Loading...
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