The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes_GTEC_02.04.2003Minutes of the Meeting of Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 4, 2003 The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday, February 4, 2003. Board Members Present: Ken Evans, Bill Masterson, Doug Smith, Mary Louise Poquette Board Members Absent: Sam Pfiester, Paulette Taylor, Jack Noble Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Paul Brandenburg, Micki Rundell, Joe Lara, Laura Wilkins, Mark Miller, Mike Stasny, Mike Mayben, John Aldridge , Joel Weaver, Terri Calhoun, Ed Polasek Others Present: Lance Lively and Karen Johnson– Infrastructure Solutions, Inc., Sonny Kretzschmar – HDR Engineering, David Daniell – Williamson County Appraisal District, Gabe Sansing – Council Member, Steve Crohn - resident Minutes Regular Meeting REGULAR SESSION: A.Consideration and possible action to approve available services and/or assistance, related to Georgetown projects, provided by the firm Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (ISI) - Jim Briggs - presentation by Mr. Lance Lively of ISI DISCUSSION: Briggs introduced the item and Mr. Lance Lively, and Ms. Karen Johnson of the firm Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Mr. Lively and Ms. Johnson introduced themselves and gave information on their company and their personal backgrounds. Their firm works very closely with the federal government and TxDOT. They have very good working relationships/contacts in Washington, D.C. Ms. Johnson says that State funds are very limited (can only meet approximately 43% of current needs). Suggests not only working through the process at TxDOT – but seeking another funding source through the Federal Government. Question from Evans if the firm does State and Federal lobbying – answered Lively does State – Johnson does both State and Federal. State has not wanted to provide access roads in most areas because they feel it encourages growth along the Interstate. In Georgetown’s case – the growth is already established therefore, the frontage road would just enable the traffic to move more effectively. Poquette asked if they had ever worked on a project without strong opposition – answered no they have not – virtually all projects have at least some opposition. Poquette also asked if they have ever worked on demonstration projects – answered they have but most projects are approved based on safety (#1 component). Question from Evans How do they get paid - letter of agreement - 12 month contracts – performance goals identify stages of success (funding) – tell the lobbyist exactly what you expect. Masterson would like to discuss at another time – is not in favor of frontage roads (they “suck the economic life out of small communities”) – would like to see completion of the Inner Loop and leave the Interstate alone. Briggs stated that one of the major projects would be the bridge over the Interstate that is to be a part of the Inner Loop ($18 million). Poquette asked if the costs presented were all inclusive costs (r.o.w. acquisition, etc.). Answered by Briggs – yes includes r.o.w., engineering, materials, archaeological, etc. Evans asked if it was staff’s intent to fund the contract with ISI (if approved) from GTEC funds only? Answered by Briggs – yes as these projects would be 4-B projects only. Brandenburg stated it is very important to get on the federal government’s “radar screen” and going with this type of firm is one way to accomplish this. So far response from State and Local governments has been favorable – he (Brandenburg) has a meeting with John Carter next week – met with Senator Ogden recently. ACTION: NONE B.Recognition of out-going Board Member, Ms. Paulette Taylor - Sam Pfiester Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pfiester were not present for this item. C.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Monday, January 13, 2003 meeting. - Paul Brandenburg DISCUSSION: Masterson asked if we are on cash or accrual basis – answered by Rundell we are on accrual basis. Ms. Poqette requested that Ms. Rundell's response be entered into the minutes. ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Masterson to approve minutes as amended. Approved 4-0 (Pfiester, Noble and Taylor absent) The board moved to Item G at this time. D.Presentation of the January 31, 2003 Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) monthly financial report. - Micki Rundell DISCUSSION: Rundell presented the January Financial Report. New balance sheet attached. Question from Masterson regarding fixed assets. Answered by Rundell that the fixed assets actually belong to the City so they do not appear on the balance sheet. Masterson would like to see the amount of money spent, dollars of debt, and what the fixed assets are. Evans explained that the Corporation does not actually own any assets (the City owns them) – the Corporation only has the ability to collect the dollars. Masterson would like to have a report that actually shows what we have, what we owe and what has occurred that citizens can understand. Rundell stated that she will provide a report that explains this – however, we must be careful what we hand out from a legal standpoint. Evans asked if Rundell would bring to the next meeting a report that she believes will provide what Mr. Masterson has requested – then at that time, we will discuss if this will answer the questions or if we can adjust. Masterson asked who are the auditors for 4-B – answered by Rundell -Davis-Kinard from Abilene, Texas. ACTION: NONE Board moved to Item F at this time E.Discussion and possible action regarding an amendment to the 2002/2003 GTEC Budget. - Micki Rundell DISCUSSION: Rundell explained the budget amendment. Currently, 4% higher than we had originally anticipated. ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Poquette for approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $30,725 2002 Bond issue and comprehensive ?? Approved 4-0 (Pfiester, Noble, and Taylor absent) F.Discussion and possible action to consider staff support options with regards to engineering and legal services for calendar year 2003. - Jim Briggs DISCUSSION: Question from Evans as to why no governmental officials are on the CTRMA board – Answered by Briggs that no governmental officials are allowed to be on the board – Governor appointed board of citizens at large, developers, attorneys, etc. Board comprised out of a very diverse group of people. Sonny Kretzschmar stated that the Board has no eminent domain authority or way to obtain funding at this time. Williamson County has a majority on the current board. Briggs explained the need for additional resources related to engineering and legal services for transportation projects. Locke, Liddell, and Sapp – and HDR Engineering are possible resources. We currently have relationships with these two firms – both of which have expertise in other areas we need assistance with. Question from Evans about what other funding opportunities we could take advantage of – answered by Briggs that we may receive info from these firms as things develop that could allow us to obtain funding in a timely manner (often times funding availability/application deadlines are unknown to us until after the fact.) No dollar commitment up front – unless the services are needed – would be written as “not to exceed” agreement on an as needed basis. This allows us to “keep our feelers out” for deals. ACTION: Motion by Smith, second by Poquette to authorize staff to proceed to draft proposal from HDR and Locke, Liddell and Sapp for board consideration and bring to the next board meeting. Approved 4-0 (Pfiester, Noble and Taylor absent) Board moved back to Item E at this time G.Presentation of Transportation Planning - Mary Louise Poquette DISCUSSION: NONE ACTION: None Board moved back to Item D at this time. H.Project updates: *Inner Loop - Higginbotham swap *Southern Bypass project *Safe Routes to School *Sidewalks DISCUSSION: Briggs mentioned 3rd lane of the IH-35 Frontage Road. State is requiring additional work due to the fact that this is an old County Road that has been converted to a frontage road and was not originally built to State Standards – it will now have to comply. Developer wants to move traffic through on a detour route. Two options: 1.Route on temporary frontage road - This option will be less safe and will create grid-lock. (Briggs stated the only way he would recommend this option is if the retail businesses do not open until the frontage road is completed.) 2.Sever access road and run traffic through the Rivery development and back out to IH-35. This option is the most cost effective and safest. ACTION:NONE Motion by Smith, second by Poquette to adjourn the meeting Approved 3-1 (Pfiester, Noble, and Taylor absent – Masterson opposed) Meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Approved :Attest: _______________________________________________ Board Member Name Sandra Lee