Draft Master Plan
and could complete them all by 2001.
11
~TTACHMENT A
DRAFT MASTER PLaN ~IRPORT IMPROVEMENTS
Included only to illustrate the number
and cost of possible projects
12
Sebastian Airport Capital Improvements by Phase
(Proposed in Draft Master Plan - see footnote on page 5)
Improvement I II III
1987-1992 1992-1997 1997-2007
Runway 4-22
Overlay
PAPI's
MIRLS
Parallel Taxiway
MILS on Taxiway
Subtotal
Runway 13-31
Overlay
Subtotal
Aircraft Parking Apron
5,356 Sq Yds
25,772 Sq Yds
Automobile Parking
Other Fencing
Construct Access Rd
Overlay Access Rd
Beacon
Wind Cone
Non-dir'l Beacon
Subtotal
Total Construction
Plus Contingency
288,000
22,000
84,000
394,000
288,000
288,000
150,000
200,000
50,000
6,000
5,000
411,000
1,093,000
218,600
133,950
10,000
143,950
28,790
459,000
108,000
644,300
7,077
1,218,377
243,675
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
$1,311,600
$172,740
$1,462,052
$2,946,392
ATTACHMENT B
FORECAST SOURCES AND USES,
BY SCENARIO
13
4~
0
0
0
0 0
0
I
I
I
I ·
O0
t~
~~00000000~~~
~~~~0000000000
E-lO
0
0 ~
E~
0
0 0
-,-I
0
O
0
,.,-]
~0~~~0~~~
~~~~0000000000
~~~~0000000000
~00000~0000~0000~00
0
0
0
~O~fl~~M~OO~MQM~M~
oor~
o0o~o
~~~~oooooooooo
~~~~oooooooooo
0
0
.,,~
o,.q
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
~o~