HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_07.11.2014Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown
July 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM
at GMC, 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown Texas 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the
Regular Session that follows.
B Introduction of Visitors
C Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates
D Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Legislative Regular Agenda
F Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on June 13, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
G Discussion and possible recommendation to Council to alter the speed zones along Northeast Inner
Loop between FM 971 and University Avenue to remove the reduction in the speed limits of an
existing, non-compliant school zone. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
H Executive Session:
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551. Government Code, Vernon's Texas
Codes, Annotated, The items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subjected to
action in regular session.
Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney
Airport Legal Issues – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
I Action from Executive Session
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:
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.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Introduction of Visitors
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
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 1460 Improvements Project
MS4 Permit Update
N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements
Shell Road at Westbury-Bellaire - Signal Improvements
Sidewalk Master Plan
Smith Branch
Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study
Southwest Bypass Project (TIP #14C)
Transit Study as Requested by City Council
Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance
GTEC Projects
Project Update and Status Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GTAB Project Updates Exhibit
GTEC - Project Status Exhibit
Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations
(North and South San Gabriel Rivers)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
July 2014
Unchanged (from the July 8th Meeting)
Project
Description
Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue
bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several
phases – I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and
evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project
budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents, estimates
of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration.
Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long‐term vehicular capacity
and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP
North San Gabriel River Bridge South San Gabriel River Bridge
Element Status / Issues
Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic
paths to consider:
1) Do Nothing. The bridge remains weight limited. Continued rust, deterioration and
lose of concrete could cause the bridges to loose even more capacity in the next
inspection, or ultimately the failure of one or both of the bridges.
2) Short Term Temporary Fix. Seal joints on the beams and paint beams and girders to
restrict rust expansion and continued exterior erosion. We do not know how or if the
continued corrosion the bent caps will be affected by this. The bridge remains
weight limited for now, but it will remain at the same level for next 5 to 10 years.
3) Medium Term Fix. Remove the deck (superstructure) and replace bearings, flanges
and repair rusted beams, deck soffit and concrete. This step would mean the
ornamental pedestrian railing would have to be removed and brought up to
AASHTO/TxDOT standards. It will allow for the removal of the weight restrictions,
but will not allow the additional pedestrian facilities called for in the Downtown
Master Plan. And the substructure (abutment caps, bent columns, wing walls and
back walls) will still be 75 years old. This step may add 15 to 20 years of active life to
the bridge.
4) Replace Structure. This would involve removing existing bridges and replacing with
a new bridge with a 75 year design life. This could support the additional bicycle
and pedestrian facilities called for in the Downtown Master Plan. Construction may
be able to be phased to allow two lanes of the existing bridge to remain open during
construction.
Surveying N/A (TBD)
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD during Phase II
Rights of Way Existing
Utility
Relocations
TBD (future)
Construction TBD
Other Issues GTAB/Council met on July 8th for a combined workshop for July 8th at Council Chambers
to discuss the issues with the bridges.
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Realignment Intersection Improvements
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. QQ1
July 2014
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 Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Construction to begin first full week of July.
Other Issues None
FM 1460
Quail Valley Drive to University Drive
Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc
July 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
Environmental approved with Project Schematic.
Rights of Way All appraisals are complete. Final offers have been made
for all ROW parcels.
The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring
condemnation.
Acquired: 29
Pending: 2
Condemnation: 5
Total: 36
Utility Relocations Ongoing as ROW is being acquired.
Construction Letting August 2014
Construction scheduled to commence February 2015.
Other Issues None Pending
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
July 2014
Unchanged
Project Description Develop a multi‐year implementation plan based on existing and cost effective
future storm water management practices in order to comply with the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) Permit.
Purpose On December 11, 2013, the TCEQ adopted rules for newly regulated MS4s
based on the 2010 Census designation of Urbanized Areas. The City of
Georgetown is now part of Austin Large Urban Area based on those
designations. Our 180 days to submit the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm
water Management Plan (SWMP) began on December 11, 2013. The City of
Georgetown (City) has engaged HDR Engineering, Inc. (Engineer) to assist the
City with development of its Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) as a
result of the Cityʹs recent designation as a MS4 operator. Initial services
include a review of available storm water program and water quality
information, a series of meetings with City departments and a City facility
review. Permit submittal deadline to the TCEQ is June 11, 2014.
Project Managers Nat Waggoner and Bill Dryden
Engineer/Engineers HDR Architects
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‐ Forthcoming
Comment period begins on the first date the notice is published and
ends 30 days later, unless a public meeting is held.
Applicant must file with the Chief Clerk a copy and an affidavit of the
publication of notice(s) within 60 days of receiving the written
instructions from the Office of Chief Clerk.
If significant public interest exists, the TCEQ executive director will
direct the applicant to publish notice of the meeting and to hold the
public meeting.
Other Issues None
N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements
Rec Center to Georgetown High School
Project No. 1CV TIP No. None
June 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 Council awarded the construction contract in May.
Construction ongoing.
Other Issues None pending.
Shell Road Signal Improvements
Shell Road at Westbury Lane/Bellaire Drive
Project No. N/A TIP No. None
July 2014
Project Description Design and preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the construction
of signal improvements for the ultimate intersection of Shell Road at Westbury
Lane/Bellaire Drive and to determine future additional rights‐of‐way needs north
of the intersection.
Purpose To better manage traffic movements through and within the intersection.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Surveying TBD
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD
Rights of Way None to be acquired
Utility Relocations None required at this time
Construction Construction began 2nd week of June.
On Schedule to have substantial completion/signal operational by 2nd week of
August.
Other Issues None
Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit
July 2014
Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility
Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of
Georgetown City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate
future program requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan.
Project Managers Nat Waggoner, PMP® and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Task Status / Issues
Initiation ‐ Task 1.3 – Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014.
Planning ‐ Task 2.1 – Coordinating Documents review underway.
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
Parks and Amenities Survey (NOT FUNDED)Oct‐14 Nov‐14
Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May‐14 Jan‐15
Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Jan‐15
ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Jan‐15
Monitoring Multiple public and government meetings are defined Tasks throughout the project.
Task 4.3 – Preliminary Government Meeting Schedule:
May–June 2014 City Staff
June 2014 GTAB, GISD
October 2014 Initial GTAB Workshop
Other Issues ADA
Parks and Rec submitted a budget item request for FY 14/15 for the audit of their
physical facilities (approx. 25). The Task Order will be amended upon approval of
the CIP request, September 2014.
Downtown District Priority Report expected July 10, 2014.
Working to solidify public meeting schedule through January 2015
one meeting with City Council,
two meetings with the City’s ADA Task Force, and
three meetings with City Boards & Commissions including Parks, GTAB, GGAF, etc.
Smith Branch
July 2014
Unchanged
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.
Project Managers Wesley Wright, P.E., and Terri Calhoun, SR/WA, R/W‐NAC
Engineer Kasberg, Patrick, & Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design Completed – Flood Study completed in 2013
Environmental/
Archeological
Possible asbestos abatement on properties upon acquisition
Property
Acquisition
Underway – initial discussion and fair market value
offers made to 6 of 8 owners. Awaiting responses and
counter offers. Condemnation is not currently being
considered. This is a willing buyer – willing seller
program
Acquired: 0
Pending: 8
Condemnation: 0
Total: 8
Utility Relocations Will require termination of services
Construction Upon acquisition of any property, 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
July 2014
Project Description Develop preliminary design schematic alternatives, perform preliminary engineering and
prepare an engineering report for the Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design from IH 35 to
Rockride Lane (CR 110) and Sam Houston Avenue.
Purpose To determine ultimate alignment, interim and ultimate engineer’s estimates of probable
project costs and ROW needs for the future SH 29 Bypass, connecting the westerly route (SH
29 to IH 35) with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design Draft Final Report was presented to GTAB in March.
Meetings with adjacent/affected land owners on‐going.
Draft Final Report will be completed in accordance with all applicable comments
and returned to GTAB in August for Board discussions and possible
recommendation of adoption by Council.
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 phase.
Utility Relocations TBD (future)
Construction TBD (future)
Other Issues None at this time.
Southwest Bypass Project
(RM 2243 to IH 35)
Project No. 1CA Project No. 14c
July 2014
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 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
July 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
July 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
Task Status / Issues
2nd and 6th Street
Engineering
(Halff) 2nd at Austin Avenue intersection improvement along with 6th Street
(Austin Ave. to Rock) Bids taken in May. Item for GTAB consideration 6/13.
(Smith contracting)
9th Street (Main to
Rock)
(KPA) Bids accepted in May. Item for consideration (Patin Construction)
Chip Seal The contractor “Cholla” met with staff for preconstruction on Thursday June
12th.
Fog Seal Fog Seal started June 2nd.
Cutler/overlay Downtown Square outstanding for 2013 work.
Contractor has indicated their intention to mobilize June 18th to 23rd.
Completion of outstanding 2013 work and 2014 work is anticipated by mid‐
July.
Pavement
Evaluation
KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP
reflecting changes and updates currently underway. Expecting pavement
score results in July.
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 Bridge is OPEN;
PAID TxDOT $2,500,000 on 9/16/2008.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB
Wood Road)
#14A 5QW Engineer has completed fencing plans, inclusive of
potential environmental mitigation issues.
Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less
actual permitting required at time of construction.
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.
ROW Acquisition process has begun; negotiations
on-going for the Weir and Guy properties.
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.
In-process 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 Final PS&E was submitted to TxDOT May 5th.
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.
On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643
Rivery Road 5RF Alignment adopted by Council.
Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Snead Drive 5QZ Engineer continues with the 60% design of the
project PS&E
On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000
Current Economic Development Projects Project
Type
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Budget
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500
Oakmont/Rabbit Hill Rd Ext 5RI Engineer has begun design On Schedule 196,000 196000 0 196,000 196000 0
15,866,596 3,467,093 12,399,503
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
July 2014
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2014\GTEC - Project Status - 2014-07.xlsx Page 1 of 1 6/28/2014
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:
Air Field Electrical Improvements
FAA Tower report
Airport Monthly Financial
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Curtis Benkendorfer (jk)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Airfield Electrical Improvements Backup Material
Tower Backup Material
Airfield Electrical Improvements
Project No. 1314GRGTN
July 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: The FY2014 project design discussion regarding July updates.
The FY2015 project final design and review update.
FY2014 and FY2015 projects up to date, on schedule and moving forward.
Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update
July 2014
Project Description Georgetown Tower FAA Inspection
Purpose Tower Monthly Report
Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager
Engineer
Notes
Tower Facility Monthly Report
Item ____ Page _____
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on June 13, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on June 13,
2014.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Minutes from June 2014 Backup Material
Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
June 13, 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: Truman Hunt – Chair, John Hesser – Secretary, Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, David
Johnson, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston
Board Members Absent: Chris H’Luz, Rachel Jonrowe – Vice Chair,
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Ed Polasek, Jana Kern, Terri Calhoun, Bill Dryden, Mark Miller, Nat Waggoner,
Bridget Chapman, Curtis Benkendorfer, Mike Babin, Dan Southard, Ilyanna Kadich
Others Present:
Hugh Norris, John Milford, Bob Burczak – ACC, Trae Sutton –KPA Engineering, Leslie Pollack – HDR,
Mark Allen – Hall Properties, Brian Barton – Omni Properties, Inc.-
Regular Session
A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday,
June 13, 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
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines – Bill Dryden, P. E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP ®
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer,
Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Tr ansportation Services Director.
Mr. Hugh Norris addressed the Board, what he read is attached at the end of the minutes.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following
items:
F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting
held on May 9, 2014 – Jana Kern
Motion by Armour second by Johnson to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7-0-2
(H’Luz & Jonrowe absent)
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Legends
Landscape LLC, of Temple, Texas, for the construction of the Improvements to San Gabriel Par k
along FM 971 in the amount of $ 302,697.85. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Dryden explained to the Board that this project is for the realignment of FM 971 between Austin
Ave. and Gann Street along the north side of San Gabriel Park and is also a part of the 2008 Road
Bond project. Motion by Hesser, second by Rankin to approve. Approved 7-0-2 (H’Luz &
Jonrowe absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract for 2014 Capital Improvements
to Smith Contracting of Austin, Texas in the amount of $679,594.00.– Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director, and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
Miller explained that this project consists of redesign and construction of 2nd Street approach east
of Austin Ave. 6th Street – Austin Ave to Main Street pavement and Downtown Master Plan
improvements along with various utility improvements throughout the City. Motion by Hesser
second by Johnston to approve. Approved 7-0-2 (H’Luz & Jonrowe absent)
I. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Patin
Construction Co. of Taylor, Texas, for pedestrian improvements, rehabilitation of the roadway
and curbs on and along 9th Street between Austin Avenue and Main Street, in the amount of
$794,947.00– Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Mark Miller,
Transportation Services Manager.
Miller explained that this project was identified as part of the 2012 pavement analysis and the
five (5) year CIP program. This will consists of rehabilitation of curbs and pavement as well as
implementation of sidewalk/parking improvements on 9 th Street between Rock Street and Main
Street as identified the Downtown Master Plan. Motion by Hesser second by Armour to approve.
Approved 7-0-2 (H’Luz & Jonrowe absent)
J. Discussion and direction to staff regarding the Government and Public Participation
Plans, Reporting Criteria and Project Schedule elements of the 2014 Sidewalk Master
Plan and Public Facility Access Audit.” - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director, Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst.
Waggoner gave a presentation to the Board. No Action Needed
Adjournment
Motion by Hesser, second by Pettitt to adjourn meeting. Approved 7-0-2 (H’Luz & Jonrowe absent)
Meeting ended at 11:27 AM
____________________________ ___________________________
Truman Hunt – Chair John Hesser – Secretary
___________________________________
Jana Kern – Board Liaison
GTAB STATEMENT
061314
Agenda Item “E”-Airport Progress Report and Time Lines
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB, city staff and ladies and
gentlemen. For the record, my name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. and I reside at 4400 Luna
Trail. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). My remarks this
morning are focused on presentations made by ACC members requesting airport
information and actions. These requests have been systematically ignored by this board.
GTAB monthly minute records speak for themselves. The silence from the board is
proof of indifference and stonewalling of our requests for actions and information.
The ACC's first public statement was before the City Council on January 14, 2014. We
requested that the current Federally funded airport CIP be held in abeyance pending
citizen approval of the program through a public hearing process. This request was
entirely within requirements of FAA Public Participation Rules.
We were ignored by Council and directed to carry our airport concerns to the GTAB.
We have consistently tried to comply with such direction and have met consistent
indifference, defiance and refusal by GTAB to all our requests and suggestions. We have
found that the call by the city for “public participation in our local government” is pure
hypocrisy when the subject is the airport
During the 4 months between the GTAB February meeting where I presented essentially
the same request made to the January 14th Council meeting and May of this year, the
ACC has made a total of 12 statements of requests by various group members. GTAB
minutes document that none of these statements resulted in any response by GTAB or
staff, but for one exception. GTAB did use a blatant lie contrived by staff about my
January statement to Council to further the city's one and only airport master plan and
continuance of the current Airport CIP.
We had hoped that incident was result of an over exuberant staff and board and would
not be repeated. Sadly, that was not the case. Even after my personal rebuke in an April
statement to GTAB, city staff used the lie again in the May 2014 issue of Community
Impact Newspaper. A sad commentary on city integrity and citizen involvement.
Among the various ACC requests for GTAB actions are:
• Request for hold on Airport CIP funding pending citizen consensus of program;
• Request for bar chart monthly presentations on status of Airport CIP;
• Request for staff briefings on 12 acre airport property condemnation project;
▪ Request for off-agenda Workshops between GTAB, staff and public on Airport
CIP;
• Request for professional engineering study for viable regional airport as
alternative to the current airport program for use in citizen consensus process;
• Request for professional consultant management contract for citizen consensus
process;
• Request for select City Council committee for oversight and management of the
two requested professional contracts: and
• Request for documentation of workshops or hearings held pursuant to Federal
regulations for FAA federal funded capital programs.
Except for the first, none of these requests have been addressed or even committed on
by GTAB.
Comments on above include:
• Request for hold on Airport CIP funding pending consensus – We will request
that City Council reinstate our original request, and, after 6 months of futility
with the city, we are proposing to take our appeals for a program consensus to a
higher authority;
• Ms. Barber's request for a “bar chart” - such a chart called a “Gantt Chart” in use
over a century. A chart example is attached to your copy of these remarks. Such a
chart can be modified by staff to identify and track various types of public
information on all 20 of the current federally funded projects in the airport
program. Monthly use would enable board members to exercise management
oversight of the program rather than being spoon fed meaningless verbal staff
updates. Silence by GTAB or staff this morning will document non-interest in
board oversight duties and further stonewalling;
• Mr. Stuart's request- 12 acre land condemnation – List of other FAA “Safety” or
“Standards Compliance” requirements in past 10 years? Why only after funding
$1.4 Million for night runway lighting is this singular FAA project mandatory?
Silence by GTAB or staff this morning will document further stonewalling; and
▪ Ms. Desselle's request for Workshops – Attached to your copy of this statement is
a copy of a list of ACC questions submitted to City Manager on February13, 2014
for workshop use. Request denied and sent to City Attorney. All questions are
legitimate public information and ORR's follow. Other question lists are
proposed on (1) city compliance with FAA Federal Grant Public Participation
Rules, (2) new $200,000 airport master plan update and (3) hidden program of
city's Airport 5 year CIP. Silence by GTAB or staff this morning will document
continued stonewalling.
In spite of the negative tone of these remarks we remain hopeful that somehow we can
engage the GTAB in meaningful dialog. We prefer to work with you in public
participation harmony rather than conflict.
Thank you.
QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF
AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING & GRANT FUNDING
The Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) have questions related to certain City Council
actions, engineering plans, and the grant funding provided by TxDOT for airport
related expenses. Below are certain questions related to these subjects deemed essential
by ACC for understanding past and current events and the future of the city's plans for
airport improvements.
I. Past Airport Relocation Consideration -
A. Commentary -
Between the years 2000 and 2004, a local rancher and businessman, James Schwertner,
offered to donate to the City of Georgetown at no cost to the citizens sufficient and
ample land for relocation of the city's municipal airport. The City Council rejected his
offer.
B Questions –
1. Specifically, who and from what constituency group led the discussions with
individual council persons and City Council as a whole opposing this offer?
2. What was the rationale of the City Council for rejection of the offer?
3. What was the date of the City Council rejection offer?
4. Why was a workshop of council members and staff not assembled for
negotiation with Mr. Schwertner to attempt arrival at a mutually satisfactory
agreement? And
5. Why was the current airport site in the center of the growing city deemed
superior to a site outside the city?
II. 2005 Master Plan Update – GRW Willis, Inc.
A. Commentary -
The purpose of the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) is to service its customers.
The GTU's customers are the Local and Itinerary groups of the general aviation
community of the local area. GTU is recognized by TxDOT as a Reliever Airport for
service to the general aviation community (excluding regular scheduled air passenger
service) in central Texas.
Local customers are long term based rental space aircraft and fixed base operators
(FBO's) providing goods and services to the aviation customers. Itinerant uses are short
term stop and go (refuel, passenger and cargo transfer) and short term space rental
(limited overnight stays) customers.
This master plan demonstrates a prior decision to engage services of a high quality
engineer to use all available planning, regulatory data, projections and engineering
skills to lay out physical site and management requirements for the airport's support
and service to its growing customer base over a 20 year time horizon.
Engineering planning documents require development of a Scope of Service (SOS)
document that details the tasks required of the engineer in sufficient detail to enable
the engineer to estimate the hours of various disciplines, equipment, tools and
incidentals necessary to complete the work. Such estimates then form the basis of
negotiation between the owner and the engineer to negotiate a fair and equitable
contract and price.
B. Questions -
(1) Specifically, who proposed the need for this study, who were the proposer's
constituents, and who convinced the City Council to employ an engineer to
complete the study?
(2) What was rationale of need for study?
(3) Specifically, what staff personnel were assigned duty for contract oversight?
(4) Who prepared the SOS?
(5) What was the date authorized by City Council to begin the work?
(6) Was the study partially funded by TxDOT? If so, to what extent?
(7) Specifically, who directed the engineer that relocation of the airport was not a
study option? (a) Where did such authority to speak for the citizen owners of
the airport arise?
(8) Who directed the engineer that runway extensions were excluded from
consideration? (a) Why?
(9) What date was the final study presented to City Council for approval?
(10) Was there a public hearing held for public review and approval of the plan
prior to its formal approval? (a) If so, in what pubic media was the public
notice published? Held on what date and time?
(b) Were opposition presentations made? How many?
(11) What date was master plan and contract completed and accepted by City
Council?
(12) What was final cost of the master plan?
(13) Specifically, what projects described in this 20 year plan have been initiated
and/or executed by the city or in conjunction with TxDOT? (a) At what cost
per each and collectively?
III. Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Case Analysis – CM2MHill Engineers,
Inc.
A. Commentary -
The comments above on the previous master plan update relating to need for and
development of an SOS document apply for this contract.
It seems apparent that someone representing some constituent group following the
approval of the 2005 Master Plan Update recognized that the airport was in financial
difficulties. It was not paying its way. It was relying increasingly on the city budget for
its financial stability. Maintenance was being deferred on an increasing basis. The city
was growing and projected to continue growing at a faster rate. Demand for airport
services for its customers was destined to increase and without meaningful
improvement to its fiscal condition the airport would be unable to support its growing
customer base. A detailed examination of the airport's fiscal condition and
recommendations for its fiscal solvency had to be accomplished by a qualified
engineering firm.
B. Questions -
1. Who made the recommendation in behalf of what constituency to obtain the
business analysis study?
(a) Through what board was the recommendation approved and forwarded to
City Council?
(b) What was the rationale by City Council for approval of the study and its
funding?
(c) Specifically, what were the financial conditions of airport operations and
needs both then current and projected across the proposed 20 year time line
of the master plan update that necessitated the study?
2. What was date of City Council approval?
3. Specifically, what staff members were charged for oversight of this contract
and study?
4. Was this study partially funded through TxDOT?
5. Who was responsible for preparation of the SOS for this study?
6. What date was CM2MHill, Inc. approved as engineer for the study and at
what contract price?
7. At time of initiation of study and now what are the numbers of aircraft based
at the airport? (a) How many of the total based aircraft are owned by non-city
taxpayers of Georgetown?
8. The business study repeatedly cites the “current 20 year capital program for
the GTU” as extracted from the 2005 Master Plan Update (62 total projects).
Why does city staff continually state that city has no 20 year plan for GTU?
9. Why was relocation of the airport at a conflict free zone outside the city
excluded from review by the engineer?
10. The engineer strongly encourages the city to proceed with its next master
plan update as the existing one is “outdated and has lost its usefulness” and
strongly encourages for financial and marketing purposes that extension of
runways be seriously investigated in such an update. Will the city include
this issue in the SOS for the master plan update?
11. No. 7 of the engineer's governing assumptions states that the GTU market
role will emphasize developing all aspects of General Aviation including high
end users (largest jet aircraft capable of using GTU). Is that included in city
current and future plans? (a) If not, what limitations are being employed?
12. The engineer includes as No.6 of the Best Practice Recommendations that the
city should develop a citizen view of what the airport should be, then brand
it and market it. Why not revise that recommendation to one of what and
where it should be, then brand it and market it? (a) What actions has the city
taken to implement this recommendation?
13. Was there a public hearing on this study prior to its approval by City
Council? (a) If so, when, at what time, was there opposition, if so, how
many?
13. What was date of City Council approval of this study and at what total final
cost?
IV. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Aviation Division
A. Commentary -
All agencies responsible for distribution of public funds have specific protocols for such
actions. TxDOT, as the state block grant administrator for the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) source of federal public funds for airport improvements, abides
by all applicable laws and regulations relative to distribution and use of such funds.
Such laws and regulations apply likewise to any and all project sponsors for use of such
funds. The City of Georgetown is such a sponsor and is so bound.
TxDOT also has specific protocols applicable for sponsor's grant applications and
execution for approved projects. TxDOT publishes an annual update of its capital
improvement program by fiscal years showing its sponsors, approved projects and
estimated costs for completion.
Questions -
1. Specifically, who in city staff is authorized to complete and submit TxDOT
grant applications for airport improvements in name of the city?
2. At what point in TxDOT's approval process does a project's grant funding
approval return for City Council endorsement and approval for city's share of
the cost?
3. At certain times GTU is subject to FAA inspections and improvement
requirements to maintain FAA operational approval. Are such requirements
automatically eligible for TxDOT grant assistance?
(a) How many FAA required projects by name and cost have been initiated
and/or completed since January 1, 2002?
4. TxDOT currently has on its funding CIP 17 GTU projects (land acquisition
with condemnation, Garver Engineering Design Contract, GTU Master Plan
Update, and 14 individual project “elements”. Why are these 17 projects not all
shown on the current 5 year GTU capital improvements plan included in the
city budget and presented on the city's website?
5. The GTAB routinely has an agenda item of “Discussion regarding Airport
Progress Report and time issues”. Why does presentation of this agenda item
not include a visual display accompanied by handouts to attendees that clearly
tracks individual airport TxDOT and other funded improvements by
description, cost and time lines for initiation and completion?
6. Of the total 62 projects described in the 20 year capital improvements
proposed in the 2005 Master Plan Update and incorporated in the business
analysis study, how many have been submitted for TxDOT grant assistance?
7. What is the time line and sequence of actions required for TxDOT individual
project grant applications?
8. Has the SOS been prepared for the GTU Master Plan Update?
(a) If so, is it available for public review?
(b) If not, what date is it projected to be completed and by whom?
9. When a project is approved by TxDOT for grant assistance to what extent does
the TxDOT staff enter the project's oversight and control for completion?
10. It is understood that the land acquisition with condemnation project for 12
acres of land for FAA operational approval for runway 11/29 and currently
estimated to cost $943,280.00 is now underway. Is this project completely in
control of TxDOT with no involvement by city staff other than coordination?
(a) If city personnel are involved in this project, who are they and extent of
their participation?
(b) What is the estimated date for completion of this project?
End this list of questions
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible recommendation to Council to alter the speed zones along Northeast Inner Loop
between FM 971 and University Avenue to remove the reduction in the speed limits of an existing, non-
compliant school zone. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown inherited Northeast Inner Loop between FM 971 and University Avenue (SH 29)
from Williamson County. Prior to the City's inheriting the roadway, Williamson County had established
speed zones and limits, inclusive of a school zone adjacent to Cooper Elementary and Forbes Middle
Schools. In 2008, pursuant to an Engineering and Traffic investigation by the City's Systems Engineering
and Transportation Services Department, the speed limits were modified between FM 971 and University
Avenue to modify the school zone speed limits, raining the maximum prima facie school zone speed limit
from 20 MPH to 25 MPH.
The establishment of a school zone is governed by State statutes and administered under the regulations of
the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (TMUTCD) and by the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones (Rev Feb 2011). Attached are excerpts
from these documents with statutory and regulatory references cited. School zones should be re-evaluated
periodically to assure continued compliance with the preceding criteria.
Staff has been requested by a citizen to re-evaluate this particular school zone for continued compliance with
the statutes and regulations governing the establishing of school zones. Staff has conducted an investigation
a copy of the Memo and is Memo of the study is attached)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends removal of the school zone along Northeast Inner Loop adjacent to Cooper Elementary
and Forbes Middle Schools. Staff requests concurrence from the Board and a recommendation to Council in
support of a modification to the City Ordinance governing speed limits within the City to remove the school
zone on Northeast Inner Loop adjacent to Cooper Elementary and Forbes Middle Schools from the Code of
Ordinances.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Memo w/ Attachments Backup Material
Memo – Northeast Inner Loop
School Zone Adjacent to Cooper Elementary and Forbes Middle Schools
June 28, 2014
Page 2 of 2
L:\Division\Gus\TRANSPORTATION SERVICES\Traffic ‐ School Zones\N E Inner Loop (FM 971 to GRR)\MEMO ‐ School Zone
NE Inner Loop (Cooper‐Forbes) 2014‐06‐28.docx
Further, as cited from a letter from Mr. David Biesheuvel, Director, Construction and Facilities,
Georgetown Independent School District (GISD), attached:
“According to the Principals of Cooper Elementary and Forbes Middle Schools, there are
no students from these schools that walk along nor cross NE Inner Loop. The only
exception is that on rare occasions over the past few years, up to four (4) middle school
students have walked along NE Inner Loop and crossed FM 971 on their way to/from the
Crystal Knoll subdivision at Stadium Drive.”
In absence of regular, expected student pedestrian traffic along this portion of Northeast Inner
Loop, thus in absence of a school route plan, warrants for a school zone in this area are nor
being met.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the results of this investigation be presented to the Georgetown
Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) for a discussion and a recommendation in support of
a modification to the City Ordinance governing speed limits within the City to remove the
school zone on Northeast Inner Loop adjacent to Cooper Elementary and Forbes Middle
Schools from the Code of Ordinances. Since the Ordinance requires a first and second
reading, this action should be presented to Council expeditiously (July 22nd/August 12th) so if
approved, Staff will have the proper time to remove applicable traffic control devices prior to
the beginning of the 2014‐2015 school year, August 25th. Further, it is recommended at this
time the speed zones on Northeast Inner Loop remain as posted, in absence of the previously
active school zone.
Attachments:
Aerial Map of School Zone
Basic Statutes Governing School Zones
Excerpts from the TMUTCD
Letter – Mr. Biesheuvel, GISD
cc: Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Cory Tchida, Assistant Chief of Police, GPD
Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager
Randell Young, Sign & Signal Technician
Bill Robinson, Sign & Signal Technician
David Biesheuvel, GISD
F
M
9
7
1
NE INNER LOOP
D R I VE W A Y
J
A
N
A
E
C
T
K
AJ
O
N C
V
P R A I R IE S P R I N G S L N/
1
i
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Ty
p
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
Basic Speed Law
Transportation Code, Chapter 545, Subchapter H, “Speed Restrictions,” contains the following
sections governing speeds in the state:
Section 545.351, Maximum Speed Requirements
Section 545.352, Prima Facie Speed Limits (see also Transportation Code, Section
623.101, Speed Limit: for Manufactured House or House Trailer Being Towed)
Section 545.353, Authority of Texas Transportation Commission to Alter Speed Limits
Section 545.3531, Authority of Texas Transportation Commission to Establish Speed
Limits on Trans‐Texas Corridor
Section 545.3535, Authority of Texas Transportation Commission to Alter Speed Limits
on Certain Roads
Section 545.354, Authority of Regional Tollway Authorities to Alter Speed Limits on
Turnpike Projects
Section 545.355, Authority of County Commissioners Court to Alter Speed Limits (see
also Transportation Code, Section 251.154, Maximum Reasonable and Prudent Speeds
on County Roads)
Section 545.356, Authority of Municipality to Alter Speed Limits
Section 545.357, Public Hearing to Consider Speed Limits where Certain Schools Are
Located
Section 545.358, Authority of Commanding Officer of United States Military
Reservation to Alter Speed Limits
Section 545.359, Conflicting Designated Speed Limits
Section 545.360, Duty of Texas Transportation Commission and State Board of
Education to Provide Information and Assistance
Section 545.361, Special Speed Limitations
Section 545.362, Temporary Speed Limits
Section 545.3625, Confidentiality of Violation Information: Fuel Conservation Speed
Limit
Section 545.363, Minimum Speed Regulations
Section 545.364, (repealed by L. 1999, Chap. 1346(3), eff 9/1/99)
Section 545.365, Speed Limit Exception for Emergencies; Municipal Regulation.
Section 545.351, Maximum Speed Requirements
a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
circumstances then existing.
b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another
person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the
duty of each person to use due care.
c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced
speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or
highway conditions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165,
Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Sec. 545.352. Prima Facie Speed Limits.
a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of
this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and
that the speed is unlawful.
b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section
545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per
hour in an alley;
(2) except as provided by Subdivision (4), 70 miles per hour on a highway numbered by
this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm‐to‐market or
ranch‐to‐market road;
(3) except as provided by Subdivision (4), 60 miles per hour on a highway that is outside
an urban district and not a highway numbered by this state or the United States;
(4) outside an urban district:
(A) 60 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that has passed a commercial
motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201 and is on a highway numbered
by the United States or this state, including a farm‐to‐market road; or
(B) 50 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that:
(i) has not passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section
548.201; or
(ii) is traveling on a highway not numbered by the United States or this state;
(5) on a beach, 15 miles per hour; or
(6) on a county road adjacent to a public beach, 15 miles per hour, if declared by the
commissioners court of the county.
c) The speed limits for a bus or other vehicle engaged in the business of transporting
passengers for compensation or hire, for a commercial vehicle used as a highway post office
vehicle for highway post office service in the transportation of United States mail, for a light
truck, and for a school activity bus are the same as required for a passenger car at the same
time and location.
d) In this section:
(1) ʺInterstate highwayʺ means a segment of the national system of interstate and defense
highways that is:
(A) located in this state;
(B) officially designated by the Texas Transportation Commission; and
(C) approved under Title 23, United States Code.
(2) ʺLight truckʺ means a truck with a manufacturerʹs rated carrying capacity of not more
than 2,000 pounds, including a pick‐up truck, panel delivery truck, and carry‐all truck.
(3) ʺUrban districtʺ means the territory adjacent to and including a highway, if the
territory is improved with structures that are used for business, industry, or dwelling
houses and are located at intervals of less than 100 feet for a distance of at least one‐
quarter mile on either side of the highway.
e) An entity that establishes or alters a speed limit under this subchapter shall establish the
same speed limit for daytime and nighttime.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165,
Sec. 30.110(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1020, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999,
76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1346, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 265 (H.B. 1353), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 265 (H.B. 1353), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2011.
Sec. 545.356. Authority Of Municipality To Alter Speed Limits.
a) The governing body of a municipality, for a highway or part of a highway in the
municipality, including a highway of the state highway system, has the same authority to
alter by ordinance prima facie speed limits from the results of an engineering and traffic
investigation as the Texas Transportation Commission on an officially designated or marked
highway of the state highway system. The governing body of a municipality may not
modify the rule established by Section 545.351(a) or establish a speed limit of more than 75
miles per hour.
b) The governing body of a municipality, for a highway or part of a highway in the
municipality, including a highway of the state highway system, has the same authority to
alter prima facie speed limits from the results of an engineering and traffic investigation as
the commission for an officially designated or marked highway of the state highway system,
when the highway or part of the highway is under repair, construction, or maintenance. A
municipality may not modify the rule established by Section 545.351(a) or establish a speed
limit of more than 75 miles per hour.
b‐1) Except as provided by Subsection (b‐3), the governing body of a municipality, for a highway
or a part of a highway in the municipality that is not an officially designated or marked
highway or road of the state highway system, may declare a lower speed limit of not less
than 25 miles per hour, if the governing body determines that the prima facie speed limit on
the highway is unreasonable or unsafe.
b‐2) Subsection (b‐1) applies only to a two‐lane, undivided highway or part of a highway.
b‐3) The governing body of a municipality with a population of 2,000 or less, for a highway or a
part of a highway in the municipality that is a one‐lane highway used for two‐way access
and that is not an officially designated or marked highway or road of the state highway
system, may declare a lower speed limit of not less than 10 miles per hour, if the governing
body determines that the prima facie speed limit on the highway is unreasonable or unsafe.
c) A prima facie speed limit that is altered by the governing body of a municipality under
Subsection (b), (b‐1), or (b‐3) is effective when the governing body erects signs giving notice
of the new limit and at all times or at other times as determined.
d) The governing body of a municipality that declares a lower speed limit on a highway or part
of a highway under Subsection (b‐1) or (b‐3), not later than February 1 of each year, shall
publish on its Internet website and submit to the department a report that compares for each
of the two previous calendar years:
(1) the number of traffic citations issued by peace officers of the municipality and the
alleged speed of the vehicles, for speed limit violations on the highway or part of the
highway;
(2) the number of warning citations issued by peace officers of the municipality on the
highway or part of the highway; and
(3) the number of vehicular accidents that resulted in injury or death and were
attributable to speed limit violations on the highway or part of the highway.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 166 (H.B. 87), Sec. 1, eff. May 27, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1144 (H.B. 2682), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2009.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 265 (H.B. 1353), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1016 (H.B. 2596), Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2011.
Sec. 545.357. Public Hearing to Consider Speed Limits Where Certain Schools Are Located.
a) The governing body of a municipality in which a public or private elementary or secondary
school or an institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003(8) or (15),
Education Code, is located shall on request hold a public hearing at least once each calendar
year to consider prima facie speed limits on a highway in the municipality, including a
highway of the state highway system, near the school or institution of higher education.
b) If a county road outside the state highway system is located within 500 feet of a public or
private elementary or secondary school or an institution of higher education that is not in a
municipality, the commissioners court of the county on request shall hold a public hearing
at least once each calendar year to consider the prima facie speed limit on the road near the
school or institution of higher education.
c) A municipal governing body or commissioners court on request may hold one public
hearing for all public and private elementary and secondary schools and institutions of
higher education in its jurisdiction.
d) The Texas Transportation Commission, on request, shall hold a public hearing at least once
each calendar year to consider prima facie speed limits on highways in the state highway
system that are near public or private elementary or secondary schools or institutions of
higher education.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 350,
Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
From the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 7, Traffic Control for
School Areas:
CHAPTER 7A. GENERAL
Section 7A.01 Need for Standards
Support:
Regardless of the school location, the best way to achieve effective traffic control is
through the uniform application of realistic policies, practices and standards developed through
engineering judgment or studies.
Pedestrian safety depends upon public understanding of accepted methods for efficient
traffic control. This principle is especially important in the control of pedestrians, bicycles and
other vehicles in the vicinity of schools. Neither pedestrians on their way to or from school nor
other road users can be expected to move safely in school areas unless they understand both the
need for traffic controls and how these controls function for their benefit.
Procedures and devices that are not uniform might cause confusion among pedestrians and
other road users, prompt wrong decisions and contribute to crashes. To achieve uniformity of
traffic control in school areas, comparable traffic situations need to be treated in a consistent
manner. Each traffic control device and control method described in Part 7 fulfills a specific
function related to specific traffic conditions.
A uniform approach to school area traffic controls assures the use of similar controls for
similar situations, which promotes appropriate and uniform behavior on the part of motorists,
pedestrians and bicyclists.
A school traffic control plan permits the orderly review of school area traffic control needs
and the coordination of school/pedestrian safety education and engineering measures.
Engineering measures alone do not always result in the intended change in student and road
user behavior.
Guidance:
A school route plan for each school serving elementary to high school students should be
prepared in order to develop uniformity in the use of school area traffic controls and to serve
as the basis for a school traffic control plan for each school.
The school route plan, developed in a systematic manner by the school, law enforcement
and traffic officials responsible for school pedestrian safety, should consist of a map showing
streets, the school, existing traffic controls, established school walk routes and established
school crossings.
The type(s) of school area traffic control devices used, either warning or regulatory, should
be related to the volume and speed of vehicular traffic, street width and the number and age of
the students using the crossing.
School area traffic control devices should be included in a school traffic control plan.
Support:
Reduced speed limit signs for school areas and crossings are included in this Manual solely
for the purpose of standardizing signing for these zones and not as an endorsement of
mandatory reduced speed zones.
“School” and “school zone” are defined in Section 1A.13.
Section 7A.02 School Routes and Established School Crossings
Support:
To establish a safer route to and from school for school children, the application of
planning criterion for school walk routes might make it necessary for children to walk an
indirect route to an established school crossing located where there is existing traffic control
and to avoid the use of a direct crossing where there is no existing traffic control.
Guidance:
School walk routes should be planned to take advantage of existing traffic controls.
The following factors should be considered when determining the feasibility of requiring
children to walk a longer distance to a crossing with existing traffic control:
A. The availability of adequate sidewalks or other pedestrian walkways to and from the
location with existing control,
B. The number of students using the crossing,
C. The age levels of the students using the crossing and
D. The total extra walking distance.
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Executive Session:
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551. Government Code, Vernon's Texas
Codes, Annotated, The items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subjected to
action in regular session.
Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney
Airport Legal Issues – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Bridget Chapman (jk)
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Action from Executive Session
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern