Loading...
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.