Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTEC_06.18.2003Minutes of the Meeting of Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, June 18, 2003 The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday , June 18, 2003. Board Members Present: Henry Carr, Doug Smith, Jack Noble, Mary Louise Poquette Board Members Absent: Ken Evans, Gabe Sansing, Bill Masterson Staff Present: Paul Brandenburg, Laurie Brewer, Ed Polasek, Amelia Sondgeroth, Laura Wilkins, Joel Weaver, Mark Miller, Terri Calhoun, Mike Stasny, Others Present: Don Bizzell – Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Sonny Kretzschmar – HDR Engineering, Gary Gemar – HDR Engineering, Tom Williams – Wilbur-Smith Associates, Iva Wolf-McLachlan – Property Owner Wolf Ranch Minutes Regular Meeting Meeting called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Jack Noble REGULAR SESSION: A.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the meetings held May 22, 2003 and June 10, 2003. Paul Brandenburg DISCUSSION: Question Item A – Nomination of Carr for VP - minutes say Smith abstained but should read "Carr abstained". For Secretary it states Masterson elected - Poquette was elected. ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Carr to approve the minutes from May 22 as amended. Approved 4-0 (Masterson, Evans, and Sansing absent) MINUTES FOR June 10 to be put on the next agenda, B.Consideration and possible action related to procedure for placing items on the GTEC Agenda. Jack Noble DISCUSSION: Noble presented the item ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Carr, that items to be placed on the agenda be presented 7 calendar days prior to the meeting date. Approved 4-0 (Evans, Sansing and Masterson absent) C.Presentation of Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation monthly financial report for the month of May, 2003 - Micki Rundell DISCUSSION: Item presented by Laurie Brewer. Question from Smith about how much was spent this year. Looks like we spent more than collected. Answered by Brewer yes we spent more as bonds were issued. ACTION: NONE D.Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution expressing official intent to reimburse costs of certain infrastructure projects not to exceed $1,400,000 with proceeds from bonds that will be issued at a later time. - Micki Rundell DISCUSSION: Item presented by Laurie Brewer ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Poquette to approve the Resolution in the amount of $1,400,000. Approved 4-0. (Masterson, Evans, and Sansing absent) E.Consideration and possible action to approve a Transportation Improvement Plan from Wilbur-Smith Associates. - Ed Polasek DISCUSSION: Polasek explained the item and intro into the projects. Tom Williams (Wilbur-Smith & Associates) presented the TIP by project. Question from Poquette if alignment of CR 110 will occur at State Highway 29? Answered by Polasek that this is not planned - as the plan is to direct traffic around Georgetown rather than bring them into Highway 29 in front of the University. Question from Carr about the projects if they are listed by priority. Answered by Polasek that the priority ranking by number is staff recommended priority ranking based on their interpretation of the model. Does the TIP attempt to match up what we need to do with what we can afford to do? Answered by Polasek that we did try to match up the priorities with the funding. Carr asked - How close to our capacity to pay for things does the TIP follow? Answered by Brewer that it is more than we can afford – but we will use the GTEC money along with a bond proposal and other sources. Carr wants to know - per million dollars of taxes collected how much bond money will that buy? Carr would like to better understand this issue. Polasek said that as we get into the process further – we will have a finalized list of projects to be better able to deliberate. Sondgeroth stated - seeing the level of service on the maps and where the needs are – a few projects will “jump out” as critical. Carr would like to see the various sources (TxDOT, Federal etc.) to see the big picture of what we are really funding. Polasek stated that this plan is a draft at this time and we should have a better picture as this document gets refined. Poquette noted that the roadway referred to by GTEC as the "29 connector," that road which would connect Rivery Blvd. south to SH 29, does not appear on the map which designates new roads to be built based on a declining Level of Service. We need to make sure that that road appears on the 3-year TIP as it will be an essential piece of managing traffic around the Rivery/Wolf Ranch projects. Sondgeroth answered that we are modeling for 2010 traffic – but we need to look at this particular piece. Poquette feels it should be in the plan – staff will look at this and possibly have some workshops for the Board to get a better look at the plan, (maybe with stakeholders also) and get more ideas and revise. The model is a series of linear programs – but does not yet have future conditions calculated in. Board to hold workshop with stakeholders. At next meeting should have full list of projects. ACTION: NONE F.Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and HDR Engineering, Inc., to provide professional engineering services related to the State Highway 29 Southwest Bypass project -- Mark Miller and Jim Briggs DISCUSSION: Mark Miller presented the item. Basic services contract with HDR for the SH 29 Southwest Bypass. Item to be included: selection of route, environmental clearances, final design, appraisal and negotiation of right-of-way. Carr asked if this includes how the intersection will flow? Answered by Kretzschmar that yes it will include how the intersection will be designed. This will give us what we need to submit to the federal government and State to obtain funding also. Poquette asked what “value engineering is” ? Answered by Kretzschmar that this is complete review by a third party. Page 14 #11 ROW mapping of parcel plats - work not included at this time. What does this mean? Answered by Kretzschmar - Means actual preparation of the drawing not included per parcel. Don Bizzell addressed the board. His firm worked for the County on this project. Has designs in his office ready and approved to build this project. Problem is with ROW with Weir Property – too expensive to purchase. There are also karst and endangered species issues. One small route through that area possible. Route that is defined is 1500 feet from the River Ridge Subdivision – negative comments have been received from residents of the subdivision. City would need an Inter-Local agreement with the County – Board asked Brandenburg to work on the Inter-Local Agreement. ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Carr, to approve the contract with HDR. Approved 4-0 (Evans, Sansing, and Masterson absent) G.Discussion and possible action regarding the construction progress report: (including but not limited to items listed). DISCUSSION: Weaver gave update on projects in progress. ACTION: NONE MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion by Poquette, second by Carr, to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Adjournment Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Approved :Attest: _______________________________________________ Board Member Name Secretary