Print

Exit

Regular Meeting
Mr. Gabe Sansing called the regular meeting to order on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 2:02 p.m.


Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the President, a Board Member, the City Manager in his capacity as General Manager of the GTEC Corporation , the Assistant City Manager, 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.

1. Consideration and possible approval of the minutes from the regular meeting held May 14, 2007. -- Paul E. Brandenburg
   
   Discussion: None
   
   Action: Motion by Salazar, second by Armour to approve the minutes as written.
   
   Approved 5-0 (Henry Boecker & Ben Oliver absent)
   
2. Discussion and possible action regarding the Project Progress Report and time lines (including but not limited to items listed). -- Joel Weaver, Tom Benz
   
   Discussion: Weaver reviewed the Project Progress reports:
   
   S. Bound IH35 Frontage Road: On ramp to IH35 is scheduled to open by end of July 2007, but will most likely it will be mid August 2007. Off ramp from IH35 to frontage road is scheduled to open by mid/end of September 2007.
   
   Park Central Blvd: Project is complete.
   
   Lakeway Drive Overpass: TxDot is in ROW acquisition at the division level. This project has been cleared environmentally. Plan review is underway.
   
   Southeast Arterial 1: Waiting on a Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County.
   
   Southwest Bypass: Staff has been directed to engage the services of TxDOT to conduct the environmental study for the entire Bypass route - East SH29 to West SH29. Staff was also directed to engage the services of the CTRMA to conduct a mobility and feasibility study for the Southwest Bypass.
   
   Action: None
   
3. Presentation of Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation monthly financial report for June 2007. -- Micki Rundell
   
   Discussion: Rundell presented the monthly financial report.
   
   Action: None
   
4. Consideration and possible action to determine project eligibility for GTEC funding for infrastructure related to the Georgetown Housing Authority's Sierra Ridge Project-- Tom Yantis
   
   Discussion: Yantis presented this item. The Georgetown Housing Authority (GHA) is in the process of developing Sierra Ridge, a proposed mixed-use community, north of Northwest Blvd and west of IH35 frontage road. When the development is complete, it will comprise of about 180 residential units. These units will be affordable to a variety of incomes. The plan also calls for some commercial and office space. GHA is aware of the Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Master Plan that will redevelop about 80 acres in the Williams Drive, IH35, and Northwest Blvd area. The Sierra Ridge project is not within the 80-acre redevelopment plan area, but it is contiguous on the north end at Northwest Blvd.
   
   GHA has been working with the City to ensure that the design of this property compliments the Williams Dr. Gateway Master Plan and that the City's design standards for the Gateway area are met concerning the public roadways and infrastructure improvements.
   
   GHA is requesting assistance from GTEC to help construct/extend Washam Dr. and Janis Dr. and assist with the cost of drainage improvements on Northwest Blvd. This request for funding would be for part of the road improvements, the public utilities that would be within the road right of way of this project, the extension of Washam Drive to the Wolf Property, and the extension of Janis Dr. to the frontage of IH35.
   
   Snell clarifed that the GHA is asking the GTEC Board to make a finding today and that the GHA will come back at a later date with a full proposal. Yantis stated that is correct. If this project is found to be eligible, then GHA will present to GTEC a performance agreement.
   
   Action #1: Motion by Snell, second Sansing, that the proposed roads in conjunction with the Sierra Ridge Project, is an authorized project based on the fact that question one - types of expenditures the answer is "Yes", question 2 all of the answers are "Yes", and question 3c - expenditures for "streets, roads, drainage and other related transportation system improvements, including the payment of maintenance and operating expenses" for infrastructure necessary to promote or develop new or expanded business enterprises is "Yes". With that said, this project is an eligible project, for GTEC consideration.
   
   Discussion: Sattler asked if Washam Dr. stops at the end of the Sierra Ridge property who will build the roads to the housing facility. Yantis explained that Washam Dr. would be completed up to the property line. Janis Dr. will be build through the middle of the property. These two roads will be the primary streets through the project. Then there will be private drives that will run off those streets that would serve the housing facility. Sattler asked, whether or not, GTEC approves the funding for this project, Washam Dr. and Janis Dr. will be extended. Yantis explained that if the funding were not approved, GHA would not have the financing to do this project.
   
   Action #1 Approved 5-0 (Boecker & Oliver)
   
   Action #2: Motion by Snell, second by Salazar, that GTEC finds Sierra Ridge an eligible project as an affordable housing project. Question 3f states “expenditures for "streets, roads, drainage and other related transportation system improvements, including the payment of maintenance and operating expenses" that require or suitable for promotion of development and expansion of affordable housing as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section 12745.
   
   Action #2 Approved 4-1(Sansing, Salazar, Snell, Armour for, Sattler against) (Boecker & Oliver absent)
   
   Action #3: Motion by Snell, seconded by Sansing, for staff to return with an indication of the amount of Commercial Space, creation of jobs, generation of sales tax and to reaffirm the size of the residential section. Also want to see the road network – how it will connect to the North and South of this project.
   
   Action #3 Approved 5-0 (Boecker & Oliver absent)
   
5. Discussion and possible action to adopt the 2007/08 proposed GTEC Budget. Micki Rundell
   
   Discussion: Rundell explained that at the May 14, 2007 GTEC meeting, this Board decided how it would spend their money. GTEC decided that there would be no new projects identified in the 07/08 budget. What you do have is the adoption of the 5-year proposal. Even though GTEC did not allocate any new projects, we will have some roll forward projects. These projects that we don't feel we will be able to spend the money before the end of the fiscal year; so we are asking for that reallocation of funds for the next year. The 2007/08 budget also includes the costs for Administrative Services.
   
   Action: Motion by Armour, seconded by Salazar to adopt the 2007/08 proposed GTEC Budget.
   
   Approved 5-0 (Boecker & Oliver absent)
   
   Motion by Salazar, seconded by Sansing to adjourn meeting.
   
   Approved 5-0 (Boecker & Oliver absent)