HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTEC_07.21.2004Minutes of the Meeting of
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Wednesday, July 21, 2004.
Board Members Present:
Henry Carr, John Kirby, Farley Snell, Joe Savage, Henry Boecker, Ricki Salazar, Gabe Sansing (arrived @
2:07)
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Jim Briggs, Laura Wilkins, Jana Kern, Laurie Brewer, Joel Weaver, Ed Polasek, Mark Miller, Tom Benz,
Amelia Sodgeroth
Others Present:
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Meeting called to order by Carr at 2:01
A. Consideration and possible action to appoint Board Officers consistent with Section 3.02
of the GTEC Bylaws. Paul Brandenburg
Nomination: Snell nominated Joe Savage for Secretary.
Discussion that motion and seconded was not needed.
Board Approved 6-0 (Sansing not present for this vote)
B. Consideration and approval of the minutes from the regular meeting held June 16, 2004.
Paul Brandenburg
Discussion: Carr had a correction on Item A. Poquette seconded motion rather than Eason
Action: Motion made by Kirby, seconded by Savage to approve the minutes with the amendment
to Item A of the June 2004 minutes. Approved 6-0 (Sansing not present for this vote)
Correction was made to the June 16, 2004 minutes.
C. Presentation of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation monthly
financial report for June, 2004. Micki Rundell/Laurie Brewer
Discussion: Brewer gave update of the monthly financial reports. The sales tax numbers
are lower than projected, there is some concern here, however, we are watching this
very closely. Q by Snell: Do you have any analysis on what is happening? A by Brewer:
Overall, sales tax is low all around the country. We have also disbursed about $500,000
this month. Q by Snell: On pg C-6 the GTEC Debt Capacity Chart. Does the debt capacity
differ from amount owed? A by Brewer: This is the annual debt payment that we could
afford to make. Q by Boecker: The debt service capacity is 1.5 times the operating revenue,
but is over 2 times your coverage? A by Brewer: Our coverage ratio is 1.5 times our debt
service payment. In any give year we need to bring in at least 1.5 times what our debt
service payment is.
Q by Sansing: Looking at the check register, check #10430 written to Simon, What was
this for? A by Brewer: We were reimbursing them for the monies they spent to TxDot, Etc.
We paid them with the up front money that they gave us ($700,000).
Action:None
D. Discussion and possible action regarding the Construction Progress Report (including
but not limited to items listed). Joel Weaver
Discussion: Weaver gave update on the Progress Reports.
Sidewalks: Good progress has been made in the last couple of months. Briggs commented
that when the 4B Corporation was started legislation, at that time, allowed for sidewalks as
part of some of the inter-local transportation systems to be funded in part with GTEC Funds.
With the legislation that passed we will no longer be able to fund with GTEC dollars.
Q by Snell: If a sidewalk was an integral part of the road that is being put in, can this be funded,
as long as it is a qualified 4B roadway? A by Briggs: When this comes up, we will more than
likely need the attorney generals opinion. This will need to be done prior to approval. The
reason we have to do this, is due to the prior abuses, of these funds, by other cities has
caused this change in legislation.
I35 -U-Turn: Asphalt is down on the West side. TxDot considers a project substantially complete
when vehicles can drive on it. The schedule completion date (per contract) was middle of
September, we are ahead of this schedule and anticipating this will be open by mid August.
SE Arterial 1: We have met with the archaeologist today. Center line staking is done. We
are starting the surveys and archaeology.
Southwest By-pass: We have started the environmental & archaeology on parts of this project.
We still do not have the right-of-entry for the Sneed property. Briggs commented, now that
we have started on the environmental portion, we the Board, may hear that the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife, have already heard from groups concerning the karst and karst features. Briggs
informed them that this is why we are doing a feasibility study to determine if the route is
possible, we don't want to have to relocate the karst or invertebrates. Q by Boecker: This is
Southwest By-pass is the same as project #14 on the Tip? A by Polasek: Yes. Q by Boecker:
This may not be a GTEC project correct? A by Briggs: Listed as potential GTEC funding.
Ties to primary jobs - a portion of it maybe not but a portion of it is. This is combined. This
project is very important to HEB. If this project does not happen, then they will look for other sites.
Action: None
E. Consideration and possible action to approve the proposed GTEC Fiscal & Budgetary
Policy for fiscal year 2004/05. Micki Rundell/Laurie Brewer
Discussion: Brewer reviewed/explained the GTEC fiscal & budgetary policy. Because
GTEC issues Bonds and has a considerable amount of money that flows through this
organization, we feel that you need to adopt this policy. This policy mirrors the City
policy and provides guidelines for budgeting and financial administration.
Snell wanted a clarification on the 90 day contingency fund. Once created, it is
there, but it is not a recurring annual item. But, when dollars are used from this fund,
Those dollars will be replaced. Is that correct. A by Brewer: Yes.
Discussion followed to see if the fund could be used for "undetermined capital projects"
Would like to have a set amount or a percentage set aside so developers would know that
there is some funding available. If the amount is not spent in that budget year it would
not accumulate - would never be higher than the original set amount. The use of these
funds would be for small one-time projects, such as Tasus etc. Of course the larger
projects would have to be bonded out. Boecker agrees with this idea. Snell also
suggested that 25% of the sales tax budget (approx. $500,000) be set aside. This would
not get any higher. If money was used that would be the only money replaced - Such as
$200,000 was used then the following year we would only put $200,000 in to bring the
set amount back to $500,000. Consensus was this is an excellent idea.
Action: Motion by Snell, seconded by Sansing to approve the Budgetary Policy with
changes made per discussion, and to bring back Policy for review at the August 2004
meeting.
DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE VOTE: Sansing wonders if we should increase our coverage
ratios to be higher than the 1.5. Brewer answered: Typical Bond covenants requires 1.2
and we are at 1.5, so we should be OK at 1.5 and there is no need to increase the
coverage ratio. Sansing agreed with Brewer, coverage ratio did not need to be increased.
Approved 7- 0
F. Discussion and possible action to direct staff in preparation of the 2004/05 Interlocal
Service Agreement between GTEC and the City for Administrative Services.
Micki Rundell/Laurie Brewer
Discussion: Brewer reviewed/explained the interlocal service agreement. The current contract
is for $8,100 per month for administrative support. We are proposing that the Board approve
funding of 50% of the proposed Transportation Engineer position. This engineer will handle
just GTEC/Capital projects. Briggs explained the need for this position. At present 6 - 8
hours of staff time, per day, is spent on GTEC items. We need another position (similar
to Joel's) to handle just transportation.
Lengthy discussion on how GTEC gets charged for these fees, how staff hours are accounted
for, etc.
Action: Motion by Sansing, seconded by Savage, to approve the Interlock Agreement
for administrative services with the addition of the $48,000/year for Transportation Engineer.
This would equate to $12,100/month. Approved 7-0
Finance will bring back, the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy, updated Interlock
Agreement, and the Proposed Budget, to the regular August meeting.
G. Consideration and possible action on the Transportation Improvement Plan.
Ed Polasek.
Discussion: Polasek gave an update of the TIP. From the last board meeting, the members were
to review and rank the TIP projects and returned scores to Polasek. Only 3 score sheets were
returned. Discussion on the projects and the scoring.
Action: Motion by Snell, seconded by Sansing, approve this list with the ability to send a letter
to the Attorney General to get opinion if projects are eligible for GTEC funding. Approved 7-0
Amended Motion #1: Motion by Snell, seconded by Kirby to move Project #23 to the non-eligible
list. Approved 7-0
Briggs presented a project for access between the Burger King and Tractor Supply/Hobby Lobby,
on IH35. The apartment residents need to a way to get to and from HEB, Hobby Lobby and
Tractor Supply without having to go through town or around 360 degrees on IH35. This project
will be very costly due to the drainage issues. We could expect cost to be about $900,000 for
engineering and construction.
Amended Motion #2: Motion by Snell, seconded by Sansing to amend the plan to add project
"Hobby Project" authorizing $900,000 to be added to the GTEC TIP for 2004/05.
Approved 6-1 (Kirby opposed)
Motion by Kirby to remove Project #10 from list. No second. Motion fails
Motion by Sansing to adjourn. Approved 7-0
Meeting adjourned at 3:57 pm
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________ ________________________
Board Member Name Secretary