Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES_GTAB_04.11.2014Notice of Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas April 11, 2014 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 8th Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members Truman Hunt — Chair, Rachel Jonrowe — Vice Chair, John Hesser — Secretary, Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, David Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston Board Members Absent: Chris H'Luz, Staff Present: Ed Polasek, Wesley Wright, Jana Kern, Bill Dryden, Susan Morgan, Mark Miller, Mike Babin, Nat Waggoner, Terri Calhoun, Trish Long, Paul Pausewang, Trina Bickford Others Present: John Milford, Hugh Norris, Maria Guevara, Paul White, Patsy Campbell Tom Garret, Frances Desselle, Richard Ballentine, Sharon Barber, Rex Stuart, David White, M. Holguin, Pablo Holguin — Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC), Trae Sutton — KPA, David Hawley - URS Regular Session A. Call to Order — Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday, April 11, 2014 at 10:00 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. Citizens wishing to address the Board. The below Citizens wish to address the Board on items not on the Agenda: John Milford Maria Guevara Paul White Pasty Campbell Hugh Norris, Jr. Tom Garrett Please see the attached statements that were made by Mr. Milford, Mr. White and Mr. Norris at the end of the minutes. D. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: Polasek gave updates E. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines — Bill Dryden, P. E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. F. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Frances Desselle, Rex Stuart and Sharon Barber sign up to speak see statements at the end of these minutes. 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 March 14, 2014 —Jana Kern Motion by Jonrowe, seconded by Pettitt to approve minutes as presented. Approved 8-1-0 (H'Luz absent) H. Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council for approval of Task Order HDR 14-002, to HDR Inc. of Austin, Texas, for the completion of the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan in the amount of $188,175.00 — Nat Waggoner, PMPO, Transportation Analyst, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Wesley Wright, P.E, Systems Engineering Director. Waggoner presented the item to the Board stating the Master Plan is to inventory existing sidewalk infrastructure, identify design deficiencies, evaluate future sidewalk requirements and develop a plan for all sidewalk facilities within the City limits. There will be an opportunity for public input along with governmental body input. Motion by Jonrowe, seconded by Armour to approve Task Order HDR 14-002. Approved 8-1-0 (H'Luz absent) Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to M & C Fonseca Construction Co., Inc., of Granite Shoals, Texas, for the construction of the North Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Project (Rec Center to Georgetown High School) in the amount of $404,676.50; the award is contingent upon concurrence of the bids and contractor by the Texas Department of Transportation. — Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Dryden presented this item to the Board. There was a lengthy discussion on the high cost. Board was informed that this was a public/competitive bid. Suggested that this bid get turned down and re -bid. Board was informed that we could possibly get a lower bid but more than likely it will be the same or higher. Again all of the bidders know what everyone's bid was. M & C Fonseca Construction Co., Inc. has not done any work for the City of Georgetown but has successfully worked for TxDOT. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve contract with M & C Fonseca Construction Co., Inc. Approved 6-1-2 (H'Luz absent, Armour and Johnston against) J. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to American Road Maintenance of Itasca, IL, in the amount of $499,112.25 for pavement maintenance (Rejuvenator) — Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems engineering Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager Wright explained the item to the Board — This project will apply a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to various residential streets. This will seal minor cracks, preventing moisture intrusion onto the subgrade, extend the life of the existing pavement, and provide uniform color to the pavement. There will also be a light sand application included with the emulsion to help provide traction. Motion by Hesser, second by Jonrowe to approve bid award to American Road Maintenance. Approved 8-1-0 (H'Luz absent) K. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cholla Pavement Maintenance of Apache Junction, AZ in the amount of $779,212.33 for pavement maintenance (Chip Seal). — Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems engineering Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager Wright explained the item to the Board — This projects will provide a mixture of adhesive polymer and aggregate (Chip Seal) to various arterial and collector roadways. Motion by Hesser second by Jonrowe to approve bid award to Cholla Pavement Maintenance. Approved 8-1-0 (H'Luz absent) L. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cutler Repaving of Lawrence, KS in the amount of $523,792.75 for pavement maintenance (Hot -in -Place Recycling). —Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems engineering Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager Wright explained the item to the Board — There was only one bidder on this project, Cutler Repaving. Cutler has completed hot in place asphalt recycling for the City for the past seven years. The process has proven to be extremely successful on multiple projects in the City. Motion by Hesser, second by Armour to approve bid award to Cutler Repaving. Approved 8-1-0 (H'Luz absent) M. Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council concerning creation of a Bond Committee to finalize a potential Road Bond Package — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Micki Rundell, CFO. Polasek stated to the Board at the February 11, 2014, City Council Workshop staff presented the GTAB approved bond list that totaled $150,000,000. Staff also presented two alternative lists, the complete package which totaled $411,000,000 and a modified GTAB alternative that totaled $72,000,000. City Council directed the bond discussion back to GTAB for the following considerations: We need to finalize a proposal for a May 2015 Bond Election. In the November 2014 election City efforts should be focused on the maintenance sales tax issue, May 2015 provides the next opportunity to finalize an election item. The final project list should be vetted by the GTAB Board and a Bond Committee working together to analyze the projects based on needs, financing and tax rate implications. Council's desire was for the project list to be somewhere between the $72 and $150 million dollar proposal. Council did not specify the membership or meeting schedule, other than it should be able to meet as often as necessary and should include representation from each Council District. Staff is recommending the creation of a 15 member Bond Committee, consisting of the 7 non Council members from the GTAB Board and one member each appointed by City Council member and the Mayor. Motion by Hesser, seconded by Jonrowe to recommend to City Council the creation of a 15 member Bond Committee. Approved 8-1-0 (H'Luz absent) N. Discussion and presentation of the Draft 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Plan. —Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems engineering Director Wright reviewed the draft 2014/15 CIP. Will be brought back next month for recommendation. NO ACTION Adjournment Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 12: 05 PM. Truman Hunt — Chair JgInCHesser — Secr tary Jana Kern — Board Liaison Statements made from Item "C" STATEMENT TO GTAB APRIL 11, 2014 Mr. Chairman, members of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), city staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Milford and I am a long time resident of Serenada. I come before you today on behalf of Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) and the general public. We are alarmed at the city's plans for expansion of operations at the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). In August of 2013, a citizen's opinion article posted in the Williamson County Sun, entitled "Lovers of Quiet -Beware", made us aware of city plans. This spurred our review of the 70 year history of the airport, influence of the Airport Advisory Board (AAB), and history of past airport capital improvement projects. We have since learned of the historical need to establish a Central Texas Regional Airport (CTRA) and its endorsement by the Texas Legislature, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). After review of the current FAA/TxDOT federal funding for the airport, discussions with city staff, review of the 2005 Master Plan Update and the Airport Business Case Analysis, which incorporates the 2005 plan, we have become increasing alarmed by what we have learned. We can clearly see a past and current methodical step by step progression for conversion of the airport's reliever status into a Central Texas Regional Airport. Reliever status is important, for that status authorizes the airport to provide most types of general aviation passenger and air cargo services with the exception of regular scheduled air passenger service such as is offered by American or Delta. The conversion of the airport into a Central Texas Regional Airport has a major, long term, detrimental defect — its location is in the heart of our city. We understand that embedded in all Federal Grant Funding is an inherent requirement that all federally funded capital programs must be reviewed and endorsed by the general public prior to construction. We have not seen any public information from the city advising the public of the long range capital improvement and operational plans for the airport. We have not seen any opportunity for public review and endorsement of such a plans. Our reviews on this issue to date gives an impression of a secretive, expansion program hidden beneath the radar of public awareness in order to conceal from the public the truth of the airport program. But why? There have been occasions when I have heard Mr. Polasek say, in responses to the City Manager and others, that public workshops and hearings for the airport have been held in the past. We have not found such documentation. Today we request that Mr. Polasek, advise his board and the ACC where this public information and citizen endorsement can be found. If he can't tell us specifically where this information resides, then we request the board to direct him, to escort members of our ACC to the location where these records may be reviewed. If documentation cannot be produced, we will rely on the Texas Government Code, Title 5, Chapter 552 and present the Mayor with a formal Request for Information for all documentation and public advertisement demonstrating compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act and any Federal Funded Projects advertised for construction. Lack of information, on long term plans for expansion of operations at the airport, is a serious issue. The total amount of authorized funding for airport projects in the TxDOT CIP, currently scheduled for design or construction, is over $9M. That funding is not the end. More requests will be coming from the next airport master plan study, already funded at $200,000 by TxDOT. The preamble of Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code states "The people in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." The people of the City of Georgetown deserve far better service and respect from their elected and appointed leaders. Thank you. STATEMENT TO GTAB APRIL 11, 2014 Mr. Chairman, members of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board, city staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David White. My wife and I have lived at 4308 Cordoba Circle for many years. I am here this morning representing the Airport Concerned Citizens and the general public with three requests in behalf of the public interest. It is our understanding that the GTAB is charged by the City Council to be the sole sponsor of recommendations to the Council on all issues related to the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). These recommendations include all public information, citizen involvement, capital improvements programs, and specific actions related to individual consultant studies and construction projects. Regarding all these issues we have serious concerns. Based on the "Airport Project History", a document produced by Mr. Polasek as an attachment to item "J" on the GTAB's March 14, 2014 agenda. In our review of the current FAA/'TxDOT CIP, and orders of the Department of Transportation Commission, the cumulative sum of public funds sponsored by the City Council for airport development is in excess of $20 million dollars. These funds to be used in a plan conceived by the Airport Advisory Board (AAB) to convert the airport into a Central Texas Regional Airport (CTRA). This $20 million dollar investment may be less than accurate, due to "Airport Project History" document omitting the costs of the "2005 Master Plan Update" and the "Airport Business Case Analysis". Still this is a enormous public investment without public endorsement. Even more disturbing is that the City Council has never invested the time or money to investigate a possible out of town relocated airport alternative. We have serious concerns that this non -action does not serve to satisfy the best interest of the public. We believe a void in public information and education about the city's CTRA plan, that city staff will propose a public hearing in the near future to propose a public endorsement for its one and only plan. Without a viable alternative for public review this public hearing will be a one sided hoax and a public embarrassment to the city. We can envision Mr. Polasek's presentation, as the city plan, proclaiming requirement for public endorsement otherwise, FAA and TxDOT will close the airport. Requesting a show of endorsement hands from a room filled with AAB supporters; endorsement done. The construction of a Central Texas Regional Airport may then continue as planned. This action must be avoided to protect the interests of the general public and the respected name of the city. Therefore, we request the GTAB recommend the following three (3) actions to the City Council for immediate action: I. Procure and conduct an engineering study for "Due Diligence Engineering Analysis for Possible Airport Relocation and Financial Support". The consultant deliverables produced by this study would should provide a fair and complete comparative public analysis and comparison to the city's CTRA plan. The study would be used to gain public consensus on any alternative options made for public consideration. The study should analyze the feasibility of acquiring an out of town safe and protected site for a future CTRA. It should analyze protection of City of Georgetown interests, via state legislation. It should analyze a phased relocation of all airport operations, without undue service interruptions to any aviation activities. It should help determine how to best pay for relocation by placing the airport property in the hands of property management experts charged to represent the interests of Georgetown's citizens. It should analyze a potential for sale of the current airport property into high value residential, commercial and retail development interests. II. Engage an outside consultant to manage and direct a citizen consensus process. This consensus process to be based on the recommendation, guidelines for a public participation process, presented by Mr. Norris in his January 14, 2014 statement to the City Council. III. Ensure non -bias status of the consultant contracts proposed above. I recommend to the City Council that these contracts have oversight by a select committee of three (3) council members: (1) Chairman — Councilman Keith Brianard due to his proven expertise in oversight of financial matters and issues and experience in costibenefit studies. (2) Councilwoman Patty Eason due to her demonstrated focus on preservation of local and cultural issues. (3) Councilwoman, Rachael Jonrowe due to her demonstrated focus on due process and environmental issues. Thank you. 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 15 years. 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 of the Georgetown Airport." Upon that preface, GTAB approved and sent to the March 25, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item "S" a recommendation of "Continue with implementation of the Airport Business Analysis for the orderly management of the 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 CH2MHi11 Engineers. It is a combined report and Council's approval clears the way for full implementation of all current and future airport funding authorized by FAA/TxDOT. It eliminates 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 cannot 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. It also 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 "2002 Georgetown Airport Advisory Board's, Airport Closing Project, October 2002". There is no documentation 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 of GTAB'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. Thank you. STATEMENTS MADE FROM ITEM "F" Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board April 11, 2014 Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB and members of the public. MY name is Frances Desselle. My husband and are residents of Georgetown, TX. I am a member of the Airport concerned Citizens (or ACC), a group of city taxpayers. The City Council (in its January 14, 2014 meeting), directed the ACC to "work all airport issues through the GTAB". My appearance here today (and on March 14, 2014), are a direct result of the directive from the Georgetown City Council. In my March 14 2014 remarks, I requested that the GTAB consider a change to the format of its monthly meetings to include an "Airport Workshop Session" at the end of GTAB meetings. The addition of an informal "Airport Workshop Session" would enable members of the public to direct questions to GTAB members and obtain answers. It would also give them the opportunity to provide substantive input on matters before the GTAB. My March 14, 2014 remarks (should you wish to review them for specifics), should have been made an official part of the proceedings of that meeting. Examples of the types of questions that could be discussed in the informal "Airport Workshop Session" include questions transmitted to the City Manager on February 13, 2014 by Hugh Norris, a member of the ACC. Mr. Norris (in that communication), raised questions about past, current and future plans for the Airport. In that same communication, Mr. Norris proposed that a workshop be set-up with the City Manager, so that he and his staff could provide one-on-one answers to the questions and for discussions, The City Manager acknowledged receipt of the communication and the questions. The City Manager has not responded to the questions, or the request for a face-to-face meeting (in the form of a workshop), to discuss the answers. The ACC'S view, is that the GTAB and city staff (with the City Manage/s input and involvement), are well prepared to respond to those questions in an informal "Airport Workshop Session". As I stated on March 14, 2014, the addition of an informal 'Airport Workshop Session" would advance openness and transparency in government. It would give the public an opportunity to provide meaningful input on decisions that affect the future of their city, the environment in which they live and indeed their very lives. The "Airport Workshop Session" is noticeably absent from today's agenda. The people's business must be conducted in the public eye and with public involvement. Thank you for your attention. Presentation to the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board April 11, 2014 Good morning, members of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board, city staff, and others. My name Rex Stuart, and I have been a resident of Georgetown for approximately 7 years. I am also a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens organization. As members of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) organization here in Georgetown, we strongly object that the future of the Georgetown airport be determined solely by city staff without significant and meaningful input and interaction by the citizens of Georgetown and surrounding areas affected by the outcome. Therefore, we desire an immediate halt to implement a plan for the airport without the citizen input described above, through "Town Hall" meetings involving: 1. Citizens desiring to attend; 2. Appropriate city staff to discuss the issues; 3. Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) staff; 4. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Staff); 5. Other parties as necessary The goal of those meetings should be to inform the citizens of other alternatives, and associated costs and benefits of each alternative; along with that of the city. One proposal to consider is moving the airport to a location not in conflict with the daily life of a rapidly growing city such as Georgetown. The following description is one way to achieve that purpose: 1) Acquire a parcel of land to the east of the city which is relatively flat, less rocky, and presumably cheaper than land along the I-35 growth --corridor as the site of the future airport. 2) Continue current operations --with some modification -- at the existing airport using both surplus revenue from the General fund and revenue from current users of the airport. 3) Future federal and state revenue received for the purpose of an airport would be used to: a) Design a new airport with a long range concept; b) Build the new airport infrastructure in a phased process that could utilize that infrastructure on a timely basis for current operations- -such as flight training-- without adversely affecting long-range planning and construction. 4) The last source of funding would be from selling the current airport land and facilities when they are not essential for current operations. 5) Finally, a significant cost savings would arise by Not condemning and purchasing the land and structures adjacent to the current airport, which is included in the city's plan for airport improvements. Thank you for this opportunity to address the board, and we hope you can appreciate that this issue greatly affects the safety and quality of life of all Georgetown residents. Review of New Bar -Type Charts for Airport Information Gathering Good Morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Aviation Board and to all concerned citizens who so graciously give their time attending our Georgetown Board meeting: My name is Sharon Barber. I am a citizen of Georgetown residing in Sun City and a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens group, many of whom are present today. I am going to review the Airport Status Chart you have provided the Airport Concerned Citizens group as per our March 14, 2014 request. As you recall, we requested an easily digested bar graph detailing expenses on the airport. Since we didn't receive the requested information in advance, I will quickly glance at your prepared materials and I have reserved three comments regarding them. These will be predicated on my quick perusal. Question One: Question Two: Question Three: Summarizing statement regarding our concerns about my questionsfrom the Airport Progress Status Chart. (Extemporaneous and within the three-minute time limit for citizen input.) Thank you for your cooperation and time. It is refreshing to finally receive professional acknowledgment and response for the citizens of Georgetown. Each gives his or her time, talent and civic involvement to providing the city with feedback on the airport expansion. Our input is based on various FAA regulations governing Public Hearings, Conduct of Public Hearings, Community Involvement Policy, and others. We thank you. Good day. ACC Note: Last paragraph of above was deleted from my talk. In place of it I said something about being actively into the role of citizen, that I believed in citizenship. Then something about citizens needing good information to make good decisions, and that my previous request for more info (bar graph) was ignored. Then said 1 formally requested the bar graph, which I had outline carefully in my previous GTAB meeting, be made available to us by the next meeting. I requested once, looking at the board members, that the request be included in the minutes, then turned, looked at secretary, said, "IN THE MINUTES." She nodded, pointed to the recording device. (Any failure to include such comments in the minutes must be regarded as deliberately carried out.)