Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_10.10.2014Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown October 10, 2014 at 10:00 AM at GMC, 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown Texas 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating 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. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in 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 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. E Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director 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®, Transportation Analyst, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Legislative Regular Agenda G Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on September 12, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison 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. 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, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: 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. ITEM SUMMARY: GTAB Projects Austin Avenue Bridge Evaluation and Repairs FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue FM 971 Improvements in San Gabriel Park FM 1460 Improvements Project MS4 Permit Update N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Sidewalk Master Plan Smith Branch Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Southwest Bypass Project (TIP #14C) Transit Study as Requested by City Council Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance GTEC Projects Project Update and Status Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GTAB Project Reports Exhibit GTEC Status Report Exhibit Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations  (North and South San Gabriel Rivers)  Project No. TBD     TIP Project No. N/A  October 2014  Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue  bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers.  The process will involve several  phases – I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and  evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project  budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents,  estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration.  Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long‐term vehicular  capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP    North San Gabriel River Bridge South San Gabriel River Bridge  Element Status / Issues  Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action.  There are four basic  paths to consider:  Do Nothing.  Short Term Temporary Fix.  Medium Term Fix.  Replace  Structure.  Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed  reconstruction of the bridge.  Surveying  N/A (TBD)  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD during Phase II  Rights of Way Proposed ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Existing ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow  Street.  Utility Reloc’ns TBD (future)  Construction TBD  Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election  Project submitted for CAMPO funding    FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Realignment Intersection Improvements  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. QQ1  October 2014  Unchanged  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening  and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street.  Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest  Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side go IH 35  to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School and a more direct route to SH 130.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Preliminary Engineering complete;   Engineer working on 60% design submittal  Environmental/  Archeological  10/2015  Rights of Way Complete  Utility Relocations TBD  Construction 10/2016  Other Issues Working with TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding Agreement for plans review  and construction administration.    FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Improvements in San Gabriel Park  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. QQ1  October 2014  Project Description Design of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the moving of all park  amenities from the new FM 971 ROW.  Purpose To clear the ROW of park amenities and allow TxDOT review of the PS&E. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  N/A  Rights of Way Complete  Utility Relocations Complete  Construction Ongoing  Other Issues Contractor has defaulted.  Surety has proposed a replacement contractor and  Legal and Systems Staff have accepted the proposal; terms being finalized; work  to resume mid‐October.     FM 1460  Quail Valley Drive to University Drive  Project No. 5RB     TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc  October 2014  Unchanged  Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and  reconstruction of FM 1460.  Project will include review and update to existing Schematic,  Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and completion of the PS&E for the  remaining existing roadway.  Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW, effect  utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT letting not later  than August 2013, pending available construction funding.  Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.      Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Environmental approved with Project Schematic.  Rights of Way All appraisals are complete.  Final offers have been made  for all ROW parcels.  The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring  condemnation.  Acquired: 29  Pending: 5  Condemnation: 2  Total: 36  Utility Relocations Ongoing as ROW is being acquired.  Construction Bid opened August 2014  Construction scheduled to commence February 2015.  Other Issues None Pending    Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit  October 2014  Unchanged  Project Description Develop a multi‐year implementation plan based on existing and cost effective  future storm water management practices in order to comply with the Texas  Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Municipal Separate Storm  Sewer System (MS4) Permit.  Purpose On December 11, 2013, the TCEQ adopted rules for newly regulated MS4s  based on the 2010 Census designation of Urbanized Areas.  The City of  Georgetown is now part of Austin Large Urban Area based on those  designations.  Our 180 days to submit the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm  water Management Plan (SWMP) began on December 11, 2013.  The City of  Georgetown (City) has engaged HDR Engineering, Inc. (Engineer) to assist the  City with development of its Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) as a  result of the Cityʹs recent designation as a MS4 operator.  Initial services  include a review of available storm water program and water quality  information, a series of meetings with City departments and a City facility  review.  Permit submittal deadline to the TCEQ is June 11, 2014.  Project Managers Nat Waggoner, PMP®  Engineer/Engineers HDR, Inc.     Task Status / Issues  Initiation Scope of Services negotiations February 2014 – Completed    Planning February/March 2014 – Completed  Execution  Review and recommendation to Council by GTAB May 9, 2013 –   Completed   Adoption by Council May 27, 2014 – Completed   Submittal to TCEQ June 11, 2014 – Completed  Monitoring Public Notice of TCEQ Preliminary Determination‐ Received 25 August 2014   Comment period begins on the first date the notice is published and  ends 30 days later. ~ September 25th, 2014   If significant public interest exists, the TCEQ executive director will  direct the applicant to publish notice of the meeting and to hold the  public meeting.   Applicant must file with the Chief Clerk a copy and an affidavit of the  publication of notice(s) within 60 days of receiving the written  instructions from the Office of Chief Clerk  ~  October 25th, 2014   Year 1 begins October 1st 2014 and ends October 1st, 2015. End of year  report is due in December 2015.  Other Issues None    N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements  Rec Center to Georgetown High School  Project No. 1CV     TIP No. None  October 2014  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the sidewalk  improvements along N. Austin Avenue between the Georgetown Recreational Center and  Georgetown High School.  Purpose To provide a safe pedestrian route along North Austin avenue.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer URS Corporation    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way None  Utility Relocations None  Construction Construction ongoing; Contractor approximately 75% complete.  Other Issues None pending.    Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit  October 2014  Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility  Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of  Georgetown City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate  future program requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan.   Project Managers Nat Waggoner, PMP®  Engineer HDR, Inc.    Task Status / Issues  Initiation ‐ Task 1.3 – Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014.  Planning ‐ Task 4.4 – Coordinating Documents completed.  Planning Open House #1   Execution ‐ Schedule of Deliverables   Task Name Start End   ADA Reporting Criteria for Sidewalk Analysis May‐14 Jun‐14  Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports May‐14 Jun‐14  Self‐Assessment Survey of Downtown District May‐14 Jul‐14  Data Collection and Field Inventory Jun‐14 Aug‐14  City Facilities Survey Jul‐14 Sep‐14  Sidewalk Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization May‐14 Oct‐14 Ongoing Parks and Amenities Survey (NOT YET FUNDED)Oct‐14 Nov‐14 Expected Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May‐14 Jan‐15 Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Jan‐15 ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Jan‐15   Other Notes ADA   ADA TF Meeting 9/10/2014. Carina Reason, a representative of City’s Risk  Management/Employee Safety and Human Resources added to City TF staff   The sidewalk accessibility survey is complete.  A draft of findings was  delivered August 19th.   Government owned buildings ADA compliance review complete.  Draft  reports delivered August 29th and the final priority report is expected  October 31st.   A public meeting with the ADA Task Force to present a project overview  and gather initial prioritization guidance was held August 13th.  Project Website   Launched 7/15/2014  Open House #1   30 Sept 2014, City Council Chambers from 5:30‐7:30.  Turnout was good; Staff has received some 45 comments in the first 48  hours following the Open House.  Deficiency Quantities  Non‐Accessible Sidewalk 5,696 lf  Non‐Accessible Curb Ramps 174 each  Non‐Accessible Pedestrian Crosswalks 17 each  Protruding Objects 174 each  Non‐Accessible Pedestrian Push Buttons 8 each  Non‐Accessible Doors 55 each  Non‐Accessible Ramps 7 each  Non‐Accessible Driveways 67 each      Smith Branch  October 2014  Project Description Voluntary acquisition of eight (8) properties with finished floor elevations below  the base flood elevation in the Smith Branch Watershed  Purpose To reduce future flood damage risk for homes below the 100‐year floodplain  elevation.  Project Managers Wesley Wright, P.E., and Terri Calhoun, SR/WA, R/W‐NAC  Engineer Kasberg, Patrick, & Associates (Flood Study)/Spitzer & Associates (Real Estate)      Element Status / Issues  Design Completed – Flood Study completed in 2013  Environmental/  Archeological  Possible asbestos abatement on properties upon acquisition. Will begin in  October.    Property  Acquisition  GTAB and Council approved counter‐offers on all eight  (8) properties.  Contracts are signed.  This is a willing  buyer – willing seller program and all identified  properties are being acquired.      Six properties have closed as of 10/01.  One will close in  early October.  The last will close in mid‐November.      Asbestos analysis has begun and staff will soon be  bidding out demolition work.      Acquired: 6  Pending: 2  Condemnation: 0  Total: 8  Utility Relocations Will require termination of services – ongoing with each property closing.  Construction Upon acquisition of properties, structures will be demolished and the lot returned  to grass.    Other Issues None Pending    Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study  (IH 35 to Rockride Lane)  Project No. None     Project No. None  October 2014  Project Description   Develop preliminary design schematic alternatives, perform preliminary  engineering and prepare an engineering report for the Southeast Inner Loop  Schematic Design from IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110) and Sam Houston Avenue.  Purpose To determine ultimate alignment, interim and ultimate engineer’s estimates of  probable project costs and ROW needs for the future SH 29 Bypass, connecting the  westerly route (SH 29 to IH 35) with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston  Avenue.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates      Element Status / Issues  Design Draft Final Report was Presented to GTAB in September for Board discussions.   The Draft Final Report and Alignment were forwarded to Council with a  unanimous recommendation of the Board for adoption.  Surveying  TBD (future)  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD (future)  Rights of Way To be conceptually established during the preliminary schematic phase and further  refined through the design phases.  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction TBD (future)  Other Issues Staff has met with the public sector stakeholders (City, TxDOT and WilCo) and their  various engineering firms working along the Southwest Bypass/SE Inner Loop  connection and the I 35 corridor.    Southwest Bypass Project   (RM 2243 to IH 35)  Project No. 1CA     Project No. 14c  October 2014  Unchanged  Project Description   Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH  35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)  for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane roadway from Leander Road  (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35.  The portion  from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from  the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC.  Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM  2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.  Project Manager Williamson County  City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer HDR, Inc.      Element Status / Issues  Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility.  Alignment has been presented to staff and management.  Surveying  City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be  acquired from Texas Crushed Stone.  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD by preliminary engineering phase.  Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the  schematic design phase.  Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2  lanes of the ultimate roadway.  Other Issues None    Southwest Bypass Project   (RM 2243 to IH 35)  Project No. 1CA     Project No. 14c  October 2014  Unchanged  Project Description   Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH  35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)  for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane roadway from Leander Road  (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35.  The portion  from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from  the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC.  Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM  2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.  Project Manager Williamson County  City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer HDR, Inc.      Element Status / Issues  Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility.  Alignment has been presented to staff and management.  Surveying  City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be  acquired from Texas Crushed Stone.  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD by preliminary engineering phase.  Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the  schematic design phase.  Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2  lanes of the ultimate roadway.  Other Issues None    Transit Study  as Requested by City Council   Project No. None     Project No. None  October 2014  Unchanged  Project  Description    Council Motion:  Discussion and possible direction to the City of Georgetownʹs Transportation  Advisory Board (GTAB) to conduct an analysis and make a recommendation to the City Council  no later than June 24, 2014 ,regarding the Cityʹs potential future participation in State and  Regional Transportation Organizations including the benefits, conditions, and justification which  would prompt the Cityʹs participation in Project Connect, Lone Star Rail and any other relevant  State and Regional Transportation Organizations that the City should be involved with ‐‐ Steve  Fought, Councilmember, District 4  Amended Motion:  1. The City Manager to determine what time and effort staff have available to conduct this type  of study over the next year.  If it is not in the Transportation Division, Planning Department,  Finance Department and/or City Manager’s Office work program, as outlined in the current  draft budget, can it be adequately staffed to complete this level of work over the next year?  2. Is the challenge to research Federal, State and Regional transportation organizations or is it  transit programs?  This direction to staff is assuming it is transit programs.  3. Narrow the specific analysis to programs that are actually authorized to receive Federal  formula and discretionary funding programs found within the current Federal Transit  Administration.  However, that would narrow the field down to three agencies or programs.   Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail and the State of Texas through the Texas Department of  Transportation.  CARTS is only a contractor to Capital Metro and provides certain 5310  transit opportunities to persons outside of the Capital Metro Service Area in our jurisdiction.   CAMPO, Project Connect, Project Connect North and My35 are simply planning programs  that include staff from Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, and TxDOT and  representatives from local governments.  4. The analysis should be based on how those planning programs will lead to funding through  the project delivery agencies.  (Fought amended to include financial risk and benefits to the City)  5. The Council should provide the Board and staff specifics on what type of economic analysis  data will lead to an ultimate decision by the City Council.  6. Finally, some people ‘can’t see what the final project would look like’ or ‘can’t see what a  Transit Oriented Development would look like.’  Years ago, when the City was looking at  transportation options and creating a TOD ordinance, there was a field trip to perform some  on the ground research.  Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and staff  (GTAB was not in existence at the time) went and stayed at a TOD to see for themselves.   We should have at least one field trip during this study.  Since it has been about 8 years or  so since that first and only field trip, it should be extremely informative to do it again and  see what a TOD looks like today and how the project has performed over the years.  Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved (6‐1) (Hesser opposed)    Project  Manager  Ed Polasek, AICP  Engineer TBD  Project Status Workplan Under Development    Transportation Services Operations   CIP Maintenance  October 2014  Project Description 2012/13‐2014 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler  Overlays, Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation  projects.  Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of  85%.  Project Manager Mark Miller  Engineer/Engineers KPA, Steger Bizzell, Halff Assoc.  Task Status / Issues  2nd and 6th Street  Engineering  (Halff)  2nd at Austin Avenue intersection improvement along with 6th Street.  (Austin Ave. to Rock) (Smith Contracting) 2nd and 6th Street under  construction.  14th Street staked and scheduled for construction following  utility installation.  (KPA) 2nd St to College St plans are 90% complete.  Stake holder meeting held  on September 2nd at Engineer office to explain proposed street, sidewalk and  park improvements.  Attendance was low but comments were positive.  9th Street  (Main to Rock)  (KPA) (Patin Construction)  Construction underway.  Underground work  (conduits and storm drain will be installed first followed by road, curb and  sidewalk improvements.  Chip Seal  Complete     Fog Seal Complete.  Cutler/overlay Complete.  Pavement  Evaluation  KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP  reflecting changes and additions is waiting for Fugro Engineering.  Final  results expected in 30 days.          Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP No. Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Projected Current Year Cost Current Year Available Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete. One ROW parcel has remaining issues. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue) #12 5QG Project Complete. One ROW parcel has remaining issues. Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) #14A 5QW Engineer is completing the fencing plans, its required environmental clearance documents (to determine the fee for WCCF) and the construction PS&E bidding package. ROW has been acquired. On Schedule Unchanged 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350 Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual construction. We have reached agreement with the representative of the Guy/Knight properties. ROW Acquisition process moving to condemnation for the Weir Trust properties. Appraisals have been updated. Wolf property – Acquisition complete. On Schedule Unchanged 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Engineer is developing ROW strip map and In-process Unchanged 1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590 NB Frontage Road (2338 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. In-process Unchanged 613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0 ROW - 1460 #EEa #EEb #EEc 5RB Bid were received by TxDOT in August 2014; Construction scheduled to begin in February 2015. Utility coordination on-going as ROW is acquired. All appraisals are complete. Final offers have been made for all ROW parcels. The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring condemnation. 29 of 36 Parcels have been acquired; 5 pending; 2 scheduled for condemnation. On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 TCS/RR Easement 5RD Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0 FM 971 / Washam 5RE GTEC Portion complete Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 Rivery Road 5RF Alignment adopted by Council. Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is basically complete; awaiting ROW for water quality pond. On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100 Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering obtaining rights-of-entry for surveying and geotechnical investigations; beginning schematic design On Schedule 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0 IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 Current Economic Development Projects Project Type Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Budget Current Year Cost Current Year Available Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500 16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT October 2014 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2014\GTEC - Project Status - 2014-10.xlsx Page 1 of 1 10/2/2014 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Projects: CIP - Air Field Electrical Improvements Development and Timeline FAA Tower report Airport Monthly Financial FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Curtis Benkendorfer (jk) ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Eingeering Exhibit Tower Exhibit Financial Exhibit Airfield Electrical Improvements Project No. 1314GRGTN September 2014 Project Description FY2014 project: Runways / taxiways lighting and signage. Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport lighting. Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Engineer Garver Engineering Notes: Contractor’s notice to procure: July 21, 2014 New estimated construction commencement: Late October 2014 Construction period: 60 calendar days Estimated construction completion: Late December 2014 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update September 2014 Project Description Georgetown Tower Update Purpose Tower Monthly Report Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Engineer Notes: Tower Facility Monthly Report Annual Runway Safety Action Team Meeting Item ____ Page _____ Prepared by: T. McCord 10/2/2014 Georgetown Municipal Airport As of August 31, 2014 A - B = C B - D = E Statement of Operations A B C D E 2013/2014 Budget 2013/2014 Preliminary Projections August 31, 2014 YTD $ August 31, 2013 YTD $% Beginning Fund Balance (A)347,793 363,339 363,339 - 517,632 (154,293) -30% Operating Revenues: Fuel Sales 2,421,492 2,421,492 2,306,329 115,163 2,144,926 161,403 8% Fuel Expense (2,228,000) (2,228,000) (2,037,845) (190,155) (1,927,299) (110,545) 6% Net Fuel Revenues 193,492 193,492 268,485 (74,993) 217,627 50,857 23% (B)Leases & Rentals 571,700 571,700 530,348 41,352 512,407 17,941 4% Bankruptcy - Georgetown Jet Center - 94,952 98,801 (3,849) - 98,801 100% Interest 4,000 4,000 187.52 3,812 1,145 (957) -84% (C)Other Revenues 39,150 39,421 2,645 36,776 9,476 (6,831) -72% Grant - 6,164 (6,164) -100% Total Operating Revenues 808,342 903,565 900,466 3,099 746,819 153,647 21% Operating Expenses: Personnel (318,447) (300,599) (254,382) (46,217) (238,319) (16,063) 7% (D)Operations (562,826) (644,913) (644,478) (435) (482,716) (161,762) 34% Furniture & Equipment - - (561) 561 - (561) 100% Total Operating Expenses (881,273) (945,512) (899,421) (46,091) (721,036) (178,386) 25% Total - Net Operating Revenues (Expenses)(72,931) (41,947) 1,045 (42,992) 25,784 (24,739) -96% Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses): Debt - Principal & Interest (169,413) (169,413) (164,908) (4,505) (163,154) (1,754) 1% Capital Improvement Program Settlement Revenue - AJS Drainage 110,000 110,000 110,000 - - 110,000 100% Transfer from General Fund - Capital Projects 131,000 131,000 131,000 - - 131,000 100% Improvements, Runway (20,000) (10,667) (10,667) 0 (70,838) 60,170 0% (E)Runway 1836 Lights (111,000) (163,200) (163,200) - - (163,200) 100% AJS Drainage Improvements (110,000) (110,000) (103,235) (6,765) - (103,235) 100% Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (87,500) (87,500) (87,501) 1 - (87,501) 100% Net Capital Improvement Program (87,500) (130,367) (123,603) (6,764) (70,838) (52,766) 74% Total - Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)(256,913) (299,780) (288,511) (11,269) (233,992) (54,520) 19% Net Revenues/(Expenses)(329,844) (341,727) (287,467) (54,260) (208,208) (79,259) 28% Ending Fund Balance (F)17,949 21,612 75,872 309,424 NOTES: (A)Actual beginning fund balance. (B)Leases and Rentals include T-Hangers, ground leases, and tie downs. (C)Other Revenues include Ad Valorem Tax, special events and discounts. (D)Legal accounts for 71% or $58,124 of the operations budget increase of $82,086. (E)City's 10% share increased because project bids came in higher than projected. (F)Contingency Reserve = $150,000. Funds not available, covered by the Water Fund for FY 2013/14. Variance Year to Date Variance Projections Balance Sheet Highlights 9/30/2013 8/31/2014 CAFR Assets: Cash & Investments 89,859 194,560 Accounts Receivable - Leases & Fuel 147,811 245,044 Liabilities: Bond Debt Outstanding 603,847 752,116 Prepared by: T. McCord 10/2/2014 Georgetown Municipal Airport As of August 31, 2014 Selected Financial & Operating Data Operating Statistics August August 2014 2013 Performance/volumetric indicators Y-T-D Y-T-D Variance Gallons of Fuel Sold 2014 2013 AVGAS gallons sold 18,952 22,385 189,564 221,797 (32,233) -15% JET A gallons sold 41,898 23,335 403,971 297,165 106,806 36% Total Gallons Sold 60,850 45,720 593,535 518,962 74,573 14% Take Offs and Landings Day*Night* VFR 6,610 138 61,310 56,029 5,281 9% IFR 449 15 5,445 6,875 (1,430) -21% Total Take Offs/Landings 7,059 153 66,755 62,904 3,851 6% *This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.). For the Month of: August City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of initial findings from the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facilities Access Audit inventory and open house. - Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Staff will present findings from the downtown and city wide inventory as well as initial results from the public open house held 9/30/2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP® ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facilities Access Audit update Presentation Overview Sidewalks, Access GTAB October 10, 2014 Agenda: •Project Update –Open House initial results •Initial Inventory –City Wide –Downtown District •Next Steps Project Update •Open House –80 attendees (GISD, TXDOT, SW University, Boards and Commissions) •41 Surveys completed on site, 51 online •Analysis, Prioritization Efforts, 1-21 Oct •Parks and Rec DRAFT Scope delivered to consultant for review-anticipate contract letting 15 Oct Online Survey Results as of 10/3/2014 Online Survey Results as of 10/3/2014 *55 participants Improved Pedestrian Access To... Schools City Parks and Trails Retail Centers City Buildings and Facilities Total Score 156 138 119 80 Avg 3.00 2.94 2.53 1.63 Initial Inventory-City Wide Initial Inventory-City Wide Initial Inventory-City Wide Initial Inventory-Downtown District Initial Inventory-Downtown District Initial Inventory-Downtown District Initial Inventory-Downtown District Initial Inventory-Downtown District Next Steps Prioritization Now City Council Workshop 28 October Open House #2 14 Nov DRAFT Master Plan 25 Nov 1st Reading 9 Dec Questions and Concerns Thank you Nathaniel Waggoner Transportation Services Analyst (512) 930-8171 nathaniel.waggoner@georgetown.org https://sidewalksandfacilities.georgetown.org City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on September 12, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison ITEM SUMMARY: Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on September 12, 2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Minutes Backup Material Notice of Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas September 12, 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. P lease 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 Truman Hunt – Chair, Rachel Jonrowe – Vice Chair, John Hesser – Secretary, Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, David Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston Board Members Absent: Chris H’Luz, Staff Present: Mike Babin, Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Wesley Wright, Mark Miller, Bill Dryden, Nat Waggoner, Curtis Benkendorfer, Lisa Haines, Paul Diaz, Bridget Chapman, Andreina Davila Others Present: Carl Norris, John Milford, Rex Stuart, Pablo Holguin, - ACC, Ron Bindas – Airport User, Robert Daigh – Wilco, Mark Allen – Hall Properties, Trae Sutton – KPA, Mark Borenstein – HDR. Becky Bray – Brown & Gay Regular Session A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday September 12, 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: Staff has been working the Congressman Carter Office to schedule the ground breaking for FM 1460 we are shooting for some time in early February 2015. CAMPO held a Technical Advisory meeting which is a requirement for the STMPP process. Pleased to say that we had four citizens attend. The citizens that were there did not talk about our Austin Ave. projects; they were interested in what CAMPO was doing. CAMPO staff had not heard anything about the Austin Ave. Bridge project, i.e. public meetings/hearing to date. There should be a draft report going to the technical advisory committee in September 2014 then will go the CAMPO finance committee for a recommendation in October. Mayor Ross was in attendance and he will be talking with Commissioner Long about the Austin Ave. Bridge project, since she is the chair of the finance committee. 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. Reports were given by Dryden, Miller & Waggoner. E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Tr ansportation Services Director. Hugh Norris – Statement is at the end of these minutes John Milford – Statement is at the end of these minutes Reports were given by Benkendorfer, Haines and Diaz. Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on August 8, 2014 – Jana Kern Motion #1 by Hunt second by Hesser to add written/submitted statement from Mr. Norris. . Motion #2 by Jonrowe second by Hesser to approve the minutes as amended. Approved both motions - Unanimous 8-0 (H’Luz absent) G. Discussion and possible recommendation to Council for acceptance of the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Draft Final Report as Final and adoption of a proposed alignment of the Southwest Bypass to Southeast Inner Loop roadway, inclusive of proposed conn ectivity with I 35. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Polasek reviewed the connectivity with the Board. Dryden and Trae Sutton of KPA Engineering gave the Board a presentation on the Corridor Study Report. Bob Daigh of Williamson County informed the Board that this is the east west freeway for Williamson County. Williamson County has been working with the City and TxDOT for decades. Williamson County is buying ROW on HWY 29, and has been working with TxDOT to extend the freeway sections to the east. If the City will incorporated this in your plan now, as it is stated, it will then be rolled into TxDOT’s plan, which is critical so it can get rolled into TxDOTs ’ funding and their reconstruction program. Mr. Daigh feels that this is huge to get this in the plan as quickly as possible. Motion by Johnston, second by Jonrowe to approve the staff recommendation acceptance of the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study and schematic design, inclusive of the proposed revised alignment of Southeast Inner Loop and its connection with Southwest Bypass with the proposed direct and indirect connections with IH 35. Approved Unanimous 8-0 (H’Luz absent) Adjournment Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser, to adjourn meeting. Approved Unanimous 8-0 (H’Luz absent) Meeting adjourned at 11:15 AM Approved: Attested: _______________________ ______________________ Truman Hunt - Chair John Hesser – Secretary _________________________________ Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison GTAB STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 AGENDA ITEM “E” AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES POINT PAPER PRESENTATION POINTS:  Introduction: Hugh C. Norris, Jr, 4400 Luna Trail, Member ACC  17th Presentation Appearance related to 8 primary issues - John Milford will describe  Complaint – Item “F” - draft minutes of August 10, 2014 GTAB meeting – ACC comments deleted. Request GTAB to direct insertion of ACC statement points for official record  Current status of ACC appeal to higher authorities – dispute with TxDOT CE of GTU CIP – See Attachments to TxDOT AVN 082514 Letter ( 3 sets of latest letters for Chairman and board members) TxDOT AVN letter dated August 25, 2014; ACC response letter dated September 10, 2014  GTAB responsibilities for oversight management of GTU operations and CIP -Need for GTAB education on federal grant requirements and NEPA – ACC can provide names for FAA instructors  Concern for lack of GTAB oversight management of GTU CIP – cite TxDOT AVN ACIP GTU 2015 CIP changes – current increase in project elements and total cost from 9 project elements Jan 2013 at $5,738,000 to 24 project elements July 2014 at $8 ,131,828. Recall that GT 2014 CIP expanded in Jan 2013 from $966,154 to $1.4 Million. Current GTU 2014 -2015 CIP now in excess of $11.3 Million – Increase of about $3 Million. Request staff presentation today provide explanation for changes and cost increases. Not all costs are “Free Money”  Need for open mature discussions between public and GTAB – off agenda workshops  Closing Remarks – Conflict with city and GTAB never an intent of ACC – Request for mutual discussions - alternatives ® I Texas Departmet of Transportation 125 EAST 11th STREET I AUSTIN,TEXAS 78701-2483 I (512) 463-8580 I WWW.TXDOT.GOV August 25, 2014 Mr. Hugh C. Norris, Jr. 4400 Luna Trail Georgetown, TX 78628 Dear Mr. Norris: I have received your letter dated August 8, 2014 and will do my best to respond to your questions and concerns. With respect to your request for environmental documentation I am enclosing our categorical exclusion checklists for the current light ing and taxiway projects at GTU. These documents are the basis for my previous statement that the appropriate level of environmental analysis has been undertaken for the projects currently underway . With respect to your request we hold all funds for proj ects at GTU pending the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), it is our position that an EIS is not appropriate for these types of projects, nor would it be for the development of an airport master plan. Please note, your statement that our agency participated directly with the City of Georgetown in the preparation of the 2005 Master plan update is not accurate. That effort was undertaken by the city without our participation. Please contact the City of Georgetown for any questions relating to the 2005 master plan update. In my August 8th 2014 letter I referenced FAA advisory circular 150/5070-6B-Airport Master Plans. However, I did not refer you to Appendix D of that document that more fully describes the environmental process that is a part of the planning process. It is my hope this section may help you better appreciate the environmental efforts necessary for master planning. TxDOT AVN Planning & Programming Director OUR GOALS MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECTTEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY An Equal Opportunity Employer Texas Block Grant Program Environmental Action Document Long Form Categorical Exclusion Checklist to Support an Environmental Finding of Categorical Exclusion (Catex) This checklist documents consideration of environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders as they apply to actions under the Texas Block Grant Program. It is based on the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.48, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions," FAA Order 1050.1E, "Environmental Impacts:Policies and Procedures," and incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the NEPA, federal statutes and laws designed to protect the Nation's resources. The preparer of this checklist should have knowledge of the environmental features of the airport and general potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Although some of the responses may be obtained from the preparer's own knowledge and observations, previous environmental documents and current agency correspondence should be cited. Airport Name and Location Complete Project Description Georgetown Municipal, Williamson County (GTU) This environmental review Includes replacement of MIRLs and signage RWY 11-29; replacement of MIRLs and signage RWY 18-36; replacement of electrical vault; installation of new Internally-lighted wind cone; replacement of ALCMS in ATCT; alternative upgrade of MIRLs to LED & REILs RWY 18. Estimated Start Date 2014 Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts 1. Air quality: Will the project have the potential to increase landside or airside capacity, including an increase of surface vehicles? Check all appropriate boxes [Project is not located within or adjacent to USEPA-defined Non-Attainment area Project is accounted for in State Implementation Plan Project air pollutant emissions do not exceed applicable de minimis levels as defined by General Conformity Project is listed on Presumed to Conform List 2. Archaeological: Will action have an effect on property Included in or eligible for Federal, Tribal, State or local historical, archeological, or cultural significance? Check all appropriate boxes Project does not involve any disturbance of previously undisturbed ground. Project involves disturbance of previously undisturbed ground, SHPO coordination completed and "determination of no effect" Impact Documentation Anticipated? Attached Yes No Williamson County is in attainment. EPA database X queried 03/24/14. Project area has been previously disturbed. X Page 1 of 6 Page 6 of 6 Environmental Resource Area Review for Impact Documentation Potential Effects and Impacts Anticipated? Attached Yes No Class l survey records search completed and attached SHPO Concurrence "No Effect Determination" Class lll Survey completed and attached SHPO Concurrence "No Effect Determination" SHPO Concurrence "No Adverse Effect Determination" ♦ The Airport Sponsor shall ensure that construction specifications include conditions required by SHPO regarding unknown items found during construction. 3. Biotic communities: Will the project impact plant communities Project area and/or cause displacement of wildlife? X currently mowed or paved. 4. Coastal resources: Will the project occur in, or impact a coastal X zone as defined by the State's Coastal Zone Management Plan? 5. Compatible land use: Will the project be consistent with plans, goals, policy, zoning or l ocal controls that have been adopted for the X area in which the airport is located? 6. Construction impacts: W ill the project produce construction The sponsor impacts, such as reducing local air quality, produce erosion or will implement pollutant runoff, or disrupt local traffic patterns? X appropriate soil erosion controls. 7. Endangered species: Is there any impact on any Federally listed Project area endangered, threatened, and candidate species (flora or fauna) or currently designated critical habitat? mowed or paved.No Check all aQQroQriate boxes habitat or TE Project will not adversely affect the physical environment (land species disturbance, vegetation removal, sedimentation, dust, noise/ present. waste/hazardous materials emission Into the environment, etc.). Project will have an effect on the physical environment. USFWS X documentation is required: Threatened or endangered species not present - USFWS concurrence attached Species present - USFWS agrees endangered or threatened species will not be impacted by the project. Review and consultation completed and attached. Project conditions required are listed in comments and shall be included in construction specification. 8. Energy supply and natural resources: W ill the project impact X energy supply of natural resources? Page 7 of 6 Page 2 of 6 Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No 9. Environmental justice: Will the project cause any adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations? (Refer to Executive Order 12898.) X 10. Essential fish habitat: Is project located in or cause adverse effects to a waterway, stream, or water body? Check all appropriate boxes Project is not within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of water. Project is within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of water: USFWS Consultation is attached. ♦The Airport Sponsor shall ensure that USFWS conditions/ requirements are included in Construction Specifications. X 11. Farmland: Will action involve acquisition and conversion of farmland? Check all appropriate boxes Project does not involve new disturbance of farmland. U.S.Natural Resources Conservation Service consultation and Form AD-1006 attached. X 12. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Will the project have the potential to adversely impact birds protected by the migratory bird treaty act? X 13. Floodplains: Will project be located in, encroach upon or otherwise impact a floodplain? Check all appropriate boxes Project is not located in and does not impact floodplains Applicable FEMA Map is attached. Project is located in floodplain and will not negatively impact floodplains. X 14. Hazardous materials: Does project involve or affect hazardous materials or involve construction in an area that contains hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste? X Databases checked. Page 8 of 6 15. Historic: Will action have an effect on property included in or eligible for the National R egister of Historic Places or other property of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance? Check all appropriate boxes Project does not involve any "Historic" Structures over 50 years old Project involves "Historic'' Structures over 50 years old, and attach State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) coordination X Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No completed and "determination of no effect” Pr oject does not involve any property of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance Project does involve property of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance 16. Light emissions: Will the project produce significant light emission impacts to residential areas, schools, or hospitals? X 17. Natural resources: Will action have significant impact on natural, ecological, cultural or scenic resources of national, state or local significance? X 18. Noise levels: Will project have a significant impact (DNL 1.5 dB or greater) on noise levels over noise sensitive areas (residences, schools, churches, hospitals) within the 65 DNL noise contour? Check all appropriate boxes Project will enable a significant increase in aircraft operations. Project will enable a significant change in aircraft fleet mi?<. Project will cause a change in airfield configuration and/or use: Intermittent Temporary (i.e., less than 180 days) Long-term or permanent X 19. Parks, public lands, refuges and recreational resources: Will project Impact publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance, or land of a historic site with national, state or local significance? (DOT Section 4(f) [49 U.S.C. 303 (c)] impacts) X 20. Surface transportation: Will project cause a significant increase in surface traffic congestion or cause a degradation of level of service? X Page 9 of 6 21. Water quality: Will project have a significant impact to water quality to groundwater, surface water bodies, public water supply systems or violate Federal, state, or tribal water quality standards? Check all appropriate boxes Project will not produce water quality impacts or other modifications to groundwater, surface bodies, or public water supply systems. Project will produce water quality impacts or other modifications to groundwater, surface bodies, or public water supply systems. ♦ The Airport Sponsor shall ensure the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are obtained as required for construction projects and airport operation. X No waters of the US in or adjacent to project area. Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No 22. Wetlands: Will project impact any wetlands? Wetland Determinations must meet requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Check all appropriate boxes Project will not involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, bank stabilization, filling or other changes to wetlands Project will involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, bank stabilization, filling or other changes to wetlands Coordination with agencies attached Consultation with U.S. National Resource Conservation Service and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps attached with project drawn on NWI. Consultation with US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) attached Consultation with USCOE attached Other Consultation (EPA/State) attached Wetland Delineation attached X Wetland impacts not a factor. 23. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Does action impact U.S. National Park Service-designated Wild or Scenic River? X Other required environmental considerations 24. Connected actions: Are there other closely related actions that should be considered? X 25. Cumulative actions: When viewed with other planned actions, are the project impacts significant? X 26. Cumulative Impacts: When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects, on or off the airport, regardless of funding source, would the proposed project produce a significant cumulative effect? X Page 10 of 6 27. Environmental laws: Is project inconsistent with any other Federal, state, or local laws relating to environment? X 28. Highly controversial: Is the proposed project likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds? A proposed Federal action is considered highly controversial when an action Is opposed on environmental grounds by a Federal, state, or local government, or by a substantial number of persons affected by such action. Further information may be referenced in FAA Order 5050.48, paragraph 9i. X 29. Community disruption: Will project cause disruption of a community, disrupt planned development or be inconsistent with plans or goals of the community? X 30. Relocation housing: Is the availability of adequate housing a X Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No highly controversial issue? 31. Social impact: Are residents or businesses being relocated? X 33. Similar actions: Are there other similar Federal actions that would cause this project to be significant? X 34. List additional comments/consultation to support finding of categorical exclusion. It is important to explain determinations in the space provided above for situations where "checked boxes" do not adequately explain the project-specific situation for this Categorical Exclusion [insert-this cell will automatically expand] Based on the foregoing, it is TxDOT's decision that the proposed project (s) or development warrants environmental processing as Indicated below: The proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 1050.1E (309.b). The proposed project appears to involve conditions that may require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), addressing [insert subject areas]. The following additional documentation is required for FAA to perform a complete environmental evaluation of the proposed project (insert as appropriate]: TxDOT Approval: I hereby certify that the information I have provided is complete and accurate, to the best of my knowledge: Page 11 of 6 March 24, 2014 Date Robert W. Jackson, Environmental Specialist Printed Name and Title TxDOT Organization Texas Block Grant Program Environmental Action Document Long Form Categorical Exclusion Checklist to Support an Environmental Finding of Categorical Exclusion (Catex) This checklist documents consideration of environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders as they apply to actions under the Texas Block Grant Program. It is based on the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.48, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions," FAA Order 1050.1E, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures," and incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the NEPA, federal statutes and laws designed to protect the Nation's resources. The preparer of this checklist should have knowledge of the environmental features of the airport and general potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Although some of the responses may be obtained from the preparer's own knowledge and observations, previous environmental documents and current agency correspondence should be cited. Airport Name and Location Complete Project Description Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) This environmental review includes design and construction of a relocated/complete parallel taxiway A. Estimated Start Date 2012 - 2013 Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No 1 . Air quality: Will the project have the potential to increase landside or airside capacity, including an increase of surface vehicles? Check all appropriate boxes Project is not located within or adjacent to USEPA-defined Non-Attainment area Project is accounted for in State Implementation Plan Project air pollutant emissions do not exceed applicable de minimis levels as defined by General Conformity Project is listed on Presumed to Conform List X Williamson County is in attainment. EPA database queried August 10, 2012. 2. Archaeological: Will action have an effect on property included in or eligible for Federal, Tribal, State or local historical, archeological, or cultural significance? Check all appropriate boxes Project does not involve any disturbance of previously undisturbed ground. Project involves disturbance of previously undisturbed ground, SHPO coordination completed and "determination of no effect" Class I survey records search completed and attached X Project area has been previously disturbed for existing taxiway/runway /apron grading. Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No 0SHPO Concurrence "No Effect Determination" Class Ill Survey completed and attached SHPO Concurrence "No Effect Determination" SHPO Concurrence "No Adverse Effect Determination" ♦ The Airport Sponsor shall ensure that construction specifications include conditions required by SHPO regarding unknown items found during construction. 3. Biotic communities: Will the project impact plant communities and/or cause displacement of wildlife? X Area of effect is currently mowed. 4. Coastal resources: Will the project occur in, or impact a coastal zone as defined by the State's Coastal Zone Management Plan? X 5. Compatible land use: Will the project be consistent with plans, goals, policy, zoning or local controls that have been adopted for the area 1n which the airport is located? X 6. Construction Impacts: Will the project produce construction impacts, such as reducing local air quality, produce erosion or pollutant runoff, or disrupt local traffic patterns? X The sponsor will implement appropriate soil erosion controls. 7. Endangered species: Is there any impact on any Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species {flora or fauna) or designated critical habitat? Check all appropriate boxes Project will not adversely affect the physical environment {land disturbance, vegetation removal, sedimentation, dust, noise/ waste/hazardous materials emission into the environment, etc.). 0 documentation is required: 0 Threatened or endangered species not present - USFWS concurrence attached 0 Species present- USFWS agrees endangered or threatened species will not be impacted by the project. Review and consultation completed and attached. Project conditions required are listed in comments and shall be included in construction specification. X Project area field reviewed by M. Lamrouex on August 8, 2012. Area of effect has been previously graded and is mowed object free area. Habitat for species listed in the county is not present. 8. Energy supply and natural resources: Will the project impact energy supply of natural resources? X 9. Environmental justice: Will the project cause any adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations? X Project will have an effect on the physical environment. USFWS currently Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No (Refer to Executive Order 12898.} 1 0. Essential fish habitat: Is project located In or cause adverse effects to a waterway, stream, or water body? Check all appropriate boxes fZ1 Project is not within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of water. 0 Project is within or near a waterway, stream, or other body of water: 0 USFWS Consultation is attached. + The Airport Sponsor shall ensure that USFWS conditions/ requirements are included In Construction Specifications. X 11 . Farmland: Will action involve acquisition and conversion of farmland? Check all appropriate boxes fZI Project does not mvolve new disturbance of farmland. 0 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service consultation and Form AD-1006 attached. X 1 2. - 13. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Will the project have the potential to adversely impact birds protected by the migratory bird treaty act? X Floodplains: Will project be located in, encroach upon or otherwise impact a floodplain? Check all appropriate boxes r8'l Project is not located in and does not impact floodplains 0 Applicable FEMA Map is attached. 0 Project is located in floodplain and will not negatively impact floodplains. X 14. Hazardous materials: Does project involve or affect hazardous materials or involve construction in an area that contains hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste? X 15. Historic: Will action have an effect on property included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or other property of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance? Check all appropriate boxes fZ1 Project does not involve any "Historic" Structures over 50 years old 0Project involves "Historic" Structures over 50 years old, and attach State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) coordination completed and "determination of no effect" D Project does not involve any property of Federal, Tribal, State or X Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No local significance 0 Project does involve property of Federal, Tribal, State or local significance 16. light emissions: Will the project produce significant light emission impacts to residential areas, schools, or hospitals? X 17. Natural resources: Will action have significant impact on natural, ecological,cultural or scenic resources of national, state or local Significance? X 18. Noise levels: Will project have a significant 1mpact (DNL 1.5 dB or greater) on noise levels over noise sensitive areas (residences, schools, churches, hospitals) within the 65 DNL noise contour? Check all appropriate boxes 0 Project will enable a significant increase in aircraft operations. 0 Project will enable a significant change in aircraft fleet mix. 0 Project will cause a change in airfield configuration and/or use: 0 Intermittent 0 Temporary (i.e., less than 180 days) 0 Long-term or permanent X 19. Parks, public lands, refuges and recreational resources: Will project impact publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance, or land of a historic site w1th national, state or local significance? (DOT Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303 (c)] impacts) X 20. Surface transportation: Will project cause a significant increase in surface traffic congestion or cause a degradation of level of service? X 21. Water quality: Will project have a significant impact to water quality to groundwater, surface water bodies, public water supply systems or violate Federal, state, or tribal water quality standards? Check all appropriate boxes Project will not produce water quality impacts or other modifications to groundwater, surface bodies, or public water supply ostems. Project will produce water quality impacts or other modifications to groundwater, surface bodies, or public water supply systems. + The Airport Sponsor shall ensure the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are obtained as required for construction projects and airport operation. X 22. Wetlands: Will project impact any wetlands? Wetland Determinations must meet requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers {USCOE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. X . Environmental Resource Area Review for Impact Documentation Potential Effects and Impacts Anticipated? Attached Yes No Check all appropriate boxes (8:1 Project will not involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, bank stabilization, filling or other changes to wetlands 0 Project will involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, bank stabilization, filling or other changes to wetlands Coordination with agencies attached 0 Consultation with U.S. National Resource Conservation Service and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps attached with project drawn on NWI. [J Consultation with US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) attached 0 Consultation with USCOE attached 0 Other Consultation (EPA/State) attached 0 Wetland Delineation attached 23. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Does action impact U.S. National Park X Service-designated Wild or Scenic River? Other required environmental considerations 24. Connected actions: Are there other closely related actions that X should be considered? 25. Cumulative actions: When viewed with other planned actions, are X the project impacts significant? 26. Cumulative impacts: When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects, X on or off the airport, regardless of funding source, would the proposed project produce a significant cumulative effect? 27. Environmental laws: Is project inconsistent with any other X Federal, state, or local laws relating to environment? 28. Highly controversial: Is the proposed project likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds? A proposed Federal action is considered highly controversial when an action is opposed on environmental grounds by a Federal, state, or local government, X or by a substantial number of persons affected by such action. Further information may be referenced in FAA Order 5050.48, paragraph 9i. 29. Community disruption: Will project cause disruption of a community, disrupt planned development or be inconsistent with X plans or goals of the community? 30. Relocation housing: Is the availability of adequate housing a X highly controversial issue? 31. Social impact: Are residents or businesses being relocated? X Environmental Resource Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts Impact Anticipated? Documentation Attached Yes No 33. Similar actions: Are there other similar Fecmral actions that would cause this project to be significant? X 34. List additional comments/consultation to support finding of categorical exclusion. It is important to explain determinations in the space provided above for situations where "checked boxes" do not adequately explain the project-specific situation for this Categorical Exclusion (insert-this cell will automatically expand] Based on the foregoing, it Is TxDOT's decision that the proposed project (s) or development warrants environmental processing as indicated below: 1Z1 The proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 1050.1E (31O.e). 0 The proposed project appears to Involve conditions that may require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), addressing [insert subject areas]. 0 The following additional documentation is required for FAA to perform a complete environmental evaluation of the proposed project [insert as appropriate]: TxDOT Approval: I hereby certify that the information I have provided is complete and accurate, to the best of my knowledge: 1 \ ();.· _cc_ Signature August 10, 2012 Date Molly Lamrouex, Environmental Specialist Printed Name and Title September 10, 2014 Mr. Greg Miller TxDOT AVN Planning & Programming Director Texas Department of Transportation 125 E. 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2483 Re: Your letter dated August 25, 2014 with attachments TxDOT Aviation Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) Georgetown Municipal Airport Capital Improvement Plan (GTU CIP) National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) Dear Mr. Miller, Your letter and attached checklists for Categorical Exclusion (CE) of some of the current federally funded ACIP GTU CIP elements from the NEPA review process are appreciated. However, on behalf of the ACC and with all due respect, your letter and attachments do not provide sufficient justifications for CE. The documentation indicates that segmenting of the complete airport maintenance and expansion program, and beginning with CE determination via the checklists presuppose that the groups of projects qualify for CE, and as such you have precluded legitimate NEPA review and evaluation of alternatives. Furthermore, there is no explanation of how the groups of project elements stand alone, how the projects for maintenance of an existing problematic airport do not encourage continued operation of that airport at an environmentally unsuitable location, or how the projects by themselves or cumulatively are not integral to the larger airport maintenance and expansion program. Moreover, inaccurate and unsupported assessments of specific types of potential impacts in the checklists demonstrate that the projects do not qualify for CE determination. Had the program elements proposed been made available for review and comment to the affected public and interested agencies, response would have been more than sufficient to convince the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to undertake a complete NEPA review of the expansion program of which the subject project elements are integral parts. We are prepared to counter various "no anticipated impact" checklist categories of the "Environmental Resources Area Review for Potential Effects and Impacts" completed by your reviewer and will do so as necessary. It is our understanding the current ACIP GTU CIP includes combined federal funding for (1) a 12-acre land acquisition for runway ll/29, 1214 GRGTN, one program element, (2) Garver Engineering Design Contract, TxDOT No. 3X1AV100, one program element, (3) GTU FY 2014 CIP, 1414 GRGTN, six program elements, (4) ACIP GTU 2015 CIP, 24 program elements, and (5) ACIP GTU 2015 Master Plan Update, one program element. The complete GTU CIP consists of 33 identifiable interrelated projects, or program elements with an estimated cost of about $11.3 Million. Your checklist reviews for the two CE determinations have segmented-out seven elements of the program, including: 1. Checklist dated March 24, 2014:"This Environmental Review Includes Replace Electrical Vault, Replace MIRL's & Signage RW 18/36, Replace MIRL's & Signage RW 11/29, Installation of New Internally Lighted Wind Cone, Upgrade MIRL's to LED's & REIL's, and Replace ALCM's in ATCT to Show New Lighting Configuration/Controls". This project composed of six program elements is currently under contract to BC Company for a contract price in excess of $1.1 Million. It is designed to illuminate the airport for 20 mile night visibility and increase night aviation operations (number of take offs and landings) beyond existing status, therefore entails potentially significant impacts, and does not qualify for CE. 2. Checklist dated August 10, 2012:"This Environmental Review Includes Design and Construction of Relocated/Complete Parallel Taxiway A" - Segmenting-out this single program element ignores TxDOT ACIP dated July 14, 2014 which describes for GTU 2015 CIP 24 project elements at an estimated cost of $8.1 Million including fuel farm relocation with increased fuel storage, and a second ACIP 2015 project for a GTU Master Plan Update of one program element with estimated cost of $200,000. The two ACIP GTU 2015 CIP's are clearly intended to provide service for an increased air fleet and aviation operations (takeoffs and landings) which entail potential adverse direct, indirect, secondary, and cumulative environmental impacts and additional planning for an added 20 years of new projects for even greater expansion of aviation operations at an already problematic airport site. Categorical exclusion of the seven program elements reviewed constitutes segmenting of the larger urban airport maintenance and expansion program, ignores their relationship with and cumulative impacts when considered among the other 26 interrelated elements of the total program, and therefore fails to assess all potential impacts, direct, indirect, and cumulative, of the program and its alternatives. Simply put, the GTU's location in the middle of our rapidly growing and expanding city and its current 640-acre site situated on the Edwards Recharge Zone (ERZ) mandate that any and all GTU projects be incorporated into a full NEPA review through preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The GTU Program was derived from the GTU 2005 Master Plan and further listed in detail as included in the GTU 2013 Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis. The master plan identifies new and expanding GTU aviation customer needs for a 20-year period for an expanding air fleet with increased all weather, day and night take offs and landings. The financial study recognizes those needs and recommended new and additional aviation expansion operations and fixed base operator land leases for inclusion in the ACIP 2015 GTU Master Plan Update. This, the complete program of projects, does not qualify for Categorical Exclusion, in part or as a whole. Federal funding of the GTU Program, all or in part will constitute a federal action that will result in significant adverse impacts on the human and natural environment. Only a complete NEPA review, which we believe must be through preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, will effectively identify the extent of such impacts of the proposed project and its alternatives. Alternatives must be examined with attention to direct, indirect, primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts. The best alternative with well- defined mitigating and precautionary measures should be selected for federal funding; otherwise, federal funding must not be provided. We request a hold on all federal funding for the GTU CIP pending completion of a full NEPA review of the entire program and all practicable alternatives. Hugh C. Norris, Jr. 4400 Luna Trail Georgetown, Texas 78629 (512) 868-2718 cnorris29@suddenlink.net cc: Mr. F. Clayton Foushee, FAA, Director OAE Mr. Michael Boots, Acting Director, CEQ The Honorable Dale Ross, Mayor, City of Georgetown TxDOT Organization GTAB MEETING - 091214 AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS AND TIME LINES POINT PAPER 18th ACC presentation since February 2014 Name: John Milford – 4307 Cordoba Circle Georgetown, TX In the past year ACC members have made requests, to GTAB, for eight actions to monitor activity underway at the Georgetown Airport. 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. Except for the first, none of these requests have been addressed or even committed on by GTAB. Update to GTAB concerning 12+ acre purchase and fuel farm relocation. On August 8th I made a Open Records Request “Regarding the purposed purchase of 12+ acres south east of runway 29. Safety was the reason given as to why the city is trying to purchase this land. On what date was this declared a safety issue, by whom was it declared a safety issue? I request a copy of the report that declared this a safety issue.” On September 9th I received from the City of Georgetown legal department a copy of the FAA Site Safety inspection that was conducted on March 14-15 2012. I expected to find justification as to what the safety issue was on runway 29 that led the city to pursue purchasing the 12+ acres of land at the end of that runway. I found just the opposite. The report makes no mention of any safety issues at the end of runway 29. Instead it states “There were no issues to the Runway Safety Areas that were noted” “ther e were some issues with wing tip clearance on Taxiway Alpha at the Approach of Runway 18. The report also states, the aviation fuel dispensing vehicles and fuel farm of the FBO was fully operational and in good repair. We have all heard that safety is the reason for relocating the fuel farm, purchasing additional acreage and other projects. Safety doesn't seem to be an issue in this FAA inspection. In 2013 TXDOT and City of Georgetown made an initial offer to the land owners of 12+ acres. ® Texas Department Transportation 125 EAST 11th STREET I AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2483 I (512) 463-8580 I WWW.TXDOT.GOV October 16, 2013 Mr. Curtis Benkendorfer Airport Manager Georgetown Municipal Airport 500 Terminal Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 RE: Recommended Just Compensation Georgetown Municipal Airport Dear Mr. Benkendorfer: Our office has completed a review of the appraisals submitted and recommend just compensation amounts as follows: Parcel No.: 1 land: $121,090.00 Appraiser: David Oberrender Improvements: $-0- Property Owner: Raymond Joseph Damages: $42,410.00 Property Type: Vacant land Total: $163,500.00 Parcel No.: 2 land: $163,5 70.00 Appraiser: Property Owner: David Oberrender Raymond Joseph Improvements: Damages: $-0- $49,530.00 Property Type: Vacant land Total: $213,100.00 Parcel No.: 3&4 land: $271,968.00 Appraiser: David Oberrender Improvements: $-0- Property Owner: Jeff & Michael Houston Damages: $172,010.00 Property Type: Vacant land Total: $443,980.00 After receiving your authorization to make the offers, I will mail the landowners written offer letters for the amount noted above. After sufficient time is given to consider the offer, I will call to discuss any questions or concerns they may have and hopefully proceed to finalize the purchase of the needed acquisition. OUR GOALS MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 2 Mr. Curtis Benkendorfer Page 2 Should you have any questions please contact me at 1-800-687-4568. Sincerely, T. Scott Byran Right of Way Agent Enclosures: Copy of Appraisal OUR G OALS MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST lN CLASS STATE AGENCY 1 3 March 23, 2012 Ms. Sarah Hinton Airport Manager Georgetown Municipal Airport P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 Dear Ms. Hinton: A general aviation airport safety site visit of the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) was conducted March 14-15, 2012. The purpose of our visit was to provide a safety analysis of the airport as a team effort to enhance aviation safety and is part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Southwest Region's General Aviation Safety Program. The following comments and recommendations are provided for your consideration: General: In general, the airport was considered to be in fair condition. Paved Areas: Throughout the field, there were cracks with vegetation growing. This will cause the paved surface to deteriorate at a premature rate. We suggest using a weed killer to remove the vegetation and then crack sealing to prolong the life of the runway. The cracks on the paved surface on the shoulders of Runway 18/36 have gone beyond repair and the airport should use caution with the pavement breaking up and causing foreign object debris (FOD). Currently, GTU is allowing aircraft owners to park their private vehicles on the ramp while they fly their planes. We recommend stopping this immediately. The aircraft parking ramp is designed for aircraft parking and for movement of aircraft and airport vehicles. It is not designed for the private use of aircraft owners to park their private motor vehicles. Also, the ramp is not designed for aircraft owners to conduct extensive maintenance projects on their aircraft. Safety Areas: There were no issues to the Runway Safety Areas that were noted, but there were some issues with wing tip clearance on Taxiway Alpha at the approach of Runway 18. The aircraft tie down area needs to be relocated away from the taxiway edge to allow room for aircraft to taxi. Marking and Signs and Lighting: The markings on the field were in fair condition. We recommend new markings for the entire field along with adding a taxiway lead on and lead off line on Runway 18/36 for Taxiway Alpha. Additionally we recommend the use of a black border around the markings on the runways and the holding position marking to enhance visibility to pilots. At this time, there is no edge marking for taxiways and we do not see a need for the edge markings to be added, but instead support the use of funds to add taxiway reflectors. A question was asked about using taxiway solar reflectors. We have airports in the Southwest Region that use green taxiway reflectors for the centerline as well as blue solar reflectors to denote 1 4 the edge of the taxiway. We support the use of solar reflectors on the airport, but remind them that it's vital to maintain them. A question was asked about using PVC with retro-reflective tape for the edge of taxiways. We support this as an alternate to reflectors and it is more economical. We recommend using thin PVC and scoring the bottom to ensure its frangibility, a requirement for it to be located in the taxiway safety area and the height should be between 14-17 inches. Blue retro-reflective tape should be used. The placement should be the same as taxiway lights. This practice should be used in lieu of the standard reflectors. There were several directional signs, two mandatory signs, and one location sign out on the field. These signs are important not only in letting the pilot know his location and also where to turn, but the mandatory signs tell pilots and vehicles to stop at the holdline until they receive further instructions from the air traffic control tower to proceed onto the active runway. It is vital that the airport maintain these signs for the safety of aircraft and ground vehicles. Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF): We understand the fire station that responds to the airport has firefighters that have received initial ARFF training. We do recommend training for all firefighters responding to the airport not only for the safety of passengers but also for the safety of the firefighters. We also recommend recurrent training along with participation in one live burn a year for responding firefighters. There are several ARFF training facilities in the area. TEEX facility at College Station, TX is one as well as a school in Laredo, TX. If you have any additional questions pertaining to ARFF, please feel free to contact me. Hazardous Materials: The aviation fuel dispensing vehicles and the fuel farm of the FBO was fully operational and in good repair. We do recommend an emergency shut off for the AV gas skid to be located closer instead of the breaker that is inside the terminal. To insure compliance with state and local fire codes, we recommend that periodic safety inspections be conducted of the FBO's operating procedures and equipment. The person conducting the safety inspections should be knowledgeable of the applicable state and local fire codes. Self -Inspection Program: We recommend GTU begin conducting daily self-inspections and, at a minimum, a night inspection once a week. The Self-Inspection Program is vital to airport safety by identifying conditions on the field that may need corrective action. We will send a training DVD on how to conduct self-inspections along with this letter. Driver Training: We recommend the development and implementation of a drivers training program for all employees and personnel with authorization for unescorted access into the movement area. Established procedures for the safe operation of personnel and vehicles in the movement area including any consequences for non-compliance should be included in the ground vehicle drivers training program. We consider drivers training programs to be a significant contribution towards improving situational awareness and reducing or eliminating conflicts with aircraft. Public Protection: We understand that currently GTU has an 8- foot fence around the property. Although we generally recommend a 10-foot fence with 3 strands of barb wire, we feel the height of the fence is enough to keep most mammal wildlife out of the movement area. There are 1 5 some gaps in several areas of the fence that could allow for wildlife to enter the field. Also, coyotes will dig under the fence to gain entry into airport property. We recommend a 4-foot skirt attached to the bottom of the fence and it should be buried at a 45 degree angle on the outside of the fence to prevent coyotes and other animals from digging. Personnel: Currently, the airport has on staff the airport manager, a secretary, and a part-time maintenance worker. The airport has over 600 acres to maintain, self-inspections that need to be completed, at a minimum, a night inspection should be accomplished once a week, grass that needs to be mowed, perimeter fence that must be maintained, and wildlife management. During our visit, we noted that the grass needed to be mowed, the light bulbs on the signs needed to be replaced, areas of the fence needed to repaired, and brush needed to be cleared. Additionally, pavement areas were not being properly maintained and the pavement markings were faded or missing. The above noted conditions at the airfield clearly indicate that insufficient resources are not being made available for the proper operation of the airport, including the lack of maintenance personnel. We recommend adding full-time maintenance personnel to ensure that the airport owner meets the federal grant obligation for the proper maintenance and operation of the airport to provide a safe environment for the flying public. Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviations (V/PD) Occurrences: With the recent occurrences of V/PDs at GTU, we recommend the following added signage:  On ramps and vehicle roadways, install "DO NOT PROCEED CONTACT ATC" prior to any movement area.  Roadways leading into aircraft parking areas, install standard highway stop signs with additional signage, "ONLY AIRCRAFT AND AUTHORIZED VEHICLES BEYOND THIS POINT."  On the roadway leading to AeroCentex, at the T intersection, add a sign. " <= AEROCENTEX" showing the direction of the parking area to AeroCentex. Add an additional sign at that intersection advising, "NO UNAUTHORlZED VEHICLES => " All signs must be located outside of the Runway and Taxiway Safety Areas as well as the Object Free Zone. For additional information on size and style for signs on the airfield, see Advisory Circular 150/5340.18F, Standards for Airport Sign Systems. In closing, we would like to thank you and your staff for the support and courtesy extended to me during the inspection. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Signed By Janny L. Jack Airport Certification Safety Inspector Cc: 1 6 Texas Department of Transportation Division of Aviation 125 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2483 ASW-650 ASW-621B:JJACK:jd:5625:03/23/12:GTU Closeout2012.doc City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: 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. ITEM SUMMARY: The City received sealed bids from five bidders on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, for the Curb and Gutter portion of the 2013 Capital Improvement Program. This curb and gutter project consisted of two (2) parts in the base bids and four (4) add alternative bids. The proposed sections include “A” portions of Mesquite Lane (River Bend to Judy Drive) and along Dunman Drive (Mesquite Lane to River Bend and “B” portions of Parker Drive (Dunman Drive to Power Road). The work involves removing the old topping curb and replacing it with a full curb and gutter section. The add alternatives were bid for possible cost savings. The alternative bids resulted in no substantial savings. The base bids exceeded the remaining available 2013/14 funds so the remaining balance was rolled into the 2014/15 curb and gutter account. The item is now being presented for consideration in the 2014/15 budget year. The City has used Patin Construction Company numerous times in the past with satisfactory results and is currently using them on the Tin Barn Alley and 9th Street project. KPA has received positive references as well as reviewed the current workload and construction History. The engineer’s recommendation is in favor of contract approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with KPA and recommends a contract be awarded for the Base Bid: Part A & B to Patin Construction Co. of Taylor, Texas in the amount of $578,307.50. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See attached CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller (jk) ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Budget Backup Material Engineer Letter of Recommendation Backup Material Bid Tab Backup Material City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: 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, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed project would be to fund the creation of new Airport Master Plan. The prior Airport Master Plan did include the creation of a tower, was created as response to the growth in General Aviation leaving Austin Mueller, and did not adequately address the funding and operational requirements of the Airport. The Aviation Division of the Texas Department of Transportation agreed with this assessment and advanced the funding for the Airport Master Plan update from FY 15/16 to FY 14/15. In order to move the project forward, staff must prepare certain documents for TxDOT to include in their award package, including a resolution of support, designation of consultant selection committee and certification of project funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution, designation of sponsor and consultant selection committee. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Airport Master Plan update was included in the FY 14/15 Airport 5-year CIP as a FY 15/16 project. The TxDOT grant funding of $180,000 and City of Georgetown require $20,000 will require a budget amendment, however, the project can be funded from existing open P.O.’s with TxDOT and unbudgeted Airport Revenue from FY 13/14. SUBMITTED BY: Edward G. Polasek, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Resolution Letter Designation of Sponsor Exhibit Consultant Selection Committee Exhibit TxDOT AVIATION CIP Form Backup Material Resolution No. __________________ TxDOT Airport Master Plan Update Date of Approval: _______________ RESOLUTION NO. ________________ A Resolution authorizing an application for an Airport Master Plan Update between the City of Georgetown and Texas Department of Transportation – Aviation Division, and documenting the City of Georgetown’s support and acceptance of this project, and authorizing the Mayor to execute same and the City Secretary to attest. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown intends to make certain improvements to the Georgetown Municipal Airport; and WHEREAS, the general description of the project is described as: Airport Master Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown intends to request financial assistance from the Texas Department of Transportation for these improvements; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown will be responsible for 10% of the total project costs currently estimated to be $20,000. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown names the Texas Department of Transportation as its agent for the purposes of applying for, receiving and disbursing all funds for these improvements and for the administration of contracts necessary for the implementation of these improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest thereto, at the appropriate time, and with the appropriate authorizations of this governing body, all designations, contracts and agreements with the State of Texas, represented by the Texas Department of Transportation, and such other parties as shall be necessary and appropriate for the update to the Airport Master Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Resolution No. __________________ TxDOT Airport Master Plan Update Date of Approval: _______________ RESOLVED this _______ day of October, 2014. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: __________________________ ______________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Dale Ross, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Bridget Chapman City Attorney DESIGNATION OF SPONSOR'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE I, Dale Ross, , Mayor , (Name) (Title) with the _City of Georgetown_ designates_ Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director_ (Sponsor Name) (Name , Title) as the __City of Georgetown_ authorized representative for the _Airport Master Plan_ project, (Sponsor Name) who shall have the authority to make approvals and disapprovals as required on behalf of the__City of Georgetown__. (Sponsor Name) ___ City of Georgetown, Texas (Sponsor) By: (Signature) Title: Date: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE Mailing Address: Georgetown Municipal Complex P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 *Physical/Overnight Address:__ 300-1 Industrial Ave. ________________________ Georgetown, TX 78626 Telephone Number:___ 512-930-2544___ Fax Number:_______________ 512-930-3559___ E-Mail Address:__ed.polasek@georgetown.org___ * ALL GRANT AGREEMENTS ARE SENT BY OVERNIGHT MAIL DESIGNATION OF SPONSOR'S CONSULTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE I, Edward G. Polasek , Transportation Services Director , (Name) (Title) with the ___City of Georgetown____________ designate the following named individuals as the (Sponsor Name) Consultant Selection committee, for the _Georgetown Airport Master Plan Update. The committee is authorized to determine selection criteria, review qualifications and proposals of candidate firms, conduct interviews, if necessary, and select a firm for the award of the design contract, based on a consensus ranking by the committee members. The decision of the selection committee will be final unless some discrepancy is determined to have occurred in the selection process. Name Title (if appropriate): 1. John Petit, Airport Representative, Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board. 2. David Johnson, Airport Representative, Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board. 3._Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner, Planning Department_ 4._Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities, GUS_________________ 5.__Airport Manager, Georgetown Municipal Airport__________________ The ___City of Georgetown______has caused this to be duly executed in its name, (Sponsor Name ) this____________________day of 20 . ___________City of Georgetown, Texas (Sponsor) By: Title: