Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTEC_02.15.2006Minutes of the Meeting of Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, February 15, 2006 The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday, February 15, 2006. Board Members Present: Henry Carr- President, Joe Savage – Vice President, Farley Snell – Secretary, Paul Brandenburg – General Manager, Micki Rundell – Finance Manager, Gabe Sansing, Henry Boecker, Ricki Salazar Board Members Absent: John Kirby Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Laurie Brewer, Tom Benz, Joel Weaver, Laura Wilkins, Mark Miller, Ed Polasek, Mark Thomas OTHERS PRESENT - Kim Molnar & Robert Molnar - Citizens Minutes Regular Meeting Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the President, a Board Member, the City Manager in his capacity as General Manager of the GTEC Corporation , the Assistant City Manager, 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. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 2:02 p.m. Note - Computer problems and minutes were hand recorded by Laura Wilkins A. Consideration and approval of the minutes from the regular meeting held January 18, 2006. Paul Brandenburg Discussion: Question by Carr - Item "B" was Joel referring to the full Southwest Bypass? Answered by Joel - No he was talking about the northern segment. Question by Boecker - Can projects be identified in the future by segment? Answered by Briggs - Yes we can do that and Briggs also asked that in addition to the segment, that we include the limits of the project (i.e., from IH-35 to Leander Road, etc.). Snell stated that as Secretary of another Board, he receives the 1st draft of minutes prior to them being added to the agenda packet. He requested that he be sent the draft as soon as it is ready so that he can review it prior to it being added to the packets. Briggs asked Wilkins to be certain to ask Kern to make certain this happens. Action: Motion by Snell, seconded by Salazar to approve the minutes as written. Approved: 5-0 (Sansing had not yet arrived, Kirby absent) B. Discussion and possible action regarding the Project Progress Report and timelines (including but not limited to items listed). Joel Weaver/Thomas Benz Discussion: Weaver presented the report: State HWY 29 Rehab: Permanent striping to go down this week in main lanes. Bridge joint work and median work on going. Question by Boecker: Will we be able to turn left out of Wolf Ranch and go west onto Highway 29 once the work on 29 is completed? Answered by Briggs, Yes - but he would not recommend it as there will be no traffic light there until it meets warrants. Briggs suggests using the light at 29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway to go West on 29. Question from Carr - when will the equipment be removed and the barriers be taken down? Answered by Joel - once the work on the medians is complete and workers are no longer in the median areas. This should be by the end of the month. Once that part is done, work will continue on Wolf Ranch Parkway - north. Briggs asked for an update on Wolf Ranch Parkway as it is tied to the Highway 29 project. Weaver stated the bid of this project is scheduled for 2/28/06. The acceleration in time and bid are to be reviewed by the Board and if it requires a budget increase, then staff will bring adjustments to the Board . The bid will be good for 100 days. Work to start on June 1, 2006. With accelerated schedule - project to be completed in 6 months (before the holiday shopping season of 2006). Question by Boecker - are liquidated damages attached to the accelerated bid? Answered by Briggs and Weaver - Yes. SE Arterial 1: Not much change from last time. Did include subsequent changes to final design are based on the right-of-way. We have received information that the City is issuing a letter to three property owners that we do not have right-of-entry for. We are requiring entry by March 6, 2006. Unless we receive an injunction against that , we will proceed on that schedule to do non-invasive/non-destructive site work. Lakeway Drive Overpass: The meeting with TxDOT on January 27th went well. Need final drawings on drainage to see if any utilities are in the way. September, 2007 letting date. Light are flashing now - will be activated to red and green within 10 days. South Bound IH 35 Frontage Road: Pre-construction meeting to be held 2/17/06. Construction to begin within the next week or two weeks. Southwest Bypass 14-B: Joel will be adding a new 14-C project next month (Leander to IH-35) reflecting a change in the intersection location at IH-35. We are still probably 45 days on the review before documents go the feds. Question from Carr about the memo on Southwest Bypass handed out at the meeting today - was this memo for all the board members. Answered by Briggs, Yes they all received a copy. No other questions about projects Action: None C. Presentation of Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation monthly financial report of November 2005. Micki Rundell Discussion: Brewer had a question about the posting of this item and whether or not it could be discussed since the posting on the agenda stated the Financial Report was being presented for November, 2005 rather than January, 2006. Carr stated that we would defer the presentation of the January Financial Report and cover both the January and February Financial Reports at the March meeting. Action: None D. Discussion and possible action regarding the procedure for presenting agenda items to the GTEC Board--Paul E. Brandenburg Discussion: Brandenburg presented this item. With the new GTAB Board in place, we need to establish the work flow of how items flow between the GTEC and GTAB Boards and Council. Brandenburg will have a flow chart at next month's meeting so that it is clear how the boards are intended to work with each other and Council. Basically, GTEC needs to narrow their focus to expenditures/revenues and the accounting for the 4B sales tax funds and where they are going, rather than on the engineering, environmental or placement of the projects. In the future, before items can be placed on the agenda, they must be reviewed by staff and a written staff recommendation (either recommending the project or not) must accompany each item that is placed on the agenda. Presentation will not occur before the Board unless staff has a written proposal and recommendation as to why it should be supported for funding. Anything that will require expense or funds must have a staff recommendation with it. Presentations before the Board will be given by City staff. If a contracted consultant who is paid by GTEC to work on the project gives the presentation, that is fine. We just do not want applicants who are requesting funding to come in an give presentations to the Board prior to staff having time to visit with the applicant and review their project. In addition, a formal Resolution for each project to be approved/disbursement of funds, must accompany the item. This procedure is per the City Attorney to form a paper trail, besides the minutes of the meeting, of the actions of the Board due to all the bonding and things we do in borrowing money. This also helps keep a record of "findings" as to why a project is being supported/funded. The Board's focus should be on project eligibility and funding. Comment from Carr - for clarification, the Board should no longer be doing a chemical analysis of asphalt going into a road. Answered by Brandenburg - That is correct. Question by Boecker - In the beginning of the process, staff will make an initial determination of GTEC eligibility and prioritization and after they have done that, will present it to the Board for concurrence? Answered by Snell and Polasek - staff will not determine eligibility - that should be determined by the Board. Boecker answered - thought the eligibility packet is the thing we wanted to eliminate in discussions? Brandenburg answered - that is one of the items to be discussed later in the agenda. This process is just to clarify the process for how items are placed on the agenda and how they are presented to the Board. Comment by Snell - assumes we're in a transitional period, and given that, the Board should quit getting involved in where the bend in the road should be located, and worry more about if the project proposed is eligible for GTEC funding and how to fund it. The actual alignment of the road should be GTAB's job - correct? Answered by Brandenburg - Yes, it should be a much more narrow scope. Comment by Boecker - in his mind, it has never been verified that it is economically development generated and eligible for GTEC funds - regardless of what we voted on last year. Can we vote on that again? Comment by Snell - same argument we have had in the past and to be blunt, some think the Board's findings are wrong. But that's all we have to go on right now. Question by Snell - do we have to have a TIP or can we just have a GTEC Project List to review? Answered by Briggs and Rundell - the Bylaws state that the Board has to review and approve a TIP - but what we call it in our Bylaws could be something else. Question by Carr - Will Brandenburg and Trish resolve Snell's issue regarding the TIP by next meeting? Answered by Brandenburg - Yes. Carr to Brandenburg - For clarification of this item, staff will do the primary work with applicants who come in to request project funding (in the past, applicant just showed up to present their case - now they will need to work through staff). Projects will be presented to the Board for a decision. Answered by Brandenburg - Yes, that is the proper way to do it - it needs to be more complete before the Board sees it to where it is defined and done and the Board just needs to make a decision. Question from Carr - If the applicant is in the room, during the Board meeting, can the Board members ask the applicant questions? Answered by Brandenburg - Yes, but the presentations should be more driven by staff and not the "dog and pony shows" driven by developers/applicants. Action: Motion by Savage, second by Salazar, to approve the procedure for reviewing projects and adding items to the GTEC agenda. Approved 6-0 (Kirby absent) Carr asked that the record show that Sansing arrived at the meeting at 5 minutes after the hour. After the vote - additional discussion: Question from Snell about who sets the agenda. Briggs answered that Jana takes all items from staff and puts them on the draft agenda. She sends the draft agenda to Briggs and Carr. Usually, 24 hours to review prior to posting. Last minute items have caused problems. Carr stated that he thinks we have been too quick to allow items on the agenda and that Brandenburg should be in the loop from now on so that incomplete items are not placed on the agenda. It will be up to Brandenburg to determine what will be placed on the agenda. If Brandenburg "veto's" an item and there is a question, Carr will review with Paul and give final decision whether to post the item or not. Snell has some issues for discussion - probably should be posted to discuss - but would like to talk about this at a future meeting. Carr asked that all staff run all items to be placed on the agenda through Briggs, Brandenburg, and Carr. E. Discussion and possible action related to the March 2006 GTEC Board meeting schedule. Jim Briggs Discussion: Briggs present this item In order to stay on schedule with the budget process, and with the GTAB Board now in place, we want GTAB to have the project information to review at their next meeting (March 13, 2006). IN order to do that, GTEC would need to meet and make some determinations prior to the GTAB meeting. Currently, the GTEC meeting is scheduled for March 15, 2006. Staff is requesting that we move the GTEC meeting to a slightly earlier date, the week of March 6th - March 10th. The date of March 9th was discussed. This date does not work for Sansing. Question from Sansing - doesn't giving the GTAB Board recommendations now, kind of "get the horse before the cart"? Answered by Briggs - No, not really. In this situation, the GTAB Board can see what GTEC has and GTEC's greater working experience will be a benefit to GTAB. Action: Motion by Snell, seconded by Boecker to move the March 15, 2006 meeting to March 8, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. Approved: 6-0 (Kirby absent) F. Initiate Project Eligibility Determination for 2006/07 Transportation Improvement Plan Process. Edward Polasek/Thomas Benz Discussion: Polasek present this item Projects #13 and #NN are off the active project list as there is no other funding needed. Project #8 is off the active project list. Projects #N; #V; and #EE need to be moved up in priority. Staff needs the Board's input and eligibility approval now. Each project should be determined by separate motion. This will occur at next month's meeting. Comment by Boecker - Question #2 is unnecessary and project funding is all inclusive - the only things you can put in the project are the items on the list. It was stated that the questions have been determined by the City Attorney from the 4B legislation. Polasek stated that staff needs the eligibility determinations completed and back from the Board members by close of business on March 1, 2006. The agenda packets have to be ready by Friday, March 3, 2006. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion by Savage, second by Sansing to adjourn the meeting. Approved 6-0 (Kirby absent) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 03:15 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Henry Carr - President Farley Snell - Secretary