HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES_GTAB_06.13.2014Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
June 13, 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, John Hesser — Secretary, Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, David
Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston
Board Members Absent: Chris H'Luz, Rachel Jonrowe — Vice Chair,
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Ed Polasek, Jana Kern, Terri Calhoun, Bill Dryden, Mark Miller, Nat Waggoner,
Bridget Chapman, Curtis Benkendorfer, Mike Babin, Dan Southard, Ilyanna Kadich
Others Present:
Hugh Norris, John Milford, Bob Burczak — ACC, Trae Sutton —KPA Engineering, Leslie Pollack — HDR,
Mark Allen — Hall Properties, Brian Barton — Omni Properties, Inc. -
Regular Session
A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday,
June 13, 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. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates
D. 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.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Mr. Hugh Norris addressed the Board, what he read is attached at the end of the minutes.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following
items:
F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting
held on May 9, 2014 —Jana Kern
Motion by Armour second by Johnson to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7-0-2
(H'Luz & Jonrowe absent)
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Legends
Landscape LLC, of Temple, Texas, for the construction of the Improvements to San Gabriel Park
along FM 971 in the amount of $ 302,697.85. — Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Dryden explained to the Board that this project is for the realignment of FM 971 between Austin
Ave. and Gann Street along the north side of San Gabriel Park and is also a part of the 2008 Road
Bond project. Motion by Hesser, second by Rankin to approve. Approved 7-0-2 (H'Luz &
Jonrowe absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract for 2014 Capital Improvements
to Smith Contracting of Austin, Texas in the amount of $679,594.00.— Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director, and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
Miller explained that this project consists of redesign and construction of 2.d Street approach east
of Austin Ave. 6th Street — Austin Ave to Main Street pavement and Downtown Master Plan
improvements along with various utility improvements throughout the City. Motion by Hesser
second by Johnston to approve. Approved 7-0-2 (H'Luz & Jonrowe absent)
L Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Patin
Construction Co. of Taylor, Texas, for pedestrian improvements, rehabilitation of the roadway
and curbs on and along 91h Street between Austin Avenue and Main Street, in the amount of
$794,947.00— Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Mark Miller,
Transportation Services Manager.
Miller explained that this project was identified as part of the 2012 pavement analysis and the
five (5) year CIP program. This will consists of rehabilitation of curbs and pavement as well as
implementation of sidewalk/parking improvements on 9th Street between Rock Street and Main
Street as identified the Downtown Master Plan. Motion by Hesser second by Armour to approve.
Approved 7-0-2 (H'Luz & Jonrowe absent)
Discussion and direction to staff regarding the Government and Public Participation
Plans, Reporting Criteria and Project Schedule elements of the 2014 Sidewalk Master
Plan and Public Facility Access Audit." - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director, Nat Waggoner, PMP°, Transportation Analyst.
Waggoner gave a presentation to the Board. No Action Needed
Adjournment
Motion by Hesser, second by Pettitt to adjourn meeting. Approved 7-0-2 (H'Luz & Jonrowe absent)
Meeting ended at 11:27 AM
Truman Hunt — Chair
Jana Kern — Board Liaison
John Hesser — Secretary
GTAB STATEMENT
061314
Agenda Item "E" -Airport Progress Report and Time Lines
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB, city staff and ladies and
gentlemen. For the record, my name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. and I reside at 4400 Luna
Trail. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). My remarks this
morning are focused on presentations made by ACC members requesting airport
information and actions. These requests have been systematically ignored by this board.
GTAB monthly minute records speak for themselves. The silence from the board is
proof of indifference and stonewalling of our requests for actions and information.
The ACC's first public statement was before the City Council on January 14., 2014. We
requested that the current Federally funded airport CIP be held in abeyance pending
citizen approval of the program through a public hearing process. This request was
entirely within requirements of FAA Public Participation Rules.
We were by i9 1 ignored Council and directed to carry our airport concerns to the GTAB.
We have consistently tried to comply with such direction and have met consistent
indifference, defiance and refusal by GTAB to all our requests and suggestions. We have
found that the call by the city for "public participation in our local government" is pure
hypocrisy when the subject is the airport
During the 4 months between the GTAB February meeting where I presented essentially
the same request made to the January 141hCouncil meeting and May of this year, the
ACC has made a total of 12 statements of requests by various group members. GTAB
minutes document that none of these statements resulted in any response by GTAB or
staff, but for one exception. GTAB did use a blatant lie contrived by staff about my
January statement to Council to further the city's one and only airport master plan and
continuance of the current Airport CIP.
We had hoped that incident was result of an over exuberant staff and board and would
not be repeated. Sadly, that was not the case. Even after my personal rebuke in an April
statement to GTAB, city staff used the lie again in the May 2014 issue of Community
Impact Newspaper. A sad commentary on city integrity and citizen involvement.
Among the various ACC requests for GTAB actions are:
0 Request for hold on Airport CIP funding pending citizen consensus of program;
0 Request for bar chart monthly presentations on status of Airport CIP;
0 Request for staff briefings on 12 acre airport property condemnation project;
a Request for off -agenda Workshops between GTAB, staff and public on Airport
CIP;
9 Request for professional engineering study for viable regional airport as
alternative to the current airport program for use in citizen consensus process;
• Request for professional consultant management contract for citizen consensus
process;
• Request for select City Council committee for oversight and management of the
two requested professional contracts: and
Request for documentation of workshops or hearings held pursuant to Federal
regulations for FAA federal funded capital programs.
Except for the first, none of these requests have been addressed or even committed on
by GTAB.
Comments on above include:
• Request for hold on Airport CIP funding pending consensus — We will request
that City Council reinstate our original request, and, after 6 months of futility
with the city, we are proposing to take our appeals for a program consensus to a
higher authority;
• Ms. Barber's request for a "bar chart" - such a chart called a "Gantt Chart" in use
over a century. A chart example is attached to your copy of these remarks. Such a
chart can be modified by staff to identify and track various types of public
information on all 20 of the current federally funded projects in the airport
program. Monthly use would enable board members to exercise management
oversight of the program rather than being spoon fed meaningless verbal staff
updates. Silence by GTAB or staff this morning will document non-interest in
board oversight duties and further stonewalling;
• Mr. Stuart's request -12 acre land condemnation — List of other FAA "Safety" or
"Standards Compliance" requirements in past 10 years? Why only after funding
$1.4 Million for night runway lighting is this singular FAA project mandatory?
Silence by GTAB or staff this morning will document further stonewalling; and
• Ms. Desselle's request for Workshops — Attached to your copy of this statement is
a copy of a list of ACC questions submitted to City Manager on FebruaryI3, 2014
for workshop use. Request denied and sent to City Attorney. All questions are
legitimate public information and ORR's follow. Other question lists are
proposed on (1) city compliance with FAA Federal Grant Public Participation
Rules, (2) new $200,000 airport master plan update and (3) hidden program of
city's Airport 5 year CIP. Silence by GTAB or staff this morning will document
continued stonewalling.
In spite of the negative tone of these remarks we remain hopeful that somehow we can
engage the GTAB in meaningful dialog. We prefer to work with you in public
participation harmony rather than conflict.
Thank you.
QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF
AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING & GRANT FUNDING
The Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) have questions related to certain City Council
actions, engineering plans, and the grant funding provided by TxDOT for airport
related expenses. Below are certain questions related to these subjects deemed essential
by ACC for understanding past and current events and the future of the city's plans for
airport improvements.
I. Past Airport Relocation Consideration -
A. Commentary -
Between the years 2000 and 2004, a local rancher and businessman, James Schwertner,
offered to donate to the City of Georgetown at no cost to the citizens sufficient and
ample land for relocation of the city's municipal airport. The City Council rejected his
offer.
B Ouestions —
1. Specifically, who and from what constituency group led the discussions with
individual council persons and City Council as a whole opposing this offer?
2. What was the rationale of the City Council for rejection of the offer?
3. What was the date of the City Council rejection offer?
4. Why was a workshop of council members and staff not assembled for
negotiation with Mr. Schwertner to attempt arrival at a mutually satisfactory
agreement? And
5. Why was the current airport site in the center of the growing city deemed
superior to a site outside the city?
Il. 2005 Master Plan Update — GRW Willis, Inc.
A. Commentary -
The purpose of the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) is to service its customers.
The GTU's customers are the Local and Itinerary groups of the general aviation
community of the local area. GTU is recognized by TxDOT as a Reliever Airport for
service to the general aviation community (excluding regular scheduled air passenger
service) in central Texas.
Local customers are long term based rental space aircraft and fixed base operators
(FBO's) providing goods and services to the aviation customers. Itinerant uses are short
term stop and go (refuel, passenger and cargo transfer) and short term space rental
(limited overnight stays) customers.
This master plan demonstrates a prior decision to engage services of a high quality
engineer to use all available planning, regulatory data, projections and engineering
skills to lay out physical site and management requirements for the airport's support
and service to its growing customer base over a 20 year time horizon.
Engineering planning documents require development of a Scope of Service (SOS)
document that details the tasks required of the engineer in sufficient detail to enable
the engineer to estimate the hours of various disciplines, equipment, tools and
incidentals necessary to complete the work. Such estimates then form the basis of
negotiation between the owner and the engineer to negotiate a fair and equitable
contract and price.
B. Ouestions -
(1) Specifically, who proposed the need for this study, who were the proposer's
constituents, and who convinced the City Council to employ an engineer to
complete the study?
(2) What was rationale of need for study?
(3) Specifically, what staff personnel were assigned duty for contract oversight?
(4) Who prepared the SOS?
(5) What was the date authorized by City Council to begin the work?
(6) Was the study partially funded by TxDOT? If so, to what extent?
(7) Specifically, who directed the engineer that relocation of the airport was not a
study option? (a) Where did such authority to speak for the citizen owners of
the airport arise?
(8) Who directed the engineer that runway extensions were excluded from
consideration? (a) Why?
(9) What date was the final study presented to City Council for approval?
(10) Was there a public hearing held for public review and approval of the plan
prior to its formal approval? (a) If so, in what pubic media was the public
notice published? Held on what date and time?
(b) Were opposition presentations made? How many?
(11) What date was master plan and contract completed and accepted by City
Council?
(12) What was final cost of the master plan?
(13) Specifically, what projects described in this 20 year plan have been initiated
and/or executed by the city or in conjunction with TxDOT? (a) At what cost
per each and collectively?
III. Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis — CM2MHiI1 Engineers,
Inc.
A. Commentary -
The comments above on the previous master plan update relating to need for and
development of an SOS document apply for this contract.
It seems apparent that someone representing some constituent group following the
approval of the 2005 Master Plan Update recognized that the airport was in financial
difficulties. It was not paying its way. It was relying increasingly on the city budget for
its financial stability. Maintenance was being deferred on an increasing basis. The city
was growing and projected to continue growing at a faster rate. Demand for airport
services for its customers was destined to increase and without meaningful
improvement to its fiscal condition the airport would be unable to support its growing
customer base. A detailed examination of the airport's fiscal condition and
recommendations for its fiscal solvency had to be accomplished by a qualified
engineering firm.
B. Questions -
1. Who made the recommendation in behalf of what constituency to obtain the
business analysis study?
(a) Through what board was the recommendation approved and forwarded to
City Council?
(b) What was the rationale by City Council for approval of the study and its
funding?
(c) Specifically, what were the financial conditions of airport operations and
needs both then current and projected across the proposed 20 year time line
of the master plan update that necessitated the study?
2. What was date of City Council approval?
3. Specifically, what staff members were charged for oversight of this contract
and study?
4. Was this study partially funded through TxDOT?
5. Who was responsible for preparation of the SOS for this study?
6. What date was CM2MHill, Inc. approved as engineer for the study and at
what contract price?
7. At time of initiation of study and now what are the numbers of aircraft based
at the airport? (a) How many of the total based aircraft are owned by non -city
taxpayers of Georgetown?
S. The business study repeatedly cites the "current 20 year capital program for
the GTU" as extracted from the 2005 Master Plan Update (62 total projects).
Why does city staff continually state that city has no 20 year plan for GTU?
9. Why was relocation of the airport at a conflict free zone outside the city
excluded from review by the engineer?
10. The engineer strongly encourages the city to proceed with its next master
plan update as the existing one is "outdated and has lost its usefulness" and
strongly encourages for financial and marketing purposes that extension of
runways be seriously investigated in such an update. Will the city include
this issue in the SOS for the master plan update?
11. No. 7 of the engineer's governing assumptions states that the GTU market
role will emphasize developing all aspects of General Aviation including high
end users (largest jet aircraft capable of using GTU). Is that included in city
current and future plans? (a) If not, what limitations are being employed?
12. The engineer includes as No.6 of the Best Practice Recommendations that the
city should develop a citizen view of what the airport should be, then brand
it and market it. Why not revise that recommendation to one of what and
where it should be, then brand it and market it? (a) What actions has the city
taken to implement this recommendation?
13. Was there a public hearing on this study prior to its approval by City
Council? (a) If so, when, at what time, was there opposition, if so, how
many?
13. What was date of City Council approval of this study and at what total final
cost?
IV. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Aviation Division
A. Commentary -
All agencies responsible for distribution of public funds have specific protocols for such
actions. TxDOT, as the state block grant administrator for the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) source of federal public funds for airport improvements, abides
by all applicable laws and regulations relative to distribution and use of such funds.
Such laws and regulations apply likewise to any and all project sponsors for use of such
funds. The City of Georgetown is such a sponsor and is so bound.
TxDOT also has specific protocols applicable for sponsor's grant applications and
execution for approved projects. TxDOT publishes an annual update of its capital
improvement program by fiscal years showing its sponsors, approved projects and
estimated costs for completion.
Ouestions -
1. Specifically, who in city staff is authorized to complete and submit TxDOT
grant applications for airport improvements in name of the city?
2. At what point in TxDOT's approval process does a project's grant funding
approval return for City Council endorsement and approval for city's share of
the cost?
3. At certain times GTU is subject to FAA inspections and improvement
requirements to maintain FAA operational approval. Are such requirements
automatically eligible for TxDOT grant assistance?
(a) How many FAA required projects by name and cost have been initiated
and/or completed since January 1, 2002?
4. TxDOT currently has on its funding CIP 17 GTU projects (land acquisition
with condemnation, Garver Engineering Design Contract, GTU Master Plan
Update, and 14 individual project "elements". Why are these 17 projects not all
shown on the current 5 year GTU capital improvements plan included in the
city budget and presented on the city's website?
5. The GTAB routinely has an agenda item of "Discussion regarding Airport
Progress Report and time issues". Why does presentation of this agenda item
not include a visual display accompanied by handouts to attendees that clearly
tracks individual airport TxDOT and other funded improvements by
description, cost and time lines for initiation and completion?
6. Of the total 62 projects described in the 20 year capital improvements
proposed in the 2005 Master Plan Update and incorporated in the business
analysis study, how many have been submitted for TxDOT grant assistance?
7. What is the time line and sequence of actions required for TxDOT individual
project grant applications?
8. Has the SOS been prepared for the GTU Master Plan Update?
(a) If so, is it available for public review?
(b) If not, what date is it projected to be completed and by whom?
9. When a project is approved by TxDOT for grant assistance to what extent does
the TxDOT staff enter the project's oversight and control for completion?
10. It is understood that the land acquisition with condemnation project for 12
acres of land for FAA operational approval for runway 11/29 and currently
estimated to cost $943,280.00 is now underway. Is this project completely in
control of TxDOT with no involvement by city staff other than coordination?
(a) If city personnel are involved in this project, who are they and extent of
their participation?
(b) What is the estimated date for completion of this project?
End this list of questions