HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_11.14.2014Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown
November 14, 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 Reminder to Board about December 2014 Meeting. - Jana Kern, Board Lisison
E 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.
F Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and 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 October 10, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
H Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the current contract with Avfuel
Corporation to supply aviation fuel (Jet-A and 100LL/Avgas) and services to the Georgetown
Municipal Airport, City of Georgetown, in the estimated annual amount of $2,600,000.00 – Curtis
Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director, and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
I Consideration and possible recommendation on a contract for professional engineering services
with Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $425,207.43 for flood protection
planning. -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
J Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council for approval of a Resolution
documenting the City of Georgetown’s support and creation of a Transportation Infrastructure
Zone and entering into an Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement with the Lone Star Rail District
to fund the future operation of commuter rail service through a portion of revenue generated by the
Transportation Infrastructure Zone. – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Micki Rundell, Chief
Financial Officer; Chris Foster, Manager of Resource Planning & Integration; and Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
K Discussion and possible recommendation regarding an Amendment No. 1 to an Interlocal
Agreement with Capital Metro to provide demand response transit services and Transit
Development Planning utilizing Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funding and local
match in an amount not to exceed $251,098 – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director, and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer.
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
OTP Update
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., Transportaton Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
November Updates Exhibit
GTEC - Project Status Report Exhibit
Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations
(North and South San Gabriel Rivers)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
November 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
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 TBD
Environmental TBD during Phase II
Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. 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;
Project eligible for TxDOT Off‐System Bridge Replacement Program.
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Realignment Intersection Improvements
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. QQ1
November 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
November 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.
FM 1460
Quail Valley Drive to University Drive
Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc
November 2014
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
Complete
Rights of Way As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession
and Use Agreements or have closings planned within
the next couple weeks for all the remaining FM 1460
parcels.
Acquired: 31
Pending: 3
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
November 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) hired HDR Engineering, Inc. (Engineer) to assist the City
with development of its Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) as a
result of the Cityʹs 2013 designation as a MS4 operator. Initial services
included 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 was 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 August 25, 2014
Comment period ended without significant input from the public. ~
September 25, 2014 – Completed
A copy and an affidavit of the publication of notice(s) was filed with
the Chief Clerk ~ September 19, 2014 – Completed
Year 1 began October 1, 2014 and ends October 1, 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
November 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 approximately 85% complete.
Other Issues None pending.
Overall Transportation Plan Update
November 2014
Project
Description
The updated OTP is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004
with the adoption of the initial OTP. That document provided an analysis of
existing conditions and travel characteristics, a refined area‐wide travel demand
model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system and a revised
Thoroughfare Plan.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, Bill Dryden, P.E., and Nat Waggoner, PMP®
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Key
Accomplishments
• 2012 roadway network update completed.
• 11 of 13 project elements completed. Final two elements (Chapters 8 and 9) are
under review and are nearly complete.
• OTP Chapter 6 has been updated to include 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and
Park’s Trails Master Plan by reference.
Upcoming Tasks Staff:
• Is working to complete its final internal review by November 15th.
• Will present the DRAFT OTP to GTAB for its review and comments January
9th.
• Will present the DRAFT OTP to P&Z for its review and comments January 20th.
• Will compile all comments and present the FINAL DRAFT OTP to GTAB
February 13th for its recommendation to Council.
• Will present the Final DRAFT OTP to Council February 24th for Public
Hearing and 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP.
• Will present 2nd Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP March 10th.
Issues Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has not yet adopted
the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan nor the 2010 Travel Demand Model
supporting that plan. Once adopted, the 2040 plan and model will provide key
data which will allow supporting jurisdictions the opportunity to update their
transportation plans. Georgetown transportation planning efforts will benefit from
updated modeling data and should pursue funding to update the 2012 data
currently informing the OTP.
Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit
November 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 Manager Nat Waggoner, PMP®
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Task Status / Issues
Initiation ‐ Task 1.3 – Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014.
Planning ‐ Task 5.2 – Project Prioritization
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 Oct‐14 Nov‐14 Ongoing
Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May‐14 Jan‐15
Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Mar‐15
ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Mar‐15
Other Notes ADA
NOV – Transition Plan amendment planning audit by Altura Solutions
DEC – RAS review & recommended revision complete
JAN – Staff input complete
FEB – Boards, Commissions and Council review
MAR – Adoption
Project Website
Launched July 15, 2014
Open House #2
January 21, 2015, Location TBD
Total City Needs Opinion of Probable Cost
NEW SIDEWALK $240,042,984
NEW CURB RAMPS $21,052,076
NON‐FUNCTIONAL SIDEWALK REPAIRS $1,407,014
LIMITED FAILURE SIDEWALK REPAIRS $429,686
NON‐FUNCTIONAL RAMP REPAIRS $2,059,708
FUNCTIONAL RAMP REPAIRS $4,759,413
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL UPGRADES $1,217,160
$270,968,042
Smith Branch
November 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
Minor asbestos on one sink.
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.
Seven properties have closed as of 11/06. The final property
will close in mid‐November.
Asbestos analysis on the 7 acquired properties returned only
one sink requiring special attention.
Staff is preparing a bid for demolition services and will bring it
forward in December or January. In the meantime, staff will
reach out to Habitat for Humanity to see if any materials can be
salvaged for their efforts.
Acquired: 7
Pending: 1
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
November 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 and Alignment were presented to GTAB in September; and
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
November 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
November 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
November 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. (paved November
3rd) Project nearing completion.
(KPA) 2nd St to College St plans are complete. Advertising for bid in mid‐
December with construction to begin in January.
9th Street
(Main to Rock)
(KPA) (Patin Construction) Austin to Rock closed for utility work and
reconstruction with opening to traffic by end of November. Main to Austin
portion scheduled to begin in early December.
Chip Seal Complete 2015 projects to be determined and recommended for
engineering by January.
Fog Seal Complete. In‐house fog sealing currently under way with new Etnyre
Distributor.
Cutler/overlay Complete.
Pavement
Evaluation
KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP
reflecting changes under way. Staff is working with Fugro to compare data
with conditions and to begin packaging CIP maintenance projects with
available funding.
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.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete.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 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 Project Complete.Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0
FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete.
Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0
Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete.Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer shall develop the ROW Map, acquire
ROW, address potential environmental issues
and complete construction PS&E in anticipation
of future funding availability.
TBD
Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is basically complete; awaiting ROW for
water quality pond.
On Schedule
Unchanged
825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed
alignment and is working on the 30%PS&E.
On Schedule 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 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
November 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 11/6/2014
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:
See Attachment
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Airport Engineering Backup Material
Airport Tower Backup Material
Airport Financials Backup Material
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: Construction commencement date October 27, 2014
Construction period: 60 calendar days / nights.
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 Update
Item ____ Page _____
Prepared by: L. Kemp
11/7/2014
Georgetown Municipal Airport
As of September 30, 2014 A - B = C B - D = E
Statement of Operations A B C D E
(A)
2013/2014
Budget
2013/2014
Preliminary
Projections
Preliminary
September 30,
2014 YTD $
September 30,
2013 YTD $%
Beginning Fund Balance (B)347,793 363,339 363,339 - 517,632 (154,293) -30%
Operating Revenues:
Fuel Sales 2,421,492 2,421,492 2,518,237 (96,745) 2,332,610 185,626 8%
Fuel Expense (2,228,000) (2,228,000) (2,266,418) 38,418 (2,123,172) (143,246) 7%
Net Fuel Revenues 193,492 193,492 251,818 (58,326) 209,438 42,380 20%
(C)Leases & Rentals 571,700 571,700 579,168 (7,468) 560,994 18,174 3%
Bankruptcy - Georgetown Jet Center - 94,952 98,801 (3,849) 3,000 95,801 97%
Interest 4,000 4,000 189 3,811 1,240 (1,052) -85%
(D)Other Revenues 39,150 39,421 33,753 5,668 40,801 (7,048) -17%
Grant - 25,589 (25,589) -100%
Total Operating Revenues 808,342 903,565 963,730 (60,165) 841,064 122,667 15%
Operating Expenses:
Personnel (318,447) (300,599) (279,769) (20,830) (263,704) (16,065) 6%
(E)Operations (562,826) (644,913) (692,568) 47,655 (488,661) (203,907) 42%
Furniture & Equipment - - (561) 561 (9,100) 8,539 -1521%
Total Operating Expenses (881,273) (945,512) (972,898) 27,386 (761,465) (211,434) 28%
Total - Net Operating Revenues (Expenses)(72,931) (41,947) (9,168) (32,779) 79,599 (88,767) -112%
Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses):
Debt - Principal & Interest (169,413) (169,413) (169,178) (235) (163,154) (6,024) 4%
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) - (70,838) 60,171 0%
(F)Runway 1836 Lights (111,000) (163,200) (163,200) - - (163,200) 100%
AJS Drainage Improvements (110,000) (110,000) (110,000) - - (110,000) 100%
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (87,500) (87,500) (87,501) 1 - (87,501) 100%
Net Capital Improvement Program (87,500) (130,367) (130,368) 1 (70,838) (59,530) 84%
Total - Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)(256,913) (299,780) (299,546) (234) (233,992) (65,554) 22%
Net Revenues/(Expenses)(329,844) (341,727) (308,713) (33,014) (154,393) (154,321) 50%
Ending Fund Balance (G)17,949 21,612 54,626 363,239
NOTES:
(A)These are preliminary fiscal year end amounts that do not include year end accruals and adjusting entries.
(B)Actual beginning fund balance
(C)Leases and Rentals include T-Hangers, ground leases, and tie downs.
(D)Other Revenues include Ad Valorem Tax, special events and discounts.
(E)Legal accounts for 71% or $58,124 of the operations budget increase of $82,086.
(F)City's 10% share increased because project bids came in higher than projected.
(G)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 Current 9/30/2013
9/30/2014 8/31/2014 7/31/2014 CAFR
Assets:
Cash & Investments 22,429 89,859 87,602 194,560
Accounts Receivable - Leases & Fuel 111,633 147,811 200,375 245,044
Liabilities:
Bond Debt Outstanding 603,847 603,847 741,938 752,116
Prepared by: L.Kemp
11/7/2014
Georgetown Municipal Airport
As of September 30, 2014
Selected Financial & Operating Data
Operating Statistics September September
2014 2013
Performance/volumetric indicators Y-T-D Y-T-D Variance
Gallons of Fuel Sold 2014 2013
AVGAS gallons sold 18,542 18,845 208,106 240,642 (32,536) -14%
JET A gallons sold 35,938 28,072 439,909 325,237 114,672 35%
Total Gallons Sold 54,480 46,917 648,015 565,879 82,136 15%
Take Offs and Landings Day*Night*
VFR 5,869 70 67,249 61,242 6,007 10%
IFR 517 23 5,985 7,316 (1,331) -18%
Total Take Offs/Landings 6,386 93 73,234 68,558 4,676 7%
*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:
September
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on October 10, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on October
10, 2014.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
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
October 10, 2014
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Present: Truman Hunt – Chair, Rachel Jonrowe – Vice Chair, John Hesser – Secretary,
Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, Chris H’Luz, David Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Micki Rundell, Ed Polasek, Wes Wright, Bill Dryden Mark Miller,
Nat Waggoner, Curtis Benkendorfer, Laura Wilkins, Bridget Chapman
Others Present: Ron Bindas – Airport User, John Milford, Hugh Norris, Robert Meeker, Richard
Ballantine, F. Desseler – Airport Concern Citizens, Michael Newman – KPA, Tom Crawford – 2015 Road
Bond Committee Chair, Karen Natts - Citizen
Regular Session
A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday
October 10, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to
convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager,
Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: Polasek stated that the Austin Ave. Bridges was third
ranked priority coming out of Williamson County, FM 971 was ranked sixth. The only problem is
that there is a $14M project ahead of us and there is only $31M in total of STPMM funding. We
will just to wait to see how that plays out with the rest of the scoring.
Received a request for prioritization, from the City, for Off System Bridge replacement from
TxDOT. TxDOT has listed five possible bridges for replacement or repair under the Off System
Bridge program. Three of the five are on our potential Bond list and the other two would repair.
Staff will be going through and ranking our responses to those based on our potential Bond
capacity and where staff can get the additional funding meet our match our requirement. The
Austin Ave. Bridges were the top two on the TxDOT list. Asked and answered, Austin Ave
Bridges are on the list for replacement, along with Country Club Rd Bridge and DB Wood Bridge
over the Middle Fork.
Briggs – Austin Ave Bridge - communication this week asking for clarity on cost analysis by Road
Bond Committee - 4 lane or 5 lane section? Bond Committee wants to review. Most likely
replacement as 4 lane section with ADA compliance across the bridges. Utility improvements
and extra ROW for 5 lanes would be very costly. Briggs again stated that the policy we are
working on is replacement rather than repair.
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines – Bill Dryden, P. E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP ®
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Project updates were given to the Board. Armour asked about some possible safety concerns
where the sidewalk goes down towards some woods and if there was going to be a guard rail
along the same area because if a car goes off there they will end up on the sidewalk. Dryden
stated they he will look into this.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Persons signed up to speak on this item: Hugh Norris, Robert Meeker (granted his 3 minutes to
Mr. Norris), John Milford. See attached presentation at end of minutes
Benkendorfer gave update on the Airport.
Question from Johnston - Is the council considering a new airport board – Jonrowe answered, it
has been brought up a couple of times but no action has been taken.
Briggs asked if there were issues with the wholesale fuel deliveries – Benkendorfer answered that
at the moment were are experiencing problems with Avfuel due to the Tylor refinery going down
a lot and are trying to back fill from the refinery in Baton Rouge but they have gone down a
couple times also. Because of this we have gone as far as Minneapolis to get fuel. We have also
pulled emergency fuel from the military reserves. Because of these problems our pricing may
fluctuate a bit.
F. Presentation and discussion of initial findings from the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and
Public Facilities Access Audit inventory and open house. – Nat Waggoner, PMP ®,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Waggoner gave a power point presentation on the project. Lengthy discussion with several
questions concerning ADA requirements and maintenance of the current and future sidewalks.
Mr. Armour left the meeting at 10:52 AM.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following
items:
G. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting
held on September 12, 2014 – Jana Kern
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve the minutes as presented. Approved
Unanimous 8-0 (Armour absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Patin
Construction Co. of Taylor, Texas, for construction of curb and gutter at various locations in the
City, in the amount of $578,307.50. – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director,
and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
Miller presented the item and gave a brief description of the work. Motion by Johnston, second
by Hesser to approve contract with Patin Construction Co. in the amount of $579,307.50.
Approved Unanimous 8-0 (Armour absent)
I. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a Resolution documenting the City of
Georgetown’s support and acceptance of a grant from Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) – Aviation Division to fund the Georgetown Airport Master Plan in an amount of
$20,000.00 – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mike Babin,
Deputy General Manager of Utilities
H’Luz left the meeting at 11:36 AM
Polasek stated that this is to fund the creation of a new Airport Master Plan. The prior master
plan did not adequately address the funding and operational requirements of the Airport. This
was budgeted for FY 15/16, so a budget amendment will need to be done. Legal did request one
change to the Resolution. In the fourth “Whereas” change the dollar amount to “not to exceed
$50,000.” Just in case it comes in slightly over the amount we will not have to come back for
approval. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Johnston to approve the Resolution as amended, along
with the Consultant Selection Committee. Approved Unanimous 7-0 (Armour & H’Luz absent)
MOTION TO ADJOURN – Adjourned at 11:42 am
Adjournment
Approved: Attested:
_______________________ ______________________
Truman Hunt - Chair John Hesser – Secretary
_________________________________
Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
GTAB STATEMENT
OCTOBER 10, 2014
AGENDA ITEM “E”
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES
POINT PAPER
PRESENTATION POINTS:
• Introduction to Board – Hugh C. Norris, Jr. 4400 Luna Trail, Member ACC
• 19th Presentation related to 8 primary issues since February 2014 – John Milford describes
• Thanks to board – Minutes Correction- August 2014 GTAB Meeting
4. Recent Written Correspondence: (3 sets for board members)
(a) Letter dated August 11, 2014 from Mr. Elliott Black, FAA, to Mr. Rex Stuart
(b) Letter dated October 02, 2014 to Mr. Black from Hugh Norris
5. Repeat requests for GTAB pro-active airport program management oversight:
(a) GTAB training in NEPA reviews for airport grants – ACC will assist with FAA names
(b) Staff presentation – GTU 2015 CIP increases – Project Elements from 9 to 24- Cost
increase from $5,738,000 to $8,131,828 (All Safety and Maintenance for the boys?)
6. New Request – 2015 CIP - GTU Master Plan Update –
ACC Recommendations:
(a) GTAB must take proactive management oversight of 2015 Master Plan – This plan has
potential of setting off new round of public controversy. Make no CC recommendations
without prior vetting by GTAB.
(b) Hold in abeyance action on CC recommendation pending full discussion and resolution
by board with general public on scope of work (SOW) proposed for selected consultant.
Do not allow staff and TxDOT AVN to determine SOW. GTAB must provide leadership
for SOW in behalf of general public – not just for those who use the airport for fun and
profit.
(c) Drop facade of “All we're doing is safety and maintenance for the boys and meeting FAA
standards.” Tell the public the truth for a change. This new master plan is intended as a
continuation of past and current GTU CIP's to remodel GTU to service Georgetown's
expanding needs for aviation services and overflow from Austin Mueller/Bergstrom. The
intended remodeling is to provide service for an ever expanding air fleet with increasing
number of take offs and landings on a 24 hr. basis, provide for increasing terminal auto traffic
and increasing lease acreage for increased aviation oriented businesses.
(d) Recommendation to CC must include a recommendation that development of the
new master plan conform to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B- Airport Master
Plans. The city's current Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit would
be a good model for managing public involvement of this master plan.
7. Closing Remarks – ACC never desired conflict with city – desired NEPA citizen rights
GTAB MEETING - 101014
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS AND TIME LINES
POINT PAPER
20th ACC presentation since February 2014
Name: John Milford
Today, I want to remind you of the eight request for actions to monitor activity underway at the
Georgetown Airport made by ACC. To date these request remain ignored by the board.
These requests are as follows:
• hold on Airport CIP funding pending citizen consensus of program;
• bar chart monthly presentations on status of Airport CIP;
• staff briefings on 12 acre airport property condemnation project;
• off-agenda Workshops between GTAB, staff and public on Airport CIP;
• professional engineering study for viable regional airport as alternative to the current airport
program for use in citizen consensus process;
• professional consultant management contract for citizen consensus process;
• select City Council committee for oversight and management of the two requested professional
contracts: and
• documentation of workshops or hearings held pursuant to Federal regulations for FAA federal
funded capital programs.
I also want to inform you about other requests and actions that pertain airport expansion on operations.
Two months ago a GTAB board member, made a request to city staff for a listing of all current
and future projects planned for the Georgetown airport. To date that request seems to have been
ignored as well.
Last month I informed you about an Open Records Request to the city of Georgetown for
documentation declaring “safety” as the reason for purchasing the 12+ acres. The city sent me a
copy of an FAA March 2012 inspection report that cited no “safety issues” were found.
Today I inform you about Open Records Request to TXDOT for 5 engineering studies and design
reports and Categorical Exclusion checklists that explain why projects at the airport have been
excluded form National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. We received a
notification from TXDOT that these records no longer exist in hard copy or digital format.
The Director of FAA Office of Audit and Evaluation has a team assigned to investigate TXDOT
actions concerning block grant assignments and categorical exclusion of NEPA requirements. He
sent a notification this week that this new information as been given to his investigation team.
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the current contract with Avfuel
Corporation to supply aviation fuel (Jet-A and 100LL/Avgas) and services to the Georgetown
Municipal Airport, City of Georgetown, in the estimated annual amount of $2,600,000.00 – Curtis
Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director, and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were solicited for a vendor to provide aviation gasoline and jet fuel to the Georgetown
Municipal Airport for resale. On May 10, 2011, Agenda Item P; Council approved a two-year
initial fuel contract at a rate of $2,600,000.00 per year (Bid#201128) with three one-year options.
A purchase order (3106026) was issued for the initial year’s value ($2.6M) and a second purchase
order (3300139) for the remainder of the first year’s value ($379,109.19). Due to decreased sales,
the initial year’s value of $2.6M lasted longer than a year. The original term ended July 21, 2013.
A third purchase order (3302577) was issued for the remainder (1,500.00) to which Matt
Matthews, District Manager, of Avfuel Corporation allowed the adjustment to run through the end
of September 2013 (fiscal year) in order to allow first renewal to begin October 1, 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to Avfuel Corporation the second renewal of three one-year options of aviation
fuel services to begin October 1, 2014 and end September 30, 2015. The first renewal was utilized
October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this expenditure are budgeted in the Airport Fund:
Fund: 600-5-0636-51-610
Budget: $2,272,600.00
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Avfuel Corp. Bid 21128 Cover Memo
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation on a contract for professional engineering services with
Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $425,207.43 for flood protection planning. --
Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
In August 2014, Council approved an agreement with the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for
a flood protection planning grant. The grant provided for a 50/50 cost sharing (up to $200,000) for an
updated drainage study and flood protection planning for the following basins:
Berry Creek
Mankins Branch
Pecan Branch
Smith Branch
Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River
Chan & Partners was instrumental in preparing the successful grant application and has completed
multiple drainage studies for the city over the past decade. Additionally, they have successfully
completed multiple TWDB grant programs in the past.
The results of the study will include a more accurate floodplain boundary for the basins noted above.
Also, the study will provide recommended improvements for inclusion in the drainage capital
improvement plan focused on reducing potential future flooding. Finally, the study will be built on
updated topographical data to be acquired as part of this project, and usable on a multitude of city
projects and master plans.
Based on the results of the study, future consideration will be given to updating FEMA Regulatory
Floodplain Maps.
Also, a future TWDB grant application will be considered to study the significantly larger North and
South Forks of the San Gabriel River.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The net expense to the City of Georgetown will be $225,205.43. The 2015 Drainage Capital
Improvement Plan has budgeted $400,000.00 for this project.
The City is responsible for the full contract amount of $425,207.43. The TWDB will reimburse the city
$200,000.00 per the terms of our agreement.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Scope Backup Material
Contract Backup Material
Schedule Backup Material
CIP Budget Report Cover Memo
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,159,755
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,220,000
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
Example Project
Project 2 Example
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:11/14/2014
TWDB Flood Protection Grant
Division/Department:GUS/GTAB-Drainage Director Approval
Prepared By:Wesley Wright Finance Approval La'Ke 11/7/14
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 400,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget
Consulting 425,207.43 425,207.43 106%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction 0.00 0%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 0.00 425,207.43
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
640-9-0880-90-076 400,000.00
**Reimbursable from TWBD 200,000.00
Total Budget 400,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 400,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 425,207.43 425,207.43 106%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 0.00 0.00 0%
Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0%
Total Project Costs 0.00 425,207.43 425,207.43
Comments: Project came in overbudget will have to address within the fund.
Chan & Partners
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council for approval of a Resolution
documenting the City of Georgetown’s support and creation of a Transportation Infrastructure
Zone and entering into an Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement with the Lone Star Rail District
to fund the future operation of commuter rail service through a portion of revenue generated by the
Transportation Infrastructure Zone. – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Micki Rundell, Chief
Financial Officer; Chris Foster, Manager of Resource Planning & Integration; and Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
At the October 14, 2014 City Council Meeting, staff was directed to bring back all supporting
documents to consider a Resolution and Interlocal Agreement for the creation of the
Transportation Infrastructure Zone (TIZ) and document participation with the Lone Star Rail
District at the October 28, 2014 City Council Meeting. Since that meeting, staff has met with
representatives of the Lone Star Rail District to determine the TIZ boundary and to negotiate terms
of the Interlocal Agreement for Council’s consideration. Staff has also worked to provide specific
answers to questions raised by Council member Fought concerning funding and operations of the
commuter rail station. At the October 28, 2014 City Council meeting, staff was directed to take the
item to the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and General Government Finance Board
for review and recommendation.
Staff has provided a specific details concerning the attached interlocal agreement and resolution in
the Council member Fought questions and Financial and Program Analysis attachments. In brief,
the interlocal agreement and TIZ will:
Place 50% of the growth in property tax revenue in the TIZ into a City-controlled special
fund that will be paid to LSTAR when the meet specific obligations.
The City will pay an additional amount from the growth in property taxes, equal to 50% of
the growth in sales tax revenue in the TIZ into the same City-controlled special fund.
The total payment from those two sources is capped at the value of 75% of the growth in
property tax revenue in the TIZ. In other words, the sum of the two payments above can
never go above 75% of the total annual property tax revenue growth in the TIZ.
The remaining growth in property tax revenue, difference between growth in valuation and
sales tax collected in the area, in the TIZ will be used to fund local projects in the TIZ as
identified in the agreement
LSRD cannot access the funds until it meets two performance goals
1. Within 2 years or by May 2017, LSRD must have completed local funding agreements with
the cities of Austin and San Marcos and the counties of Travis and Hays; and
2. Within 6 years or by January 2021, LSRD must have an agreement in place with Union
Pacific Railroad to relocate its through freight, and a completed financial plan to pay for
project construction.
The only true expense to the City in the creation and operation of the LSTAR station will be
an internal roadway, which is identified as an eligble project in the local TIZ revenue, the
annual maintenance of the rail station (grounds and security, not tracks and trains) and
annual membership dues.
Guarantees a station location in Georgetown and a seat on the LSRD Board of Directors.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
See Financial & Program Analysis
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
TIZ Financial Analysis Backup Material
Interlocal Agreement approving TIZ creation Resolution Letter
Councilmember Fought Questions Backup Material
LSR Area Impacts Report Backup Material
Councilmember Fought Questions Page 1
Concerns and Questions raised by Councilmember Fought
I support the decision of Council to continue our membership in the Lone Star Rail District
(LSRD) for another year. Part and parcel with that support is the Council’s decision to ask the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB)1 to examine a number of aspects of our
participation, including various financial issues. So that there is no misunderstanding of what I
expect GTAB to consider, I am providing here a list of concerns and associated questions.
Please appreciate that these are my concerns and my questions, and may or may not be the
concerns and questions of other Council members. However, I believe it is important for me to
identify my perspectives at the outset of GTAB’s examination process. I will raise these specific
issues when the GTAB report is presented to Council. My purpose is to do my best to eliminate
surprises at the end of the process.
BASIS OF CONCERN #1: The proposed financial arrangements for funding our share of the
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs (estimated by LSRD to be $1 Million annually)
depend upon what I believe to be unrealistic assumptions on economic growth in the
immediate area surrounding the Georgetown LSRD station. The arrangement calls for the city
to obligate 50% of the new property tax revenue from the increased assessed value of
commercial property located within approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the proposed station and
50% of the city share of the increase (over today) in sales tax revenue from the same area.
Question 1: What combination of increase in commercial property assessed value and sales
revenue is envisioned to provide the $1 Million in revenue to meet the LSRD requirement of $1
Million annually?
The proposed TIZ agreement has the following deal points, among others:
• The City will pay 50% of the growth in property tax revenue in the agreed-upon
Transportation Infrastructure Zone (TIZ) around the Georgetown LSTAR station
into a City-controlled special fund.
• The City will pay an additional amount from the growth in property taxes, equal
to 50% of the growth in sales tax revenue in the TIZ into the same City-controlled
special fund.
• The total payment to LSRD from those two sources is capped at the value of 75%
of the growth in property tax revenue in the TIZ. In other words, the sum of the
two payments above can never go above 75% of the total annual property tax
revenue growth in the TIZ.
• The remaining growth in property tax revenue in the TIZ will be used to fund
local projects in the TIZ as identified in the agreement.
Councilmember Fought Questions Page 2
• LSRD cannot access the funds until it meets two performance goals:
o Within 2 years or by May 2017, LSRD must have completed local funding
agreements with the cities of Austin and San Marcos and the counties of
Travis and Hays.
o Within 6 years or by January 2021, LSRD must have an agreement in place
with Union Pacific Railroad to relocate its through freight, and a
completed financial plan to pay for project construction.
• At either of those two points, if LSRD has failed to meet the goal, the City can
reconsider its participation in the project, and at its option extend the deadline
OR cancel the agreement, dissolve the TIZ, and put any collected funds into the
City’s General Fund.
For example, if there is $100 in property tax revenue growth in the zone, $50 would be
set aside in a city-controlled TIZ fund. From the $50 of remaining revenue growth in the
zone, an additional payment will be set aside, equal to 50% of the sales tax revenue
growth in the zone. The sum of the $50 payment and the payment equal to 50% of sales
tax revenue growth will not exceed the total $75 in property tax revenue growth. If we
assume, for example, that sales tax growth in the zone is $50, then an additional
payment of $25 would be set aside in the city-controlled TIZ fund. The final $25 would
be set aside the city-controlled TIZ fund to help pay for local city projects in the zone, as
identified in the agreement between the city and LSRD.
Once we agree to the TIZ formula, or have the ability to negotiate with LSRD, they will
begin modeling the land use and sales tax projections for the area to determine the
actual amount of new property tax revenue generated and project the new sales tax
revenue generated to determine what the revenue growth in the zone will be. The
modeling work will include an estimate of how much of the future value and revenue
growth in the zone is induced and/or enhanced by the presence of the rail station. The
analysis will also determine the point at which sales tax growth is projected to equal or
exceed 50% of the property tax growth. That will give the City an idea of how much
money we will have to fund additional transportation improvements in the area.
Besides the maintenance and security of the station platform and annual membership
dues, that is all the City will be asked to fund for the operations of the Rail District.
LSRD is not requesting a guaranteed payment amount, and is not requesting that the
City take on debt on its behalf.
Councilmember Fought Questions Page 3
Question 2: Is that combination realistic for Georgetown? (Note: a comparison to Wolf Ranch or
the Rivery project would be useful.)
Until we have the ability to negotiate with LSRD and review the financial model, we
will not know the value of the specific revenue streams. The additional sales tax and
associated development fees and utility revenue will have to be modeled to determine
the cost of City services. However, LSRD plans to scale the service level (and therefore
the cost of the service) with the total financial contribution from all TIZ areas – for
example those in Austin and San Antonio, and the other corridor cities and counties.
Therefore, it is a realistic revenue source.
An example of the LSRD Economic Impact Analysis from Hays County was included in
the October 14, 2014 Council item. That same type of report will be completed for the
Georgetown Area.
BASIS OF CONCERN #2. Georgetown will still have to provide standard city services to the area
within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the station, but will have to do so after diverting $1 Million from the
new commercial property tax and sales tax revenues from that area to cover the O&M costs
(see above).
Question 3: How will the city cover the cost of providing those city services (i.e., replace the $1
Million which was diverted to O&M for LSRD)?
City services would experience a marginal cost increase for the area, and because much
of the area is expected to develop as commercial property, the increased revenues that
would normally be generated at the site should more than cover the typical cost
increases. When we complete the official financial model, this will be even more
apparent, because at this time only the HEB site carries a very high probability of
developing soon. Everything else can change significantly by the time the LSRD looks
to be operational, and will be influenced and possibly induced by the presence of the
rail station.
Much like the Hillwood Agreement, the additional revenue from sales tax, user fees
and economic activity would be expected to cover municipal operations in the area.
BASIS OF CONCERN #3. Georgetown would be obligated to construct the station (other than the
platform) and a parking facility in addition to other infrastructure (roads, utility lines, and so
forth).
Councilmember Fought Questions Page 4
Question 4: Approximately how much would it cost the city to construct that infrastructure?
(Note: I understand we have a preliminary staff estimate of approximately $14 Million.)
The only true expense to the City in the creation of the Station would be an internal
roadway connecting the station and parking lot being built by LSRD. Staff has
completed a list with this specific improvement and other roadway capacity
improvements that could be funded with revenue generated by the TIZ. Once the
financial modeling is completed, we will know how much revenue will be generated for
these projects. Exhibit D of the Interlocal Agreement includes all local projects
considered for funding with TIZ related revenue.
Question 5: What would be the source of funds for that effort?
Exhibit D of the Interlocal Agreement includes all projects considered for funding with
TIZ related revenue. If adequate funding is not available for these projects through TIZ
revenues, staff would continue to seek funding for these projects through traditional
sources such as Road Bonds, GTEC and State or Federal funding where appropriate.
The water, wastewater and electric facilities necessary to serve the project have
adequate time to be funded through the normal CIP and development process, as
service is not anticipated for 6 years or more.
BASIS OF CONCERN #4. Georgetown would normally provide some form of economic incentives
to the area surrounding the LSRD station in order to stimulate economic development.
However, under the proposed financial arrangements, we would already be committing (for an
indefinite period of time) $1 Million for O&M.
Question 6: What would be the expectation for city funds to support economic development,
and what would be the source of those funds for economic development in the vicinity of the
LSRD station?
The roadway improvements and CIP planning for the project area will provide most of
the incentives necessary for traditional development. However, we are not anticipating
traditional development in the area, so we would consider several options over the next
few budget cycles to provide incentives for the targeted type of development, higher
value mixed use/transit oriented development (TOD).
Councilmember Fought Questions Page 5
The first item would be to obtain the entitlements for the property. Staff would propose
a work program in next year’s budget process to complete the regulating
plan/ordinance following Chapter 4.11 of the UDC. The City may also consider
working with property owners in the area on creating a Public Private Partnership in
developing the TOD site.
BASIS OF CONCERN #5. Our overall resource commitment to the LSRD could squeeze out other
projects unless we significantly raised taxes. I am specifically concerned about the $60+ Million
backlog in voter-approved bond issues for Parks, Recreations and Roads, the soon-to-be-
considered renovation and revitalization of our airport (at what cost?), and our rapidly
increasing property-tax-supported debt.
Question 7: Can we flow these various obligations without increasing property tax or, if not,
then what are the projections for property tax increases to meet these obligations?
The City can flow the operations without a property tax impact, depending on your
perspective. In a model where everything develops with or without the LSRD, then the
costs associated with the LSRD imply a tax burden to the City in that it diverts revenue
away from other expenditures. However, if the financial model shows development
occurring at reduced value, or not at all, without the LSTAR station, then not having the
LSTAR station will create a tax burden to the City, while having the station will allow
the flexibility of lowering the tax rate.
When discussing modeling assumptions for the DART system with Dallas area
suburban communities, the responses the City received were very telling. First, the
stations in DART were located in areas that had been developed before, but had also
become vacated and in dire need of redevelopment. This meant that the infrastructure
was already in place, and having the rail station close by made the redevelopment easy.
However, many of the CFOs honestly believed that the development would have
happened even without the rail line, but perhaps just in a different part of the City.
Ultimately they concluded that it was impossible to prove the economic benefit before,
or even after, the rail was built, but that instead they signed off on the deal for
connectivity reasons. The Georgetown station location is different in that very little is
developed nearby, but it is also similar because Georgetown’s population ties into the
greater workforce that stretches from our City to San Antonio. That leaves two
possibilities for the results of the modeling - either nothing of significant value develops
around the station and Georgetown is just an end point on a commuter rail line that is
Councilmember Fought Questions Page 6
subsidized by the other cities, or Georgetown sees significant commercial development
that includes employment and destination centers and that added value more than
covers the expense of operating the rail line. Our best efforts will likely produce an
estimate somewhere in between those two results, but given the inputs we have to
work with the error range is going to be significant. Nobody can accurately predict the
impact of the rail station outside of a Broken Window Fallacy argument when it has
about 6 years left before all of the financing is in place, and the project has not
determined all of the final stations and service levels. All we do know is that the
ultimate long term development around that station will be different than what would
have developed without it.
BASIS OF CONCERN #6. There is no guarantee that the LSRD will place a station in Georgetown,
regardless of the outcome of the Environmental Impact Studies and/or our continued
membership.
Question 8: At what point will we know if Georgetown will get a station and who will make that
decision?
The City will not get a station if we do not create the TIZ. An EIS is underway to
determine the viability of the entire project. Federal and State funding will have to be
secured to build the line and stations. If all of these do not work out, LSRD has not met
its obligation under the proposed agreement and the City will then be able to use 100%
of the TIZ revenue generated to fund transportation improvements in the area as
outlined in the agreement, and will have the ability to terminate the agreement and TIZ,
and return the money to the General Fund.
Thank you very much for taking these concerns into account and I look forward to your results.
Sincerely,
Stephen O. Fought
Stephen O. Fought District 4
1
FILE REPORT
From: Ed Polasek
Date: Oct. 20, 2014
Topic: Lone Star Rail District – LSTAR Station Area Impact in the City of Georgetown
Introduction
This report is intended to provide to outline and document the anticipated land use or
growth impacts induced from the introduction of LSTAR passenger rail service by the Lone
Star Rail District (LSRD) in the southeast quadrant of the City of Georgetown (“City”). See
attached Lone Star Rail District Project Plan – LSTAR Passenger Rail Service for a
description of the proposed LSTAR service and its related capital investment and operating
& maintenance (O&M) expenditure estimates.
LSRD’s Georgetown rail station will be on the historic MoKan right of way at or near the
intersection of Southeast Inter Loop and Maple Street/Sam Houston Ave (see attached Lone
Star Rail District Transportation Infrastructure Zone – Georgetown Station map). The
station is approximately 1.7 miles from IH 35, 2.1 miles from the Williamson County
Courthouse and 5 miles from the City’s airport.
Discussion
The Regional Connection: Connecting Georgetown to the region with easy and adequate
transportation options is important to the quality of life and economic well being of the City
and its citizens. Regional mobility broadens the potential for individuals and business to
consider locating in Georgetown while connecting with friends, family and business
interests elsewhere within the region. Providing workforce connectivity in the Central
Texas area is essential given the region’s brand identification as an innovation and creative
class employment center.
Over time, regional competitiveness in business relocation decisions and general economic
conditions have consistently been found to be tied to the economic success of regional core
cities. The Central Texas region is no exception. In 2000 nearly 18% of all jobs in the Austin
region were located in Downtown Austin (the fourth highest concentration percentage in
the country) and in 2009 it was estimated
that 30% of all jobs in the Austin region
were located in four Austin urban core zip
code areas. The location of the University
of Texas, with its 51,000 students and
newly planned medical school, and the
Texas State Capital in the regions urban
core will continue to assure for the
foreseeable future that the region’s job
growth has a focus on access to Central
Austin for business and entertainment
related reasons.
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2000 CBD Share of Total Urban Area
Employment
2
Traffic congestion issues affecting Central Texas have been well documented, including in
the August 2013 Texas A&M Transportation Institute report on the Mobility Investment
Priorities Project – Long-Term Central Texas IH 35 Improvement Scenarios. Excerpts from
the report include the following:
“The City of Austin is among the fastest-growing cities in the U.S., with surrounding counties
keeping a similar pace. Travel times from downtown Austin to Round Rock, where many
commuters live, range from 45 to 60 minutes during the average afternoon rush hour. And
yet, there is no agreement on what should be done to solve the travel time problem. The
long-range transportation plan for the Austin Metropolitan Area, the 2035 CAMPO
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2035 CAMPO), shows no large-scale construction
improvement strategies for IH 35 through Central Texas. On-going IH 35 initiatives by the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the City of Austin are focused upon short-
and mid-term improvement strategies that address existing and near-term congestion with
potential high-return strategies.” (Executive Summary, page 1)
“The most dramatic finding is that IH 35 congestion will be severe even if a substantial
amount of roadway capacity (typically as lanes) is added.” (Executive Summary, page 5)
“Nonetheless, the over-arching and positive message of this examination is that Central
Texas does have options to address IH 35 congestion—using a combined “everything
including the kitchen sink” approach. Any substantial improvement must come from adding
capacity together with operating the system efficiently, new development patterns, and
travel behavior changes.” (Executive Summary, page 6)
The report also identified the importance of maximizing the multimodal options available to
Central Texans to address the growth driven potential for three hour travel times between
Round Rock and Downtown Austin by 2035 (similar travel times are anticipated between
San Marcos and Downtown Austin). Austin is ranked in the fifteen fastest-growing
congested urban areas in the country; it is estimated that on average between 100 and 130
people move to Central Texas every day. The CAMPO 2035 plan estimates the region will
grow from a population of 1.72 million in 2010 to 3.25 million in 2035. LSRD’s planned
LSTAR passenger rail service has consistently been identified in regional transportation
planning efforts, including in the recent Project Connect regional high capacity transit
planning initiative, as an important multi-modal transportation link and component to
addressing the growth in traffic congestion in the IH 35 corridor.
The Georgetown Connection: The southeast quadrant of the City is a relatively undeveloped
area of the City that is receiving economic development interest due in no small part to the
possibility for LSTAR passenger rail service by the Lone Star Rail District. The City
anticipates this interest will mature as the possibility and timing for the introduction of
LSTAR service advances. The City is considering the creation of a Transportation
Infrastructure Zone (TIZ) under Chapter 173 of the Texas Transportation Code to provide
funding support to the LSTAR passenger rail service (see attached Lone Star Rail District
Transportation Infrastructure Zone – Georgetown Station map). It is considered highly
likely that currently indentified development interests will be induced toward accelerated
redevelopment and new greenfield development in the area from the current agricultural,
industrial and large lot rural uses to higher density urban uses due to the rail investment by
LSRD and presence of the accompanying LSTAR passenger service. The attached
Georgetown Station – Potential Land Use Impact map and accompanying Tax Increment
Zone Parcel List provide an overview of anticipated land use changes considered as a result
of the presence of LSTAR service. A portion of the area’s potential for development as a
3
LSTAR related transit oriented development (TOD) was recognized by the City in 2008 as
the Maple Street Transit Oriented Development District (see UDC, Section 4.11.30; page 8
attached) and its Provisional Regulating Plan (see UDC, Section 4.11.040, Mixed User
District Zoning Amendments; page 22 attached).
All of the parcels in the TIZ are estimated to be within the 1.9 mile radius of the LSRD
station. The area identified for multi-use development in the TIZ is predominately within
the half-mile radius of the station. These distances are important because pedestrian
improvements within one-half mile and all bicycle improvements located within three miles
of the Georgetown LSRD station are considered to have a de facto physical and functional
relationship to the LSTAR passenger rail service under the Federal Transit Administration’s
(FTA) Final Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Under Federal Transit Law (Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 161, August 19, 2011). These
improvements are considered within the distances that people will travel by foot or by
bicycle to use a transportation stop or station. According to the separate Department of
Transportation (DOT) Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations, March 15, 2010, “walking and bicycling foster safer,
more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce
vehicle emissions and fuel use.”
Findings Summary: The parcels included as participating in the TIZ have been identified by
the City as those properties whose level and timing of redevelopment or new development
will most likely be impacted or induced by the LSRD investment and LSTAR service. The
establishment of an LSRD passenger rail station in the southeastern quadrant will raise the
importance and potential of this area due to its direct link to the region’s other growth and
activity centers and provide the City of Georgetown with a congestion proof modal link to
the Austin and San Antonio economic cores. The City anticipates the economic development
induced on these parcels will in turn require a number of City infrastructure improvements
within the TIZ to support the southwest quadrant area’s growth and provide adequate
access to the LSRD rail station. These improvements can also benefit from the support of
the delineated TIZ.
4
5
Lone Star Rail District Transportation Infrastructure Zone
Georgetown Station – Potential Land Use Impacts
6
Tax Increment Zone Parcel List
Land Use
Map Area PIN Acreage Property #
A R038792 54.178 R-20-0021-0000-0007
A R038886 87.954 R-20-0021-0000-0086
A R333382 4.288 R-20-0180-0000-0069
B R382189 37.761 R-20-0021-0000-0086B
B R382192 11.948 R-20-0180-0000-0069B
B R461845 51.068 R-20-0021-0000-0066A
C R038820 139.2881 R-20-0021-0000-0031
C R519352 1.379 R-20-0021-0000-0031D-B
D R039324 23.195 R-20-0180-0000-0032
D R518942 10.002
D R518943 9.478
E R524117 21.471
F R038805 18.2 R-20-0021-0000-0018
F R333390 12 R-20-0021-0000-0018E
F R340599 10.65 R-20-6075-0000-0001
F R340601 4 R-20-6075-0000-0002
F R432645 12.732
F R519356 107.187
G R038806 20.47 R-20-0021-0000-0018A
G R337830 19.236 R-20-9915-5000-0001A
G R389446 0.62 R-20-9915-5000-0002A
G R519357 6.708
H R039338 5.13 R-20-0180-0000-0045
H R039339 0.69 R-20-0180-0000-0045A
H R039342 11.3616 R-20-0180-0000-0047
H R485214 20.4874
H R493644 17.14 R-20-0180-0000-0045C
H R493978 4.3735
H R493982 0.7391 R-20-0180-0000-0047E
H R525847 12.772
H R525848 7.258
I R038787 1.29 R-20-0021-0000-0003
I R038788 4.944 R-20-0021-0000-0003A
7
I R038823 1.41 R-20-9931-0007-0001
I R038824 20 R-20-0021-0000-0034A
I R038840 152.848 R-20-0021-0000-0046
I R038862 9 R-20-0021-0000-0066
I R038881 9.69 R-20-0021-0000-0082
I R038898 1 R-20-0021-000H-0066
I R039871 11.61 R-20-0295-0000-0028C
I R039873 5.022 R-20-0295-0000-0028E
I R051147 1.44 R-20-9931-0007-0002
I R051149 1.432 R-20-9931-0007-0003
I R315253 1 R-20-0021-0000-0067A
I R331899 14.5 R-20-0021-0000-0018D
I R333369 1.995 R-20-0180-0000-0063
I R333370 5.732 R-20-0295-0000-0031
I R333371 6.607 R-20-0295-0000-0032
I R333372 3.6673 R-20-0295-0000-0033
I R333379 5.8 R-20-0295-0000-0035
I R333380 0.5 R-20-0295-0000-0035A
I R374498 0.5 R-20-0021-0000-0018DA
I R432644 15.97 R-20-0021-0000-0046B
I R449722 1.7 R-20-0295-0000-0035B
I R463668 9.96
I R472301 6.07 R-20-0021-0000-0046C
I R472302 3.93 R-20-0021-0000-0046BA
I R485231 73.6872
I R492868 1.47
I R494631 9.135
I R524818 14.766
I R525849 9.072
J R038813 82.6 R-20-0021-0000-0026
J R038884 94.49 R-20-0021-0000-0084A
8
9
10
Lone Star Rail District Project Plan - LSTAR Passenger Rail Service
Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) will develop and operate a passenger rail service, LSTAR, with proposed
stations as shown in the attached Project Map plus any added alternate or skip stop stations, running
primarily in and/or adjacent to the current Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor between the Austin and
San Antonio metropolitan regions. The development of this service will be accomplished through the
construction and/or purchase of:
• Track construction and/or improvements to bring initial maximum passenger train speed to 79
mph (with provisions to increase that speed incrementally to 110 mph), including but not
necessarily limited to track geometry and/or condition improvements, train control system
components, and grade crossing infrastructure to meet vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety
requirements,
• Curve remediation to minimize speed limits imposed by track curvature,
• Additional track and related infrastructure (bridges, turnout, switch, and train control
apparatus, communications apparatus, and so forth) as guided by LSRD’s joint service planning
effort with UPRR, the goal of which is to identify the improvements needed to support reliable,
on-time regular passenger train service while maintaining UPRR’s ability to serve its customers in
the corridor,
• Stations, including at a minimum platforms, canopies, lighting, seating, passenger information
systems, ticket vending equipment (if necessary), and pedestrian bridges,
• Operations and Maintenance Facilities, to include the following:
o Maintenance shops and yards where LSTAR locomotives and passenger coaches will be
stored, inspected, maintained, cleaned, and repaired
o Operations Control Center where rail system control and communication operations
will be centered
o Maintenance of Way base to function as headquarters and storage for
engineering/infrastructure maintenance functions
o LSRD administrative headquarters to provide space for management and
administrative functions of the LSRD and the rail system.
• Layover facilities at one or other or both the ends of the line, or mid-line may be needed to
provide minor inspection and maintenance of rail rolling stock stored at passenger terminals, and
• Rail Rolling Stock, taking into account the conceptual initial service plan goal’s peak equipment
requirement plus a margin to account for “shopped” equipment (for inspection, maintenance, or
repair). Current plans include a sufficient number of locomotives, bi-level passenger cars, and bi-
level passenger/cab cars to run each of the conceptual service plans. In addition to passenger rail
rolling stock, LSRD will also acquire in the same fashion specialized track maintenance vehicles,
plus a sufficient fleet of highway vehicles to support operations supervision, maintenance, and
transit security functions.
Under current project development plans, one (1) station will serve the City of Georgetown. The
projected station location is a planning location only at this time, and final station location will be
determined through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The location of the Operations
and Maintenance Facilities has not yet been finalized. The final location of these facilities is subject to the
results of the NEPA process and LSTAR operational needs. Track and related infrastructure will be built on
the proposed LSTAR route to Georgetown, including a grade-separated connection between the UPRR
main line and the preserved MoKan Corridor; the final configuration of that infrastructure will be
determined through the NEPA and final design processes. LSTAR rail rolling stock will serve the
Georgetown rail station. Facilities, line improvements and rolling stock are also subject to available
capital budget resources and contracting or purchasing requirements.
11
The LSTAR capital program and service levels will be commensurate respectively with the available capital
and operations funding levels. The LSTAR service is planned to be built in stages - LSRD will not delay
LSTAR passenger rail service initiation until the completion of the entire passenger rail project, but rather
commission and operate a minimum logical service (to be analyzed during the NEPA process), while
continuing to bring new segments online as they are completed. Project development may also include
the phasing of improvements within a segment in order to allow the initiation of service in a timely
fashion with available resources and allowing for ongoing or future development of subsequent phases
within a segment toward full completion of planned improvements. It is provisionally believed by LSRD
planners that the system will generally be built and put in operation from north to south, due to the likely
capital investment cash flows, the higher projected ridership in the Central Texas region, and fewer
construction challenges (based on conceptual engineering analyses). The schedule for initiation of project
development and service provision is to be determined by the completion of the NEPA process and
availability of capital funding.
Capital cost estimates are preliminary, and are based on the conceptual service development plan
(discussed below). Those costs are:
Initial Service Base Service Full Service
Entire Line $700 * $840 * $1,400 *
Georgetown Portion
of Line
$43 * $52 * $87 *
* All figures are in millions of dollars and are estimates of not to exceed amounts.
It should be noted that the costs above are not additive, but cumulative totals – i.e. to go from Initial to
Base Service, the incremental cost for the entire line is $140 million ($840 million - $700 million). Capital
cost estimates will be further refined during the NEPA process.
LSTAR service levels will be commensurate with the available funding from participating local jurisdictions
(cities, counties, college districts, etc.). For planning purposes LSTAR has prepared its operations and
maintenance (O&M) projections based on the following conceptual service level goals:
Initial Service Goal – 60 minute headway on peak
120 minute headway off peak
12 total round trips per weekday
Weekend and holiday service
Base Service Goal – 30 minute headway on peak
60 minute headway off peak
20 total round trips per weekday
Weekend and holiday service
Full Service Goal – 15 minute headway on peak
60 minute headway off peak
28-32 total round trips per weekday (including express trips)
Weekend and holiday service
For estimating purposes here, operations and maintenance costs have been determined for each
conceptual level of service target. The annual net O&M cost (after fares and miscellaneous revenue is
accounted for) is planned to be split into thirds, with one third paid by the taxing jurisdictions in the
smaller cities in the corridor, another third by the Austin/Travis County metropolitan region taxing
12
jurisdictions, and the final third by the San Antonio/Bexar County metropolitan region taxing jurisdictions.
The following table details the net O&M cost projections, based on service plan targets:
Service Level Goal: Initial Service** Base Service** Full Service**
Smaller Cities $ 9.32 mil $ 12.60 mil $ 20.14 mil
Austin/Travis County Metro $ 9.32 mil $ 12.60 mil $ 20.14 mil
San Antonio/Bexar County Metro $ 9.32 mil $ 12.60 mil $ 20.14 mil
Total $ 27.96 mil $ 37.80 mil $ 60.42 mil
** All numbers are current year/present value estimated amounts and are not escalated
to year of expenditure.
Further allocation of the smaller cities portion of target costs to each of the smaller cities is estimated by
allotting 20% of the total smaller cities costs by the number of stations (full service and split service
stations) within each city and allotting the remaining 80% of total smaller cities costs by estimated city
ridership activity (departures and arrivals) for the planning horizon year of the LSTAR service (2035). The
following percentages (rounded to the nearest half of a percent) are the result of the smaller cities
allocation and would be applied to the total smaller cities portion of total O&M costs (1/3 of the
estimated total O&M costs) to evaluate performance of the proposed funding mechanisms against service
targets: 1) Georgetown 16%; 2) Round Rock 28.5%; 3) Buda 4.5%; 4) Kyle 13%; 5) San Marcos 15.5%; 6)
New Braunfels 13%; and 7) Schertz 9.5%.
The service levels are planning goals only. Should the actual funding support provided by the participating
local jurisdictions be unable to support the planned levels of LSTAR service, the service levels actually
provided will be reduced to a level commensurate with the provided local funding. All allocations are for
cost estimating purposes only and may be updated over time. Actual allocations may be based upon the
availability of funding from individual local government entities supporting the LSTAR service.
13
PROJECT MAP
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible recommendation regarding an Amendment No. 1 to an Interlocal
Agreement with Capital Metro to provide demand response transit services and Transit
Development Planning utilizing Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 funding and local
match in an amount not to exceed $251,098 – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director, and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer.
ITEM SUMMARY:
In August 2013, City Council approved an interlocal agreement with Capital Metro to contract
with CARTS to provide on-demand bus service for FY 13/14. The program established with
Capital Metro in 2013/14, replaced the CARTS program that the City lost in the expansion of the
Austin urbanized to include the City of Georgetown. A 5- year program was established in FY
13/14 that included up to $260,000 in local cost in programs, capital and planning for the
expansion of the "on-demand" system to a fixed route system and possible inclusion of regional
services outlined in the Council priority and identified by Project Connect. (Option A: Financial
Plan 2014-2018)
CARTS has agreed to provide the same level of Demand Response Service (5,200 hours) at the
same rate of $60/hr as programmed in the original agreement, A 50% match of the Federal 5307
Transit funds requires the City to provide $156,000 in funding.
According to Capital Metro's service and expansion policy, in order to continue to receive the
pass-through 5307 funds for transit services, a community must be following or in the process of
developing a Transit Development Plan (TDP) following specific federal criteria for transit
planning. The cost for that planning process is added to the amendment for an additional $95,098
to match the Federal dollars provided for that service.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The approved Transportation Administration Budget includes $291,000 to cover among other
items, the attached amendment no. 1 to the Capital Metro Service interlocal agreement.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Amendment #1 to Interlocal Agreement Resolution Letter
Original 5-year Transit CIP Resolution Letter
Page 1 of 4
Amendment No. 1
To
Interlocal Agreement
Between
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City of Georgetown
This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) is entered into by and between is between Capital
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Capital Metro”), a transportation authority and political subdivision
of the State of Texas organized under Chapter 451 of the Texas Transportation Code, and the City of
Georgetown (“City”), a Texas municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Texas, each
individually referred to as “Party” and collectively referred to as “Parties”.
I. Recitals
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that one certain Interlocal Agreement dated July 31, 2013 to define the
roles and responsibilities for the administration of Federal Transit Administration funds under 49 USC 5307
(the “ILA”);
WHEREAS, the Agreement expires on September 30, 2014 and the parties desire to extend the term for an
additional one- year;
WHERAS, Capital Metro has agreed to provide certain additional transit planning services to the City;
WHERAS, the Board of Directors of Capital Metro has approved a revised service expansion policy which
provides options for service and a process for distribution of Section 5307 funds to non-member jurisdictions
equitably;
WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify certain terms and conditions to address the foregoing as well as
make other changes to the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises, covenants, obligations, and benefits contained
herein and for the good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree to the terms and conditions stated herein as evidenced by the signatures of
their respected duly authorized representatives below.
II. Terms and Conditions
1. Section I of the ILA “ Statement of Services to be Performed” is amended as follows:
I. Section I. Additional Services:
Section I, subsection 1 is amended to add the following;
A. “Capital Metro agrees to provide DRT and related services to allow the City to provide
demand response transit services to its residents at the rates set forth in Exhibit “A”, which are
subject to change.
Section I, subsections 2. B. and I.D. of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety and a new
Subsection B. is added as follows:
B. If the parties mutually agree, a three year Transit Development Plan (TDP) that will identify
transit needs, analyze service options and financing, and provide recommendations for transit
services, including the feasibility of local transit service. The City of Georgetown has budgeted
$100,000 to contribute to the development of this TDP.”
Page 2 of 4
II. Section IV. Term of the Agreement:
Section IV of the Agreement “Term of the Agreement” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:
“This Agreement shall begin upon signature of the last party to sign and terminate the earlier of:
(i) September 30, 2015, or (ii) when the local share from the City for DRT Service reaches the
sum of $156,000, and /or when the Section 5307 funds used equal $251,098.00, which is the
maximum Section 5307 allocation for the City, as set forth in Exhibit “B-1” attached and
incorporated herein for all purposes.
III. Section 1. Financial Terms:
Section 1.1 of the ILA “Financial Terms” is amended as follows:
“Consistent with federal funding practice, the Parties will receive FTA’s allocated funding for the
Austin Urbanized Area, disbursed by population, population density, and service hours previously
offered in the City prior to 2014, distributed as formula funds under FTA’s Section 5307 program,
with Capital Metro being considered the “Designated Recipient” and with the City being
considered a “Subrecipient” for purposes of compliance with federal contracting requirements,
including the provisions of FTA Circular 4220.1F and any other applicable federal contracting
requirements.”
2. Amendment No. 1 incorporates by reference the original ILA executed between the Parties. Except as
expressly provided herein, all other provisions of the original ILA remain unchanged, are in full force and
effect, are ratified, and affirmed by the Parties.
3. This Amendment No. 1 together with the original ILA represents the entire agreement between the Parties
concerning the subject matter herein and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous oral or written
statements, agreements, correspondence, quotations and negotiations.
4. If there is a conflict between the terms of the ILA and the terms of this Amendment No.1, the provisions
of this Amendment No. 1 will control.
5. All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the ILA.
6. The Recitals are incorporated herein for all purposes.
III. Signatories
This Amendment No. 1 is hereby accepted and agreed to by the following individuals or officers who have
the specific authority to bind the Parties.
Capital Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
City of Georgetown
By: By:
Linda S. Watson, President/CEO Dale Ross, Mayor
Date: Date:
Page 3 of 4
Approved as to form:
________
CMTA Legal
ATTEST:
By: ____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
By: ____________________________________
Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit B-1
DRT Service Costs
Operating Cost per Hour $60
Service Hours 5,200
DRT Service Cost $312,000
Local Funds Required for DRT Service $156,000
Section 5307 Funds Required for DRT Service* $156,000
Planning Costs
Section 5307 Funds Available for TDP Development* $95,098
Local Funds Available for TDP Development $100,000
Total Funds Available for TDP Development $195,098
*Maximum FY15 Section 5307 Allocation for the City of Georgetown is $251,098
($156,000 + $95,098 = $251,098)
OPTION A: Financial Plan 2014-2018
DRAFT Sample Five-Year Financial Plan (Planned Roll-Out of Service over a 4-year period)
Revised by TTI 7/2/13
Assumes 2012 Dollars 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Transit Service Hours Pass/Hour Fares
General Population Demand Response 2.5 $1.00 5,200 5,200 0 0 0 0
Commuter/Connector Route 15 $3.00 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080
Urban Fixed Route 6 $1.00 4,000 8,000 10,000 15,900
ADA Complementary Paratransit 2.5 $1.00 1,000 2,000 2,500 3,980
Total Service Hours 5,200 6,280 6,080 11,080 13,580 20,960
Passenger Trips 13,000 29,200 42,700 69,200 82,450 121,550
Service Cost @ $60.00/hour $312,000 $376,800 $364,800 $664,800 $814,800 $1,257,600
Planning (now in-house at CMTA)$50,000 $50,000
City of Georgetown Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Lease of Property $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Transit Terminal Operating Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Operating Cost $362,000 $426,800 $400,800 $700,800 $850,800 $1,293,600
Revenues Fares $13,000 $61,600 $75,100 $101,600 $114,900 $154,000
Capital Projects Units Unit Price
Buses Fixed Route (5)5 $100,000 $300,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0
Medium Duty Bus (only as needed)0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0
Bike Racks 5 $1,500 $7,500
Benches 14 $1,500 $21,000
Shelters 13 $6,500 $84,500
Signs 100 $200 $20,000
Total Capital Cost $0 $433,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0
FY 2013 Allocation 5307 Operating Assistance (CARTS)$125,000 $125,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Annual 5307 Allocation to G'town based on pop./pop density and demographics $220,300 $220,300 $220,300 $220,300 $220,300 $220,300
Total Federal 5307 Funds Available $345,300 $345,300 $470,300 $470,300 $470,300 $470,300
Annual Section 5310 Allocation to G'town based on pop demographics $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000
Use of Federal 5307 Funds
FTA Federal 5307 Capital at 80% of PM @ 20% and 80% of Planning $65,000 $70,100 $58,400 $106,400 $130,400 $201,200
FTA Federal 5307 Operating at 80% ADA Not to Exceed 10% of Apportionment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FTA Federal 5307 Operating at 50% Net Operating $133,900 $138,760 $126,370 $233,120 $286,470 $269,100
FTA Federal 5307 Capital at 80% $0 $282,840 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $0
Total Federal 5307 Funds Used $198,900 $491,700 $264,770 $419,520 $416,870 $470,300
Balance 5307 Funds $146,400 ($146,400)$205,530 $50,780 $53,430 $0
Cumlative Balance $146,400 $0 $205,530 $50,780 $53,430 $0
Use of Federal 5310 Funds $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000
Balance Local Funds Required $150,100 $259,500 $113,930 $232,680 $272,030 $622,300
State Funding Available $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Local Funds Required $150,100 $259,500 $93,930 $232,680 $272,030 $622,300
Uses of Funds
Operating $362,000 $426,800 $400,800 $700,800 $850,800 $1,293,600
Capital $0 $433,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0
Total Uses of Funds $362,000 $859,800 $500,800 $800,800 $850,800 $1,293,600
Sources of Funds
Fares $13,000 $61,600 $75,100 $101,600 $114,900 $154,000
Federal 5307 $198,900 $491,700 $264,770 $419,520 $416,870 $470,300
Federal 5310 $0 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000
State Urban $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
Local - City of Georgetown $150,100 $259,500 $93,930 $232,680 $272,030 $622,300
Total Revenues $362,000 $859,800 $500,800 $800,800 $850,800 $1,293,600
Total Federal FTA All Sources $198,900 $538,700 $331,770 $466,520 $463,870 $517,300
Crosscheck $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Local - City of Georgetown
Use of Funds for Operating $150,100 $109,300 $93,900 $212,700 $272,000 $622,300
Use of Funds for Capital*$0 $150,160 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0
Total $150,100 $259,460 $113,900 $232,700 $272,000 $622,300
* May be eligible for Transportation Development Credits (TDC) in lieu of local funds
*Assumes 2012 Dollars
Operating Cost per Hour
Total Service Hours
Passenger Trips
Service Cost @ $60.00/hour
Planning (now in-house at CMTA)
City of Georgetown Administration
Lease of Property
Transit Terminal Operating Cost
Total Operating Cost
Revenues Fares
Total Capital Cost
FY 2013 Allocation 5307 Operating Assistance (CARTS)
Annual 5307 Allocation to G'town based on pop./pop density and demographics
Total Federal 5307 Funds Available
Balance Local Funds Required
2014
$60.00
5,200
13,000
$312,000
$132,500
$0
$0
$0
$362,000
$13,000
$0
$125,000
$220,300
$345,300
$150,100