Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_01.11.2019Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas January 11, 2019 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 three (3) 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: Ron Bindas - Vice Chair, Donna Courtney - Secretary, Dan Jones, Robert Redoutey, Sheila Mills, Doug Noble, Troy Hellmann, John Hesser, John Marler - Board Chair Board Members Absent: None Staff Present: Wes Wright, Jim Briggs, Emily Koontz, Mike Babin, Paul Diaz, Ray Miller, Laurie Brewer, Joshua Canter, Karrie Pursley, David Morgan Others Present: Terry Reed -ACC, Carl Norris -ACC, John Milford -ACC, Trae Sutton - KPA Engineering, Josh Crawford, Wendy Dew -ACC Regular Session A. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Chairperson John Marler at 10:00am 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: All visitors and staff were introduced. C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT/Transit Updates: Jim Briggs gave updates. Briggs introduced Ray Miller, the new Transportation Planning Coordinator. City met with Ashby with CAMPO and shared with him our intention to continue moving forward with their support. Made sure were qualified for funding and got advice from Ashby on how to submit applications. Continue to have a good relationship with Ashby and CAMPO. Over the holidays,1460 was completed and opened. TxDOT had an open house about Leander Rd. and they have another open house for the area from Leander Rd to Inner Loop. TxDOT is putting in landscaping at 130 and I35. This is a TxDOT project and is funded completely by TxDOT. D. Airport Monthly Update: Jim Briggs gave updates. Reports are included in the packet. Bids were received on the Runway Rehabilitation Project and Garber estimated construction at $4.9 million and Jordan Foster came in at a little over $4 million. The city has already contributed their match percent to TxDOT. Revenues in October were a little off of budget, but November and December exceeded budget so for the quarter, the airport is still running in black. City will continue monitoring how the Runway Rehabilitation Project affects revenue. Briggs gave update on airport manager position - a few candidates were selected and offered positions, but their original employers gave them better offers and all candidates ultimately turned down the job. The city has reposted the position and will continue to look for candidates. Dan Jones asked and Briggs confirmed that when the city is looking for candidates, it is using nationwide communications to look for qualified candidates. Bindas explained that there is a shortage of aviation professionals at the time and it is important to get the right person for the job. Citizens Wishing to Address the Board: The following people with the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) signed up to speak to the Board on Item D: Carl Norris — 6 minutes (extra 3 minutes donated by Wendy Dew) E. November 2018 GTAB Updates: This item was moved to the end of the agenda. Wright gave updates. All updates included in the packet. There was then an overview and discussion of the 2015 Road Bond Projects. Status of Road Bond Projects included in handout. Hesser asked and Wright responded that all projects that have been completed and were part of the bond have been listed on the handout. Legislative Regular Agenda F. Consideration and possible approval of the Minutes from the November 9, 2018 Meeting — Emily Koontz — Board Liaison. MOTION by Troy Hellmann, second by Dan Jones to approve the minutes as presented. APPROVED 9-0-0 G. Consideration and possible recommendation of Task Order KHA-19-002-TO with Kimley Horn and Associates of Austin, TX in the amount of $137,555.00 for a Transportation Impact Fee Study - Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director. Most roads that are built in the city are funded by property tax assessment. Some of that funding comes from development in the form of TIA contributions. The development code requires a development that generates over two thousand trips per day to conduct a TIA — an engineering study on the impact to the road network. It studies traffic and road impacts and then it assess a dollar contribution by the developer and is intended to offset the cost of transportation improvements associated with that development. That process works, but it's not an ideal process because the TIA costs money and takes time and slows down development. The other issue is, if there is a development that does not generate two thousand trips per day then there is no transportation contribution made to the network on behalf of the developer. Impact fees are an assessment made and a revenue collected to help capital infrastructure costs associated with new development. We currently have Water and Wastewater impact fees and have had them for approximately twenty years. They are very standard and most cities have them. A lot of cities have transportation impact fees as well and they are allowed in state statute. The city staff have discussed to improve development and provide additional funding and not place the burden of roadway expansion entirely on the taxpayers, the city is proposing to do this study to look at the feasibility of implementing impact fees. This study is to look at the effect of Impact Fees. This is not an implementation of Impact Fees, this is just a study to analyze the effects and present the results to Council. Asking for approval to initiate the study which is about a year long process. This is budgeted in the current year; it was discussed with Council when going through the budget process so funds are available to conduct this study. Kimley-Horn does these studies all over the state and staff has determined that they are the best company to do the study. Bindas asked why the city is looking to change this system now. Wright responds that it seems to be a trend, many cities have implemented or looked at implementing impact fees. The reason staff is bringing this up and keeps coming to it, is because of development. David Morgan added that Georgetown needs to be a good place to invest and part of the predictability and TIA is a very unpredictable process. The key benefit of having an Impact Fee is to add predictability to development. Elected bodies get to decide where to set the Impact Fees. Marler said, speaking from his experience on PNZ, they had situations where one development by itself would not generate two thousand trips, but a combination of developments going in would, but the TIA does not take that into account so the developers are exempt from contributing and that the impact fees would bring it down to a more natural process. Hellmann said he likes the idea of not wasting money on TIAs, but has some concerns about what the amount of the impact fees will be. Hellmann also asked if this would completely get rid of TIAs. Wes responded that they would not completely get rid of TIAs, but lessen them considerably. The study does a detailed analysis of the maximum allowable amount, but Council ultimately gets to decide what amount to charge. Briggs added that the city cannot have an informed discussion about whether or not to adopt impact fees until the study is done and the city has all the information about the results. Hellmann asked and Kimley-Horn responded that what will be included in the study is set in Texas Law and is capped to the next ten years of development. Doug Noble asked and Morgan responded that the number one concern from citizen surveys is the traffic problems in Georgetown and so the city needs to employ every tool they can to figure out how to keep up with traffic issues. This study is one of those tools. This city's goal with this study is to examine this tool and see if it is something that would be useful. Hesser asked about specifics of the study and Kimley- Horn responded that specifically in the study they are looking at what the ten-year growth of the city looks like and determining how much traffic that will produce on the roads. They also look at all the upcoming projects and the cost of those projects. Then they cap it, look at current and existing traffic, and look at current demand and ultimate road capacity and determine what percentage of that capacity is attributable to growth. Then ultimately, they provide a workshop that will say for every unit of development what it would cost to make necessary traffic improvements. The study will give the maximum amount allowable to charge based on state law within the city limits. Then it is up to the city to decide how to utilize that information. MOTION by Hesser, second by Mills. APPROVED 9-0-0 Adjournment Motion by Mills, second by Hesser. APPROVED 9-0-0 Meeting was Adjourned at 11:38 AM Approved: ohn Marler - Chair Attested: Donna Court; ey — Secretary Emily ontz — GT Board Liaison GTAB STATEMENT JANUARY 11, 2019 AGENDA ITEM "D" AIRPORT MONTHLY REPORT Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the GTAB. My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My residence is 4400 Luna Trail, Georgetown, Texas. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). The ACC is a major community public interest stakeholder group demanding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all federal and state taxpayer funded grants for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). This is the 89th presentation by ACC members to the city council and GTAB since January 14, 2014. My comments this morning address two items of Agenda Item "D": (1) Airport Master Plan Report and (2) the Runway Rehabilitation Project Report. These are the same two items of Agenda Item "D" addressed in our ACC November 9, 2018 statement to the board. Staff's briefing sheet for this January 2019 Airport Master Plan Report, Rehabilitate Runway 18/36, documents that final FAA and TxDOT approval for this new 20 year Airport Master Plan and its Airport Layout Plan incorporating the proposed major federal action, 52 projects, $60 Million PROGRAM of new proposed federal and state funded projects for continued expansion of operations have not been approved and remain pending. This staff documentation further verifies objections by the ACC of false staff testimonies to the planning and zoning commission and city council prior to their mutual approvals of the plan. Staff testimony assured these bodies of prior approvals by both agencies. Regardless of failure to require documentation of such prior approvals, the city council not only approved on September 11, 2018 the fatally flawed and defective new plan, but incorporated it into the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the city charter for validation as a legitimate document for future 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update planning reliability. The location of the GTU in the heart of our growing city AND, with its planned increases in tens of thousands of gallons of hazardous materials totally atop the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone pose continuing public safety, health and environmental hazards not only to the city and county residents of the Georgetown community, but to the entire Central Texas region. A major defect of the new 20 year Airport Master Plan is its failure to acknowledge these hazards AND require a professional feasibility study showing how a seamless relocation of GTU operations to a permanent safer and long term superior location could be done at little or no cost to local taxpayers. This recommendation for GTU relocation was included in the city council approved 2002 Airport Closing Project prepared by unprofessional representatives of the then existing Airport Advisory Board, but never supported by any city council. Thus, the public hazards posed by the GTU location continue along with public demands for NEPA compliance of the plan's PROGRAM by an FAA required preparation of a fully scoped EIS. The November 9, 2018 ACC statement of concerns and objections regarding the Runway Rehabilitation Project report remain intact, ignored, and unaddressed by any member of this board or staff. The staff briefing sheet for this meeting requires addition of the following concerns and objections: (1) This project, "RW 18-36 Rehabilitation", is a masked illicit substitute for a prior Airport Development Worksheet (ADW) project of the same name, but an entirely different scope and one tenth the cost. Any project related procurement document or process using that prior identified project as basis for this current $5 Million project approved by the Texas Transportation Commission is ineligible for such use. In retaliation by TxDOT for disclosure of this fact, the agency is now refusing to make public any un- redacted ADW's showing proposed Sponsor requested and TxDOT approved projects for federal and/or state funding. This refusal by TxDOT to allow taxpayers to view proposed uses and costs of their tax funds casts a continuing grave, dark shadow over the Public Information Act and open government. (2) state statutes provide, as one Sponsor option, an Airport Project Participant Agreement (APPA) providing for TxDOT, as Sponsor "Agent", to provide all funding, procurement, contracts, construction, payments and closeout of approved federal and/or state funded projects. Prior APPA Sponsor acceptance and approval is required for any "Agent" services. The APPA for this project has never been executed by the city. Any and all contractor procurement and contracting activities for this project to date are illicit. Mr. Chairman, the ACC demands a fully scoped GTAB open public hearing for this project prior to any board project recommendation to city council. Dollars Budgeted 2015 Roar! Bond Pwkal I�me M4S= Fknds_RemalPCQMMM Northwest Blvd Bridge Fontana Dr To Austin Ave $ 10,500,000 $ 1,897,500 Design Completed, Bidding Q12019, Anticipated Completion Q3 2020 Rivery Blvd Extension Williams Dr To Northwest Blvd S 5,611,358 $ 1,034.018 Under Construction, Anticipated Completion Q3 2019 IN 35 NB Frontage Road Williams Dr To Lakeway Bridge $ - $ 7,023,375 Future TxDOT Project Southwest Bypass/Wolf Ranch Pkwy SH29 To Leander Rd S 18,322,090 S 463,160 Completed - Open to Traffic Intersection/Capital Pool $ - 5 5.125.000 Williams/Lakeway FY20 ($1,400,000) Leander Rd Bridge 0 IN 35 S S 4,612,500 Design Anticipated to Start 2019 Sidewalk, Safety and ADA Accessibility Pool S 5,0001000 $ 5,250,000 Approximately 50% of Priority 1 sidewalks are designed or completed NElnnerLoop Stadium Or To FM 971 $ - $ 1,025.000 future Year • Desk n Funding ❑nty Stadium Or(CR 151) Austin Ave To NE Inner Loop $ $ 1,02.5,000 Future Year- Design Fundin Only Southwestern Blvd Raintree Dr To SE Inner Lo9p $ 115501000 S 2,639,375 Design FY19, Construction FY20 TASK ORDER FEBRLlARY 2019 SH 29 Haven Lane To SH130 S S 4,16%1 00 Future Year - Desk n & ROW Funding Only Leander Rd (RIN 2243) SWBypass to River Ride Or S 3.550,0DO 5 1.691,250 Desip & ROW FY19, Constructlon FY20, TASK ORDER MARCH 2O19 DB Wood SH 29 To Oak Ridge Dr 5 $ 18,360,OD0 Future Year - Design and Construction Southwest Bypass Wolf Ranch Pkwy To SH29 $ S 512,500 FY19 Design, FY20 Construction -TASK ORDER MARCH 2O19 SE Inner Loop (Southwestern•I14351 TASK ORDER FEBRUARY 201S,WIIllarns Preliminary Engineering to begin Dr (Rivery-Frontage Rd), IH 35 SB Frontage Rd (Williams-Rivery), SE Inner developing Projects from original Bond Loop (SH29-Southwestern), Shell Rd (Williams -Shell Spur), DB Wood (Oak List to shovel ready $ - S 5,71113,875 Ridge -Lake Overlook) Totals 5 44,533,448 �b bU,4bb,5S3 ,7