HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTEC_03.18.2002Minutes of the Meeting of
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, March 18, 2002
The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Monday, March 18, 2002.
Board Members Present:
Bill Masterson, Mary Louise Poquette, Doug Smith, Sam Pfiester, Jack Noble, Paulette Taylor
Board Members Absent:
Ken Evans
Staff Present:
Jim Briggs, Tom Yantis, Micki Rundell, Terri Calhoun, Ed Polasek, Amelia Sondgeroth, Laura Wilkins,
Joel Weaver, Mike Stasny, Mark Miller
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Meeting called to order at 4:17 p.m. by Sam Pfiester
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular Board Meeting held A.
Monday, February 18, 2002. Tom Yantis
DISCUSSION: Noble was not present at the meeting – did not second motion on item C.
Masterson requested that minutes be revised to reflect that Mr. Noble was not present and that
appropriate person who seconded be adjusted.
ACTION: Motion By Pfiester second by Smith to approve with changes. - Approved 6-0
Discussion with Mr. Tom Word, from the City of Round Rock, regarding Transportation and 4B B.
Board issues pertaining to Round Rock. Jim Briggs and Mark Miller
DISCUSSION: Briggs introduced Mr. Word.
Mr. Word explained how the City of Round Rock came from being behind on development of
transportation projects to where they are now. One key point – “seed money” to “get people to the
table”. Growth made it necessary to develop a plan. Explained that most plans are done based
on growth/development projections (20 year plans). Round Rock’s plan has been developed,
based on total build-out of Round Rock (70 to 80 years) – is called the “Ultimate Transportation
Plan”. As developers come to the table – they get the right-of-way to be able to develop that part
of “the plan”. Preserve right-of-ways and incrementally build the pieces of the plan. Round Rock
does not depend solely on their 4B Board for funding of roads. Their 4B only builds arteriole
roadways. Discussed where Round Rock’s funding comes from (debt, private development, cash,
and State partnerships), and explained specifics of several projects. Questions and answers on
the Round Rock CIP.
Sondgeroth had copies of Round Rock’s transportation educational pamphlet. This was available
at City Hall, City offices, and Library, etc. also put in newspapers one Sunday.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Discussion with a representative from TxDOT and update of current projects and scheduling of C.
future projects, and a brief explanation of project list. Jim Briggs and Mark Miller
DISCUSSION: John Wagoner and Gerald Pohlmeyer, from TxDOT. Explained the SIB loan
process. Gave some specifics on one of Leander’s projects (2243). Pohlmeyer explained how a
city’s interest can assist in pushing projects forward in the process (proactive). It was noted that
partnering has been good for TxDOT as well as area cities. Questions asked about possibility of
additional bridges and frontage roads.
Yantis suggested quarterly meetings with TxDOT and area organizations (Round Rock,
Georgetown, etc.). Wagoner agreed that would be positive. We are to begin scheduling these
meetings.
Questions from citizens Jim Brown and Iva Wolf-MacLachlan regarding how TxDOT prioritizes
and how to get things on the list; access roads between SH 29 and Leander Road.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Future Thoroughfare Plan completed as part of the Future Land Use Plan Process. Amelia D.
Sondgeroth and Ed Polasek
DISCUSSION: Introductions as some staff members and board members had not been
introduced.
Pfiester explained where the board is in regards to beginning of the board and business
conducted to date.
Ed Polasek, from Development Services Division, explained the future thoroughfare
plans/potential projects (list). Amelia Sondgeroth explained the basis for the plan, the
data/information and the methods used to gather and prepare a long-range plan.
Questions/comments from Taylor and Smith. Answered by Polasek.
Sondgeroth explained that the thoroughfare plan is to be on the Council agenda April 9th.
Yantis made comments from John Robertson (TIPS), Rundell about Land Use Policy and funding
– “who pays? and when?”.
Poquette asked if timing had been established on the thoroughfare plan. Polasek explained that
timing is the next phase of the project.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Staff responses to outstanding issuesE.
Possible discussion on legislation creating the 4B Corporation and related issues. – Micki 1.
Rundell
DISCUSSION:General discussion regarding
legislation/corporation issues noted in the information provided. Rundell answered and
will confirm the assumptions made are correct.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Discussion and possible action regarding funding and assessment issues related to 2.
GTEC, including the TIP Impact Analysis regarding the Rivery Development. – Micki
Rundell
DISCUSSION: Rundell gave general overview of issues and SIB money. Questions from
Masterson regarding the debt funding – wants the board to be conservative in the amount
of debt. Rundell explained the steps in assessment of property and cost recovery
methods, limitations on PID’s, use of development agreements. Discussed tracking sales
taxes obtained from Rivery.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Discussion and possible action reviewing maps and timelines of GTEC’s Transportation 3.
Improvements.– Jim Briggs and Mark Miller
DISCUSSION: Briggs presented timelines in this year’s TIP including maps for projects.
Pfiester asked for updated Microsoft Project timeline for each meeting in the future.
Briggs agreed to provide.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Discussion and presentation of a fourth scenario of the Rivery Development Traffic 4.
Analysis Technical Report with a no-build of Rivery Bridge, Williams U-Turn or Highway
29 Connect.– Jim Briggs and Mark Miller
DISCUSSION: Miller presented the 4th scenario with no additional road improvements
and what would happen if they are not constructed. Pfiester asked for another scenario if
we do build the bridge and nothing else. Masterson expressed concerns about traffic if
other portions are not built.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Discussion on the proposed schedule of the Rivery Bridge construction. – Jim Briggs and 5.
Mark Miller
DISCUSSION: Update from Briggs.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Discussion and possible action related to planning process for improvements and defining criteria F.
for prioritization of projects. Jim Briggs and Mark Miller
DISCUSSION: Update from Briggs.
ACTION: NO ACTION
Set date for next board meeting.G.
The next meeting will be held Thursday, April 18, 2002 at Development Services – 4:15 p.m..
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Packets to be available at the library each time.
Motion by Pfiester to adjourn meeting – second by Masterson. Meeting Adjourned at 7:13 p.m., by
Sam Pfiester
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name