HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES_GTAB_10.10.2014Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Trans € rtation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown,`Texas
October 10, 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 Present: Truman Hunt — Chair, Rachel Jonrowe — Vice Chair, John Hesser — Secretary,
Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, Chris H'Luz, David Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Micki Rundell, Ed Polasek, Wes Wright, Bill Dryden Mark Miller,
Nat Waggoner, Curtis Benkendorfer, Laura Wilkins, Bridget Chapman
Others Present: Ron Bindas — Airport User, John Milford, Hugh Norris, Robert Meeker, Richard
Ballantine, F. Desseler — Airport Concern Citizens, Michael Newman — KPA, Tom Crawford — 2015 Road
Bond Committee Chair, Karen Natts - Citizen
Regular Sessio-ti
A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday
October 10, 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: Polasek stated that the Austin Ave. Bridges was third
ranked priority coming out of Williamson County, FM 971 was ranked sixth. The only problem is
that there is a $14M project ahead of us and there is only $31M in total of STPMM funding. We
will just to wait to see how that plays out with the rest of the scoring.
Received a request for prioritization, from the City, for Off System Bridge replacement from
TxDOT. TxDOT has listed five possible bridges for replacement or repair under the Off System
Bridge program. Three of the five are on our potential Bond list and the other two would repair.
Staff will be going through and ranking our responses to those based on our potential Bond
capacity and where staff can get the additional funding meet our match our requirement. The
Austin Ave. Bridges were the top two on the TxDOT list. Asked and answered, Austin Ave
Bridges are on the list for replacement, along with Country Club Rd Bridge and DB Wood Bridge
over the Middle Fork.
Briggs — Austin Ave Bridge - communication this week asking for clarity on cost analysis by Road
Bond Committee - 4 lane or 5 lane section? Bond Committee wants to review. Most likely
replacement as 4 lane section with ADA compliance across the bridges. Utility improvements
and extra ROW for 5 lanes would be very costly. Briggs again stated that the policy we are
working on is replacement rather than repair.
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.
Project updates were given to the Board. Armour asked about some possible safety concerns
where the sidewalk goes down towards some woods and if there was going to be a guard rail
along the same area because if a car goes off there they will end up on the sidewalk. Dryden
stated they he will look into this.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Persons signed up to speak on this item: Hugh Norris, Robert Meeker (granted his 3 minutes to
Mr. Norris), John Milford. See attached presentation at end of minutes
Benkendorfer gave update on the Airport.
Question from Johnston - Is the council considering a new airport board — Jonrowe answered, it
has been brought up a couple of times but no action has been taken.
Briggs asked if there were issues with the wholesale fuel deliveries — Benkendorfer answered that
at the moment were are experiencing problems with Avfuel due to the Tylor refinery going down
a lot and are trying to back fill from the refinery in Baton Rouge but they have gone down a
couple times also. Because of this we have gone as far as Minneapolis to get fuel. We have also
pulled emergency fuel from the military reserves. Because of these problems our pricing may
fluctuate a bit.
F. Presentation and discussion of initial findings from the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and
Public Facilities Access Audit inventory and open house. — Nat Waggoner, PMP 9.
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Waggoner gave a power point presentation on the project. Lengthy discussion with several
questions concerning ADA requirements and maintenance of the current and future sidewalks.
Mr. Armour left the meeting at 10:52 AM.
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 September 12, 2014 — Jana Kern
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve the minutes as presented. Approved
Unanimous 8-0 (Armour absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Patin
Construction Co. of Taylor, Texas, for construction of curb and gutter at various locations in the
City, in the amount of $578,307.50. — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director,
and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
Miller presented the item and gave a brief description of the work. Motion by Johnston, second
by Hesser to approve contract with Patin Construction Co. in the amount of $579,307.50.
Approved Unanimous 8-0 (Armour absent)
I. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a Resolution documenting the City of
Georgetown's support and acceptance of a grant from Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) — Aviation Division to fund the Georgetown Airport Master Plan in an amount of
$20,000.00 — Edward G. Polasek, AICD, Transportation Services Director and Mike Babin,
Deputy General Manager of Utilities
Mr. H'Luz left the meeting at 11:36 AM due to conflict of interest
Polasek stated that this is to fund the creation of a new Airport Master Plan. The prior master
plan did not adequately address the funding and operational requirements of the Airport. This
was budgeted for FY 15/16, so a budget amendment will need to be done. Legal did request one
change to the Resolution. In the fourth "Whereas" change the dollar amount to "not to exceed
$50,000." Just in case it comes in slightly over the amount we will not have to come back for
approval. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Johnston to approve the Resolution as amended, along
with the Consultant Selection Committee. Approved Unanimous 7-0 (Armour & H'Luz absent)
MOTION TO ADJOURN — Adjourned at 11:42 am
Adjournment
Approved: Attested:
Truman Hunt - Chair John Hesser — ecretary
Jana R. Kern — GTAB Board Liaison
GTAB STATEMENT
OCTOBER 10, 2014
AGENDA ITEM "E"
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES
POINT PAPER
PRESENTATION POINTS:
® Introduction to Board — Hugh C. Norris, Jr. 4400 Luna Trail, Member ACC
® 19th Presentation related to 8 primary issues since February 2014 — John Milford describes
O Thanks to board — Minutes Correction- August 2014 GTAB Meeting
4. Recent Written Correspondence: (3 sets for board members)
(a) Letter dated August 11, 2014 from Mr. Elliott Black, FAA, to Mr. Rex Stuart
(b) Letter dated October 02, 2014 to Mr. Black from Hugh Norris
5. Repeat requests for GTAB pro -active airport program management oversight:
(a) GTAB training in NEPA reviews for airport grants — ACC will assist with FAA names
(b) Staff presentation — GTU 2015 CIP increases — Project Elements from 9 to 24- Cost
increase from $5,738,000 to $8,131,828 (All Safety and Maintenance for the boys?)
6. New Request — 2015 CIP - GTU Master Plan Update —
ACC Recommendations:
(a) GTAB must take proactive management oversight of 2015 Master Plan — This plan has
potential of setting off new round of public controversy. Make no CC recommendations
without prior vetting by GTAB.
(b) Hold in abeyance action on CC recommendation pending full discussion and resolution
by board with general public on scope of work (SOW) proposed for selected consultant.
Do not allow staff and TxDOT AVN to determine SOW. GTAB must provide leadership
for SOW in behalf of general public — not just for those who use the airport for fun and
profit.
(c) Drop facade of "All we're doing is safety and maintenance for the boys and meeting FAA
standards." Tell the public the truth for a change. This new master plan is intended as a
continuation of past and current GTU CIP's to remodel GTU to service Georgetown's
expanding needs for aviation services and overflow from Austin Mueller/Bergstrom. The
intended remodeling is to provide service for an ever expanding air fleet with increasing
number of take offs and landings on a 24 hr. basis, provide for increasing terminal auto traffic
and increasing lease acreage for increased aviation oriented businesses.
(d) Recommendation to CC must include a recommendation that development of the
new master plan conform to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B- Airport Master
Plans. The city's current Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit would
be a good model for managing public involvement of this master plan.
7. Closing Remarks — ACC never desired conflict with city — desired NEPA citizen rights
Eel i . ; 1 � �.
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS AND TIME LINES
POINT PAPER
20th ACC presentation since February 2014
Name: John Milford
Today, I want to remind you of the eight request for actions to monitor activity underway at the
Georgetown Airport made by ACC. To date these request remain ignored by the board.
These requests are as follows:
• hold on Airport CIP funding pending citizen consensus of program;
• bar chart monthly presentations on status of Airport CIP;
• staff briefings on 12 acre airport property condemnation project;
• off -agenda Workshops between GTAB, staff and public on Airport CIP;
• professional engineering study for viable regional airport as alternative to the current airport
program for use in citizen consensus process;
• professional consultant management contract for citizen consensus process;
• select City Council committee for oversight and management of the two requested professional
contracts: and
• documentation of workshops or hearings held pursuant to Federal regulations for FAA federal
funded capital programs.
I also want to inform you about other requests and actions that pertain airport expansion on operations.
➢ Two months ago a GTAB board member, made a request to city staff for a listing of all current
and future projects planned for the Georgetown airport. To date that request seems to have been
ignored as well.
➢ Last month I informed you about an Open Records Request to the city of Georgetown for
documentation declaring "safety" as the reason for purchasing the 12+ acres. The city sent me a
copy of an FAA March 2012 inspection report that cited no "safety issues" were found.
➢ Today I inform you about Open Records Request to TXDOT for 5 engineering studies and design
reports and Categorical Exclusion checklists that explain why projects at the airport have been
excluded form National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. We received a
notification from TXDOT that these records no longer exist in hard copy or digital format.
➢ The Director of FAA Office of Audit and Evaluation has a team assigned to investigate TXDOT
actions concerning block grant assignments and categorical exclusion of NEPA requirements. He
sent a notification this week that this new information as been given to his investigation team.
Ed Polasek
From:
EdPo|exek
Sent:
Monday, December 0l2014IO:3lAM
To:
Bridget Chapman; Skye Masson; Chris Foster, Jim Briggs
Subject:
Fwd: Rail According toSteve Fought
Attachments:
innageU0ljpg
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patty Eason
Date: December 5,2014at5/45:39PK4CST
To:'EdPo!asek'
Cc 'NatbanieiVVa#8oner'
Subject: FW: Rail According to Steve Fought
See info on ACC.
Thanks, Patty
From: Joe Lessard
Sent: Wednesday,December 03, 20148:25AM
To: Patty Eason
Cc: 'Joseph Black'
Subject: RE: Rail According toSteve Fought
Patty: Thanks for sending the list ofissues/questions below, | will make atry atclarifying oraddressing
them.
Also, just tolet you know, onMonday the Board mfTrustees mfthe Austin Community College District
voted to approve an agreement with LSRD that provides 50% of the growth revenue from the TIZs
within their taxing district. The agreement adopts the City of Austin TIZs immediately and automatically
adds any TIZ established in Buda, Kyle and Round Rock when established by the respective city. Great
new for LSRDand the region.
From: Patty Eason
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 20145:54PM
To: Joe Lessard
Subject: FW: Rail According toSteve Fought
Importance: High
HiJoe: Here is the "Newsletter" from Steve,
If the Mayor and I could challenge his statements with facts from you at our Exec Session on Dec 9, it
would be really great.
Also, I learned from Ed that Jerry Hammerlun's biggest issue seems to be regarding the timing for when
properties become rezoned and when the City can capture value. He seems to think that we can wait to
create the TIZ until AFTER properties are rezoned from AG to Commercial, etc. Ed said that if you could
get the timeline and facts to him in writing and we could get the correct info to Jerry and the other CC
members on the 9th, then we will have answered all of Jerry's concerns.
As you know, Ed and I have responded to these statements many times (and I'm pretty sure you have,
too) but your answers in writing will give the Mayor and me what we need to challenge the
"misstatements".
Thanks for your help.
Patty
• i i
A Proposed Interlocal Agreement to create a Transportation
Infrastructure Zonefor Lone StarRail (LSR)
I addressed this subject in my 7 November Newsletter (please click here to
visit my web site if you would like to read that article). In general terms I
was concerned about the proposed Interlocal Agreement because:
1. It changed Georgetown's obligation for annual Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) of the Lone Star Rail from $1 Million (as proposed in
the original discussions) to an open-ended amount, dedicated to not only
O&M but to infrastructure as well.
2. Under the new proposed Interlocal Agreement, Georgetown's
contribution would be set as a combination of property and sales tax
revenues in an amount not to exceed 75% of the property tax collected
from increases in ALL property values in the area of the TIZ, regardless of
whether the increase could be attributed to the LSR or would have
occurred without the LSR.
3. It gave the LSR District the prerogative to reach into the accumulated
TIZ monies well ahead of the actual operation of the LSR to pay for LSR
2
infrastructure if the performance parameters established in the proposed
Interlocal Agreement had been met.
4. 1 had asked, well over 15 months ago, for some insights into the
financial impact of the City having to allocate tax monies to the LSR, while
still having to provide normal city services and other infrastructure (police,
fire, EMS, roads and so forth) to the area of the TIZ. The response was
that these sorts of calculations were quite difficult, depended on a number
of assumptions, and could not be addressed until we signed the Interlocal
Agreement creating the TIZ and guaranteeing the monies to the LSR. (I
compared that to somebody saying "Just sign the contract and we'll tell you
how much it costs later.")
5. The Council was being rushed into a decision without the advice of the
appropriate Boards, Commissions or Committees, despite the fact that this
project had a life -span of well over 30 years and a huge potential impact on
our economic base, tax structure, and overall plans for economic
development.
I asked that the General Government and Finance Advisory Committee
(GGAF) and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) be
given the opportunity to review the proposal and present their comments
and recommendations to Council before any decision was made on the
Interlocal Agreement that would create the TIZ. That proposal passed.
The item came back to council on 25 November, with GGAF unanimously
recommending Council deny the request to form the TIZ, and GTAB
recommending (7-1) that Council approve the TIZ. (Please click here for
the agenda summary sheet -- the attachments are especially informative).
In the meantime Staff had come back with an analysis addressing several
of my long-standing questions (please click here for details). In general
terms the analysis indicated:
1. Under the provisions of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, and under
reasonable assumptions about economic development within the
boundaries of the TIZ, Georgetown's contribution to the annual O&M of
the LSR would exceed $2.5 Million, and most certainly require the full
75% of the property tax - the maximum amount specified in the proposed
agreement.
2. The requirement to provide necessary city services and other
infrastructure in the area of the TIZ would most likely generate a
shortfall of at least $50 Million over the period of the Interlocal
Agreement -- thus it would be necessary for Georgetown to find other
(outside the TIZ) sources of revenue (i.e, tax increases), in order to cover
that shortfall.
Despite the delays in getting the answers to some of my questions, I
appreciate staffs analysis which took a fair amount of time and effort. In my
opon that time and effort s necessary. Actually I believe it
would be irresponsible to enter into an agreement of this sort without
having at least a preliminary look at the long term obligations and their
impacts.
Now, having finally garnered these insights, my conclusion at this point is
that we simply cannot dedicate such a significant amount of the tax income
from future growth to a single project, while at the same time the project
generates deficits that have to be funded by other sources. I am convinced
that unless there are substantial changes to the funding arrangements we
should not sign the Interlocal Agreement. I am especially concerned about
the amount of property tax that would be obligated to the LSR and the level
of debt that would accumulate, and have to be covered by other tax
revenues.
The primary reason the amount is so high (according to the Staffs
analysis) seems to be that we set a baseline for property tax at the current
value -- which is zoned agricultural. Any commercial development in that
area (and we have several proposals in the pipeline) would cause it to be
re -zoned to either commercial or residential. Either re -zoning would cause
an immediate increase in the property values. The proposed Interlocal
Agreement would sacrifice 75% of the tax revenues derived from that
growth to the LSR when, in fact, the re -zoning and increase in value has
nothing to do with the LSR.
Therefore I believe that, if the Interlocal Agreement is to be given further
consideration, we need to change the baseline for the assessed valuel
to at least the point at which the property is re -zoned from
agricultural.
I have asked the Staff to re -accomplish their analysis to see what
difference this change in baseline would make to the forecast of annual
contributions to LSR and to the accumulated debt (currently estimated at
$2.5 Million annually and $50 Million cumulatively, as discussed above)
and to calculate a "break-even" level for annual contribution which would
not produce a cumulative deficit.
Fortunately the item was pulled from the Council agenda to allow time for
Staff to complete this analysis and meet whatever concerns other Council
members may have.
This is a far reaching issue with both economic and political dimensions
that will last for a long time. I appreciate your patience in reading through
these articles, and welcome your perspectives.
al
Save a tree. Don't print this e-mail unless it's necessary.
This message and any attachments are soley for the use of the intended recipients and the information in this email is confidential. This email and
attachments may contain privileged and/or confidential information, attorney work product or other information protected from disclosure. if you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are subject to the terms and conditions
expressed in the engagement agreement. if you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
Disclaimer Required by IRS Rules of Practice: Any statements regarding federal taxes contained in this communication were not written or intended to be
used and cannot be used by any person or entity as a basis for avoiding federal tax penalties.
DISCLAIMER:
This email (and/or its attachments' may contain confidential information belonging to the sender and is intended solely for
the use of 6 -ie individual or entity named above, If You are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the content of this information is unauthorized
and strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
5
Click here to report this email as spam.