Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_11.08.2013Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown November 8, 2013 at 10:00 AM at GMC, 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown, TX 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 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 B Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on October 11, 2013. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison C Discussion and direction to staff concerning DB Wood Road as a candidate project for a potential City of Georgetown future Road Bond Election. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. D Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Progress Report. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. E Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council regarding an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Round Rock concerning FM 1460 improvements and Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive analysis – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer. F Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council regarding an Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in an amount of $400,000 – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director. 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 __________________, 2013, 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: 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: Airfest 2013 Tower Update Project No. 1314GRGTN FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Curtis Benkendorfer (JK) ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Reports Backup Material City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on October 11, 2013. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison ITEM SUMMARY: Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on October 11, 2013. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type October Board Minutes Backup Material Minutes of the Meeting of Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Friday, October 11, 2013 The Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Friday, October 11, 2013 presiding. Board Members Present: William Maples - Chair, Rachael Jonrowe - Vice-Chair, Truman Hunt - Secretary, John Hesser, Scott Rankin, Ray Armour, Chris H'Luz Board Members Absent: David Johnson, John Pettitt Staff Present: Ed Polasek, Wes Wright, Jana Kern, Bill Dryden, Curtis Benkendorfer, La'Mar Kemp, Bridget Chapman Minutes Regular Meeting Mr. Maples called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday, October 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM. 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. I. STAFF BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: (This is a short informational time regarding items where specific actions are not requested or needed) A. Introduction of Visitors B. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates Austin Chamber State Transportation Luncheon – Kurt Watson was the keynote speaker. He discusses the 935 program and how the funding for those projects are reliant on the Rainy Day Fund Voter Bond that will be held in November 2013 and the IH 35 improvement programs, at best, will maintain the current level of service along IH 35 not necessary improve it. C. Project Progress Reports D. Airport Updates II. LEGISLATIVE REGULAR AGENDA: (This is for specific action items considered by the Board – greater than $50,000 in value) E. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on September 13 2013 – Jana Kern Motion by Jonrowe, seconded by Hesser to approve minutes. Approved 7-0-2 (Johnson & Pettitt absent) F. Consideration and possible recommendation for the annual purchase of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) hot mix and cold mix asphalt from APAC-Texas, Inc. under an existing State contract on an as needed basis in the estimated amount of $209,000.00. - Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager & Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Dryden explained that the City is currently purchasing RAP under an existing State Contract and would like to continue using the State Contract on an as needed basis for an estimated amount of $209,000.00. Motion by Jonrowe, seconded by Hunt to approve purchase of RAP under the State Contract. Approved 7-0-2 (Johnson & Pettitt absent) 10:24 Chris H'Luz left meeting G. Consideration and possible recommendation to City Council to approve Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) Amendment #1 with the Texas Department of Transportation for FM 1460 from Quail Valley Drive to North of University Boulevard to provide funding for the construction of remaining two segments of the F.M. 1460 (CSJ 2211-02-017 & 221-02-026) - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director & Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities. Polasek stated that in November 2012 the AFA with TxDOT was finalized to document the City funding of the design of the remaining two segments of FM 1460 and provide funding for the construction of the northern segment from Quail Valley Dr. to north of Westinghouse Rd. The amendment #1 will add funding for the construction of the south segment from north of Westing- house Rd to north of University Blvd. This will be through a combination of Federal STP-MM dollars and local funding. The only new cost added to the project total is the $12,137,833 construction estimate for the southern segment. Based on the October 2012, Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County, the County will provide $4.5 million of the local match required for FM 1460 project and turn over $4,209,475 in Federal STP-MM allocation once AFA Amendment #1 is approved by TxDOT. That means the actual cost being added to the City of Georgetown is $3,428,408. Amendment #1 includes the continuation of the payment schedule approved in the initial AFA. The City will provide an initial payment of $9,355,619 prior to project letting in FY 2014, and the balance over time. Staff recommends City Council Approval of this AFA Amendment #1. Motion by Armour, seconded by Jonrowe to approve AFA Amendment #1. Approved 6-0-3 (Johnson, H'Luz & Pettitt absent) 10:28 Chris H'Luz returned to meeting H. Consideration and possible action to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a resolution supporting the proposed roadway and park projects included in Williamson County’s current bond initiative—Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager Polasek presented this item. See map below. All Cities in Williamson County, as well as the Chambers of Commerce are being asked to consider the approval of a resolution supporting the proposed roadway and park projects included in the current Williamson County bond initiative. There was extensive dialog concerning the spending habits of the county on their projects and how these proposed projects would benefit Georgetown. Motion by Jonrowe to not approve the resolution. Jonrowe withdrew motion. Motion by Jonrowe seconded by Hesser to Vote to withhold recommendation based on lack of information on use of funds per specific project and discretionary use of funds on others. Recommend representation of County at City Council Meeting to provide specific information. Approved 7-0-2 (Johnson & Pettitt absent) I. Consideration and possible action regarding request from R. A. General Services, LLC d/b/a Longhorn Jet Center to approve a sublease with Shepherd Aviation. - Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager & Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Benkendorfer presented item to the Board stating that R.A. General Services is requesting approval for a sublease with Shepherd Aviation for office space only. This will be about a three and half month lease. This item has been reviewed by the City’s legal department. Motion by Hesser, seconded by Hunt to approve sublease. Approved 7-0-2 (Johnson & Pettitt absent) J. Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding Transit Study outlined by City Council – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director & Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities. Polasek updated the Board. No Action Required III. Adjournment Motion by Hunt, seconded by Hesser to adjourn. Approved 7-0-2 (Johnson & Pettitt absent) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:31 AM. Approved: Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Williams Maples - Chair Truman Hunt – Secretary ____________________________ Jana Kern – Board Liaison City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and direction to staff concerning DB Wood Road as a candidate project for a potential City of Georgetown future Road Bond Election. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown inherited DB Wood Road from Williamson County, inclusive of several bridges and drainage structures. Both the roadway and several of the drainage structures are reaching the operational service life limits, in particular, the bridge over the Middle San Gabriel River. The roadway needs widening and the bridge should be considered for replacement to accommodate the increasing volumes of traffic. The City selected the firm of Steger Bizzell of Georgetown, Texas, as the most qualified firm to provide the preliminary engineering and schematic design of a replacement bridge. In developing that bridge schematic, it became apparent that the City also needed a plan for the remainder of DB Wood Road. Steger Bizzell has completed preliminary schematic and proposes four alternates for a candidate project for a potential City future Road Bond Program Election. The Engineer will present the alternative concepts including estimates of probable total project costs. All alternatives include intersection improvements at DB Wood Road and University Drive (SH 29). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternate “B” and is seeking direction from GTAB concerning inclusion of this project in an overall list of candidate projects for a future Road Bond Program Election. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is an unbudgeted work item. If an alternative is selected, staff would program the alternative into an overall list of candidate projects for a future Road Bond Program Election. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden ATTACHMENTS: Description Type DB Wood - Typical Sections Backup Material DB Wood - Option A Backup Material DB Wood - Option B Backup Material DB Wood - Option C Backup Material DB Wood - Option D Backup Material North Fork San Gabriel River Middle Fork San Gabriel River D B W O O D R D WILLIAMS DR WOLF RD B O O T Y S C ROSSING RD S K Y L I N E R D W U N I V E R S I T Y A V E PARKER DR RIVERCHAS E B L V D C E D A R B R E A K S R D LAKE W AY DR RI V E R B E N D D R W E S P A R A D A D R SHEPHERDRD DAWN DR POWER RD S O U T H CROSS RD N O R T H W E S T B L V D E S T R E L L A XIN G GABRIELVIE W D R SPRINGVALLEYRD O A K R IDGERD STARVIEWDR W O L F R A N C H P K W Y R I O B R A V O R D SERENA DA D R WILDWOOD DR S A B I N E D R ADD I E LN M E M O R I A L D R O A K C REST L N WAGON WHEEL TRL NORTHCROSS RD ALGERITA DR ROCKY HOLLO W TRL T U R T L E B N D KATHI LN C A S S I D Y D R COUNTRY RD R IV ERRD C L E A R S P R I N G R D D U N M A N DR HEDGEWOOD DR S P A NIS H O A K D R BRANDY LN LONESO ME TRL BUFFALO SPRINGS TRL LAPALOMA PRIM R O SE TRL OAK LN B R A Z O S D R SUNSETDR RIDGECRE S T R D R A N C H R D W OODRANCH R D SUT TON PL C OU N T R Y C L U B R D M I RAMARDR SHELL RD S T A R VIE W LNWOODLAND RD SK I N N E R L N BR O KEN SPOKE TRL P A R K W A Y S T G REEN R I D G E RD A S H W O O D L N C R O S S LAND D R W O ODSTO C K D R LA MESA LN T O R T O IS E L N JUDY DR LAKEOVER L O O K R D CANYON R D STA GECOACH DR W HISPEROAKS LN TIF F A N Y L N SP R I N GW OOD L N M A S O N R A N C H D R JOHN THO M AS DR HARMONY LN MELANIE LN A R R O W H E A D L N O A K B E N D C T GRASSLAN D LN T E X A S T R A D I T I O N S PARK E R C I R FAWN LN BRIAR W O OD DR OVERLOOK CT MELISSA CT S K Y L I N E S P U R C A S S I D Y C T S A G E B R U S H C T S TA C E Y L N MIRIQUITA RD O A K G R O V E L N W O O D C T S N A P P E R C V M O R SE C V I 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Lake Georgetown City Limits Project Limits OPTION "A" 2‐Lane, 600' Roadway Approaches with 525' x 79' Ultimate Bridge and SH 29 Intersection Improvements Prepared by Steger Bizzell Printed: 10/28/2013 D.B. Wood Road at the Middle San Gabriel River Preliminary Probable Cost Estimate  OPTION "A"  2 Lane 600'Roadway Approaches (with 525'x79'Ultimate Bridge) TRAFFIC CONTROL 5% 191,000.00$                     ROADWAY Preparing ROW STA 20              1,000.00$     20,000.00$                       Excavation CY 5,000        15.00$           75,000.00$                       Embankment CY 2,500        13.00$           32,500.00$                       Topsoil & Seeding & Watering SY 10,000      2.50$             25,000.00$                       Flex Base (12")SY 8 400 13 00$109 200 00$  2‐Lane, 600' Roadway Approaches (with 525'x79' Ultimate Bridge)  Flex Base (12 )SY 8,400        13.00$           109,200.00$                     Asphalt (4") SY 8,400        20.00$           168,000.00$                     Ribbon Curb (SH29 turn lane) LF 900            18.00$           16,200.00$                       Retaining Wall VSF 2,500        40.00$           100,000.00$                     Driveways EA 4                2,800.00$     11,200.00$                       BRIDGE Slab, Bents, Abutments, Rail SF 41,475      70.00$           2,903,250.00$                  Approach Slab SF 4,810        10.00$           48,100.00$                       SIGNING,STRIPING AND DELINEATION LS 15,000.00$SIGNING, STRIPING AND DELINEATION LS 15,000.00$                       SH 29 SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS LS 100,000.00$                     SAFETY LIGHTING Light pole (H=35', 200' spacing) & fnd EA 8                5,000.00$     40,000.00$                       Conductor & Conduit LF 2,600        10.00$           26,000.00$                       EROSION CONTROL Silt Fence LF 2,000        2.50$             5,000.00$                          Rock Berms LF 750            25.00$           18,750.00$                       Water Quality Pond LS 100,000.00$                    y MOBILIZATION & BONDS LS 7% 280,000.00$                     SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 4,284,200.00$                  RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION t.b.d.‐$                                  UTILITY RELOCATION t.b.d.‐$                                  CONTINGENCIES 10% 428,000.00$                     SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 428,000.00$                     Schematic Design & Surveying (Task Order SBE‐12‐008)163,538.00$                     PS&E Design 8%340,000.00$                     Environmental Due Diligence 0.5%20,000.00$                       Bidding & Construction Phase Services 1%40,000.00$                       Field Materials Testing 1%40,000.00$                       TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 5,315,738.00$                  Note:  All costs are estimates and are subject to change without notice. FOR REVIEW: This document is released for the purpose of review under the authority of Perry C. Steger, P.E.  Reg.  #65772 on 10/24/13.  It is not to be used for bidding, permit, or construction. P:\22000‐22999\22138 CoG DB Wood Bridge\Calculations\Preliminary Project Cost Estimate.xlsx Page 1 of 4 North Fork San Gabriel River Middle Fork San Gabriel River D B W O O D R D WILLIAMS DR WOLF RD B O O T Y S C ROSSING RD S K Y L I N E R D W U N I V E R S I T Y A V E PARKER DR RIVERCHAS E B L V D C E D A R B R E A K S R D LAKE W AY DR RI V E R B E N D D R W E S P A R A D A D R SHEPHERDRD DAWN DR POWER RD S O U T H CROSS RD N O R T H W E S T B L V D E S T R E L L A XIN G GABRIELVIE W D R SPRINGVALLEYRD O A K R IDGERD STARVIEWDR W O L F R A N C H P K W Y R I O B R A V O R D SERENA DA D R WILDWOOD DR S A B I N E D R ADD I E LN M E M O R I A L D R O A K C REST L N WAGON WHEEL TRL NORTHCROSS RD ALGERITA DR ROCKY HOLLO W TRL T U R T L E B N D KATHI LN C A S S I D Y D R COUNTRY RD R IV ERRD C L E A R S P R I N G R D D U N M A N DR HEDGEWOOD DR S P A NIS H O A K D R BRANDY LN LONESO ME TRL BUFFALO SPRINGS TRL LAPALOMA PRIM R O SE TRL OAK LN B R A Z O S D R SUNSETDR RIDGECRE S T R D R A N C H R D W OODRANCH R D SUT TON PL C OU N T R Y C L U B R D M I RAMARDR SHELL RD S T A R VIE W LNWOODLAND RD SK I N N E R L N BR O KEN SPOKE TRL P A R K W A Y S T G REEN R I D G E RD A S H W O O D L N C R O S S LAND D R W O ODSTO C K D R LA MESA LN T O R T O IS E L N JUDY DR LAKEOVER L O O K R D CANYON R D STA GECOACH DR W HISPEROAKS LN TIF F A N Y L N SP R I N GW OOD L N M A S O N R A N C H D R JOHN THO M AS DR HARMONY LN MELANIE LN A R R O W H E A D L N O A K B E N D C T GRASSLAN D LN T E X A S T R A D I T I O N S PARK E R C I R FAWN LN BRIAR W O OD DR OVERLOOK CT MELISSA CT S K Y L I N E S P U R C A S S I D Y C T S A G E B R U S H C T S TA C E Y L N MIRIQUITA RD O A K G R O V E L N W O O D C T S N A P P E R C V M O R SE C V I 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Lake Georgetown City Limits Project Limits OPTION "B" 5‐Lane Urban with Two  Bridges From SH 29 to Oak Ridge Rd and SH 29 Intersection Improvements Prepared by Steger Bizzell Printed: 10/28/2013 D.B. Wood Road at the Middle San Gabriel River Preliminary Probable Cost Estimate  OPTION "B"  5 Lane Urban with Two Bridges (From SH 29 to Oak Ridge Rd) TRAFFIC CONTROL 5% 599,000.00$                     ROADWAY Preparing ROW STA 87              1,000.00$     87,000.00$                       Excavation CY 50,000      15.00$           750,000.00$                     Embankment CY 25,000      13.00$           325,000.00$                     Topsoil & Seeding & Watering SY 26,000      2.50$             65,000.00$                       Flex Base (12")SY 70 000 13 00$910 000 00$  5‐Lane Urban with Two Bridges (From SH 29 to Oak Ridge Rd)  Flex Base (12 )SY 70,000      13.00$           910,000.00$                     Asphalt (4") SY 65,000      20.00$           1,300,000.00$                  Curb & Gutter LF 14,500      18.00$           261,000.00$                     Sidewalk (6') LF 14,500      40.00$           580,000.00$                     Retaining Wall VSF 22,000      40.00$           880,000.00$                     Driveways EA 26              2,800.00$     72,800.00$                       BRIDGE Slab, Bents, Abutments, Rail SF 70,915      70.00$           4,964,050.00$                  Approach Slab SF 4,700 10.00$47,000.00$Approach Slab SF 4,700        10.00$           47,000.00$                       DRAINAGE Storm Sewer RCP (36" avg size) LF 8,000        70.00$           560,000.00$                     Curb Inlets EA 20              8,000.00$     160,000.00$                     Manholes EA 10              5,000.00$     50,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (24") LF ‐             60.00$            ‐$                                  Culvert RCP (30") LF 300            80.00$           24,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (48") LF 100            120.00$         12,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (72")LF 100            300.00$         30,000.00$                      () Culvert SET, per pipe end EA 10              3,000.00$     30,000.00$                       SIGNING, STRIPING AND DELINEATION LS 50,000.00$                       SH 29 SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS LS 220,000.00$                     SAFETY LIGHTING Light pole (200' spacing, alt. sides) EA 44              5,000.00$     220,000.00$                     Conductor & Conduit LF 17,400      10.00$           174,000.00$                     EROSION CONTROL Silt Fence LF 17,400      2.50$             43,500.00$                       Rock Berms LF 750            25.00$           18,750.00$                       Water Quality Pond LS 150,000.00$                     MOBILIZATION & BONDS LS 7% 881,000.00$                     SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 13,464,100.00$               RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION t.b.d.‐$                                  UTILITY RELOCATION t.b.d.‐$                                  CONTINGENCIES 10% 1,346,000.00$                  SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 1 346 000 00$SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 1,346,000.00$                  Schematic Design & Surveying (Task Order SBE‐12‐008)163,538.00$                     PS&E Design 8%1,080,000.00$                  Environmental Due Diligence 0.5%70,000.00$                       Bidding & Construction Phase Services 1%130,000.00$                     Field Materials Testing 1%130,000.00$                     TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 16,383,638.00$               Note:  All costs are estimates and are subject to change without notice. FOR REVIEW: This document is released for the purpose of review under the authority of Perry C. Steger, P.E.  Reg.  #65772 on 10/24/13.  It is not to be used for bidding, permit, or construction. P:\22000‐22999\22138 CoG DB Wood Bridge\Calculations\Preliminary Project Cost Estimate.xlsx Page 2 of 4 North Fork San Gabriel River Middle Fork San Gabriel River D B W O O D R D WILLIAMS DR WOLF RD B O O T Y S C ROSSING RD S K Y L I N E R D W U N I V E R S I T Y A V E PARKER DR RIVERCHAS E B L V D C E D A R B R E A K S R D LAKE W AY DR RI V E R B E N D D R W E S P A R A D A D R SHEPHERDRD DAWN DR POWER RD S O U T H CROSS RD N O R T H W E S T B L V D E S T R E L L A XIN G GABRIELVIE W D R SPRINGVALLEYRD O A K R IDGERD STARVIEWDR W O L F R A N C H P K W Y R I O B R A V O R D SERENA DA D R WILDWOOD DR S A B I N E D R ADD I E LN M E M O R I A L D R O A K C REST L N WAGON WHEEL TRL NORTHCROSS RD ALGERITA DR ROCKY HOLLO W TRL T U R T L E B N D KATHI LN C A S S I D Y D R COUNTRY RD R IV ERRD C L E A R S P R I N G R D D U N M A N DR HEDGEWOOD DR S P A NIS H O A K D R BRANDY LN LONESO ME TRL BUFFALO SPRINGS TRL LAPALOMA PRIM R O SE TRL OAK LN B R A Z O S D R SUNSETDR RIDGECRE S T R D R A N C H R D W OODRANCH R D SUT TON PL C OU N T R Y C L U B R D M I RAMARDR SHELL RD S T A R VIE W LNWOODLAND RD SK I N N E R L N BR O KEN SPOKE TRL P A R K W A Y S T G REEN R I D G E RD A S H W O O D L N C R O S S LAND D R W O ODSTO C K D R LA MESA LN T O R T O IS E L N JUDY DR LAKEOVER L O O K R D CANYON R D STA GECOACH DR W HISPEROAKS LN TIF F A N Y L N SP R I N GW OOD L N M A S O N R A N C H D R JOHN THO M AS DR HARMONY LN MELANIE LN A R R O W H E A D L N O A K B E N D C T GRASSLAN D LN T E X A S T R A D I T I O N S PARK E R C I R FAWN LN BRIAR W O OD DR OVERLOOK CT MELISSA CT S K Y L I N E S P U R C A S S I D Y C T S A G E B R U S H C T S TA C E Y L N MIRIQUITA RD O A K G R O V E L N W O O D C T S N A P P E R C V M O R SE C V I 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Lake Georgetown City Limits Project Limits OPTION "C" 5‐Lane Urban to Oak Ridge Rd 3‐Lane Rural to Cedar Breaks Rd and SH 29 Intersection Improvements Prepared by Steger Bizzell Printed: 10/28/2013 D.B. Wood Road at the Middle San Gabriel River Preliminary Probable Cost Estimate  OPTION "C"  5 Lane Urban to Oak Ridge Rd 3 Lane Rural to Cedar Breaks Rd TRAFFIC CONTROL 5% 644,000.00$                     ROADWAY Preparing ROW STA 104            1,000.00$     104,000.00$                     Excavation CY 60,000      15.00$           900,000.00$                     Embankment CY 30,000      13.00$           390,000.00$                     Topsoil & Seeding & Watering SY 39,000      2.50$             97,500.00$                       Flex Base (12")SY 80 000 13 00$1 040 000 00$  5‐Lane Urban to Oak Ridge Rd; 3‐Lane Rural to Cedar Breaks Rd  Flex Base (12 )SY 80,000      13.00$           1,040,000.00$                  Asphalt (4") SY 74,000      20.00$           1,480,000.00$                  Curb & Gutter LF 14,900      18.00$           268,200.00$                     Sidewalk (6') LF 17,600      40.00$           704,000.00$                     Retaining Wall VSF 24,000      40.00$           960,000.00$                     Driveways EA 29              2,800.00$     81,200.00$                       BRIDGE Slab, Bents, Abutments, Rail SF 70,915      70.00$           4,964,050.00$                  Approach Slab SF 4,700 10.00$47,000.00$Approach Slab SF 4,700        10.00$           47,000.00$                       DRAINAGE Storm Sewer RCP (36" avg size) LF 8,000        70.00$           560,000.00$                     Curb Inlets EA 20              8,000.00$     160,000.00$                     Manholes EA 10              5,000.00$     50,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (24") LF 200            60.00$           12,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (30") LF 300            80.00$           24,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (48") LF 100            120.00$         12,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (72")LF 100            300.00$         30,000.00$                      () Culvert SET, per pipe end EA 14              3,000.00$     42,000.00$                       SIGNING, STRIPING AND DELINEATION LS 50,000.00$                       SH 29 SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS LS 220,000.00$                     SAFETY LIGHTING Light pole (200' spacing, alt. sides) EA 52              5,000.00$     260,000.00$                     Conductor & Conduit LF 20,800      10.00$           208,000.00$                     EROSION CONTROL Silt Fence LF 20,800      2.50$             52,000.00$                       Rock Berms LF 750            25.00$           18,750.00$                       Water Quality Pond LS 150,000.00$                     MOBILIZATION & BONDS LS 7% 947,000.00$                     SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 14,475,700.00$               RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION t.b.d.‐$                                  UTILITY RELOCATION t.b.d.‐$                                  CONTINGENCIES 10% 1,448,000.00$                  SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 1 448 000 00$SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 1,448,000.00$                  Schematic Design & Surveying (Task Order SBE‐12‐008)163,538.00$                     PS&E Design 8%1,160,000.00$                  Environmental Due Diligence 0.5%70,000.00$                       Bidding & Construction Phase Services 1%140,000.00$                     Field Materials Testing 1%140,000.00$                     TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 17,597,238.00$               Note:  All costs are estimates and are subject to change without notice. FOR REVIEW: This document is released for the purpose of review under the authority of Perry C. Steger, P.E.  Reg.  #65772 on 10/24/13.  It is not to be used for bidding, permit, or construction. P:\22000‐22999\22138 CoG DB Wood Bridge\Calculations\Preliminary Project Cost Estimate.xlsx Page 3 of 4 North Fork San Gabriel River Middle Fork San Gabriel River D B W O O D R D WILLIAMS DR WOLF RD B O O T Y S C ROSSING RD S K Y L I N E R D W U N I V E R S I T Y A V E PARKER DR RIVERCHAS E B L V D C E D A R B R E A K S R D LAKE W AY DR RI V E R B E N D D R W E S P A R A D A D R SHEPHERDRD DAWN DR POWER RD S O U T H CROSS RD N O R T H W E S T B L V D E S T R E L L A XIN G GABRIELVIE W D R SPRINGVALLEYRD O A K R IDGERD STARVIEWDR W O L F R A N C H P K W Y R I O B R A V O R D SERENA DA D R WILDWOOD DR S A B I N E D R ADD I E LN M E M O R I A L D R O A K C REST L N WAGON WHEEL TRL NORTHCROSS RD ALGERITA DR ROCKY HOLLO W TRL T U R T L E B N D KATHI LN C A S S I D Y D R COUNTRY RD R IV ERRD C L E A R S P R I N G R D D U N M A N DR HEDGEWOOD DR S P A NIS H O A K D R BRANDY LN LONESO ME TRL BUFFALO SPRINGS TRL LAPALOMA PRIM R O SE TRL OAK LN B R A Z O S D R SUNSETDR RIDGECRE S T R D R A N C H R D W OODRANCH R D SUT TON PL C OU N T R Y C L U B R D M I RAMARDR SHELL RD S T A R VIE W LNWOODLAND RD SK I N N E R L N BR O KEN SPOKE TRL P A R K W A Y S T G REEN R I D G E RD A S H W O O D L N C R O S S LAND D R W O ODSTO C K D R LA MESA LN T O R T O IS E L N JUDY DR LAKEOVER L O O K R D CANYON R D STA GECOACH DR W HISPEROAKS LN TIF F A N Y L N SP R I N GW OOD L N M A S O N R A N C H D R JOHN THO M AS DR HARMONY LN MELANIE LN A R R O W H E A D L N O A K B E N D C T GRASSLAN D LN T E X A S T R A D I T I O N S PARK E R C I R FAWN LN BRIAR W O OD DR OVERLOOK CT MELISSA CT S K Y L I N E S P U R C A S S I D Y C T S A G E B R U S H C T S TA C E Y L N MIRIQUITA RD O A K G R O V E L N W O O D C T S N A P P E R C V M O R SE C V I 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Lake Georgetown City Limits Project Limits OPTION "D" 5‐Ln Urban (4‐Ln Rural w/in USACE Property) From SH 29 to Lake Overlook Rd and SH 29 Intersection Improvements Prepared by Steger Bizzell Printed: 10/28/2013 D.B. Wood Road at the Middle San Gabriel River Preliminary Probable Cost Estimate  OPTION "D"  5 Ln Urban From SH 29 to Lake Overlook Rd (4 Ln Rural w/in USACE Property) TRAFFIC CONTROL 5% 1,164,000.00$                  ROADWAY Preparing ROW STA 203            1,000.00$     203,000.00$                     Excavation CY 80,000      15.00$           1,200,000.00$                  Embankment CY 40,000      13.00$           520,000.00$                     Topsoil & Seeding & Watering SY 60,000      2.50$             150,000.00$                     Flex Base (12")SY 160 000 13 00$2 080 000 00$  5‐Ln Urban From SH 29 to Lake Overlook Rd (4‐Ln Rural w/in USACE Property)  Flex Base (12 )SY 160,000    13.00$           2,080,000.00$                  Asphalt (4") SY 148,000    20.00$           2,960,000.00$                  Curb & Gutter LF 36,800      18.00$           662,400.00$                     Sidewalk (6') LF 36,800      40.00$           1,472,000.00$                  Retaining Wall VSF 27,000      40.00$           1,080,000.00$                  Driveways EA 32              2,800.00$     89,600.00$                       BRIDGE Slab, Bents, Abutments, Rail SF 137,615    70.00$           9,633,050.00$                  Approach Slab SF 4,700 10.00$47,000.00$Approach Slab SF 4,700        10.00$           47,000.00$                       DRAINAGE Storm Sewer RCP (36" avg size) LF 15,000      70.00$           1,050,000.00$                  Curb Inlets EA 40              8,000.00$     320,000.00$                     Manholes EA 20              5,000.00$     100,000.00$                     Culvert RCP (24") LF 200            60.00$           12,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (30") LF 300            80.00$           24,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (48") LF 100            120.00$         12,000.00$                       Culvert RCP (72")LF 100            300.00$         30,000.00$                      () Culvert SET, per pipe end EA 14              3,000.00$     42,000.00$                       SIGNING, STRIPING AND DELINEATION LS 50,000.00$                       SH 29 SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS LS 220,000.00$                     SAFETY LIGHTING Light pole (H=35', 200' spacing) & fnd EA 102            5,000.00$     510,000.00$                     Conductor & Conduit LF 40,600      10.00$           406,000.00$                     EROSION CONTROL Silt Fence LF 40,600      2.50$             101,500.00$                     Rock Berms LF 2,000        25.00$           50,000.00$                       Water Quality Pond LS 250,000.00$                     MOBILIZATION & BONDS LS 7% 1,711,000.00$                  SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 26,149,550.00$               RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION t.b.d.‐$                                  UTILITY RELOCATION t.b.d.‐$                                  CONTINGENCIES 10% 2,615,000.00$                  SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 2 615 000 00$SUBTOTAL PROJECT RELATED COSTS 2,615,000.00$                  Schematic Design & Surveying (Task Order SBE‐12‐008)163,538.00$                     PS&E Design 8%2,090,000.00$                  Environmental Due Diligence 0.8%210,000.00$                     Bidding & Construction Phase Services 1%260,000.00$                     Field Materials Testing 1%260,000.00$                     TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 31,748,088.00$               Note:  All costs are estimates and are subject to change without notice. FOR REVIEW: This document is released for the purpose of review under the authority of Perry C. Steger, P.E.  Reg.  #65772 on 10/24/13.  It is not to be used for bidding, permit, or construction. P:\22000‐22999\22138 CoG DB Wood Bridge\Calculations\Preliminary Project Cost Estimate.xlsx Page 4 of 4 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Progress Report. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The voters of Georgetown approved bonds in November 2008 for various projects in the City. One of those projects was for the study of a proposed bypass around Georgetown from W. SH 29 to E. SH 29, often referenced as the “smiley face.” As part of the overall corridor analysis, the City has entered into an Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to study the portion of Southeast Inner Loop from IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110); a map of the study area is attached to the proposed task order. The City selected the firm of Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP (KPA) of Georgetown, Texas, to provide the preliminary engineering schematic design and report. KPA has completed draft analyses of three phases of which propose conceptual schematic design alignments which define and provide Right of Way (ROW) “protection” from the current status through development driven growth of the area and traffic demand for the ultimate, proposed fully built-out phase. Drafts of the three phases are attached; KPA will be presenting the study, the process of development and the recommended alignment, inclusive of proposed ROW needs to accommodate the ultimate roadway with estimates of probable total project costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the draft report and requests direction towards developing a final report for presentation and adoption to Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is an unbudgeted work item. If an alternative is selected, staff will program that alternative into an overall list of candidate projects for a future Road Bond Program Election. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden ATTACHMENTS: Description Type SE IL - Exhibit A - Phase I Backup Material SE IL - Exhibit B - Phase I Backup Material SE IL - Exhibit C - Phase I Backup Material O L D U . S . 8 1 H W Y R O C K R I D E L A N E ( C . R . 1 1 0 ) F . M . 1 4 6 0 I . H . H W Y 3 5 V A L L E Y V A L L E Y 22ND ST. LEAND E R ROAD 24TH ST. KE N D E L L S T . SC E N I C D R I V E BR I D G E 19TH ST. 18TH ST. HART ST. 18TH ST. 20TH ST. 19TH ST. 18TH ST. CYRUS A V E . E U B A N K K N I G H T 19 1/2 S T . 19 1/2 S T . 20TH S T . H O G G S T . S O U T H P I N E S T . 17TH ST. 17 1/2 S T . PA I G E S T . IND U S T R I A L A V E . H I G H L A N D D R I V E C H U R C H S T . F . M . 1 4 6 0 LONG S A N J O S E S T . 22ND S T . 19TH S T . M A P L E S T . E 19TH S T . H U T T O R O A D WI N C H E S T E R D R I V E R I F L E B E N D D R I V E T R A I L S E N D V I R G I N A GR E E N B R A N C H QUAI L VALL E Y DRIV E QU A I L H U N T E R S G L E N DR I V E BRANC H DRIVE ST . S T . S T . 21ST ST. HA R T S T . CA N D E E S T . LE A N D E R S T . S T . ME A D O W DR I V E DR I V E RABBI T HOLLO W LANE R A B B I T R U N M O R N I N G D O V E L A N E PLEAS A N T B L U E B O N N E T S U N R I S E VALLE Y DRIVE THUND E R V A L L E Y D R . GEORG E T O W N V I E W L A N E S I L V E R C L O V E R V A L L E Y V A L L E Y L A N E L A N E L A N E VALL E Y HIGH T E C H D R . T E X S T A R D R . T O W E R D R . SM I T H B R A N C H C R E E K S I D E L A N E K A T Y L A N E SOUT H W A L K STREE T BL V D . RAINT R E E DR. C A R O L C O U R T JA N L A N E LANE C O L L E G E S T . A S H S T . H O L L Y C O F F E E S T . EL N O R A S T . COTTO N T A I L L A N E M O R N I N G D O V E D R . LN. DRIVE QUAIL DRIVE SE I N N E R L O O P VALLEY D R . COOP E R A T I V E W A Y C. R . 11 5 E X T . RA I L R O A D AV E . 20TH S T . G E O R G I A N D R . CAN T E R B U R Y TRL L O N D O N L N SE INNE R L O O P SE INNE R L O O P HILLVU E R D . CARSO N CV WHIG WAY L E A D S C A S T L E WA L K BRITTANIA BLVD. M A P L E S T . C.R. 115 © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - R O A D S C H E M A T I C S _ A - B 2 0 1 3 - 0 0 9 - 0 7 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 9/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 1 : 5 2 : 5 8 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A P H A S E 1 D E S I G N 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 2 : 3 2 : 1 0 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT A - PHASE I TEXAS GEORGETOWN N O R T H 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 500 1000 This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on August 13, 2013 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP PHASE 1 R.O.W. TO BE DETERMINED PROPOSED SOUTHWEST BY-PASS (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED NORTHBOUND IH 35 FRONTAGE ROAD (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED F.M. 1460 (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED F.M. 1460 (BY OTHERS) SAM HOUSTON AVENUE PHASE 1 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD PHASE 1 O L D U . S . 8 1 H W Y R O C K R I D E L A N E ( C . R . 1 1 0 ) F . M . 1 4 6 0 I . H . H W Y 3 5 V A L L E Y V A L L E Y 22ND ST. LEAND E R ROAD 24TH ST. KE N D E L L S T . SC E N I C D R I V E BR I D G E 19TH ST. 18TH ST. HART ST. 18TH ST. 20TH ST. 19TH ST. 18TH ST. CYRUS A V E . E U B A N K K N I G H T 19 1/2 S T . 19 1/2 S T . 20TH S T . H O G G S T . S O U T H P I N E S T . 17TH ST. 17 1/2 S T . PA I G E S T . IND U S T R I A L A V E . H I G H L A N D D R I V E C H U R C H S T . F . M . 1 4 6 0 LONG S A N J O S E S T . 22ND S T . 19TH S T . M A P L E S T . E 19TH S T . H U T T O R O A D WI N C H E S T E R D R I V E R I F L E B E N D D R I V E T R A I L S E N D V I R G I N A GR E E N B R A N C H QUAI L VALL E Y DRIV E QU A I L H U N T E R S G L E N DR I V E BRANC H DRIVE ST . S T . S T . 21ST ST. HA R T S T . CA N D E E S T . LE A N D E R S T . S T . ME A D O W DR I V E DR I V E RABBI T HOLLO W LANE R A B B I T R U N M O R N I N G D O V E L A N E PLEAS A N T B L U E B O N N E T S U N R I S E VALLE Y DRIVE THUND E R V A L L E Y D R . GEORG E T O W N V I E W L A N E S I L V E R C L O V E R V A L L E Y V A L L E Y L A N E L A N E L A N E VALL E Y HIGH T E C H D R . T E X S T A R D R . T O W E R D R . SM I T H B R A N C H CR E E K S I D E L A N E K A T Y L A N E SOUTH W A L K STREE T BL V D . RAINT R E E DR. C A R O L C O U R T JA N L A N E LANE C O L L E G E S T . A S H S T . H O L L Y C O F F E E S T . EL N O R A S T . COTTO N T A I L L A N E M O R N I N G D O V E D R . LN. DRIVE QUAIL DRIV E SE I N N E R L O O P VALLEY D R . COOP E R A T I V E W A Y C. R . 11 5 E X T . RA I L R O A D AV E . 20TH S T . G E O R G I A N D R . CAN T E R B U R Y TRL L O N D O N L N SE INNE R L O O P SE INNE R L O O P HILLVU E R D . CARSO N CV WHIG WAY L E A D S C A S T L E WA L K BRITTANIA BLVD. M A P L E S T . C.R. 115 © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - R O A D S C H E M A T I C S _ A - B 2 0 1 3 - 0 0 9 - 0 7 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 9/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 1 : 5 2 : 5 8 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T B P H A S E 2 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 4/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 3 1 2 : 4 0 : 5 2 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT B PHASE II TEXAS GEORGETOWN N O R T H 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 500 1000 This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on August 13, 2013 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP ULTIMATE SECTION R.O.W. TO BE DETERMINED PROPOSED SOUTHWEST BY-PASS (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED NORTHBOUND IH 35 FRONTAGE ROAD (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED F.M. 1460 (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED F.M. 1460 (BY OTHERS) SAM HOUSTON AVENUE ULTIMATE SECTION SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD ULTIMATE SECTION ROUND ABOUT AT ROCKRIDE LANE AND SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP (BY OTHERS) O L D U . S . 8 1 H W Y R O C K R I D E L A N E ( C . R . 1 1 0 ) F . M . 1 4 6 0 I . H . H W Y 3 5 V A L L E Y V A L L E Y 22ND ST. LEAND E R ROAD 24TH ST. KE N D E L L S T . S C E N I C D R I V E BR I D G E 19TH ST. 18TH ST. HART ST. 18TH ST. 20TH ST. 19TH ST. 18TH ST. CYRUS A V E . E U B A N K K N I G H T 19 1/2 S T . 19 1/2 S T . 20TH S T . H O G G S T . S O U T H P I N E S T . 17TH ST. 17 1/2 S T . PA I G E S T . IND U S T R I A L A V E . H I G H L A N D D R I V E C H U R C H S T . F . M . 1 4 6 0 LONG S A N J O S E S T . 22ND S T . 19TH S T . M A P L E S T . E 19TH S T . H U T T O R O A D WI N C H E S T E R D R I V E R I F L E B E N D D R I V E T R A I L S E N D V I R G I N A GR E E N B R A N C H QUAI L VALL E Y DRIV E QU A I L H U N T E R S G L E N D R I V E BRANC H DRIVE ST . S T . S T . 21ST ST. HA R T S T . CA N D E E S T . LE A N D E R S T . S T . ME A D O W DR I V E DR I V E RABBI T HOLLO W LANE R A B B I T R U N M O R N I N G D O V E L A N E PLEAS A N T B L U E B O N N E T S U N R I S E VALLE Y DRIVE THUN D E R V A L L E Y D R . GEORG E T O W N V I E W L A N E S I L V E R C L O V E R V A L L E Y V A L L E Y L A N E L A N E L A N E VALLE Y HIGH T E C H D R . T E X S T A R D R . T O W E R D R . S M I T H B R A N C H C R E E K S I D E L A N E K A T Y L A N E SOUTH W A L K STREE T BL V D . RAINT R E E DR. C A R O L C O U R T JA N L A N E LANE C O L L E G E S T . A S H S T . H O L L Y C O F F E E S T . EL N O R A S T . COTTO N T A I L L A N E M O R N I N G D O V E D R . LN. DRIVE QUAIL DRIV E SE I N N E R L O O P VALLEY DR . COOP E R A T I V E W A Y C. R . 1 1 5 E X T . RA I L R O A D AV E . 20TH S T . G E O R G I A N D R . CAN T E R B U R Y TRL L O N D O N L N SE INNE R L O O P SE INNE R L O O P HILLVU E R D . CARSO N CV WHIG WAY L E A D S C A S T L E WA L K BRITTANIA BLVD. M A P L E S T . C.R. 115 © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - R O A D S C H E M A T I C S _ C 2 0 1 3 - 0 9 - 0 7 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 9/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 1 : 5 3 : 0 4 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T C P H A S E 3 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 4/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 3 1 2 : 4 0 : 5 2 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT C PHASE III TEXAS GEORGETOWN N O R T H 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 500 1000 This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on August 13, 2013 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP ULTIMATE SECTION R.O.W. TO BE DETERMINED PROPOSED SOUTHWEST BY-PASS (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED NORTHBOUND IH 35 FRONTAGE ROAD (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED F.M. 1460 (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED F.M. 1460 (BY OTHERS) SAM HOUSTON AVENUE ULTIMATE SECTION SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD ULTIMATE SECTION ROUND ABOUT AT ROCKRIDE LANE AND SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP (BY OTHERS) City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council regarding an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Round Rock concerning FM 1460 improvements and Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive analysis – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown has a Right-of-Way Acquisition CSJ with the Texas Department of Transportation for acquisition of FM 1460 from North of Westinghouse Road to North of University Boulevard. That agreement allows TxDOT to fund 90 percent of the ROW acquisition if the local government provides the 10 percent match. The total estimate for the 10 percent match in the ROW acquisition is $454,880. Round Rock has agreed to provide the 10 percent match reimbursement for the portion of the ROW in their ETJ, $196,129, if the City would dedicate an equal amount of revenue to completing a preliminary schematic for the Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive extension from Round Rock to Westinghouse Road. The Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive extension is a parallel route to FM 1460. It would serve local and regional shopping trips to and from the RR Outlet Mall and the proposed Bass Pro Shops in Round Rock, while opening up Westinghouse Road to potential commercial development adjacent to the outlet mall/Bass Pro Shops. Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive will also alleviate local/commercial trips from IH 35 and FM 1460 to serve the intercity function of major arterials/freeways. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to City Council approval of the Interlocal agreement with Round Rock. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The FM 1460 ROW acquisition is already funded in the current budget, the reimbursements from Round Rock will be placed in a dedicated account to the Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive project. SUBMITTED BY: Ed Polasek ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Interlocal Agreement Exhibit FM 1460 Funding Scenario Backup Material Oakmont Area Map Exhibit 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE FM 1460/A.W. GRIMES PROJECT AND DESIGN WORK RELATED TO THE RABBIT HILL ROAD/OAKMONT DRIVE CONNECTION THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT for Right of Way (ROW) acquisition and engineering design services (“Agreement”) is entered into between the City of Georgetown, a Texas home-rule municipality (“Georgetown”) and the City of Round Rock, a Texas home-rule municipality (“Round Rock”). In this Agreement, Georgetown and Round Rock are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively referred to as “the Parties.” WHEREAS, FM 1460/A.W. Grimes Boulevard and Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive are located in Williamson County; and WHEREAS, Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive will provide an important parallel linkage to FM 1460/A. W. Grimes removing local trips from Intercity Arterial designed to alleviate congestion on IH-35; and WHEREAS, Georgetown and Round Rock each contemplate construction of improvements to the portions of FM 1460/A.W. Grimes Boulevard located in their respective cities; and WHEREAS, Georgetown has completed an Agreement for Right of Way Procurement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) which, among other things, will require a ten percent local match to the ninety percent TxDOT funding and the acquisition of ROW anticipated to cost $1,961,289 in Rounds Rock’s corporate limits or Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ); and WHEREAS, the Parties would like to develop plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of improvements to that portion of Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive located between Georgetown and Round Rock between Terravista Parkway and Westinghouse Road; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is for the mutual benefit of Georgetown and Round Rock because it provides for the design of construction improvements for all of FM 1460/A.W. Grimes Boulevard with Georgetown and Round Rock paying their respective share of the cost and provides plans, specifications and estimates for Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive connections; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Georgetown and Round Rock agree as follows: I. DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 1.01 Right of Way Acquisition. Georgetown will complete necessary ROW acquisition related to the FM 1460/A.W. Grimes project as the agent for the Texas Department of Transportation per ROW CSJ# 2211-02-027. As ROW is acquired in the City of Round Rock 2 ETJ and corporate limits and ninety percent reimbursement request are submitted to TxDOT, Georgetown will submit a ten percent reimbursement request to the City of Round Rock in an amount not to exceed $196, 129, or 10% of $1,961,289, as described in Exhibit A. 1.02 Reimbursement Payment. Georgetown will deposit reimbursements from the City of Round Rock into a special account dedicated to “Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive.” 1.03 Task Order and Scope of Services. Georgetown will negotiate a Task Order with an engineering firm, mutually agreed upon by the Parties, to complete plans, specifications and estimates for improvements to the Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive connection to a 30% design stage. Georgetown shall administer the Task Order and pay such fees from the “Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive” account. Round Rock shall be entitled to review the draft Task Order and engineer’s related work product; and will be invited to all meetings between the engineer and City of Georgetown. 1.04 Additional Services. The Scope of Services shall not be amended without the written consent of Round Rock. Additional Services shall not be performed unless specifically authorized in writing by Round Rock. In the event Additional Services are authorized in writing by Round Rock, such Additional Services shall be billed in accordance with the rates included on Exhibit B. 1.05 Payment and Reimbursement of Charge for Services. Georgetown will advance payment of the Charge for Services subject to reimbursement by Round Rock. Upon Georgetown’s approval of each invoice for the Services, Georgetown will transmit a copy of the invoice to Round Rock. Round Rock agrees to pay Georgetown within ten (10) days after receipt of the invoice. Payments made by Round Rock pursuant to this Agreement shall be made from current revenues available to Round Rock. 1.06 No Liability or Warranty of Services. ROUND ROCK AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT GEORGETOWN DOES NOT ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR, OR WARRANT, THE SERVICES THAT ENGINEER PROVIDES PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TASK ORDER AMENDMENT. ROUND ROCK AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT GEORGETOWN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ROUND ROCK MAY HAVE NOW OR IN THE FUTURE AGAINST ENGINEER. OR ANY DAMAGES OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER ALLEGEDLY SUSTAINED BY ROUND ROCK, OR ANYONE HAVING A CLAIM BY, THROUGH OR UNDER ROUND ROCK. RELATED IN ANY WAY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER. 1.07 Term. This Agreement shall commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall end upon the completion and acceptance of the Services by Georgetown and Round Rock. 1.08 Default and Remedies. If Round Rock fails to pay for Services under this Agreement, and continues such failure for thirty (30) days after Georgetown provides written notice to cure, Round Rock shall be deemed to be in default under this Agreement. In the event that Round Rock defaults under this Agreement, and such default is not cured provided in this Agreement, Georgetown may, in addition to any other remedy at law or in equity, immediately 3 terminate this Agreement or seek specific performance of this Agreement. 1.09 Completion of the Project. Upon completion of the plans, specifications and estimates for the Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Extension, Georgetown may use the balance of the “Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive” account to reimburse construction cost related to FM 1460/A.W. Grimes Boulevard or further design work or construction cost related to Rabbit Hill Road/Oakmont Drive. II. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.01 Authority. This Agreement is entered, in part, pursuant to the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 791 (the “Act”). The provisions of the Act are incorporated in this Agreement and this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the Act. 2.02 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable and, if any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid for any reason by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement will not be affected and this Agreement will be construed as if the invalid portion had never been included. 2.03 Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate at all times in good faith to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 2.04 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings or representations, whether oral or written, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No promise, statement or representation that is not expressly stated in this Agreement has been made by any Party to induce execution of this Agreement. 2.05 Amendments. Any amendment of this Agreement shall be in writing and will be effective if signed by the authorized representative of each Party. 2.06 Waiver. Lack of enforcement of any right under this Agreement by either Party shall not constitute a waiver of that right or any other in the future. 2.07 Independent Relationship. Each Party, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an individual capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, joint ventures or associates of one another. The employees or agents of one Party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees or agents of the other Party for any purpose. 2.08 No Waiver of Immunities. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to waive, modify or amend any legal defense available at law or in equity to either Party. Neither Party waives, modifies, or alters to any extent whatsoever the availability of the defense of governmental immunity. 4 2.09 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer or shall be construed as conferring any rights, benefits, remedies, or claims upon any other person or entity. 2.10 No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part by either Party. 2.11 Applicable Law; Venue. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with Texas law. Venue for any action arising hereunder will be in Williamson County, Texas. 2.12 Notices. Notices given under this Agreement will be effective if forwarded to a Party by hand-delivery, transmitted to a Party by confirmed fax or deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, certified mail, postage prepaid, to the address of the Party indicated below: GEORGETOWN: P.O. Box 409, Georgetown, Texas 78627 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Attn: Ed Polasek Telephone: (512) 930-2544 Facsimile: (512) 930-3559 Email: ed.polasek@georgetown.org ROUND ROCK: 2008 Enterprise Drive, Round Rock, Texas 78664 Attn: Gary Hudder Telephone: (512) 671-2887 Facsimile: (512) 218-5563 Email: garyhudder@round-rock.tx.us Either Party may from time to time designate any other address for notice by written notice to the other Party. 2.13 Exhibits. The following Exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference: Exhibit A - Scope of Services 2.14 Counterparts; Effect of Partial Execution. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. 2.15 Authority. Each Party represents and warrants that it has the full right, power and authority to execute this Agreement. 2.16 Effective Date. This Agreement is executed to be effective on the date the last Party signs this Agreement. 5 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS By: George G. Garver, Mayor ATTEST: By: _______________________________ _ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ __ Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § THIS INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me on this ____ day of ______________, 2013, by George G. Garver as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, a Texas home-rule city, on behalf of said city. Notary Public, State of Texas 6 CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS By: Alan McGraw, Mayor ATTEST: By: ________________________________ Sara L. White, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ _ Stephan L. Sheets, City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § THIS INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me on this ____ day of ______________, 2013, by Alan McGraw, Mayor of the City of Round Rock, a Texas home-rule city, on behalf of said city. Notary Public, State of Texas Parcel No. Grantor AC SF Estimate (Sq. Ft.) 106 Wayne E. Hullum, Danny Hullum Family Land Trust & Donna Garawecki Family Land Trust 1.113 48482 $2.00 $96,965 GT 109 PT1 Nelson Homestead Family Partnership, Ltd 1.045 45520 $2.00 $91,040 RR acquired already 109 PT2 Nelson Homestead Family Partnership, Ltd 0.432 18818 $2.00 $37,636 RR acquired already 111 Avery Ranch Company, LTD. Et al 9.405 409682 $2.00 $819,364 RR acquired already 112 Nelson Homestead Family Partnership, Ltd 1.068 46522 $2.00 $93,044 RR acquired already 113 Avery Ranch Company, LTD. Et al 8.152 355101 $2.00 $710,202 RR acquired already 114 Avery Ranch Company, LTD. Et al 4.059 176810 $2.00 $353,620 RR acquired already 115 Avery Ranch Company, LTD. Et al 4.625 201465 $2.00 $402,930 GT 1 AAQ PT1 NNP-Edwards, LP 3.653 159125 $5.00 $795,623 GT 1 AAQ PT2 NNP-Edwards, LP split GT ETJ 5.932 258398 $5.00 $1,291,990 GT split parcel to RR/GT 1 AAQ PT2 NNP-Edwards, LP split RR ETJ 2.654 115608 $5.00 $578,041 RR split parcel to RR/GT 1 AAQ PT3-A NNP-Edwards, LP 4.111 179075 $5.00 $895,376 RR 1 AAQ PT3-B NNP-Teravista, LP (Remainder of Lot 7) 2.24 97574 $5.00 $487,872 RR 1 AAQ PT3-C NNP-Teravista, LP (Remainder of Lot 7) 1.274 55495 $5.00 $277,477 RR acquired already 1 AAQ PT3-D NNP-Teravista, LP (Lot 2, 7.156 AC.) 3.323 144750 $5.00 $723,749 RR acquired already 1 AAQ PT4 NNP-Teravista, LP (Lot 2, 7.156 AC.) 1.996 86946 $5.00 $434,729 RR acquired already 1 AAQ PT5 NNP-Teravista, LP (Lot 2, 7.156 AC.) 0.739 32191 $5.00 $160,954 RR acquired already 1 AAQ PT6 NNP-Teravista, LP (Lot 2, 7.156 AC.) 1.095 47698 $5.00 $238,491 RR acquired already Southern Segment Total 8,489,103 Total %10% match South Segment Georgetown $2,587,508 0.57 $258,751 South Segment RR (not acquired)$1,961,289 0.43 $196,129 South Segment RR (already acquired) $3,940,307 Still to be acquired under the new agreement $4,548,796.56 FM 1460 ROW Estimate Exhibit A Georgetown ETJ W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S IH 35 SB S IH 35 NB N IH 35 FR N IH 3 5 F WY K E L L E Y D R S IH 3 5 F R S IH 35 F WY SB S E R V I C E T E R A V I S T A P K W Y TERAVISTA CLUB DR GREATVIEW DR C E N T E R B R O O K P L HEWLETT LOOP FAIRWAY PATH BENT WOOD PL W I N D I N G C R E E K P L P A R K C E N T R A L B L V D H I D D E N B R O O K L N P L A C I D C R E E K W A Y G R A N D V I S T A C I R ME A D O W S I D E L N T E R A V I S T A P K W Y N IH 35 FR N IH 35 FWY CITY OF GEORGETOWN /1 inch = 833.33 feet Legend Address Parcels City Limits Type Proposed Street Existing Street Thoroughfare Plan - Color Coded CLASS EXIST_COLLECTOR EXIST_FREEWAY EXIST_MAJ_ARTERIAL EXIST_MIN_ARTERIAL PROP_COLLECTOR PROP_FREEWAY PROP_MAJ_ARTERIAL PROP_MIN_ARTERIAL ETJ (Outline) ETJ City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible recommendation to City Council regarding an Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in an amount of $400,000 – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The purpose of the Flood Protection Planning Grant Program is for the State to provide financial assistance to local governments to develop flood protection plans for entire major or minor watersheds (as opposed to local drainage areas) that provide protection from flooding. Potential solutions to flooding problems will be identified, and the benefits and costs of these solutions will be estimated. From the planning analysis, feasible solutions to flooding problems will be recommended. The flood protection planning study should also include an assessment of the environmental and cultural resources of the planning area as necessary to evaluate the flood control alternatives being considered. The City, with Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC, has been working on an application to complete a study of the watersheds within the city limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction to provide detailed updates to the current FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), develop a new hydrologic model for the, identification to flood problem areas and potential mitigation alternatives for the flood prone areas. This is very similar to the work ongoing on the Smith Branch Watershed, but for most watersheds in the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to City Council approval of the TWDB Flood Protection Planning Grant application and submittal of same. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The TWDB Grant program is a 50/50 Match program. The City would receive $200,000 from the grant, and provide $50,000 in in-kind services plus $150,000 in cash match from the FY ’15 Stormwater CIP. This can be programmed through our normal CIP process for next year if the grant is awarded. SUBMITTED BY: Ed Polasek ATTACHMENTS: Description Type TWDB Grant Application Cover Memo Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 SECTION II PLANNING INFORMATION………………………………………………………………………………… 7 SECTION III WRITTEN ASSURANCES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 20 SECTION IV PROOF OF NOTIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………. 21 SECTION V RESOLUTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Planning Area Map 2. Example of Culvert/Bridge Crossing Field Measurements performed under 2000 Master Drainage Plan 3. Time Schedule for Completing Detailed Scope of Work 4. Team Organization, Qualifications and Direct Experience of Potential Subcontractor Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 2 SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Legal name of applicant(s): City of Georgetown 2. DUNS Number, if you do not have a DUNS number, visit: https://iupdate.dnb.com/iUpdate/companylookup.htm 3. Central Contract Registration Number (CCR#). If you do not have a CCR number, visit: https://www.uscontractorregistration.com/ 4. Participating political subdivisions: A. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Williamson County 3151 S. E. Inner Loop, Suite B Georgetown, Texas 78626 Joe England, P.E., County Engineer (512) 943-3330 (512) 943-3335 B. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Brazos River Authority 4600 Cobbs Drive Waco, Texas 76714 Phil Ford, General Manager/CEO (254) 761-3100 (254) 761-3207 C. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Georgetown Chamber of Commerce 100 Stadium Drive Georgetown, Texas 78626 Mel Pendland, President (512) 930-3535 (512) 930-3587 president@georgetownchamber.org D. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Georgetown Independent School District 603 Lakeway Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 Joe Dan Lee, Superintendent (512) 943-5015 (512) 943-5002 LeeJD@georgetownisd.org Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 3 E. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Georgetown Economic Development Corporation 816 S. Main Georgetown, Texas 78626 Mark Thomas, Director of Economic Development (512) 930-3688 mark.thomas@georgetown.org F. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Texas Department of Transportation – Austin District, Georgetown Area Office 2727 S. Austin Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 Mark Jones, P.E., Area Engineer (512) 930-5402 G. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Capital Area Council of Government 6800 Burleson Road, Building 310, Suite 165 Austin, Texas 78744 Mark Sweeney, Director of Regional Services (512) 916-6030 msweeney@capcog.org H. Name: Address: Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: City of Jarrell 161 Town Center Blvd Jarrell, Texas 76537 Dewey Hulme, Mayor (512) 746-4593 (512) 746-2052 mayor@cityofjarrell.com 5. Authority of law under which each political subdivision was created: City of Georgetown City of Georgetown is a political subdivision of the State of Texas and was founded in 1848. The City adopted its initial “Home Rule” Charter on April 24, 1970, amended it in 1979, 1986, 1988 and again in 1994. City of Jarrell The City of Jarrell is a political subdivision of the State of Texas and was founded in 1909 and incorporated as a city in 2001. Williamson County Williamson County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, created and functioning under Article 9, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, and as amended on November 2, 1999. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 4 6. Applicants official representative: COG TO FILL OUT Name Title Mailing Address Phone Number Fax Number E-mail Address Vendor ID Number (if available) 7. Citations of applicant’s legal authority to plan for and implement flood protection measures for the study watershed or if authority to plan is by interlocal agreement, attach agreement to application: COG TO FILL OUT 8. Is this application in response to a published Request for Proposals list Texas Register? Yes No 9. If yes to number 8 above, list document number and date of publication. 10. Total proposed planning cost: $400,000.00 11. Total grant funds requested from the Texas Water Development Board: $200,000.00 12. Applicant Cash Contribution to the study $150,000.00 13. Source of Cash Contribution, explanation of source of local cash contribution and attach list of sources. Participant: City of Georgetown Cash Contribution: $150,000.00 Explanation of source of local cash contribution: 14. Applicant in-kind contribution including a description of in-kind services to be provided. Participant: City of Georgetown In-Kind: $50,000.00 Description of in-kind services: City of Georgetown will provide in-kind services for this study to include the following items: Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 5 Item Task Description Estimated Hours Estimated Cost a. Consultant selection and contract execution 20 $ 2,000 b. Project management, quality controls and coordination (18 months) 100 $ 10,000 c. Base map development (GIS) 40 $ 4,000 d. Field survey data collection (2-person survey crew) 80 $ 14,000 e. Hydrologic model development (GIS), assist in land use data and future development trend 80 $ 8,000 f. Flood problem area identifications and mitigation measures evaluations 80 $ 8,000 g. Implementation plan and improvement budgeting 40 $ 4,000 TOTAL 440 $ 50,000 15. Detailed description of why proposed planning is needed. The primary goals of the proposed planning study include the following: a) Hydrologic/hydraulic assessment of the subject watersheds which would result in identification of flood problem areas; b) Development of flood protection and mitigation strategies for the flood problem areas; and c) By mitigating the flood problem areas, it would provide economic development opportunities and improve quality of life for the citizens of the City in a sustainable manner. The following presents reasons why proposed planning is needed: a) As a majority of the planning area (see Exhibit 1) consists of open space, which represents growth potential in the future, it is imperative to identify and mitigate the drainage problem areas so that the future growth would not intensify or exacerbate the flooding problems. b) In 2008, the Georgetown City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which guides Georgetown into the 21st century faced with new opportunities and challenges. Two of the 2030 Georgetown Comprehensive Plan vision statements included “Quality of Life” and “Quality Growth/Sustainable Development”. The proposed planning study, which would result in flooding identifications and mitigations, is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals. c) City of Georgetown conducted a Master Drainage Plan in 2000. Since 2000, the population of the city has almost doubled, and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan re-defined the preferred growth patterns. Development (commercial and residential) has occurred in every part of the city. It is important to evaluate the impact of this development and the current growth patterns on the hydrologic/hydraulic conditions of the watersheds. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 6 d) The current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the watersheds within the planning area is over 20 years old and contains outdated and inaccurate peak discharges and base flood information. Specifically, although FIRM was updated in April 2008, new hydrologic/hydraulic analyses and floodplain mappings were not performed. The update was performed to convert the FIRM into a digital format and incorporated approved Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) at the time. Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, there has been over forty (40) LOMR approved since 2008. In order to have an effective tool to manage quality and sustainable growth, it is important to prepare an updated comprehensive drainage plan in the planning area. e) A portion of the planning area is subject to frequent flooding due to inadequate drainage infrastructure. This was evidenced by the widespread destruction from the recent September 8, 2010 Hermine storm event (please see more detailed description under SECTION 2 PLANNING INFORMATION, ITEM 21). It is critical to the community that detailed hydrologic/hydraulic analyses and floodplain mapping be performed using the new modeling techniques and more accurate topographic information so that the flooding problems can be identified and economical and effective mitigations can be implemented. 16. Detailed description of why state funding assistance is needed. Due to the recent economic downturn and the associated reduction in revenue, City of Georgetown, similar to other municipalities in central Texas, has to significantly reduce its operating budget. Much of its general funds and resources are dedicated to the operation and maintenance of existing drainage infrastructure. There is no funding mechanism in place that would allow the City to 100% fund such a large-scale and comprehensive drainage study. In the absence of the proposed planning study, it would certainly lead to a significant increase in public risk if the critical drainage problem areas are not identified and addressed in a timely manner. With the State funding assistance, the City of Georgetown will be able to examine and tackle the drainage issue in a systematic, comprehensive and sustainable manner, instead of the typical band aid approach of addressing only the areas with immediate drainage problems. 17. Potential sources and amounts of funding available for implementation of viable flood protection measures resulting from proposed planning. Potential funding sources for implementation of viable flood protection measures include the following: a) Property taxes (General Fund); b) Storm Water Utility Fees; c) Capital Improvement Bond Funds (must be approved by voters); d) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 205, Small Flood Control Projects Program; e) TxDEM/FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding; and f) TWDB/FEMA FMA Grant Program for design and construction of small flood protection projects. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 7 SECTION 2 PLANNING INFORMATION 18. Describe the geographical planning area (specify river basins, counties, cities, districts, etc. and provide explanation for selecting planning boundaries). The planning area will consist of Berry Creek, Pecan Branch, Middle Fork of San Gabriel River, Smith Branch and Mankins Creek. These creeks are all tributaries of San Gabriel River located within the City of Georgetown full purpose limits and its ETJ areas. North Fork San Gabriel River and South Fork San Gabriel River, although also located within the city limits and its ETJ, are not part of the planning area due to its vast drainage area upstream (more than three hundred square miles). Also please note that storm water runoff along North Fork San Gabriel River through the city is regulated by Lake Georgetown located on the west side of Georgetown. The study area is part of the Brazos River Watershed. A summary of the planning area is provided below: Planning Area Summary Geographic Area Drainage Area (Acres) Drainage Area (Square Miles) Stream Miles Berry Creek 49,920 78 32 Dry Berry Creek (part of Berry Creek) 24,128 37.7 13 Cowan Creek (part of Berry Creek) 6,848 10.7 6 Mankins Branch 8,064 12.6 6.1 Pecan Branch & Pecan Branch Tributary #1 4,652 7.3 8.6 Smith Branch & West Fork Smith Branch 6,080 9.5 8.9 Middle Fork of San Gabriel River 11,008 17.2 13.8 TOTAL 110,700 173.0 88.4 The Berry Creek, Pecan Branch, Middle Fork of San Gabriel River, Smith Branch and Mankins Branch watersheds were selected because these watersheds cover approximately 90% of the most populated area within the City limits and its ETJ areas and these are the creeks that experienced the most flooding. Historic floods, including the storm events of February 22, 1958, June 27, 2007 and September 8, 2010, caused loss of life and significant damages within the city limits and its ETJ areas. The proposed planning study will identify flood measures to reduce the flooding risk to the Georgetown population living within the flood prone areas and to reduce flood damage to residential and commercial properties. 19. A map of the proposed planning area: Attachment 1 presents the proposed planning area including the drainage area boundaries as well as the Georgetown City and ETJ limits. 20. Description of the existing or potential flood hazard that this planning is intended to address and the way in which the proposed planning will address the problem. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 8 Based on the 2000 Georgetown Watershed Master Plan, the “existing” (as of 2002) flood hazard consists of the following:  Approximately 161 structures located within the existing condition (as of 2002) 100-year floodplain limits.  Approximately 85 structures located within the existing condition (as of 2002) 10 -year floodplain limits  Approximately 53 roadway crossing overtopped by the existing condition (as of 2002) 100- year water surface elevation.  Approximately 45 roadway crossing overtopped by the existing condition (as of 2002) 25- year water surface elevation. According to the 2000 US Census figures, Williamson County was the second fastest growing county in Texas during the decade of the 1990s. Georgetown has experienced consistent and significant growth for the past several decades. As of April 1, 2013, the population of the City is approximately 51,000, up from 29,000 in 2000, an approximately 80% increase. It is anticipated that the population will continue to increase at a rapid pace within the City of Georgetown limits and Extra-Terrestrial Jurisdiction (ETJ) areas. It is extremely important to manage this rapid growth with a comprehensive storm water management plan. Through scientific development of hydrologic and hydraulic models, citizen input and historic data, the flood hazard areas can be identified and flood hazard mitigation measures developed. This planning study intends to establish practical and cost effective solutions to mitigate the frequent flooding in these flood hazard areas. 21. Description of the historical flooding and flood damage in the proposed planning area. Georgetown is located in a hydrological unique area. The center of the city is located at the confluence of three (3) major creeks. These are North Fork of San Gabriel River, Middle Fork of San Gabriel River and South Fork of San Gabriel River. These three forks combined to form San Gabriel River just north of downtown Georgetown. Within a few miles east of this junction and within the City and its ETJ boundaries, Berry Creek, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Mankins Branch drain into San Gabriel River (see Exhibit A). The historical flood events in the proposed planning area include the Floods of 1921, 1957, 1958, 2007 and 2010. The 1921 Flood was created by approximately 50” of rainfall between September 10 and September 11. The flood destroyed the San Gabriel River bridge in Georgetown, which contributed to the creation of Lake Georgetown (opened in 1979). The April 24, 1957 Flood was created by approximately 20” of rainfall. A U.S. Geological Services rainfall/runoff gage near Georgetown in San Gabriel River recorded a peak discharge of approximately 155,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). Approximately 18” of rain fell on June 26 and 27, 2007. The weather was so treacherous that helicopter rescue had to be abandoned. Many residents fled their homes on a peninsula between the North and South Forks of San Gabriel River. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 9 The most recent significant flood event is the September 8, 2010 storm, which was a result of Tropical Storm Hermine. Approximately 12” of rainfall fell on the planning area within approximately a 24-hour period during this storm (estimated to exceed the 100-year rainfall event). Flood damage included approximately 120 commercial and residential structures as well as overtopping of numerous (over 30) roadway crossings. It was estimated that the Hermine event caused over $7 million in damages in the City of Georgetown and its ETJ areas. 22. Description of how the planning will address public safety and welfare. The proposed planning will address public safety and welfare in the following manner: a) The flood prone areas will be identified and this information will be made available to the public. The flood prone areas will include identification of residential and commercial buildings as well as roadway crossings. b) As part of the proposed planning study, mitigation measures for these flood prone areas will be identified. City of Georgetown will seek funding avenues to implement these projects. The proposed flood protection projects will be prioritized according to the risk to public safety and welfare. c) While the City is seeking avenue to implement the proposed flood protection improvements, City of Georgetown officials will notify the property owners of the residential and commercial structures that are at risk and advise them to purchase flood insurance. For city roadway crossings subject to frequent flooding, City of Georgetown officials will install warning signs that advise the drivers to turn around if floodwater overtops the road. For County and State roadways, City of Georgetown officials will coordinate with responsible agencies to mitigate the frequent flood overtopping situation. 23. Current unemployment rate in the proposed planning area. Current unemployment rate in the proposed planning area is approximately 5.3%. 24. Current per-capital income in the proposed planning area. Current per-capital income in the proposed planning area is approximately $31,231. 25. Current population in the proposed planning area. Current population in the proposed planning area is approximately 51,000. 26. Current population residing in the 100-year flood plain in the planning area. Number of People Residing in 100-year Floodplain Area Watershed Total Proposed Planning Area Proposed Planning Watersheds 474 Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 10 27. Estimated value of property in the 100-year flood plain in the planning area. Population in 100-year floodplain 474 Assumed persons per household 2.35 Estimated homes 202 Average value per home $ 271,446 Estimated value at risk in 100-year floodplain $ 54,832,092 28. Does the applicant participate in the National Flood Insurance Program/Community Rating System? COG TO FILL OUT 29. If yes to number 28 above, at what level of participation in the Community Rating System COG TO FILL OUT 30. Number of National Flood Insurance Program policies in effect in the proposed planning area NFIP Statics ( 1978-May 2013) NFIP Statistics (as of May 31, 2013 ) City of Georgetown Policies in effect 472 Insurance in-force $127,191,800 Written premium in-force 194,632 Total number of losses 38 Total payments $1,718,472 Source: FEMA and NFIP websites 31. Method of determination of potential cost effectiveness of proposed flood protection solutions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) HEC-FDA (Flood Damage Analysis) software or other similar widely accepted software will be used to determine the potential cost effectiveness of the proposed flood protection solutions. In general, the existing and the ultimate development (based on 2030 Georgetown Comprehensive Plan) conditions water surface elevations (from the HEC-RAS modeling results), the estimated finished floor elevations and the estimated property values (from tax appraisal rolls) will be input into the HEC-FDA software to determine the average annual damages. Upon development of the proposed improvement alternatives, the reduced water surface elevations will be input into the HEC-FDA to develop the reduced average annual damages. Proposed improvement project costs, which would include construction cost, easement cost (if necessary), engineering, material testing, surveying, geotechnical, environment assessment, and management cost, and COG maintenance cost will be annualized over the same period to establish the annual cost for the proposed flood mitigation alternatives. The reduction in average annual damage (benefit) and the annualized project cost can then be computed to determine the benefit/cost ratio for each alternative. In order to establish the most cost effective flood protection solutions, COG will also consider the following elements in addition to the benefit/cost ratio:  Environmental impact;  Citizen input (social and political); Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 11  Easement acquisition requirement; and  Funding limitation for implementation. 32. The date(s) and description(s) of the most recent flood protection planning in proposed planning area. In 2000, City of Georgetown conducted a Master Drainage Plan and developed a Drainage Criteria Manual for the City and its ETJ areas. The Master Drainage Plan and the Drainage Criteria Manual were adopted in 2003. The Master Drainage Plan covers the same watersheds as the proposed planning area in this grant application. 33. A description of how the proposed planning will coordinate with other flood protection plans or facilities in the planning area, surrounding regions, and the State. The proposed planning will coordinate with other flood protection plans or facilities in the planning area, surrounding regions, and the State through the following: a) Coordinate with other subdivision entities (such as TxDOT, Williamson County, Brazos River Authority, etc.) to acquire knowledge of other flood protection plans or facilities in the planning area, whether these projects are for flood protection, roadway improvements or private/public land development. For example, the COG Planning Department may be working with private developers to develop master plan subdivisions that may include regional detention ponds and/or channel improvements, or the Williamson County may be improving segments of the county road system that may include bridge and channel improvements at creek crossings. b) Conduct stakeholder meetings with representatives from the participating entities listed in Section 1 General Information, Item 4 above at key milestones of the project such as upon identification of flood prone areas, identification of flood mitigation measures, and prioritization of the flood protection projects. c) Once proposed flood protection projects are identified, coordinate with TCEQ for water quality and environmental issues, FEMA for floodplain mapping, NRCS, HUD and TWDB for funding, and Corps of Engineers for wetland impact. 34. A detailed scope of work for proposed planning. Through this grant application, the City of Georgetown (COG) desires to complete a study of selected watersheds within the COG limits and its ETJ areas to identify existing and future flood prone areas and develop a watershed storm water management plan to mitigate the flood problems. The objective of the proposed planning effort is to provide the City with accurate assessment of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the subject watersheds and streams, and a practical storm water management plan to address the critical flooding problems, as well as provide the City and the participating entities an important tool to manage growth and development. A detailed description of the proposed planning study scope of work is presented as follows: Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 12 a) Collection and Review of Baseline Information COG and its designated consultant will collect and review previous drainage studies, the previous Master Drainage Plan, FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and maps, FEMA LOMRs, master plan development (e.g. Sun City) drainage studies and reports, citizen drainage complaint reports, Tropical Storm Hermine damage reports and other available drainage reports of the proposed planning area. COG will conduct a kick-off meeting with its designated consultant, TWDB project manager and the representatives from the participating entities. The kick-off meeting will cover the following topics:  Project communication & reporting responsibilities – establish the frequency and method of COG’s designated consultant interface with TWDB project manager, COG project manager and the representatives from the participating entities;  Project milestone and schedule; and  Project deliverables at each milestone b) Development of a Base Map COG and its designated consultant will develop a base map using the following information:  Current FEMA FIS and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)  Digital GIS data of parcels, zoning maps, current and future land use maps and soils maps;  As-builts drawings for channel and bridge/culvert improvements;  Most current LiDAR topography; and  Approved LOMRs since the 2008 FIRM update. c) Assessment of Environmental Constraints A majority of the proposed planning area is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and its Transition Zone. This project will include a record review and data researc h of Critical Environmental Features (CEF) previously identified by the City of Georgetown. CEF is generally defined as springs, bluffs, canyon rimrocks, caves, sinkholes & recharge features and wetlands. This task will not include detailed field survey, investigation and determination of CEFs, but rather will establish the framework for the requirements of environmental assessment during the implementation and final design phase of the flood mitigation measures. d) Initial Identification of Flood Problem Areas Based on the previous Master Drainage Plan, flooding complaint list, Tropical Storm Hermine Damage Report and other available flooding reports, the flooding problem areas will be identified. COG will conduct a public meeting to solicit input on the drainage problem areas including the specifics and nature of the flooding. COG will prepare a brief preliminary finding report on the Tasks a) through d) findings. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 13 e) Perform Field Survey COG will utilize the most current LiDAR data flown in the proposed planning area. The Master Drainage Plan performed in 2001 has field measurements of all the culvert/bridge crossings at the time (see an example in Attachment 2). COG and its consultant will perform field reconnaissance to verify this data. For new bridge/culvert crossings constructed after 2001 or culverts repaired after the Hermine storm, COG will conduct field surveys and/or utilize as- built information. In addition, COG has allocated field survey time to pick up critical regional detention facilities, bridge/culvert crossings, cross sections and finished floor elevations. f) Develop Hydrologic Model COG and its consultant will develop GIS geo-referenced hydrologic models using the Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS computer program, along with the preprocessor HEC-GeoHMS. COG and its consultant will develop the Existing Condition and Ultimate Condition hydrologic runoff models. The Ultimate Condition will be based on the adopted COG 2030 Plan land use and zoning designations. The following information will be incorporated into the HEC-HMS models:  Regional detention facilities;  FEMA LOMR hydrologic models; and  Other large scale storm water impoundment facilities (more than 10 acres in surface area) such as SCS Dam or retention/stock ponds. The hydrologic model input parameters will be developed based on the following approach;  Rainfall data – The latest USGS 24-hour design storm with National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Type III distribution will be used. The 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100- and 500-year frequency storm events will be modeled.  Drainage Area – To insure consistency in the peak time computation within the HEC- HMS model, the subarea size for rural area (in the headwater area) will be divided to close to 5 square miles but will not exceed 8 square miles. The subarea size for urban area (in the downtown and fully developed areas) will be divided to close to 0.5 square mile but will not be less than 0.25 square mile.  Time of Concentration – The TR-55 equations for estimating the time of concentration for sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel/storm drain flow will be used. For rural area, sheet flow length will not exceed 200 feet. For urban area, sheet flow length shall not exceed 100 feet.  Runoff Curve Number – The Runoff Curve Number (CN) for each sub-basin will be computed based on procedures outlined in the NRCS TR-55 publication. Two sets of CN values will be developed for each sub-basin, the existing condition and the ultimate development condition. The existing condition CN will be computed based on latest existing land-use condition data. The ultimate development condition CN will be computed based on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan land-use condition data. The latest NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Williamson County shall be used for soil type determination. For rural and sparsely populated sub-basins, the COG Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 14 designated consultant will use the best engineering judgment to determine the ultimate land use condition CN values. The hydrologic model will be calibrated to peak discharges recorded during historic storm events prior to computing peak flows for hypothetical storm events. In particular, COG has extensive rainfall, runoff and high water marks data during the Tropical Storm Hermine event. This data will be used to calibrate the HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS models. g) Develop Hydraulic Model COG and its consultant will develop GIS geo-referenced hydraulic models using the Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS computer program, along with the preprocessor HEC-GeoRAS. Similar to the hydrologic models, the Existing Condition and the Ultimate Condition HEC-RAS models will be developed. The hydraulic model input parameters and modeling procedures are presented as follows:  Peak discharges from the HEC-HMS junctions will be specified at the appropriate cross sections. For channel or creek between two HEC-HMS junctions, the downstream junction peak flow will be used two-third distance upstream along the creek and the peak flow from the upstream junction will be used one-third distance downstream along the creek.  Manning’s roughness coefficients (“n”) will be established based on field reconnaissance, aerial photos and standard engineering reference tables or publications.  Field reconnaissance will be performed to verify the bridge/culvert data obtained for the 2002 Georgetown Master Drainage Plan Study. If the bridge/culvert has been modified/repaired/upgraded, new survey will be performed to obtain culvert/bridge sizes, upstream and downstream flowlines, low chord and top of road elevations. In addition, field survey will be performed for any new roadway crossing constructed since the 2002 Georgetown Master Drainage Plan Study.  Field survey will also be acquired for creek areas experiencing significant erosion and newly improved channel since the latest LiDAR data.  Other HEC-RAS parameters, such as “ineffective flow area”, “expansion/contraction coefficients” and “bridge/culvert energy loss coefficients” will be used as appropriate. The HEC-RAS model will be calibrated based on available historical storm events, such as Tropical Storm Hermine, prior to applying the hypothetical storm events. h) Final Identification of Flood Problem Areas, Establishment of Flood Protection Criteria and Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives Based on the information from Item d) above and results of the hydraulic models, the flood problem areas will be identified. COG has established the following flood protection criteria in its Drainage Criteria Manual:  For roadway crossings, it must fully convey (through the opening of the crossing) the 25- year storm ultimate development peak discharges with less than 12” over the top of the Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 15 residential (local) roadway or with less than 6” over the top of the road for the collector or arterial roadway for the 100-year storm ultimate development peak discharges.  For improved channel, it must fully convey the 25-year storm ultimate development peak discharges with provisions to contain the 100-year storm ultimate development peak discharges within the drainage easement or right-of-way.  For structure located adjacent to a 100-year floodplain, the finished floor elevation must be at least 1’ above the 100-year storm ultimate development peak discharges. For each of identified flood problem areas, a flood problem severity index will be developed. The elements of this index will include, but not be limited to, depth of flooding (in inches or feet), number of structure affected, value of the affected structure, the ability to evacuate its inhabitants, the environmental impacts, and the frequency of the flooding. The flood problem severity index will assist in the selection and prioritization of the proposed improvement projects. The storm water management and flood mitigation plan will include consideration of the following: Structural Approach:  Detention/Retention Facility;  Channel Improvements, particularly using the Natural Channel Method;  Roadway Bridge/Culvert Improvements;  Levees/Berms/Floodwalls; and  Combination of any of two or more of the above. Non-Structural Approach:  Update the COG Drainage Criteria Manual and existing land development ordinance if necessary;  Buy-outs of the flooded properties;  Installation of Early Flood Warning systems;  Installation of flood warning signs and barricades at frequent inundated roadway crossings; and  Develop pubic information publications describing flood risks and flood insurance. i) Perform Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses of Flood Mitigation Alternatives Hydrologic/hydraulic analyses of flood mitigation alternatives will be performed using HEC- HMS and HEC-RAS models for the various hypothetical flood events. Preliminary flood control measures will be developed and delineated on plan, profile and cross section sheets as well as the resulting 100-year flood plain limit maps (indicating the amount of property removed from the 100-year floodplains). Flood mitigation alternatives will be evaluated not only at the problem area (to reduce the levels of flooding) but also the potential of causing adverse hydrologic/hydraulic impacts at other locations in the watershed. For example, a channel improvement project would likely reduce the time of concentration through the project area, thereby potentially increase the peak discharges at the downstream discharge point of the project area. COG consultant will Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 16 insure that flood mitigation measures will not cause adverse flooding impacts elsewhere in the proposed flood improvement areas. A public meeting will be conducted to present the flood mitigation alternatives and to solicit input from the property owners and stakeholders. To the extent possible, citizen and stakeholder concerns will be incorporated. j) Develop Benefit/Cost Analysis of Flood Mitigation Alternatives The flood mitigation alternatives benefits will be developed. Specifically, these benefits will include reduction in damages for structures (residences, commercials and public facilities), reduction in damages for roadway crossings, and reduction in economic loss (business interruptions and temporary job lost). Each alternative of flood mitigation benefits will be compared to the cost of the proposed improvements, which will include administration, management, engineering and construction costs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Flood Damage Reduction Analysis (HEC-FDA) software, or other compatible widely accepted software, will be used in the Benefit/Cost analysis. This effort will result in a ranking of proposed mitigation alternatives based on cost effectiveness and technical merits. A public meeting will be conducted to obtain citizens and stakeholders input on the flood mitigation alternatives and the results of the benefit/cost analysis. k) Prepare Implementation and Phasing Plan Based on input from the public meeting, a project implementation and phasing plan will be developed. The implementation and phasing plan will consider items such as funding sources, project duration, easement requirements, environmental impact of the proposed improvements, and benefit/cost ratio. In addition, consideration of the City’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan will be important to ensure that the implemented flood improvement projects are compatible with the Plan’s goals including economic development and quality of life. l) Prepare Final Report COG consultant will develop a draft final report summarizing the results of the hydrologic/hydraulic investigations, flood mitigation alternatives, benefit/cost analysis and stakeholder input. The draft report will include technical description of hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, methodologies, assumptions and modeling notes as well as improvement alternative costs, easement requirements (if applicable), phasing and implementation plan, floodplain maps and other applicable exhibits. A final public meeting will be conducted to present the draft final report. Following the public meeting and incorporation of public input, the draft final report will be submitted to TWDB for review. Upon addressing TWDB review comments, the final report will be submitted to TWDB. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 17 35. A task budget for detailed scope of work by task. TASK BUDGET Task Description Budget 1 Collection and Review of Baseline Information $ 10,000 2 Development of a Base Map $ 20,000 3 Assessment of Environmental Constraints $ 20,000 4 Initial Identification of Flood Problem Areas $ 10,000 5 Perform Field Survey $ 40,000 6 Develop Hydrologic Model $ 100,000 7 Develop Hydraulic Model $ 110,000 8 Final Identification of Flood Problem Areas, Establishment of Flood Protection Criteria and Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives $ 10,000 9 Perform Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses of Flood Mitigation Alternatives $ 40,000 10 Develop Benefit/Cost Analysis of Flood Mitigation Alternatives $ 20,000 11 Prepare Implementation and Phasing Plan $ 10,000 12 Prepare Final Report $ 10,000 Total $ 400,000 36. A time schedule for completing detailed scope of work by task. A time schedule is presented in Attachment 3. 37. An expense budget by category for detailed scope of work. Notes: 1 Salaries and Wages is defined as the cost of salaries of engineers, draftsmen, stenographers, surveymen, clerks, laborers, etc., for time directly chargeable to this contract. EXPENSE BUDGET CATEGORY TOTAL BUDGET Salaries & Wages 1 $ 20,000 Communication $ 100 Supplies $ 200 Tech/Computer Reproduction $ 500 Subcontract Services $ 350,000 Fringe 2 $ 15,000 Travel 3 $ 200 Other Expenses 4 $ 0 Overhead 5 $ 14,000 Profit $ 0 Total $ 400,000 Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 18 2 Fringe is defined as the cost of social security contributions, unemployment, excise, and payroll taxes, workers’ compensation insurance retirement benefits, medical and insurance benefits, sick leave, vacation, and holiday pay applicable thereto. 3 Travel is limited to the maximum amounts authorized for state employees by the General Appropriations Act, Tex. Leg. Regular Session, 2011, Article IX, Part 5, as amended or superseded. 4 Other Expenses is defined to include expendable supplies, communications, reproduction, and postage directly chargeable to this CONTRACT. 5 Overhead is defined as the costs incurred in maintaining a place of business and performing professional services similar to those specified in this contract. These costs shall include the following:  Indirect salaries, including the portion of the salary of principals and executives that is allocable to general supervision;  Indirect salary fringe benefits;  Accounting and legal services related to normal management and business operations;  Travel costs incurred in the normal course of overall administration of the business;  Equipment rental;  Depreciation of furniture, fixtures, equipment, and vehicles;  Dues, subscriptions, and fees associated with trade, business, technical, and professional organizations;  Other insurance; Rent and utilities; and Repairs and maintenance of furniture, fixtures, and equipment 38. Qualifications and direct experience of proposed project staff. COG staff has numerous years of experience in managing, financing and implementing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. COG staff has successfully completed numerous CIP projects in streets, drainage , utilities and flood control improvement projects in order to meet the needs, public welfare and safety of the fast growing community. The COG designated project manager for this grant application will be XXXX. He holds a xxxxxx. COG TO FILL OUT COG’s Technical Support of the proposed study will likely be provided by Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC (CPE). CPE successfully completed the 2003 Georgetown Master Drainage Plan and developed the Georgetown Criteria Manual. Attachment 4 presents the qualifications and direct experience of the proposed project staff. 39. Identify the watershed(s) for which flood protection needs will be addressed. The watersheds for which flood protection needs will be addressed include Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River (see Attachment 1). 40. A description of how flood protection needs of the entire watershed will be considered. Flood protection needs of the entire watershed of the study area will be considered using the following procedures: a) Review COG data base for historic flood problem areas and information on configuration of existing drainage infrastructure within the study area. b) Develop hydrologic/hydraulic models under existing land use conditions to determine the flood problem areas and to correlate with recent extreme flood events (e.g. Tropical Storm Hermine event). Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 19 c) Hold public meeting to obtain input from citizens and affected property owners due to frequent flooding. d) Develop hydrologic/hydraulic models for ultimate land use conditions (based on COG 2030 Comprehensive Plan land uses) to further identify potential flood problem areas under anticipated development conditions. e) Review the nature and source of flood problems including upstream storm water runoff, local storm drain conveyance facilities, backwater from downstream, levees, berms and obstruction that might divert storm water runoff and capacities of existing creeks, channels and drainage structures. f) Develop flood protection needs considering the source of the flooding, structural and non- structural controls, and culverts/low water crossings improvements. g) Evaluate the flood protection needs and improvement strategies based on cost/benefit analysis and Corps of Engineers HEC-FDA method or other accepted method. h) Hold public meeting to obtain input and buy-in from citizens and stakeholders. 41. Method of monitoring study progress. The progress of the study progress will be monitored closely and regularly. First, a kick-off meeting will be held between TWDB Flood Protection Planning Grant project manager, COG project manager and COG designated consultant project manager. The kick-off meeting will identify goals and objectives of the study, project schedule, responsibilities of each party, reporting protocol, and deliverable requirements. During the course of the study, progress meetings will be conducted at a minimum interval of bi- monthly (once every 2 months). The meeting agenda will include the following:  Tasks accomplished since last meeting  Discussion of issues discovered, if any  Tasks to be performed  Project schedule status  Budget status In addition, the COG designated consultant will provide a brief project progress report at a minimum interval of once a month. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 20 SECTION 3 WRITTEN ASSURANCES  The proposed planning does not duplicate existing projects with the exception of updating existing flood protection plans;  Implementation of viable solutions identified through the proposed planning will be diligently pursued and identification of potential sources of funding for implementation of viable solutions;  If a grant is awarded, written evidence that local matching funds and in-kind services are available for the proposed planning must be provided when the contract is executed.  Applicant(s) is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program There is no current flood protection study undergoing by the City of Georgetown. Therefore, the proposed planning does not duplicate any existing projects. It is the intent of COG to diligently identify and purse sources of funding for implementation of viable flood mitigation solutions through the proposed planning study process. COG suffered significant damages during the Tropical Hermine storm. It is the strong desire of COG to seek solutions to insure the welfare and safety of its citizens. If TWDB approves this grant application, COG will provide written evidence that local matching funds and in-kind services will be provided when the contract is executed. COG hereby states that we are a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 21 SECTION 4 PROOF OF NOTIFICATION  Applicants must notify all political subdivisions, agencies and / or authorities, and planning groups as defined in 31 TAC Part 10, Chapter 355, Sub-chapter A [355.9] in the proposed planning area by certified mail that an application for planning grant assistance is being filed with the Texas Water Development Board. Prior to Texas Water Development Board action on a application, the applicant must provide one copy of the notice mailed to the affected political subdivisions, a list of political subdivisions to which notice was sent, and the date the notice was sent. The Board may not act on an application before the end of the 30-day notice period unless all political subdivisions, to which the required notice was sent, agree in writing to waive the notice period. The notification shall include the following: (CPE and COG joint effort) a) Name and address of applicant and applicant’s official representative: b) Brief description of proposed planning area: c) Purpose of the proposed planning: d) Texas Water Development Board Executive Administrator’s name and address e) Statement that any comments on the proposed planning must be filed with the applicant and the Texas Water Development Board Executive Administrator within 30 days of the date on which the notice was mailed. Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River City of Georgetown Page 22 SECTION 5 RESOLUTION  A resolution from the governing body of each applicant and / or participant: a) Indicating the entity’s representative is authorized to apply for a grant from the Texas Water Development Board; b) Granting authority for the entity to enter into a contract with the Texas Water Development Board; and c) Stating the intent to commit local matching funds in cash and/or in-kind services. Berry Creek Middle Fork Mankins Branch Smith Branch Pecan Branch §¨¦35 §¨¦35 ST29 ST29 £¤183 Berry Creek North Fork San Gabriel River San Gabriel River D r y B e r r y C r e e k Donahoe Creek C o w a n C re e k S m alley Branch South Berry Creek S t a p p B r a n c h Br u s h y C r e ek Chandler Branch Ranger Branch G l a s s c o c k B r a n c h LAKE GEORGETOWN M a n kin s Bra n c h N: \ R F Q \ R C & A P r i m e \ 0 8 - C i t y o f G e o r g e t o w n \ T W D B F l o o d P r o t e c t i o n G r a n t \ A r c v i e w \ C i t y L i m i t s a n d E T J . m x d PR O P O S E D P L A N N I NG A R E A M A P . Ch a n & P a r t n e r s E n g i n e e r i n g , L L C 43 1 9 J a m e s C a s e y # 3 0 0 Au s t i n , T e x a s 7 8 7 4 5 (5 1 2 ) 4 8 0 - 8 1 5 5 ww w . c h a n p a r t n e r s . c o m TB P E # F - 1 3 0 1 3 ATTACHMENT 1 1 inch = 2 miles 0482 Miles Legend Proposed Planning Area Roads Creeks Lake Georgetown Georgetown City Limits Georgetown ETJ Jarrell City Limits