Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda_GTAB_11.08.2019
Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Adv isory B oard and the Gov erning B ody of the City of Georgetown Nov ember 8, 2019 at 10:00 AM at G MC B uilding, 300-1 I ndustrial Av enue, Georgetown, T X 78626 T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. Regular Session (T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.) A C all to O rder B Introduc tion of Board Members and Visitors C Updates to various planning initiatives by C AMP O and T xDO T transportation improvement projec ts as wells as an update on G o G eo O perations D Airport Monthly R eport – Jos eph A. C arney, C .M., Airport Manager E November 2019 G TAB Updates - Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ys tems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, C I P Manager. L egislativ e Regular Agenda F C ons ideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the O c tober 11, 2019 Meeting. -- Emily Koontz - Board Liaison G C ons ideration and possible recommendation to award a contrac t to P atin C ons truction, LLC of Taylor, Texas for the cons truction of the S hell R oad S idewalk Improvement projec t in the amount of $229,825.00 – Wesley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, C I P Manager. H C onsideration and possible action to approve Task Order K PA-20-004 with K asberg, P atrick & Associates, L P of G eorgetown, Texas, for professional services related to the Lakeway and Williams Drive I ntersection improvements in the amount of $252,450.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E ., S ystems Engineering Director / Michael Hallmark, C I P Manager I C ons ideration and possible recommendation to approve the C ity of G eorgetown's Bic yc le Mas ter P lan Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said Page 1 of 110 meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C all to O rder IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NO NE S UB MIT T E D B Y: Emily Koontz - Board Liais on Page 3 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Updates to various planning initiatives by C AMP O and T xDO T trans portation improvement projects as wells as an update on G o G eo O perations IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NA S UB MIT T E D B Y: R ay Miller, Jr., Ac ting Director of P ublic Works AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type GTAB Meeting Memo - November 2019 Cover Memo CAMPO Project Evaluation Criteria Cover Memo Page 4 of 110 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Members FROM: Ray Miller, Jr., Acting Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Industry / CAMPO / TxDOT / Transit Updates – November 8, 2019 Meeting DATE: November 4, 2019 The purpose of this memo is to provide GTAB with updates in regard to the subjects listed above. CAMPO Staff attended a special called Technical Advisory Committee Meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 2019. The purpose of the meeting was to review a potent ial “Call for Projects” for the new 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. The actual date of the “Call for Projects” has not been announced. Once announced members or CAMPO and / political subdivisions within the CAMPO study area will have 6-8 weeks to submit an application that shows candidate projects. The application will consist of a spreadsheet that will have various project evaluation criteria. A change from past call for projects is that one spreadsheet can show multiple projects instead of having to submit individual applications for each project. Once the “Call for Projects” is announced staff will provide that information to GTAB. Attached you will find the draft of the “Evaluation Criteria”. It should also be noted that this is not a funded call for projects. It is a listing of projects that must be included in the CAMPO 2045 Long Range Plan. If a transportation project is not listed in the CAMPO Long Range Plan, then it would not be eligible for Federal funding if Federal funding were to become available. TXDOT ‒ Mobility-35 Projects (my35.org): i. IH-35 and Williams Drive ‒ Improve safety and mobility, including: Address increased turning movements at Williams Drive intersection Move north/south through-traffic from Williams Drive intersection to a new bypass lane under Williams Drive Add a northbound frontage road between Williams Drive and Lakeway Drive exit ramp Page 5 of 110 2 ‒ Reconstruct the Williams Drive interchange to a diverging diamond intersection (DDI) ‒ Construct north and southbound intersection bypass lanes under Williams Drive bridge ‒ Extend the northbound I-35 frontage road from Williams Drive to the Lakeway Drive exit ramp ‒ Improve the existing southbound I-35 frontage road ‒ Construct a northbound bypass lane on Austin Avenue at Williams Drive ‒ Improve bicycle and pedestrian paths along the I-35 frontage roads ‒ Construction is estimated to begin late 2020 with an anticipated completion in mid-2023 ‒ http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/my35/capital/projects/williams-drive/schematic.pdf ii. IH-35 from FM 2243 (Leander Road) to SE Inner Loop ‒ Increase safety and mobility, including eliminating potential conflict points between I-35 entrance and exit ramps ‒ Replace existing bridge at RM 2243 with a taller, wider bridge that includes three additional designated turn lanes ‒ Improve existing southbound I-35 frontage road from RM 2243 to north of SE Inner Loop ‒ Add braided entrance/exit ramps along the southbound I -35 frontage road between RM 2243 and SE Inner Loop ‒ Provide a northbound to southbound U-turn bridge ‒ Improve bicycle and pedestrian sidewalks and paths ‒ Construction is estimated to begin fall of 2023 with an anticipated completion the fall of 2025 ‒ http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/my35/capital/projects/rm2243/layout.pdf iii. IH-35 and Westinghouse (IH-35 from SE Inner Loop to FM 1431) ‒ Improve safety and mobility, including: Increasing visibility at the I-35 frontage road and Southeast Inner Loop and Westinghouse Road intersections Enhancing traffic flow by reducing lane merging/weaving along the southbound main-lanes and frontage road ‒ Remove Westinghouse Road b ridge and construct new I-35 bridge over Westinghouse Road ‒ Construct westbound to southbound Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) at Westinghouse Road ‒ Improve intersection at I-35 and SE Inner Loop ‒ Improve existing southbound I-35 frontage road from north of SE Inner Loop to RM 1431 Page 6 of 110 3 ‒ Reverse entrance/exit ramps along the southbound I-35 frontage road between SE Inner Loop and RM 1431 ‒ Improve bicycle and pedestrian sidewalks and paths ‒ Construction is estimated to start spring 2023 with an anticipated co mpletion in winter 2025 ‒ http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/my35/capital/projects/rm2243-rm1431/layout.pdf iv. IH-35 and SH-29 ‒ Improve safety and mobility to: Improve traffic flow due to a high volume of left-turning traffic Accommodate turning movements onto and from SH 29 Eliminate the need for left-turn bays and left-turn signal phases Minimize the number of potential conflicts between through traffic and left-turn traffic ‒ Mainlane and frontage road improvements ‒ Intersection bypass lanes ‒ Replacing and widening the SH 29 bridge ‒ Construction is estimated to begin in late 2023 dependent on funding Other Projects (in design or ready to go to construction) • SH-29 & DB Woods: Project will add turn lanes on both SH-29 and DB Woods, install a concrete median along SH-29 and improve drainage at the intersection. Construction is estimated to begin in mid- 2020. Estimated construction cost is $5.7 million • Leander Road (FM 2243) from Norwood Drive to Southwes t By-Pass: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway with improved sidewalks on the north side of the roadway. Construction is estimated to begin in late 2022. Estimated construction cost is $8.8 million. Transit – GoGeo The 1st and 2nd charts show the number of riders by route and by month of the year. In reviewing the two charts, there has been an increase in ridership for October thru April of FY 2019 in comparison to October thru April of FY 2018. The 3rd and 4th charts provide ridership numbers by month and fiscal year for both the Fixed Route system and the Paratransit service. The Fixed Route system in shown in blue while the paratransit service is shown in green. Page 7 of 110 4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Fixed Route Operations by Route FY 2018 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Fixed Route Operations by Route FY 2019 Page 8 of 110 5 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 Fixed Route and Paratransit FY 2018 Fixed Route Paratransit 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 October December February April June August Fixed Route and Paratansit FY 2019 Fixed Route Paratransit Page 9 of 110 6 Fixed Route Comparison by FY FY 2018 FY 2019 Dif =/+ 1575 October 1782 207 1324 November 1764 440 1329 December 1514 185 1255 January 1606 351 1298 February 1592 294 1611 March 1702 91 1440 April 1771 331 1628 May 1765 137 1916 June 2291 375 2026 July 1943 -83 1991 August 1970 -21 1582 September 1516 -66 Total 18975 21216 1581 AVG 1768 209.7273 Page 10 of 110 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Project Submittal Instructions And Evaluation Criteria Fall 2019 Page 11 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 2 Table of Contents Overview .................................................................................................................................... 3 Schedule .................................................................................................................................... 4 Application and Submittal Process ............................................................................................ 5 Application Workbook ................................................................................................................ 6 Application Workbook Information......................................................................................................................... 6 Instructions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Definitions and Resources ......................................................................................................... 9 Regionally Significant Projects ................................................................................................ 12 Roadway Project Selection ...................................................................................................... 15 Transit Project Selection Criteria ............................................................................................. 17 ITS/Operations Project Selection ............................................................................................. 18 Active Transportation ............................................................................................................... 19 Transportation Demand Management ..................................................................................... 20 Other Projects .......................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A: Additional Planning Factor Information ............................................................... 22 Roadway Projects ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 ITS/Operations Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Transit Projects ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 Active Transportation Projects ............................................................................................................................. 25 Transportation Demand Management .............................................................................................................. 26 Other Projects .............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix B: 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives ................................. 29 Appendix C: Major Regional Activity Centers ......................................................................... 30 Page 12 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 3 Overview The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is responsible for the development and maintenance of the long -range regional transportation plan (RTP) for the six- county region. The RTP, with a forecast year of at least 20-years, is reviewed and updated every five years to ensure the plan's validity and consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends. CAMPO is currently developing the next five-year update of the 2045 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to providing goals, policies and performance measures to guide the development of transportation in the region, the RTP includes a fiscally constrained project list of regionally significant activities that will be developed and implemented over the next 20 years. In order to create the project list, CAMPO has developed a submission process through which sponsors can submit their regionally significant projects for inclusion in the RTP. In the CAMPO region, the Metropolitan Transportation Pla n (MTP) as it is described in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is referred to as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Page 13 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 4 Schedule Date October 16, 2019 TAC Workshop on Project Selection Criteria October 2019 TAC Concurrence on criteria October 2019 Local Government webinar regarding RTP project call October 2019 – December 2019 RTP Call for Projects Application Intake November 2019 1st round of public outreach (existing conditions) December 2019 TAC informational item regarding RTP project applications received December 2019 – January 2020 Constrained Plan and Compiled RTP Report Completion (draft plan) January 13, 2020 TPB Presentation on Project List January 27, 2020 TAC information presentation on draft plan of constrained project list February 10, 2020 TPB informational item regarding constrained project list February - March 2020 2nd Round Public Outreach – Constrained Plan – Comment Period March 9, 2020 Informational item for TPB March 23, 2020 TAC recommendation April 6, 2020 TPB Action Page 14 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 5 Application and Submittal Process The project listing in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) outlines the implementation of the vision and goals of the Transportation Policy Board (TPB) and guides and facilitates the expenditure of federal and state transportation funds. The listing is comprised of regionally significant projects that are sponsored by federal, state and local transportation agencies and governments. These sponsors may submit projects during the submission period for consideration using the 2045 RTP Application spreadsheet and this guide through the online portal located at www.campotexas.org. Sponsors are required to fill out the application and project spreadsheet. CAMPO will review the submittals and will coordinate as needed with sponsors. Additional instructions are provided in the application spreadsheet. All projects submitted in the plan call should be for 2025 to 2045. Any projects before this time period will need to go through the Transportation Improvement Program process. Page 15 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 6 Application Workbook The 2045 RTP project application is how project sponsors will submit projects to be considered for the fiscally constrained project listing. The application spreadsheet (Excel-based) is divided by project type: Roadway, Transit, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), Active Transportation, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Other. Sponsors should select the appropriate project tab and fill out the required fields detailed bel ow. Once completed, sponsors must attach the worksheet to the application for submittal. Application Workbook Information Instructions This tab contains detailed instructions on how to use to Application Workbook and how to submit projects for consideration. Definitions and Resources To be able to answer questions, we have created a list of need to know definitions and where to look up data. Near the bottom, this tab features tables that explain how to best access information to support the answers that sponsors provide for their projects. Please refer to these tables while filling out the project scoring tabs. Project Information This tab asks for basic information of the project sponsor, such as address, contact information, and organization type. Please list each project here and the project score will be automatically populated from the criteria tabs when sponsors self-score projects. Illustrative Projects If the project is considered illustrative, sponsors will include the project here instead of the specific funding category tab. Roadway Scoring For all Roadway Projects, please use this tab to complete each scoring criteria questions. Transit Scoring For all Transit Projects, please use this tab to complete each scoring criteria questions. ITS Scoring For all ITS/Operational Projects, please use this tab to complete each scoring criteria questions. Active Scoring For all Active Transportation Projects, please use this tab to complete each scoring criteria questions. TDM Scoring For all TDM Projects, please use this tab to complete each scoring criteria questions. Other Scoring For all Other Projects, please use this tab to complete each scoring criteria questions. Page 16 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 7 Page 17 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 8 Instructions 1. Complete all columns for each project within the Project Information worksheet. Sponsors can use the Project Information Definitions as a guide. Many cells in the top row have upper right corners highlighted in purple to signify additional information. 2. Number the Projects in ascending order and ensure they correspond to those listed in the Project Type tabs (Roadway, Transit, ITS, Active, TDM, or Other) as you work your way through the application. 3. Optional: Complete the Long Description, if needed (maximum of 100 words). This allows a submitter to provide additional details. 4. Use the drop-down function to answer the yes/no performance measures and questions. 5. The Narrative Answer column, which may not be a simple yes or no, will be used to further explain how a sponsor addressed the performance measure. 6. Use the drop-down function to answer the Data Type (Shapefile, Narrative, or Both) that best addresses the performance measure. Both are encouraged, when feasible, to provide for a greater understand of the project. 7. Input where the sponsor obtained their data (Local Plans, State Plan, or Other) if other than a CAMPO plan. The relevant pages should be included in backup material sent in with the application and should denote (through highlights or other) where to find relevant graphics and text. 8. If the sponsor is using a data source other that one provided by CAMPO, explain where data was obtained to answer the performance measure question. 9. Objectively self-score how the project addresses the performance measure (total available points are in parentheses). 10. Ensure projects are on the appropriate tab (Roadway, Transit, ITS, Active Transportation, TDM, Other). Page 18 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 9 Definitions and Resources Project Information Column Title Information A Project Number This is the number assigned to each project within this worksheet. Use this number throughout when scoring projects. B-H: Sponsor Information Primary sponsor of the project. (Sometimes referred to as submitter) I-P Sponsor Contact Information Contact information for day-to-day manager of project. Q-W Co-Sponsor Information Secondary sponsor of the project as applicable X-AE Co-Sponsor Contact Information Contact information for day-to-day manager of project for co-sponsor. AF Project Type Roadway, Transit, ITS, Active, TDM, or Other AI County County or Counties where the project is located AK Limits (To) Indicates the physical location of the end of the project AL Limits (From) Indicates the physical location of the start of the project AM Limits (At) Indicates point of project (intersection, interchange or other point specific projects only) AN Description (Short) The description of the project should include a brief one to two sentence description that includes the current facility and anticipated facility upon completion of the project. Examples: Upgrade current two-lane undivided facility to a four-lane divided facility with bike lanes or New location two-lane facility with shoulders. Page 19 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 10 AO Estimated Project Cost Estimated cost should be given at the anticipated year of expenditure. Should include any high-level estimate of construction costs but can include ROW and utility costs if available. Please use the year of expenditure formula. (To be provided.) AP Funding Source(s) Anticipated funding source if readily identifiable. Reference to back up material can be provided along with items in cell AW. Local funding includes all funding that comes from inside the region such as from cities, counties, CTRMA tolls, transit, etc. If source is private, please show as local. AQ Explain Combination of Sources Explain any combination of anticipated funding sources, local, state, or federal etc. AR Let Year Anticipated year of project implementation or construction (from 2025 to 2045). AS Exiting Facility Indicate if project is on an existing facility. AT Current Functional Classification Current functional classification of the facility as defined by FHWA if applicable AU Anticipated Function Classification Anticipated functional classification of the facility. The 2045 Regional Arterials Study can be a guide as to the anticipated functional class. Regional Corridors not shown as Limited Access, Regional Connectors, or Principal Arterials in the Regional Arterials Study are assumed to be a future Minor Arterial. For other connections, not in the arterials study, please use FHWA methodology for determining what the anticipated functional class may be. See Regional Significance definition found in next section for additional details. Page 20 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 11 AV TxDOT On-System Identify if project is on-system project (project submittals with on-system projects must have written state concurrence via a letter from or submitted by TXDOT correspondence). AW Back-up Documentation of Planning Process and Public Outreach Please list all relevant back-up documentation, which could include pages from local plans to support performance measure scoring, minutes showing plan adoption, or any additional public outreach documentation or materials for the project. These documents will be uploaded with the application and used to validate or show projects submitted meet the various performance measures. It is okay to include multiples of documentation from other projects if projects overlap. Maps and text can be highlighted to show relevant project information if not clear. AZ Project Score Total (100 Points Possible) This is an automated score from the project’s worksheet. This is for CAMPO staff use. Page 21 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 12 Regionally Significant Projects Regionally significant project means a transportation project (other than exempt an exempt project) is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside the region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, or employment centers; or transportation terminals) and would normally be included in the modeling of the metropolitan area's transportation network. At a minimum, this includes all minor and principal arterial highwa ys and regional high-capacity transit services. Roadway Regional Significance definition: • Roadways and intermodal connectors included in the federally adopted National Highway System (NHS) • Roadways identified as minor arterials or higher in the Federal Regional Functional Classification System or are expected to be re-classified as an arterial or higher when open for public use. • Grade-separated interchange projects on regionally significant roadways • Frontage roads • Roadways that serve as a connection to/or between existing or planned regional activity centers and corridors. See Appendix C for further discussion on activity centers. Page 22 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 13 For a detailed guide on how FHWA determines functional class, please reference the following report: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classificati ons/fcauab.pdf Transit Regionally Significance definition: • Rail Transit • Commuter Routes • Bus Rapid Transit • Other limited or skip stop routes • Park and Rides • Vanpool Programs Simplified Classification Typical Spacing FHWA Classification Table Limited Access Interstate Interstates are the highest level of roadway and designed for long- distance travel offering limited access. 5 – 10 miles Freeway These roads have directional travel lanes and are separated by some type of physical barriers. Access is purely controlled by interchanges and on- and off-ramps to maximize their mobility function. Toll Road Roadways (either public or private) where passengers pay a usage fee to use the roadway. Principal/Major/Regional Connector 3 – 5 miles Expressway Roadways with directional travel lanes that are typically separated with controlled access to maximize mobility. Principal Arterials Roads serve major centers and provide a high level of mobility but abutting land uses can be served directly. Minor Arterials 1 – 3 miles Minor Arterials Provide service for trips of moderate length and offer connectivity to the higher arterial system. Page 23 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 14 Active Transportation Regionally Significance definition: • Connections illustrated in the Tier I, Tier II, or Vision Network of the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan • Projects that connect or serve regional activity centers and corridors • Long-distance corridors that connect multiple communities and jurisdictions • Safe Routes to School • Safety and operation projects • Other projects that allow active transportation connectivity to other regional modes Please note: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Operations Projects will be considered on a case by case basis. Page 24 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 15 Roadway Project Selection Planning Factors Project Number – Please number your projects in ascending order (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Optional: Long Description, if needed (maximum of 100 words). This allows a submitter to provide additional details. Goal Area Objective Value Performance Measure Safety C. G. J. 10 The corridor connects to hurricane or wildfire evacuation routes. A. B. 10 The project addresses additional safety issues. Documentation for this measure can include crash rates and the inclusion of features addressing safety, such as lighting, rumble strips, or others. A. B. H. P. 10 The project includes access management features such as raised median, turning movement improvements, driveway consolidations, and other operational/safety features. Mobility C. E. 10 The corridor fills in a gap by creating a new continuously connected or improved facility. C. E. 5 The corridor provides parallel capacity in high-volume corridors (those with a 0.45 V/C ratio or higher) to supplement existing arterials and limited access roadways. C. E. 10 The corridor crosses a physical barrier and enhances network connectivity. One (1) point will be awarded for each barrier traversed, types of barriers include (up to 10 points): - Railroads (including grade separations) - Limited Access Roads - Major Waterways (direct branch of Brazos or Colorado) C. E. M. 5 The corridor connects to one or more roadways of a high functional class (principal arterial or limited access). B. E. J. N. P. I. 10 The project includes transit elements or service routes and/or has identified needs as part of the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan, CapMetro Project Connect, or another local or regional transportation plan. Page 25 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 16 Stewardship K. P. 5 The project has incorporated measures that reduce, minimize or avoid negative impacts to the environment or cultural resources. See Appendix A for full list of environmental factors and cultural resources. Economy M. 5 The project is located along a major freight or hazardous materials route. L. 5 The project supports local, regional or state development plans and strategies. L. M. 5 The corridor connects to or serves a regional activity center(s) or corridors. See Appendix C for additional detail. Equity N. O. 5 The project serves vulnerable populations including low-income, minority, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited English proficiency households. See Appendix A. Innovation Q. R. 5 The project is adaptable to operational improvements (including TDM strategies), and new technologies such as connected/autonomous vehicles. Total Points 100 Page 26 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 17 Transit Project Selection Criteria Planning Factors Project Number – Please number your projects in ascending order (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Optional: Long Description, if needed (maximum of 100 words). This allows a submitter to provide additional details. Criteria Objectives Value Performance Measure Safety E. A. O. 20 The project enhances transit vehicle safety, safe transit stops and connections, and accessible facilities. Mobility F. 10 The project has undergone a comprehensive planning process or is identified as a priority in a local or regional transportation plan E. D. J. M. N. O. R. 10 The project provides connections to other transit services and/or modes of transportation. C. D. E. M. N. O. P. 15 The project fills a service gap, expands coverage or increases frequency of a route. Stewardship D. E. H. J. M. N. O. P. R. 5 The project has documentation showing ridership potential, this can be a planning level estimate. D. E. H. I. 10 The project addresses maintenance needs to maintain state of good repair. Economy E. N. O. P. 5 The project integrates existing or planned transit- supportive land use and infrastructure. L. 5 The project supports local, regional or state economic development plans and strategies. Equity N. O. P. 10 The project serves vulnerable populations including low-income, minority, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited English proficiency households. See Appendix A. Innovation E. Q. R. 10 The project demonstrates innovative design, technology, or service. Total Points 100 Page 27 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 18 ITS/Operations Project Selection Planning Factors Project Number – Please number your projects in ascending order (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Optional: Long Description, if needed (maximum of 100 words). This allows a submitter to provide additional details. Criteria Objectives Value Performance Measure Safety D. H. M. 15 The project contributes to improvements in incident management. D. E. H. L. M. Q. R. 15 The project can be used for management of special events or emergencies. Mobility F. 10 The project is a part of an overall concept identified through a comprehensive local or regional transportation planning process C. E. M. 10 The project will provide system and network redundancy to ensure continuity in operations. Stewardship D. I. M. Q. 5 The project lifecycle is greater than five years. D. I. Q. 5 The project has a formal maintenance program in place. Economy D. M. 10 The project will help reduce delays and travel time in the network. Equity O. 5 The project serves vulnerable populations including low-income, minority, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited English proficiency households. See Appendix A. Innovation D. H. Q. M. 10 The project will improve or expand the regional transportation ITS network. D. H. Q. M. 10 The project will tie into a centralized operations center. D. H. Q. M. 5 The project will collect and provide publicly accessible data. Total Points 100 Page 28 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 19 Active Transportation Planning Factors Project Number – Please number your projects in ascending order (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Optional: Long Description, if needed (maximum of 100 words). This allows a submitter to provide additional details. Criteria Objective Value Performance Measure Safety A. B. 25 The project will enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Mobility F. 10 The project has undergone a comprehensive planning process or is identified as a priority in a local or regional transportation plan, such as the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan A. B. C. D. 5 Project removes a barrier or provides a connection that did not exist previously. A. B. C. E. J. M. N. O. P. 10 Project connects to existing facilities such as schools, community facilities, residential, activity centers, etc. A. B. C. J. M. N. O. P. 15 The project directly links to a transit connection or is within: • 15 points, if .25 miles or less or • 10 points, if .26 to .5 miles or • 5 points, if the project demonstrates a potential for future connection to a transit system. Stewardship A. B. J. 15 The project improves public health through the provision of active transportation facilities that are safe and accessible. K. O. 5 The project has incorporated measures that reduce, minimize or avoid negative impacts to the environment or cultural resources. See Appendix A. Equity N. O. P. 10 The project serves vulnerable populations including low- income, minority, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero- car households, and limited English proficiency households. See Appendix A. Innovation A. B. C. D. E. H. I. J. M. N. O. P. R. 5 The project is innovative in design to address safety or other unique elements such as designing around transit, innovative intersection designs, or a pilot project. Total Points 100 Page 29 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 20 Transportation Demand Management Planning Factors Project Number – Please number your projects in ascending order (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Optional: Long Description, if needed (maximum of 100 words). This allows a submitter to provide additional details. Criteria Objectives Value Performance Measure Mobility F. 15 The project has undergone a comprehensive planning process or is identified as a priority in a local or regional transportation plan. G. P. 10 The planning process or document identifies an outreach component addressing commuting patterns and traveler engagement. A. D. E. G. L. M. N. 10 The project has a regional scope, impacts key regional congested roadways, or impacts key activity centers. A. D. E. K. M. N. 15 The project reduces vehicle miles traveled, single- occupant vehicle travel, or congested peak period travel. A. B. C. D. E. M. 15 The project and/or activity increases walking, bicycling, the use of public transit, ridesharing, and teleworking. G. 10 The project and/or activity includes the direct participation of other federal, state, and local jurisdictions. G. L. M. 10 The project and/or activity includes participation from regional employers and other trip generators impacting work force commuting patterns. Equity M. N. O. P. 15 The project has a positive impact (e.g. reduction in transportation costs, improvements on public health) on underserved populations including low-income, minority, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited English proficiency households. Total Points 100 Page 30 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 21 Other Projects Planning Factors Criteria Performance Measure Sponsor Selected The project sponsor demonstrates how the selected criteria apply to the project and provide supporting documentation. Page 31 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 22 Appendix A: Additional Planning Factor Information Roadway Projects Safety – Describe how the project would be expected to improve safety. Include information on multimodal safety and proven safety countermeasures like access management and operational improvements that will be included in the project. Furthermore, include materials showing how the project connects to hurricane or wildfire evacuation routes. Mobility – Provide detail on the current and forecast levels of congestion in the corridor and how this project will improve or manage congestion by filling gaps, crossing barriers, and connecting multiple functional classifications of roadways. Projects should be identified in locally or regionally adopted plans and should note if the project is designated on the National Highway System. Include documentation of the multijurisdictional nature of the project, the proposed design section, and its context in the corridor and region in addressing bottlenecks, gaps, or redundancy. If the roadway corridor serves existing or proposed transit or active transportation routes, include information on the route(s) from the transit prov ider or managing jurisdiction. Stewardship – Describe how the project will incorporate context sensitive measures that reduce, minimize, or avoid negative impacts to the environment or cultural resources. Environmental factors include soil plasticity, aquifers, flood plains, protected lands, and urban- wildfire interface. Cultural resources include parks (state and local), cemeteries, schools, hospitals/health care offices, historic buildings, museums, and civic centers. Moreover, provide information about how the project strategically prioritizes fiscally constrained investments to maximize the regional benefit and provide documentation that identifies committed funding for the project. Economy – Describe how the project relates to economic development plans. Include information on new developments, redevelopments, key industries, or commercial and freight interests that the roadway would be expected to serve. Equity – Refer to CAMPO’s map of Vulnerable populations which includes Environmental Justice, school-aged children, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited-English proficiency populations; note if the project is in or connects to one of these zones. Provide information from the corridor’s study that details how the project will minimize environmental impacts or improve current conditions. Innovation – Describe how the project leverages innovative technologies, designs, or operations to improve transportation efficiency and safety. Include information about how the project can facilitate and incorporate future technological developments such as platooning of vehicles and connected/autonomous vehicles. Page 32 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 23 ITS/Operations Projects Safety – Describe how the project would be expected to improve safety. Include information on how the project will be used for the management of incidents, special events, and emergencies. Mobility – Projects should be identified in locally or regionally adopted plans, including city or county thoroughfare plans, Regional ITS Architecture plans, and city, county or state ITS master or implementation plans. Provide information on how the project will provide system redundancy and identify conformity to the Regional ITS Architecture. Provide data on current operational deficiencies, including delays and crashes and describe how the project will address these. Stewardship – Identify the expected lifecycle of the project including the technology and equipment proposed. Provide information that supports the expected lifecycle and identify when updates, if required, may be needed. Identify if a formal ITS maintenance plan exists and provide a brief explanation of the plan and how the project will be included and whether current maintenance funds can support the project or new funds will be required. Moreover, provide information about how the project strategically prioritizes fiscally constrained investments to maximize the regional benefit and provide documentation that identifies committed funding for the project. Economy – Describe how the project relates to economic development plans. Include information on how the project can serve new developments, redevelopments, key industries, or commercial and freight interests in the region. Equity – Demonstrate how the project will positively impact Vulnerable populations which includes Environmental Justice, school-aged children, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero- car households, and limited-English proficiency populations; note if the project is in or connects to one of these zones. Innovation – Describe how the project will adapt to and expand the regional transportation ITS network as defined in the Regional ITS Architecture Update (June 2015) or other ITS master plan document that references the regional architecture. Describe how the project will integrate with existing and proposed equipment and technology including field devices, communications, and traffic management center(s). Provide information on how data collected will provide benefit and how it will be shared with the public. Page 33 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 24 Transit Projects Safety – Note specific safety enhancements that the project will include to reduce the potential for crashes and create a safer, more secure experience for customers. If specific safety deficiencies exist on the corridor today, provide documenta tion to describe how they will be addressed. Mobility – Describe how the project has undergone a comprehensive planning process or is identified in a local or regional transportation plan. Provide information on how the project has been coordinated with agencies maintaining roadways and how it provides connections to other transit services or modes of transportation. Projects should improve gaps in service, expand coverage, or increase frequency of a route to improve the overall operation of transit. Stewardship – Provide documentation of anticipated ridership and potential growth due to the project. Include references to studies or analyses used to determine ridership figures and a description of the method or model used to forecast ridership. Refer to th e life expectancy thresholds and state of good repair guidelines established by the Federal Transit Administration. Document how the project is expected to meet or exceed all relevant guidelines and make the most efficient use of the existing transit system through robust maintenance procedures. Economy – Describe how the project relates to economic development plans. Include information on how the project provides new access to employment and integrates existing or planned transit-supportive lane use and infrastructure. Equity – Refer to CAMPO’s map of Vulnerable populations which includes Environmental Justice, school-aged children, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited-English proficiency populations; note if the project is in or connects to one of these zones. Provide information from that details how the project will minimize environmental impacts or improve current conditions. Innovation – If the project provides a new kind of service through technological advances, new types of vehicles or modes of travel, expansion of transit through pioneering partnerships, or other means, describe this innovation, any supporting studies or analyses, and the expected results. Page 34 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 25 Active Transportation Projects Safety – Describe how the project would be expected to improve active transportation safety. Include information on how the project will provide additional separation from travel lanes, illumination, all-weather surface treatment, and other best practice infrastructure design. Mobility – Describe how the project has undergone a comprehensive planning process or is identified in a local or regional transportation plan, or CAMPO documents such as the 2017 Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) or 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Provide information about how the project removes a barrier or provides connections to transit routes and/or existing facilities such as schools, community facilities, residential, residential, activity centers, etc. Stewardship – Provide information demonstrating how the project improves public health through the provision of active transportation facilities that are safe and accessible. Moreover, describe how the project has incorporated measures that reduce, minimize, or avoid negative impacts to the environment or cultural resources. Equity – Demonstrate how the project will minimize environmental impacts or improve current conditions for Vulnerable populations which includes Environmental Justice, school -aged children, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited-English proficiency populations; note if the project is in or connects to one of these zones. Innovation – Describe how the project is innovative in design to address safety or other unique elements such as designing around transit, innovative intersection designs, or a pilot project. Page 35 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 26 Transportation Demand Management Safety – Describe how the project would be expected to address and improve safety. Mobility – Describe how the project has undergone a comprehensive planning process and utilized a formal outreach component to address commuting patterns and traveler engagement. Provide information on how this project will encourage alternative forms of transportation while reducing vehicle miles traveled and single-occupant vehicle travel. Also detail how it will improve or manage congestion by filling gaps in service and providing new service. Include documentation of the multijurisdictional nature of the project and the ways in which the project utilizes the existing roadway network, bicycle network, and transit network. Stewardship – Provide information about how the project strategically prioritizes fiscally constrained investments to maximize the regional benefit and provide documentation that identifies committed funding for the project. Also describe how the project has incorporated measures that reduce, minimize, or avoid negative impacts to the environment or cultural resources. Equity – Demonstrate how the project will minimize environmental impacts or improve current conditions for Vulnerable populations which includes Environmental Justice, school -aged children, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited-English proficiency populations; note if the project is in or connects to one of these zones. Page 36 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 27 Other Projects Projects that do not readily fit the five traditional project categories will be provided opportunity to apply, however these projects will not be scored traditionally. The sponsor must detail how the project will benefit the region, how it meets applicable criteria, and provide supporting documentation for all criteria selected. From the criteria outlined above in the five traditional categories, sponsor will determine which criteria apply to their projects. Using these selected criteria, the sponsor will demonstrate how the project addresses the criteria and provide supporting documentation. Projects submitted under this category will not be scored as the other five categories but will be evaluated on the merits demonstrated by the project as proven by the selected criteria and supporting documentation. These projects will be presented separately alongside the scored projects during the evaluation and awarding process. Below is a sample criterion that is mixed and matched from criteria in the four categories above. This example demonstrates how a sponsor can use the criteria that best fits the project. Example Criteria Criteria* Objectives Performance Measure** Safety A. B. The project addresses transportation safety. Mobility D. E. H. L. The project includes enhancements that improve mobility and congestion. G. The project is multijurisdictional. F. The project has undergone a comprehensive planning process or is identified as a priority in a local or regional transportation plan. E. G. The project includes multimodal elements. Stewardship K. P. The project has incorporated measures that reduce, minimize or avoid negative impacts to the environment or cultural resources. Economy L. The project supports local, regional or state economic development plans and strategies. Equity N. O. P. The project serves traditionally underserved populations including low-income, minority, seniors, persons with disabilities, zero-car households, and limited English proficiency households. Innovation E. Q. R. The project demonstrates innovative design, technology or service. Page 37 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 28 Total Points *Criteria is selected by the project sponsor as appropriate for the project. **There are no specific performance measures for the other category. The sponsor must demonstrate how the criteria applies to the project and provide supporting documentation. Page 38 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 29 Appendix B: 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives Goals Objectives Safety A. Crash Reduction – Reduce severity and number of crashes for all modes. B. Vision Zero - Support local government and transit agencies reaching vision zero metrics. Mobility C. Connectivity - Reduce network gaps to add connectivity, eliminate bottlenecks, and enhance seamless use across all modes. D. Reliability - Improve the reliability of the transportation network through improved incident management, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), transportation demand management (TDM). E. Travel Choices - Offer time-competitive, accessible and integrated transportation options across the region. F. Implementation – Plan and deliver networks for all transportation modes, with reduced project delivery delays. G. Regional Coordination - Continue interagency collaboration between transportation planning, implementation, and development entities. Stewardship H. System Preservation – Use operations, ITS, and optimization techniques to expand the useful lifecycle of the multimodal system elements. I. Fiscal Constraint - Strategically prioritize fiscally constrained investments to maximize benefits to the region. J. Public Health - Improve public health outcomes through air and water quality protection and active mobility. K. Natural Environment - Develop transportation designs that avoid, minimizes and mitigates negative impacts to water and air quality, as well as habitat. Economy L. Economic Development – Enhance economic development potential by increasing opportunities to live, work, and play in proximity. M. Value of Time - Enable mode choice and system management to keep people and goods moving and reduce lost hours of productivity. Equity N. Access to Opportunity - Develop a multimodal transportation system that allows all, including vulnerable populations, to access employment, education and services. O. Impact on Human Environment – Promote transportation investments that have positive impacts and avoid, minimize, and mitigate negative impacts to vulnerable populations. P. Valuing Communities – Align system functionality with evolving character and design that is respectful to the community and environment for current and future generations. Innovation Q. Technology - Leverage technological advances to increase efficiency of travel across all modes and for users of the network. R. Flexibility – Develop a system that is adaptable and flexible to changing needs and conditions. Most of the above draft 2045 RTP goals and objectives were based on previously adopted or in-draft CAMPO regional plans as seen in the list to the right. Any newly developed draft objectives not found in an existing CAMPO study are highlighted in gray. Page 39 of 110 WORKING DRAFT 30 Appendix C: Major Regional Activity Centers This map can be used to define activity centers and corridors. This map takes an index of three factors which include employment, population, and street grid connectivity. Centers may range from less intensively developed places such as a rural community like Wimberley to large activity centers like Downtown Austin with a high intensity of uses. We recognize that by 2045 there may be other planned regional activity centers that are in the planning phase now but may be fully developed at that time. If an entity has a future center(s) identified through a planning process, please provide information through backup documentation from the referenced plan or policy. Page 40 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Airport Monthly R eport – Joseph A. C arney, C .M., Airport Manager IT E M S UMMARY: Airport Reports: o Taxiway Edge Lighting o O perations R eport o F uel S ales R eport o Hangar / Tie-Down Lease R eport o F Y 2019 Ac complishments and P rojec ts o Avgas F uel P rice C omparis on o Jet A F uel P rice C omparis on o G T U G TAB Monthly F inancial R eport S TAF F R E C O MME N D AT IO N : None F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None S UB MIT T E D B Y: Jos eph A. C arney C .M., Airport Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Airport Coversheet Cover Memo Taxiway Lighting Project Backup Material Airport Operations Backup Material Airport Fuel Sales Backup Material Hangar Tie Down Lease Report Backup Material Airport Accomplishments Backup Material Avgas Fuel Comparis on Backup Material Jet A Fuel Comparison Backup Material GTU GTAB Monthly Financial Report Backup Material Page 41 of 110 GTAB Meeting Date: November 8, 2019 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Airport Monthly Report – Joseph A. Carney, C.M., Airport Manager ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Reports: o Taxiway Edge Lighting o Operations Report o Fuel Sales Report o Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Report o FY 2019 Accomplishments and Projects o Avgas Fuel Price Comparison o Jet A Fuel Price Comparison o Airport Monthly Financial Reports STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: None ATTACHMENTS: Submitted By: Joseph A. Carney, Airport Manager Joseph A. Carney, C.M. Airport Manager Ray Miller, Jr. Acting Director of Public Works Page 42 of 110 Airport Improvements Project No. 1914GRGTN September 2019 Project Description FY2018 project: Taxiway Edge Lighting Project Purpose Design and Install Taxiway Edge Lighting Project Project Estimate $1,287,562 Project Engineer Garver Engineering Feb 2014 – GTAB consideration of project 1314GRGTN Preliminary Design for FY2014 project: Airfield Electrical Improvements. Aug 8, 2018 Georgetown Municipal Airport requests to use Garver as project engineer in letter to TxDOT May 29, 2019 TxDOT advises Garver that they can proceed with the Final Design for Project 1914GRGTN May 29, 2019 Pre Design/Design meeting at Georgetown Municipal Airport Conference room with Airport Manager, TxDOT, and Garver to go over time line for design and contract documents. June 14, 2019 GTAB consideration of project 1914GRGTN Taxiway Lighting Project. June 25, 2019 City Council approved project July 9, 2019 Meeting with TxDOT, Engineer Bid Estimate was $2,862,980.00 which is $1,575,418.00 over the CIP Budgeted amount. July 16, 2019 Meeting with TxDOT and Garver to discuss options for reducing cost. July 30, 2019 Meeting with TxDOT and Garver to discuss proposal that will be submitted for final design. Page 43 of 110 August 4 & 11, 2019 TxDOT will place ads in local newspapers for bids. August 30, 2019 Bid Opening at TxDOT, 4 companies submitted bids. The engineer of record, GarverUSA, is currently reviewing the bid documents for completeness and correctness. September 2019 There were 4 bids, one of which came in significantly under budget for the Base Bid. Garver Engineer was working with TxDOT to see if there was a possibility of pulling the PAPI lights for RWY 11/29 out of the additive alternate while staying under budget. TxDOT refused. Engineer is working on final work in conjunction with TxDOT. October 29, 2019 TELCON 10/31/19 with Garver, F&W. TxDOT and Airport. Contract will be fully executed 11/1/19 between TxDOT and F&W for the Taxiway Lighting Project (1914GEORG). There will be walk through 11/13/19 with all parties to get an eyes-on look and discuss phasing ideas. Projected time line • Construction phase Mid December to Early January • Closeout Phase 45 - 60 days post construction Page 44 of 110 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update Operations for Month of September 2019 YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE 2018 2019 2018 2019 COUNT % IFR 956 1010 9852 9842 -10 -0.1% VFR 3046 3492 39749 42637 2888 6.8% LOCAL 4618 5212 49923 57601 7678 13.3% TOTAL 8620 9714 99524 110080 10556 9.6% KGTU OPERATIONS FOR THE MONTH OF: AUGUST TAKEOFF/L ANDING MONTHLY NUMBERS PREVIOUS/CURRENT YR *This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC. Page 45 of 110 Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update For Month of September 2019 YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE 2018 2019 2018 2019 GALLONS % AVGAS 22,962 32,027 327,485 351,854 24,369 7.4% JET A 31,408 35,642 431,915 383,278 (48,637)-12.7% TOTALS 54,370 67,669 759,400 735,132 (24,268)-3.3% FUEL REPORT FOR MONTH OF: SEPTEMBER GALLONS SOLD FOR MONTH CHANGE PREVIOUS/CURRENT YRTYPE OF FUEL Page 46 of 110 Airport Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update October 2019 Project Description Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Agreements Purpose Occupancy Rates Unit Stats Total T-Hangars – 130 • 129 Occupied • 1 Vacant Total Storage Units – 11 • 8 Occupied • 3 Vacant Total Tie-Downs – 38 Monthly, 14 for Overnight/Transient Parking • 36 Monthly Occupied • 2 Monthly Vacant Page 47 of 110 GTU Airport FY 2019 In-Work Projects Replace bottom door seals on Hangars H, I, J, and TT. 60 of 66 complete Develop Airport Preventative Maintenance Program. Ongoing Wildlife Hazard Assessment completed by Lou Bridges with Mead & Hunt. Reviewing draft Upgrade to bi-fold door drive motors in Hangars BB & CC. Obtaining contractor bids Upgrade cable guides with roller poppers in Hangar H. In progress – ½ completed Tree and brush removal at retention pond drainage area. In progress Install cattle guard at north gate. Obtaining quotes Airport lease rate study. RFQ submitted, published in newspaper 6/12 & 6/16 Airport fuel rate study. Rejection of Rate Analysis – airport staff conducted survey Taxiway edge lighting / PAPIs for 1//36 & 11/29. Bid documents opened 8/30/19 Install roller poppers in Hangar I. AvFuel Fuel Contract Extension. Working with Purchasing. Planned Projects Obtaining Pesticide Application License to allow for airport staff to spray state regulated chemicals. Replace broken fence along Lakeway Drive. Replace HVAC units in AeroJet Center hangar. Install chain link fence around Tower. Convert lights in Hangars E, F, and G to LED. Page 48 of 110 Convert lights in CTA hangar to LED. Spray seal asphalt pavement at north side of AeroJet Center hangar. Spray seal asphalt pavement at Hangars H, I, and J. Crack seal asphalt pavement at CTA hangar. Install cattle guard at south gate. Install decorative rock around AST and oil recovery tank fences. Accomplishments Rekeyed all locks in the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) for added security and to simplify the number of access keys needed. The locks have not been changed since the ATCT’s opening in 2007. Added a magnetic dry erase whiteboard to the north wall of the Airport Conference Room. Repainted Airport Manager’s Office and Communication Room in Terminal building. Installed rain diverters to tin covered walkway in front of Terminal entrance. Removed vegetation and installed predator wire on fence south of runway 11/29 for wildlife management. Tree and brush removal completed at Genesis. Inspected roof insulation in CTA hangar. No repair needed. Installed timer switches in Hangar I. Installed lending library bookcase in terminal conference room. Inspected door rollers on Genesis hangar. No replacement needed. Installed tv/monitor for use in Airport Conference Room. Installed gun cabinet in maintenance shop for wildlife management. Installed folding wall desk for laptop use with tv/monitor in Airport Conference Room. Replaced 48 skylights on AeroJet Center’s east hangar roof. Page 49 of 110 Repaired leaking roof above Hangar C-4. Replaced HVAC units in CTA hangar. Laid asphalt millings around Runway 36 PAPIs and Runway 11/29 threshold end lights. Poured three concrete dumpster pads. Two at Genesis hangar and one at CTA hangar. Installed network wiring in Airport Conference Room for phone and PC while IT Department procured the equipment. Replace water heaters in CTA hangar. Remove vegetation and install predator wire on fence near Genesis hangar. Replace gutter and dilapidated panels on side of CTA hangar. Repair failed ramp at Genesis hangar. Updated Texas Agriculture Weights & Measures Certificate/License Repave Terminal Drive with new asphalt. Paint CTA hangar. Page 50 of 110 1591 users online Airport / FBO 100LL $3.72—$6.70 average $4.73 KGTU Georgetown Municipal Airport Georgetown, TX FS $5.25 $5.15 GUARANTEED City of Georgetown Terminal SS $3.75 23-Oct update AeroJet Center FS $5.25 GUARANTEED T74 14 ESE Taylor Municipal Airport Taylor, TX Taylor Municipal Airport Avfuel SS $3.75 15-Oct update KEDC 18 SSE Austin Executive Airport Austin, TX SS $4.75 FS $5.75 29-Oct update KRYW 18 SW Lago Vista TX - Rusty Allen Airport Lago Vista, TX Lago Vista Airport independent SS $3.72 17-Oct update KILE 24 N Skylark Field Airport Killeen, TX Flight Line Services Avfuel SS $4.05 10-Oct update 88R 26 WSW Spicewood Airport Spicewood, TX Spicewood Pilots Association, Inc SS $4.20 15-Oct update KAUS 29 S Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Austin, TX FS $6.70 GUARANTEED FS $6.70 29-Oct update FS $6.70 GUARANTEED KBMQ Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field Burnet, TX Airports Navaids Airspace Fixes Aviation Fuel Hotels iPhone App My AirNav AirNav: Fuel prices near Georgetown Municipal Airport http://airnav.com/fuel/local.html 1 of 2 10/29/2019, 1:38 PM Page 51 of 110 29 W Faulkner's Air Shop Avfuel SS $3.80 FS $4.05 24-Oct update KTPL 32 NNE Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Temple, TX General Aviation Terminal SS $3.86 FS $4.24 23-Oct update KRCK 36 E H H Coffield Regional Airport Rockdale, TX City of Rockdale AS $4.00 15-Oct update KDZB 36 WSW Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport Horseshoe Bay, TX Horseshoe Bay Resort Jet Center EPIC FS $6.24 15-Oct update KLZZ 37 NW Lampasas Airport Lampasas, TX City of Lampasas (FBO)SS $3.80 GUARANTEED T35 38 ENE Cameron Municipal Airpark Cameron, TX City of Cameron SS $4.36 GUARANTEED KGOP 45 N Gatesville Municipal Airport Gatesville, TX City of Gatesville independent SS $4.36 23-Oct update 84R 47 SE Smithville Crawford Municipal Airport Smithville, TX Fayette Aero LLC Avfuel SS $4.40 24-Oct update KGYB 47 SE Giddings-Lee County Airport Giddings, TX Sills Aviation Services LLC independent SS $4.47 15-Oct update KHYI 48 SSW San Marcos Regional Airport Austin, TX SS $4.49 FS $5.49 13-Oct update 50R 50 S Lockhart Municipal Airport Lockhart, TX Martin & Martin Aviation Avfuel SS $4.73 23-Oct update Copyright © AirNav, LLC. All rights reserved.Privacy Policy Contact AirNav: Fuel prices near Georgetown Municipal Airport http://airnav.com/fuel/local.html 2 of 2 10/29/2019, 1:38 PM Page 52 of 110 1579 users online Airport / FBO Jet A $3.35—$7.25 average $4.94 KGTU Georgetown Municipal Airport Georgetown, TX FS $5.10 $5.00 GUARANTEED AeroJet Center FS $5.10 GUARANTEED T74 14 ESE Taylor Municipal Airport Taylor, TX Taylor Municipal Airport Avfuel SS $3.35 15-Oct update KEDC 18 SSE Austin Executive Airport Austin, TX FS $5.90 29-Oct update KILE 24 N Skylark Field Airport Killeen, TX Flight Line Services Avfuel SS $3.70 FS $4.15 10-Oct update KGRK 25 NNW Robert Gray Army Airfield Fort Hood (Killeen), TX Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport FS $4.15 24-Apr update KAUS 29 S Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Austin, TX FS $7.25 GUARANTEED FS $6.90 29-Oct update FS $6.74 GUARANTEED KBMQ 29 W Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field Burnet, TX Faulkner's Air Shop Avfuel FS $4.76 24-Oct update KTPL 32 NNE Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Temple, TX General Aviation Terminal SS $4.34 FS $4.72 23-Oct update KDZB 36 WSW Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport Horseshoe Bay, TX Horseshoe Bay Resort Jet Center EPIC FS $5.74 15-Oct update Airports Navaids Airspace Fixes Aviation Fuel Hotels iPhone App My AirNav AirNav: Fuel prices near Georgetown Municipal Airport http://airnav.com/fuel/local.html 1 of 2 10/29/2019, 1:37 PM Page 53 of 110 T35 38 ENE Cameron Municipal Airpark Cameron, TX City of Cameron SS $3.45 GUARANTEED KGYB 47 SE Giddings-Lee County Airport Giddings, TX Sills Aviation Services LLC independent SS $3.90 15-Oct update KHYI 48 SSW San Marcos Regional Airport Austin, TX FS $4.79 13-Oct update Copyright © AirNav, LLC. All rights reserved.Privacy Policy Contact AirNav: Fuel prices near Georgetown Municipal Airport http://airnav.com/fuel/local.html 2 of 2 10/29/2019, 1:37 PM Page 54 of 110 F GTAB Report GTAB MONTHLY REPORT Operating revenues include fuel sales, leases, and all other revenue. Through 10/31, these revenues total $304 thousand, or 7.84% of budget. Fuel is the largest revenue stream in the fund. Through the first month, fuel sales total 7.75% of budget. Fuel sales are tracked every month by staff and are part of the Airport’s performance metrics. Lease revenue is the second largest stream of income for the Airport. Occupancy rates continue to be strong. For October of 2019, occupancy rates totaled 96%. The stated goal per the Airport performance management program is to have occupancy rates over 90%. Over the past 12 months, the Airport has achieved this goal. All other revenue totals $2,986 through the first month of the fiscal year. This segment of revenue is comprised of allocated interest, property tax, and miscellaneous revenue. Property tax revenue is budgeted at $40,000. The majority of property tax revenue is typically received in the months of January and February after notices are mailed out. Operating expenses include personnel costs, airport operations, and fuel for resale. Airport Operations expenses total $63,675 and is comprised of personnel costs and other operational expenses. Personnel related expenses total $37,956, or 7.57% of budget. The City has experienced 2 of 26 pay periods through this period, or 7.69% of total cycles. Other airport operational related expenses include internal service and administrative allocation charges, funding for maintenance, and other expenses like credit card fees and contracts for service. Year to date, these expenses total $25,719, or 3.1%. The administrative and internal service charges are the largest expenses in this category. Typically, these are processed monthly. However, at the time of this report, those charges have not been processed due to the workload requirements to close out FY2019. After the close out of FY2019, these charges will be booked monthly. By the end of FY2020, the actual expenses will be at the budgeted amount. 93%93% 95%95%96%96%95% 97%97%97%97% 96% 86.00% 88.00% 90.00% 92.00% 94.00% 96.00% 98.00% Occupancy Rate -Strategic Goal #4 Measure #1 Percent Occupied Target 50,108 41,773 32,684 35,010 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Oct Jet A Gas by Month FY2020 FY2019 FY2018 FY2017 52,911 51,858 25,952 29,533 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Oct AV Gas by Month FY2020 FY2019 FY2018 FY2017 Page 55 of 110 F GTAB Report Fuel related expenses is comprised of year to date spending and a fuel encumbrance. Year to date spending totals $61,662 through the month. A $2.2 million encumbrance for fuel was established at the beginning of the fiscal year. After accounting for the year to date spending, there is a remaining encumbrance of $2.13 million for fuel expenses in FY2020. Throughout the fiscal year, the encumbrance amount will be reduced as the year to date spend amount increases. Overall, expenses in the Airport fund are inline with the budget. Personnel expenses are tracking at budget. The fuel budget for FY2020 totals $2.27 million. Year to date actuals plus the fuel encumbrance total $2.2 million, or 3% under budget. Operating Revenues and Expenses Comparisons Non-operating revenues are budgeted at $750,000 for FY2020. These funds are bond proceeds to fund capital improvement and are planned to be sold in the spring. Year to date actuals total zero. Non-operating expenses total $3,199 through October. The one charge in this segment of expenses is for the wildlife management project. Fund Schedule Development In the upcoming weeks, the accounting staff along with the City’s outside independent auditor Weaver and Associates will begin the Year-End Audit and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or CAFR process. Following the completion of the CAFR, staff will update fund schedules with audited fund balances. Currently, the fund balance is only the budgeted figure and not the actual. It is anticipated staff will have that information around the January or February meeting. Later in the year as part of the FY2021 Budget Development Process, Airport staff and the Budget Office will develop year-end projections for FY2020. This occurs in April and May. After those pr ojections are completed, staff will add an additional column to show those figures to the fund schedule and their proximity to budget. Please note in the fund schedule located on the next page year to date expenses + encumbrances = FY2020 Actuals. Operating Revenue FY2020 Budget FY2020 Actuals % of FY2020 Budget FY2019 Budget FY2019 Actuals % of FY2019 Budget Variance - Year-to-Date Variance - % Year-to-Date All Other Revenue 83,000 2,986 3.60%80,260 2,839 95.06%147 5.19% Fuel and Terminal Sales 2,901,500 224,910 7.75%2,907,450 195,910 87.11%29,000 14.80% Leases and Rentals 896,500 76,250 8.51%863,952 71,336 93.56%4,914 6.89% Operating Revenue Total 3,881,000 304,147 7.84%3,851,662 270,086 88.80%34,061 12.61% Operating Expense FY2020 Budget FY2020 Actuals % of FY2020 Budget FY2019 Budget FY2019 Actuals % of FY2019 Budget Variance - Year-to-Date Variance - % Year-to-Date Airport Operations 1,334,425 63,675 4.77%1,160,519 86,161 7.42%(22,485) -26.10% Fuel 2,270,000 2,200,000 96.92%2,389,550 2,234,921 93.53%(34,921) -1.56% Transfer Out - - 0.00%- - 0.00%- 0.00% Operating Expense Total 3,604,425 2,263,675 62.80%3,550,069 2,321,082 65.38%(57,406) -2.47% FY2020 Budget FY2020 Actuals % of FY2020 Budget FY2019 Budget FY2019 Actuals % of FY2019 Budget Variance - Year-to-Date Variance - % Year-to-Date Operating Balance 276,575 (1,959,529) -708.50%301,593 (2,050,996) -680.05%(91,468) -4.46% Page 56 of 110 F GTAB Report Fund Schedule 600 - Airport FY2020 Budget Beginning Fund Balance 1,262,948 Operating Revenue FY2020 Budget FY2020 Year- to-Date FY2020 Encumbrances FY2020 Actuals % of Budget All Other Revenue 83,000 2,986 - 2,986 3.60% Fuel and Terminal Sales 2,901,500 224,910 - 224,910 7.75% Leases and Rentals 896,500 76,250 - 76,250 8.51% Operating Revenue Total 3,881,000 304,147 - 304,147 7.84% Operating Expense FY2020 Budget FY2020 Year-to- Date FY2020 Encumbrances FY2020 Actuals % of Budget Airport Operations 1,334,425 56,015 7,661 63,675 4.77% Fuel 2,270,000 61,662 2,138,338 2,200,000 96.92% Transfer Out - - - - 0.00% Operating Expense Total 3,604,425 117,677 2,145,999 2,263,675 62.80% FY2020 Budget Available Operating Fund Balance 1,539,523 Non-Operating Revenue FY2020 Budget FY2020 YTD Actuals FY2020 Encumbrances FY2020 Actuals % of Budget Bond Proceeds 750,000 - - - 0.00% Grants - - - - 0.00% All Other Revenue - - - - 0.00% Non-Operating Revenue Total 750,000 - - - 0.00% Non-Operating Expense FY2020 Budget FY2020 YTD Actuals FY2020 YTD Encumbrances FY2020 Actuals % of Budget Airport Operations 35,000 - - - 0.00% Capital 867,000 3,199 - 3,199 0.37% Debt Service 161,420 - - - 0.00% Grand Total 1,063,420 3,199 - 3,199 0.30% FY2020 Budget Available Non-Operating Fund Balance 1,226,103 FY2020 Budget Ending Fund Balance 1,226,103 CAFR Adjustment - Contingency 256,021 Debt Service Reserve 143,431 Available Fund Balance 826,651 FY2020 Actuals Page 57 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: November 2019 G TAB Updates - Wesley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, C I P Manager. IT E M S UMMARY: November 2019 G TAB Updates Cover S heet F M 971 - Realignment at Austin Avenue: T xDO T review from dis tric t office met 5-21 on 90% plans Klotz submitted 100 % plans in Augus t. Environmental complete and submitted. S cheduled engineering completion 2019 P ursuing one parc el on P rojec t. P arc el has been sent to condemnation, possession expected summer 2019. Northwest Blvd: P re-con held 8-19 C hasc o b eginning to prep R O W, and finis hing c o nstruc tion s urvey. Utility relo c atio n to begin this month Rivery Blvd Extension: Initial phase complete added turn lane cons truction to begin Dec ember 2019 E B Williams @ Rivery Turn Lane C O G Electric/F ib er, Atmos G as and S ud d enlink have relo cated utilities . F iber Light is s ched uled to complete reloc ation the week on O ctober 28th. Joe Bland to begin turn lane after reloc ation has oc curred. S outhwest Bypass (R M 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1: C omplete S outhwest Bypass (R M 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2: F irs t cours e paving 75 % c omplete Bridge c omplete P roject c ompletion sc heduled last quarter 2019 Rock Water Quality P ond Improvements: P recons truction meeting held on 10-15-19. C ontractor working to install erosion c ontrols . Exc avating in pond as well. Old Town “Northeast” S idewalk: C ontractor has ins talled all sidewalk and curb along 7th from Holly towards the I O O F cemetery. Austin Ave S idewalks – Hwy 29 to Leander Rd.: C ontractor working punch list items from walk-through and T DLR inspec tion. S hell S idewalk Improvements: Bid O pening held on 10-29-19. Will go to G TAB on 11-8-19 followed by C ity C ouncil for c onsideration of award. 17th S t. C D B G Sidewalk: Bid O pening held on S eptember 10th 2019. R oyal Vis ta apparent low qualified bidder. G TAB approved on O c tober 11th, C ity C ounc il approved on 10-22-19. C ontrac ts being executed. 2019 HIP R: NT P issued for 6/24/19, C rews have completed paving all of O ld Town and Berry C reek and S un C ity. All s triping work is completed. P roject to c los eout. 2019 High Performance Pavement S eal P ackage #1 (P MM) C rews have c ompleted paving all of O ld Town and Berry C reek and S un C ity. All striping work is Page 58 of 110 completed. P roject to c los eout. 2019 High Performance Pavement S eal P ackage #2 (HA5) C ontractor has c ompleted HA5 pavement s eal applic ation in G eorgetown Village. All striping work is completed as well as punc h lis t items. P rojec t to closeout. 17th S treet Rehab Bid opening held on Augus t 28th 2019. G TAB & C ounc il approved. C ontracts being routed for s ignatures . P re-con to be s et, start date to be determined. 2018 Curb & Gutter P roject will be bid with 17th S treet rehab. Bid opening held on August 28th 2019. G TAB & C ouncil approved. C ontrac ts being routed for signatures. P re-c on to be set, s tart date to be determined F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Wesley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, C I P Manager. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type November 2019 GTAB Updates Pres entation Page 59 of 110 November 2019 GTAB Updates Cover Sheet FM 971 - Realignment at Austin Avenue: TxDOT review from district office met 5-21 on 90% plans Klotz submitted 100 % plans in August. Environmental complete and submitted. Scheduled engineering completion 2019 Pursuing one parcel on Project. Parcel has been sent to condemnation, possession expected summer 2019. Northwest Blvd: Pre-con held 8-19 Chasco beginning to prep ROW, and finishing construction survey. Utility relocation to begin this month Rivery Blvd Extension: Initial phase complete added turn lane construction to begin December 2019 EB Williams @ Rivery Turn Lane COG Electric/Fiber, Atmos Gas and Suddenlink have relocated utilities. Fiber Light is scheduled to complete relocation the week on October 28th. Joe Bland to begin turn lane after relocation has occurred. Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1: Complete Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2: First course paving 75 % complete Bridge complete Project completion scheduled last quarter 2019 Rock Water Quality Pond Improvements: Preconstruction meeting held on 10-15-19. Contractor working to install erosion controls. Excavating in pond as well. Old Town “Northeast” Sidewalk: Contractor has installed all sidewalk and curb along 7th from Holly towards the IOOF cemetery. Austin Ave Sidewalks – Hwy 29 to Leander Rd.: Contractor working punch list items from walk-through and TDLR inspection. Page 60 of 110 Shell Sidewalk Improvements: Bid Opening held on 10-29-19. Will go to GTAB on 11-8-19 followed by City Council for consideration of award. 17th St. CDBG Sidewalk: Bid Opening held on September 10th 2019. Royal Vista apparent low qualified bidder. GTAB approved on October 11th, City Council approved on 10-22-19. Contracts being executed. 2019 HIPR: NTP issued for 6/24/19, Crews have completed paving all of Old Town and Berry Creek and Sun City. All striping work is completed. Project to closeout. 2019 High Performance Pavement Seal Package #1 (PMM) Crews have completed paving all of Old Town and Berry Creek and Sun City. All striping work is completed. Project to closeout. 2019 High Performance Pavement Seal Package #2 (HA5) Contractor has completed HA5 pavement seal application in Georgetown Village. All striping work is completed as well as punch list items. Project to closeout. 17th Street Rehab Bid opening held on August 28th 2019. GTAB & Council approved. Contracts being routed for signatures. Pre-con to be set, start date to be determined. 2018 Curb & Gutter Project will be bid with 17th Street rehab. Bid opening held on August 28th 2019. GTAB & Council approved. Contracts being routed for signatures. Pre-con to be set, start date to be determined Page 61 of 110 FM 971 at Austin Avenue Realignment Intersection Improvements Project No. 1BZ TIP No. AG November 2019 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street. Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side of I 35 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel Park and a more direct route to SH 130. Project Managers Joel Weaver Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design TxDOT review from district office met 5-21 on 90% plans Klotz submited 100 % plans in August. Environmental complete and submitted. Scheduled engineering completion 2019 Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way Pursuing one parcel on Project. Parcel has been sent to condemnation, possession expected Summer 2019. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Utility relocation to begin first quarter 2020 Other Issues AFA with TxDOT complete. Page 62 of 110 Northwest Boulevard (Fontana Drive to Austin Avenue) Project No. 5QX TIP No. AF November 2019 Project Description Construction of overpass and surface roads to connect Northwest Boulevard with Austin Avenue and FM 971. Purpose This project will relieve congestion at the Austin Avenue/Williams Drive intersection and provide a more direct access from the west side of IH 35 corridor to Georgetown High School and SH 130 via FM 971. Project Manager Joel Weaver and Wesley Wright, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates Element Status / Issues Design Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way ROW Documents are being finalized. All offers have been made. 8 Parcels required. 5 acquired, 1 in closing, 2 in condemnation. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Chasco beginning to prep ROW, and finishing construction survey. Utility relocation to begin this month Other Issues Page 63 of 110 Rivery Boulevard Extension (Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive) Project No. 5RM TIP No. AD November 2019 Project Description Develop the Rights-of-Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in anticipation of future funding availability. Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf Ranch Parkway. Project Manager Travis Baird, Joel Weaver, and Wesley Wright, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeology Complete Rights of Way Offers have been made on 22 parcels, and 20 have closed. Environmental assessment complete on 11 parcels in preparation for demolition. Condemnation hearings completed on 2 parcels, working toward final resolution of matter. Total Parcels: 22 Appraised: 22 Offers: 22 Acquired: 20 Closing pending: 0 Condemnation: 2 Utility Relocations TBD Construction Initial phase complete added turn lane construction to begin December 2019 Other Issues Page 64 of 110 Right Turn Lane EB Williams Driver @ Rivery Blvd Project No. 5RP TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description Develop the Plans, Specifications and Estimate for roadway improvements necessitated by the development for the Summit at Rivery. Purpose To provide improved traffic flow into the Summit at Rivery hotel and conference center from Williams Drive Project Manager Joel Weaver, Chris Pousson and Wesley Wright, P.E. Engineer M&S Engineering, LLC Element Status / Issues Design EB Williams @ Rivery turn lane design complete. TCEQ WPAP approval received. Easements/ROW contracts have been signed, Closing scheduled for June 28th. Change Order for Joe Bland approved. PO has been created. Environmental /Archeology TBD Rights of Way All easements acquired. Total Parcels: 3 Appraised: 3 Offers: 3 Acquired: 3 Closing pending: 0 Condemnation: 0 Utility Relocations Atmos to relocate 1 – 3” line - completed Bid Phase TBD Construction COG Electric/Fiber, Atmos Gas and Suddenlink have relocated utilities. Fiber Light is scheduled to complete relocation the week on October 28th. Joe Bland to begin turn lane after relocation has occurred. Other Issues TBD Page 65 of 110 Southwest Bypass Project (RM 2243 to IH 35) Project No. 1CA Project No. BK November 2019 Project Description Develop PS&E for Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the ultimate configuration for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2-lane roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road. Project Manager Williamson County City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP Engineer HDR, Inc. Element Status / Issues Williamson County Project Status (Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1 – WPAP for phase 1 approved. On site tasks: Phase 1 o Complete Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2 – First course paving 75 % complete Bridge complete Project completion scheduled last quarter 2019 Rights of Way Complete Other Issues Page 66 of 110 Rock Water Quality Pond Improvements Project No. 1EC TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and construction administration for WPAP modifications and rehabilitation of the Rock Water Quality Pond. Purpose To improve the water quality treatment and capacity for the downtown overlay district. Project Managers Michael Hallmark, Chris Pousson Engineer Steger & Bizzell Element Status / Issues Design Design 100%. WPAP modifications defined and GA is being included into the TCEQ application. WPAP approval has been received from TCEQ Environmental/ Archeological GA is complete Rights of Way N/A Utility Relocations none Bid Phase Preconstruction meeting held on 10-15-19. Contractor working to install erosion controls. Excavating in pond as well. Construction TBD Other Issues Page 67 of 110 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Project Old Town Northeast Sidewalks Project No. 1EF TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and installation of pedestrian facilities along several streets in northeast “Old Town”. Various methods of rehabilitating existing non-compliant sidewalks will be considered. This project requires coordination with TCEQ and TDLR and all proposed pedestrian elements will be ADA compliant with the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps identified in the 2015 Sidewalk Master Plan. Project Managers Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP®, Chris Pousson Engineer Steger Bizzell Element Status / Issues Design Finalizing design, received TCEQ WPAP approval. Final review of design and contract specifications are underway. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements All easements needed have been obtained. Utility Relocations Relocate Frontier, Sudden link and COG Electric overhead. Construction Contractor has installed all sidewalk and curb along 7th from Holly towards the IOOF cemetery. Other Issues Page 68 of 110 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Austin Ave Sidewalk Improvements Project No. 1CJ TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and installation of pedestrian facilities along Austin Ave from Hwy 29 to Leander Rd. Various methods of rehabilitating existing non-compliant sidewalks will be considered. This project requires coordination with TCEQ and TDLR and all proposed pedestrian elements will be ADA compliant with the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps identified in the 2015 Sidewalk Master Plan. Project Managers Chris Pousson Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design Bid Opening held on 10-30-18. GTAB approved on 11-9-18, City Council approved on 11-27-18. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements none Utility Relocations Hydrant Construction Contractor working punch list items from walk-through and TDLR inspection. Other Issues N/A Page 69 of 110 Shell Road Sidewalk Improvements Project No. TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the installation of pedestrian facilities along Shell Road from Sequoia Spur to Bellaire Dr. This project requires coordination with TCEQ and TDLR and all proposed pedestrian elements will be ADA compliant with the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps to eliminate sidewalk gaps for pedestrian mobility. Project Managers Chris Pousson Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design 95% design set to be reviewed. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements 1 easement secured at Shell Road and Sequoia Spur. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Bid Opening held on 10-29-19. Will go to GTAB on 11-8-19 followed by City Council for consideration of award. Other Issues TBD Page 70 of 110 17th St CDBG Sidewalks (Railroad to Forest St) Project No. 9AZ TIP No. November 2019 Project Description Construction of new sidewalk along 17th St from Railroad to Forest St. Improving the two GoGeo bus stops on that route. Purpose This project will improve the pedestrian route connecting existing low income housing to important community services and destinations. Project Manager Chris Logan Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design Task order is fully executed for the engineering services. Design underway • Survey is complete, working on preliminary alignment • Final Design – complete by early July • Bidding – Complete by mid August Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way Working on 90% plans. Survey identified some ROW lines that need cleaning up at the Rail Apts. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Bid Opening held on September 10th 2019. Royal Vista apparent low qualified bidder. GTAB approved on October 11th, City Council approved on 10-22-19. Contracts being executed. Other Issues Page 71 of 110 Project: 2019 Street Maintenance Hot In Place Recycling (HIPR) Project# 1EM Update – November 2019 Project Description: This project will consist of furnishing an installing approximately 225,000 square yards of hot-in-place asphalt recycling, edge milling, adjustment of water valves and manholes, tree pruning, traffic control and miscellaneous striping. Purpose: The purpose of this project is to maintain high Pavement Condition Indices (PCI) by Hot-In-Place asphalt recycling within the City Street Maintenance Program Project Manager: Ken Taylor Engineer: KPA Contractor: Cutler Repaving Phase Start Finish Status / Comments Preliminary Engineering February 2019 March 2019 Task Order approved by Council February 2019 Final Design March 2019 April 2019 ROW / Easements Bid / Award Bid # May 2019 May 2019 Bid Opening 5/1/19, Approved by GTAB 5/10/19 & Council on 5/14/19 Construction June 2019 September 2019 NTP issued for 6/24/19, Crews have completed paving all of Old Town and Berry Creek and Sun City. All striping work is completed. Project to closeout. Post Construction Page 72 of 110 2019 Street Maintenance Project No. 1EU / 1ET TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description Purpose 2019 CIP Maintenance project consist of furnishing and installing approximately 240,000 square yards of high performance pavement seal (PMM) and approximately 180,000 square yards of high performance pavement seal (HA5) traffic control, and miscellaneous striping in Sun City, Georgetown Village, University Park and Raintree subdivisions. To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of 85% Project Manager Chris Pousson Engineers KPA, LP Task Status / Issues High performanc e pavement seal Package #1 (PMM) Contractor has completed application of high performance pavement sealer in University Park, Raintree and Sun City. Punch list items have been completed. All striping work has been completed. Project closing documents in process. High performanc e pavement seal Package #2 (HA5) Contractor has completed HA5 pavement seal application in Georgetown Village. All striping work is completed as well as punch list items. Project to closeout. Page 73 of 110 17th Street Rehabilitation Project No. 1CE TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description This project consist of the rehabilitation of 17th street from Austin Ave to Church Street. This project will include replacing and upgrading the existing water line in the project area, new curb and gutter and full rehabilitation of the street. Project Manager Chris Pousson Engineer/Engineers KPA Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological N/A Rights of Way All work will remain in existing ROW Utility Relocations N/A Bid Phase Bid Opening held on August 28th 2019. GTAB & Council approved. Contracts being routed for signatures. Pre-con to be set, start date to be determined. Construction Other Issues Page 74 of 110 2018 Curb and Gutter Project No. 5AL TIP No. None November 2019 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and construction administration for curb and gutter replacements on 20th street, 19 ½ street, Myrtle Street, 16th street, 17 ½ street and Elm Street. Purpose This project consists of removing and replacing old curb and gutter that do not properly drain storm water and prematurely damage streets. Project Managers Chris Pousson Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design 100% Complete. Environmental/ Archeological N/A Rights of Way N/A Utility Relocations N/A Bid Phase Project will be bid with 17th Street rehab. Bid Opening held on August 28th. GTAB & Council approved. Contracts being routed for signatures. Pre-con to be set, start date to be determined. Construction Other Issues Page 75 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the Minutes from the O ctober 11, 2019 Meeting. -- Emily Koontz - Board Liais on IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NO NE S UB MIT T E D B Y: Emily Koontz - Board Liais on AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type GTAB Minutes 10-11-19 Backup Material Page 76 of 110 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas October 11, 2019 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participation 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 three (3) 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. Board Members Present: Ron Bindas – Board Chair, Dan Jones, Ge orge Brown, Sheila Mills, Doug Noble, Troy Hellmann, Ercel Brashear Board Members Absent: Robert Redoutey, Rachael Jonrowe Staff Present: Wes Wright, Ray Miller, Emily Koontz, Michael Hallmark, Joseph Carney, Paul Diaz, Wayne Reed, Susan Watkins Others Present: Carl Norris-ACC, John Milford-ACC, Louis Alcorn - University of Texas at Austin, Trae Sutton – KPA, Phillip Huntley – Garver, Jacob Walker – HDR, Wendy Dew – ACC Regular Session A. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Chairperson Ron Bindas at 10:00am Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to Convene an 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. B. Introduction of Board Members and Visitors: All board members, visitors, and staff were introduced. C. Updates to various planning initiatives by CAMPO and TxDOT transportation improvement projects as wells as an update on GoGeo Operations. Ray Miller gave updates. All updates included in the packet. D. Discussion regarding the Airport Monthly Update and Project Time Lines - Joseph A. Carney, C.M., Airport Manager and Ray Miller, Acting Director of Public Works. Joseph Carney gave updates. All updates included in the packet. Brashear asked why there were two different financial reports. Paul Diaz replied that there were several reports previously generated before the city’s reorg, now that the budget team is putting the report together the reports there will only be one report and that will eliminate variances in reports because there will be no time difference between when reports were generated. Citizens Wishing to Address the Board: The following people with the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) signed up to speak to the Board on Item E: Carl Norris – 6 minutes (extra 3 minutes donated by John Milford) – Statement attached to minutes. Page 77 of 110 E. October 2019 GTAB Updates - Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager. Wesley Wright gave updates. All updates included in the packet. F. The Draft Bicycle Master Plan. The City of Georgetown Public Works Department is working with graduate students from The University of Texas at Austin to create a Bicycle Master Plan for Georgetown. The plan will serve as a blueprint for potential cycling transportation enhancements in the future. Brashear asked and Miller replied that the $15 million estimate would produce about 51 new miles of bike lanes. Noble asked and Miller answered that some of this could be tied in to street maintenance projects. Bindas commended Miller on his thoroughness and also advised caution with proceeding forward because of the inherent dangers of road sharing with bicycles and cars. Hellmann asked and Miller answered that protected bike lanes will work differently depending on the widths of the streets and expressed concerns about residents be able to park in front of their homes. Legislative Regular Agenda G. Consideration and possible approval of the Minutes from the September 13, 2019 Meeting – Emily Koontz – Board Liaison. MOTION by Hellmann, second by Brown to approve the minutes. APPROVED 6-0-2-1 (Redoutey and Jonrowe – absent, Brashear - abstained) H. Consideration and possible action on Task Order KPA-20-001 to Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP (KPA) in the amount of $162,970.00 for professional engineering services related to the FY20 Downtown ADA Improvements -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director. Plans are included in the packet. Bindas asked and Wright replied that this plan highlights specifies projects that are higher need and not compliant. MOTION by Hellmann, second by Noble. APPROVED 7-0-2 (Redoutey and Jonrowe – absent) I. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Royal Vista, Inc. of Liberty Hill, Texas for the construction of the 17th Street CDBG Sidewalk project in the amount of $163,405.00 – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager. Wright explained that CDBG stands for Community Development Block Grant. The reason this area was chosen was because of the income in the area and the two GoGeo bus stops. MOTION by Noble, second by Brashear. APPROVED 7-0-2 (Redoutey and Jonrowe – absent) J. Consideration and possible action on Task Order KPA 20-002 with Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP in the amount of $423,500.00 for professional engineering services related to FY20 Street Maintenance and Curb and Gutter replacement -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director. Plans are included in the packet. MOTION by Mills, second by Brown. APPROVED 7-0-2 (Redoutey and Jonrowe – absent) K. Consideration and possible action to approve an appropriation of $2,650,000 to AvFuel Corporation for annual fuel purchases for resale at the Georgetown Municipal Airport -- Page 78 of 110 Joseph A. Carney, C.M., Airport Manager and Ray Miller, Acting Director of Public Works. The city is currently choosing to continue with the contract with AvFuel to purchase fuel against that and sell later. Hellmann asked and Carney replied the fuel purchases do not happen all at once. MOTION by Brashear, second by Brown. APPROVED 7-0-2 (Redoutey and Jonrowe – absent) Adjournment Motion by Hellmann, second by Bindas. APPROVED 7-0-2 (Redoutey and Jonrowe – absent) Meeting was Adjourned at 10:57 AM Approved: Attested: ___________________________ __________________________ Ronald Bindas - Chair Dan Jones – Secretary _________________________________ Emily Koontz – GTAB Board Liaison Page 79 of 110 GTAB STATEMENT OCTOBER 11, 2019 AGENDA ITEM “D” AIRPORT MONTHLY REPORT Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the GTAB. My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My residence is 4400 Luna Trail, Georgetown, Texas. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC), a group of over 100 city households. My comments this morning on behalf of the ACC continue our August 9, and September 13, 2019 statements demanding a professional study showing how the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) can be seamlessly relocated to a safe, superior, and protected site at no cost to current taxpayers. Our August 9, 2019 GTAB statement touched on the hazards associated with GTU's location to the ground dwelling public and esteem of the city. The GTAB denied participation of any public member having NEPA related concerns for the health, safety, environmental hazards and property values of those on the ground in development of the 2016 Airport Master Plan and its $60 Million PROGRAM of continued hazardous aviations expansion. Public objections were ignored and destroyed without response. By its actions, the GTAB has endorsed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update land use plan for the GTU as the single most dangerous location of a civilian/military airport in the nation. That plan locates the industrial zoned GTU in the planned landlocked heart of our city rapidly growing to 200,000 and totally atop the exposed Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ). We were dramatically reminded last week of our vulnerability to these hazards by the devastating air crash, explosions and fires at Bradley Airport (BDL) in Connecticut. Like the GTU, the BDL is a military/civilian airport only larger. BDL has over 2,400 acres. It is well buffered from development. The GTU has, reportedly, between 550 and 640 acres and, due to lack of proper city zoning, is densely enclosed and landlocked by non-airport compatible land uses. The enormous BDL toxic aviation fuel fires required large quantities of firefighting foam containing PFAS, an EPA toxic chemical, that local officials fear may have dangerously contaminated the Farmington River and points downstream. As this board knows, the GTU lies entirely atop the EARZ, a vast honeycombed cavernous structure, providing direct surface water recharge to the Edwards Aquifer, a sole and public regional water supply. If the BDL disaster had happened here, it could have destroyed dozens of private homes and enveloped travelers of portions of neighborhood streets and major city roadways with significant loss of life and properties. Contrary to FAA regulations, these homes and roadways lie within the crash and explosion "Runway Protection Zones and Object Free Areas" shown on the GTU Airport Layout Plan approved by TxDOT for federal and state grants for operations expansion approved by this board. If a BDL type explosion ignited the 35,000 gallons of above ground stored GTU toxic aviation fuels it could have ignited numerous FBO fueling stations, and the resulting inferno would make our disaster larger than that of the BDL and potentially poison the sole and public water supply of the Edwards Aquifer. Every person in this room knows to avoid such a potential disaster, the GTU must be relocated to a safe, superior, and protected site. Members of this board are obligated by their recommendations to protect the best transportation interests of the citizens of Georgetown as a whole, but may feel restricted in any actions for possible GTU relocation based on past city airport dogma and contents of the Citizen FAQ posted on the city's GTU website. DON'T BE! Past dogma and the entire FAQ are riddled with falsehoods, distortions, misinformation, and lack of information which the ACC will debate in any open GTAB forum. The FAQ portion on airport relocation is a prime example. Page 80 of 110 Our city leaders sought citizen input for use of over $500,000 in excess FY 2018 budget funds. They spent over $1 Million studying alternatives for the two Austin Avenue Bridges. They recently approved almost $400,000 for a bus system that virtually no one rides but the drivers. They sold their previous city facilities to substantially afford their palatial new ones. No responsible city leader, and that includes members of this board, can refuse in good conscience to accept the location of the GTU as best of all possible alternatives without a professional study showing there is no other alternative. The city can easily fund the study. Why should it not? If this board refuses to respond to this request, it must demand the city's Communications Department explain the refusal to the citizen owners of the airport. Mr. Chairman, comments and/or questions from board members will be appreciated. Page 81 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible rec ommendation to award a c ontract to P atin C onstruc tion, LLC of Taylor, Texas for the c onstruc tion of the S hell R oad S idewalk Improvement project in the amount of $229,825.00 – Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ys tems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, C I P Manager. IT E M S UMMARY: T his proposed p ro ject is to provid e ADA/T DL R c o mp liant s idewalk, inc reas e pedestrian mo b ility and close s id ewalk gap s along S hell R o ad . T he projec t cons is t o f ins talling ap p ro ximately 2400 LF of new s idewalk along S hell R o ad fro m R o s ed ale Blvd to Bellaire Drive and fro m S eq uoia S pur to the exis ting s idewalk. T his projec t als o includes pedestrian ramps and misc ellaneous striping. T his p ro ject was pub licly ad vertis ed on O cto b er 13, 2019 and O c tober 20, 2019. Eleven (16) firms obtained plans . F rom these p lan ho ld ers o n O c tober 29, 2019 we received nine (9) competitive b id s . T he low qualified b id d er for the projec t was P atin C onstruc tion, LLC with a to tal bid o f $229,825.00. Kasberg, P atric k & Assoc iates, LP have reviewed the c urrent wo rkload, referenc es and cons tructio n his tory o f P atin C onstruc tion. As a res ults o f the find ings Kasberg, P atrick & As s oc iates recommend the c o ntract be awarded to P atin C ons truction, LLC . S TAF F R E C O MME N D AT IO N: Kas berg, P atrick & As s ociates , LP and s taff recommend awarding the contrac t to P atin C ons truction, LLC of Taylor, Texas for the cons truction of the S hell R oad S idewalk Improvement projec t in the amount of $229,825.00 F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: . S UB MIT T E D B Y: C hris P ousson AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Letter of Recommendation Backup Material Bid Tab Backup Material Project Location Exhibit Backup Material Page 82 of 110 October 29, 2019 Mr. Chris Pousson Systems Engineering Project Manager City of Georgetown 300-1 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626-8445 Re: City of Georgetown Shell Road Sidewalk Improvements Project Georgetown, Texas Dear Mr. Pousson, Bids were received by the City of Georgetown until 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 for the above referenced project. Nine (9) competitive bids were received for the project. A detailed bid tabulation of this bid is attached for your use. The project consists of furnishing and installing a five (5) foot concrete sidewalk, pedestrian ramps, crosswalks, stop bars, and signage from just south of Rosedale Boulevard to Bellaire Drive (2,150’ +/-) and Sequoia Spur to the existing sidewalk south of Sequoia Spur (270’ +/-) located along Shell Road. The low qualified bidder for the project is Patin Construction, LLC of Taylor, Texas. Patin Construction, LLC has successfully completed several sidewalk projects for the City of Georgetown and other municipalities in the area recently. We have reviewed the current workload, references and construction history of Patin Construction, LLC and their subcontractors. As a result of our findings, we recommend that a contract be awarded to Patin Construction, LLC in the amount of $229,825.00. Sincerely, Alvin R. (Trae) Sutton III, P.E., CFM ARS/ xc: Mr. Wesley Wright, PE, City of Georgetown Mr. Michael Hallmark, City of Georgetown Ms. Nicole Abrego, City of Georgetown Mr. Jimmy Patin, Patin Construction, LLC 2018-147-30 KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS Texas Firm F-510 Temple RICK N. KASBERG, P.E. Georgetown One South Main Street R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E., CFM 1008 South Main Street Temple, Texas 76501 THOMAS D. VALLE, P.E. Georgetown, Texas 78626 (254) 773-3731 GINGER R. TOLBERT, P.E. (512) 819-9478 ALVIN R. “TRAE” SUTTON, III, P.E., CFM JOHN A. SIMCIK, P.E., CFM Page 83 of 110 BID TABULATION CITY OF GEORGETOWN TEXAS SHELL ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Bid Number 202002 October 29, 2019; 2:00 PM 2018-147-40 Item Estimated Unit Bid Data Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended No. Quantity Description Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount BASE BID: 1 100% LS Insurance, Bonds and Mobilization, not to exceed 5% of Bid $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,477.00 $ 12,477.00 230STAProvide Labor, Equipment, Tools and Supervision to Complete Preparation of Right-of-way 1,700.00 51,000.00 400.00 12,000.00 200.00 6,000.00 450.00 13,500.00 498.00 14,940.00 3 100% LS Implement Standard Barricade, Signing and Traffic Safety Plan (Vehicular and Pedestrian) Control Plan 15,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 13,903.00 13,903.00 4 100% LS Provide DVD of Right-of-Way Preconstruction and Post Construction Site Conditions for the Total Project 1,500.00 1,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 600.00 600.00 2,115.00 2,115.00 5 100% LS Prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, including submission to and receiving permits from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,420.00 2,420.00 6 3,000 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain, and Remove Silt Fence 2.50 7,500.00 2.75 8,250.00 7.50 22,500.00 4.00 12,000.00 3.00 9,000.00 7 20 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain, and Remove Rock Berm 35.00 700.00 33.00 660.00 125.00 2,500.00 150.00 3,000.00 48.00 960.00 8 24 EA Furnish, Install, Maintain, and Remove Tree Protection 300.00 7,200.00 500.00 12,000.00 300.00 7,200.00 350.00 8,400.00 282.00 6,768.00 9 300 CY For Unclassified Excavation 30.00 9,000.00 29.00 8,700.00 45.00 13,500.00 16.00 4,800.00 67.00 20,100.00 10 100 CY For Placement of Fill (Onsite Material) 15.00 1,500.00 21.00 2,100.00 65.00 6,500.00 35.00 3,500.00 84.00 8,400.00 11 1,675 SY Furnish and Install 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk 50.00 83,750.00 63.00 105,525.00 65.00 108,875.00 71.00 118,925.00 65.00 108,875.00 12 6 EA Furnish and Install TxDOT Curb Ramp, Type 7 1,500.00 9,000.00 1,250.00 7,500.00 1,800.00 10,800.00 1,900.00 11,400.00 1,507.00 9,042.00 13 5 EA Furnish all Materials, Equipment, Tools & Labor Necessary to Relocate Existing Street/Stop Sign 425.00 2,125.00 500.00 2,500.00 750.00 3,750.00 200.00 1,000.00 529.00 *2,645.00 14 60 LF Remove Existing 2' Stop Bar 10.00 600.00 10.00 600.00 12.00 720.00 30.00 1,800.00 24.00 1,440.00 15 60 LF Furnish and Install 2' Wide White Thermoplastic Stop Bar 20.00 1,200.00 20.00 1,200.00 11.00 660.00 20.00 1,200.00 32.00 1,920.00 16 110 LF Furnish and Install White Thermoplastic Cross Walk Striping 25.00 2,750.00 25.00 2,750.00 45.00 4,950.00 20.00 2,200.00 32.00 3,520.00 17 6500 SY For Hydromulching, Including Watering, Fertilizing, and Mowing to Establish Growth 1.00 6,500.00 5.00 32,500.00 1.50 9,750.00 3.85 25,025.00 3.00 19,500.00 18 100% LS For Irrigation Repair Allowance by a Licensed Irrigator to be paid Repair Invoice plus 20% 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 19 100% LS For City of Georgetown Force Account 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 TOTAL BASE BID (Items 1 - 19)** Did Bidder Acknowledge Addendums No. 1 ? YES YES YES YES YES Did Bidder provide Section #00400? YES YES YES YES YES Did Bidder provide Section #00410? YES YES YES YES YES Myers Concrete Construction, LP 3800 W 2nd Street Partners Remodeling Restoration & Waterproofing 3219 Harpers Ferry Ln. P.O. Box 2928, 2301 FM 3237 229,825.00$ 255,525.00$ Taylor, TX 76574 253,850.00$ Wimberley, TX 78676 243,305.00$ A Greater Austin Develpoment Copmany, Inc. 6500 River Place Blvd., Building 1, Suite 201 Austin, TX 78730 Westar Construction, Inc. 4500 Williams Dr., Suite 212- PMB 411 Georgetown, TX 78633 239,985.00$ BIDDER INFORMATION Austin, TX 78745 Patin Construction * Extended Amount Summed Incorrectly. **Total Amount Corrected Page 84 of 110 BID TABULATION CITY OF GEORGETOWN TEXAS SHELL ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Bid Number 202002 October 29, 2019; 2:00 PM 2018-147-40 Item Estimated Unit Bid Data Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended No. Quantity Description Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount BASE BID: 1 100% LS Insurance, Bonds and Mobilization, not to exceed 5% of Bid $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,439.12 $ 14,439.12 230STAProvide Labor, Equipment, Tools and Supervision to Complete Preparation of Right-of-way 1,000.00 30,000.00 300.00 9,000.00 650.00 19,500.00 1,111.10 33,333.00 3 100% LS Implement Standard Barricade, Signing and Traffic Safety Plan (Vehicular and Pedestrian) Control Plan 5,175.00 5,175.00 9,500.00 9,500.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,333.36 13,333.36 4 100% LS Provide DVD of Right-of-Way Preconstruction and Post Construction Site Conditions for the Total Project 766.00 766.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 999.00 999.00 5 100% LS Prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, including submission to and receiving permits from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 6,333.33 6,333.33 6 3,000 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain, and Remove Silt Fence 3.50 10,500.00 8.00 24,000.00 2.50 7,500.00 3.33 *9,990.00 7 20 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain, and Remove Rock Berm 25.00 500.00 60.00 1,200.00 60.00 1,200.00 166.66 *3,333.20 8 24 EA Furnish, Install, Maintain, and Remove Tree Protection 156.00 3,744.00 150.00 3,600.00 200.00 4,800.00 597.89 14,349.36 9 300 CY For Unclassified Excavation 50.00 15,000.00 13.00 3,900.00 55.00 16,500.00 47.93 14,379.00 10 100 CY For Placement of Fill (Onsite Material) 50.00 5,000.00 8.00 800.00 77.00 7,700.00 73.33 7,333.00 11 1,675 SY Furnish and Install 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk 65.00 108,875.00 85.50 143,212.50 74.00 123,950.00 83.54 139,929.50 12 6 EA Furnish and Install TxDOT Curb Ramp, Type 7 2,250.00 13,500.00 3,500.00 21,000.00 3,100.00 18,600.00 3,333.33 19,999.98 13 5 EA Furnish all Materials, Equipment, Tools & Labor Necessary to Relocate Existing Street/Stop Sign 250.00 1,250.00 250.00 1,250.00 470.00 2,350.00 733.33 3,666.65 14 60 LF Remove Existing 2' Stop Bar 30.00 1,800.00 60.00 3,600.00 14.00 840.00 33.33 1,999.80 15 60 LF Furnish and Install 2' Wide White Thermoplastic Stop Bar 30.00 1,800.00 60.00 3,600.00 30.00 1,800.00 57.99 3,479.40 16 110 LF Furnish and Install White Thermoplastic Cross Walk Striping 175.00 19,250.00 7.00 770.00 15.00 1,650.00 66.33 7,296.30 17 6500 SY For Hydromulching, Including Watering, Fertilizing, and Mowing to Establish Growth 4.00 26,000.00 3.00 19,500.00 5.00 32,500.00 0.59 *3,835.00 18 100% LS For Irrigation Repair Allowance by a Licensed Irrigator to be paid Repair Invoice plus 20% 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 19 100% LS For City of Georgetown Force Account 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 TOTAL BASE BID (Items 1 - 19)** Did Bidder Acknowledge Addendums No. 1 ? YES YES YES YES Did Bidder provide Section #00400? YES YES YES YES Did Bidder provide Section #00410? YES YES YES YES I hereby certify that this is a correct & true tabulation of all bids received Alvin R. Sutton, III, P.E., CFM Date Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Belton, TX 76513 277,660.00$ Joe Bland Construction, LP 110 N. Ellis13111 Dessau Road Yoko Excavating, LLC 2608 N. Main Street, Suite B282 315,529.00$ 289,390.00$ Groesbeck, TX 76642Austin, Texas 78754 280,432.50$ Granite Shoals, TX 78654 BIDDER INFORMATION M&C Fonseca Construction Co., Inc. 1901 Prairie Creek Rd. Green Source Environmental Solutions, Inc. * Extended Amount Summed Incorrectly. **Total Amount Corrected October 29, 2019 Page 85 of 110 810 810 8 2 0 82 0 830 83 0 830 83 0 84 0 840840840 84 0 84 0 84 0 840 850 8 5 0 850 85 0 850 850 850 860 860 8 6 0 86 0 860 860 860 860 8 6 0 870 870 870 870870 870 8 7 0 870 870 870 870 870 87087087087 0870 870 870 880880 8 8 0 8 8 0 880 880 88 0 880 880880 8 8 0 8 8 0 88 0 W I L L I A M S D R SH E L L R D SH E L L R D WES T B U R Y L N BELL A I R E D R M A D R I D D R V I L L A G E C O M M O N S B L V D R O S E D A L E B L V D S O N O R A T R A C E V E R D E V I S T A WILD W O O D D R KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER F-510 SHELL ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS October, 2019 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 8 \ 2 0 1 8 - 1 4 7 s h e l l r o a d s i d e w a l k i m p r o v e m e n t s \ C A D \ P l a n s \ W P A P \ S H E L L R D S D W K - W P A P P L A N S T C E Q 0 5 8 7 R O A D M A P . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 10 / 2 / 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 4 1 : 0 4 A M LA Y O U T : TC E Q 0 5 8 7 A T T A C H M E N T A R O A D M A P GEORGETOWN TEXAS EST. 1848 TCEQ 0587 ATTACHMENT A ROAD MAP N O R T H 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 250 500 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION Page 86 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Consideration and possible action to approve Task O rder K PA-20-004 with Kasberg, P atrick & Associates, L P of Georgetown, Texas, for professional services related to the L akeway and Williams D rive Intersection improvements in the amount of $252,450.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems E ngineering D irector / M ichael H allmark, C I P M anager IT E M S UMMARY: T he work to be performed by the Engineer under this c ontract c onsists of providing final plans and s pecific ations for the Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s C ros s ing Inters ection Improvements P roject. T he projec t cons is ts of adding additional turn lanes , traffic signal modification, intersec tion safety enhanc ements , acc es s c ontrol near the inters ection, and other mis cellaneous cons truction activities to for the Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s C ros s ing Inters ection. T he profes s ional s ervic es shall inc lude providing final roadway, drainage, utility adjustments , inc idental designs, utility coordination, environmental phase I inves tigations , geotechnic al investigations, bidding documents , s pecific ations , bidding services, and c onstruc tion adminis tration s ervic es . S TAF F R E C O MME N D AT IO N S: S taff recommends approval of Task O rder KPA-20-004 with Kasberg, P atric k & Assoc iates, LP of G eorgetown, Texas, for profes s ional s ervic es related to the Lakeway and Williams Drive Inters ection improvements in the amount of $252,450.00 F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: F unds for this expenditure are available in the G eneral C apital P rojec ts G L 120-9-0880-90-016 S UB MIT T E D B Y: C hris P ousson AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Task Order KPA-20-004 Backup Material Page 87 of 110 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 1 of 4 Task Order In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 23, 2016, ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Lakeway and Williams Drive Intersection B. Description: The work to be performed by the Engineer under this contract consists of providing final plans and specifications for the Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s Crossing Intersection Improvements Project. The project consists of adding additional turn lanes, traffic signal modification, intersection safety enhancements, access control near the intersection, and other miscellaneous construction activities to for the Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s Crossing Intersection. The professional services shall include providing final roadway, drainage, utility adjustments, incidental designs, utility coordination, environmental phase I investigations, geotechnical investigations, bidding documents, specifications, bidding services, and construction administration services. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: _________________________________ D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: _____________________ E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: ______________________________ F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2016-730-MSA____________ 2. Services of Engineer See Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: City to provide asbuilt/record drawing of City owned utilities located in the proposed project areas. 4. Times for Rendering Services Phase Completion Date Final Design: Intersection Improvements April 1, 2020 Task Order No. KPA-20-004-TO, consisting of 10 pages. Page 88 of 110 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 Bidding: Intersection Improvements June 1, 2020 Construction Administration/Onsite Representation: Intersection Improvements December 1, 2020 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Basic Services Intersection Improv.: Final Design, Bidding, Construction Phase A. Lump Sum $252,450.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP – Georgetown, TX All County Surveying – Georgetown, TX Terracon, Inc. – Austin, TX 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services Exhibit B – Fee Schedule Summary 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective March 23, 2016. Page 89 of 110 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 3 of 4 Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is , 2019. OWNER: ENGINEER: By: By: Name: Dale Ross Name: Alvin R (Trae) Sutton III, PE.CFM Title: Mayor Title: Principal Engineer License or Firm’s Certificate No. F-510 State of: Texas Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ City Attorney October 30, 2019 Page 90 of 110 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 Owner: Engineer: Designated Representative for Task Order: Designated Representative for Task Order: Name: Michael Hallmark Name: Trae Sutton, P.E., CFM Title: CIP Project Manager Title: Senior Project Manager Address: 300-1 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Address: 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, TX 78626 E-Mail Address: Michael.Hallmark@georgetown.org E-Mail Address: TSutton@kpaengineers.com Phone: 512-930-3569 Phone: 512-819-9478 Fax: Fax: 254-733-6667 Page 91 of 110 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT A DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE of SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Project Description: The work to be performed by the Engineer under this contract consists of providing final plans and specifications for the Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s Crossing Intersection Improvements Project. The project consists of adding additional turn lanes, traffic signal modification, intersection safety enhancements, access control near the intersection, and other miscellaneous construction activities to for the Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s Crossing Intersection. The professional services shall include providing final roadway, drainage, utility adjustments, incidental designs, utility coordination, environmental phase I investigations, geotechnical investigations, bidding documents, specifications, bidding services, and construction administration services. This scope does not include ROW documents or easement documents and negotiations. Scope of Services: The scope of services associated with the Airport Road Improvement Project includes: I. Project Management/Coordination a. The ENGINEER shall coordinate, conduct and document a Project Kickoff Meeting with City Staff. b. The ENGINEER shall attend 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% Project Submittal Meetings with City Staff. The ENGINEER shall review the submittal package with City Staff and provide written questions and or comments that may arise during the design process and review those with City Staff and provide recommendations, if required. These meetings may also include meeting with Landowners to review the proposed project alignment. Assume six (6) meetings shall be required. c. The ENGINEER shall provide Contract Management and Coordination. This shall include developing monthly invoices and progress reports, subconsultant coordination, design coordination with the City and design coordination with dry utilities. d. The ENGINEER shall obtain and review the existing data provided from the City and that have a direct impact of the proposed project. II. Utility Coordination a. The ENGINEER shall develop an Utility Conflict Map detailing the approximate locations of the existing dry utilities and identify potential conflicts with impacted existing dry utilities. Page 92 of 110 Page 2 of 5 b. The ENGINEER shall coordinate, attend and document a Utility Coordination Meeting with the existing utilities located within the proposed corridor to discuss impacts this project on the existing utilities. The ENGINEER shall document the highlights of this meeting. Assume two (2) meetings shall be required. III. Final Design Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive/Booty’s Crossing Intersection Improvements Roadway Design a. Roadway Geometric Design. The ENGINEER will develop final roadway schematic designs with horizontal and vertical alignments based off the topographic surveys. The alignments will be in compliance with the City of Georgetown, TxDOT and AASHTO Roadway Design Criteria. The ENGINEER will review final schematic alignment with City Staff. b. Typical Sections. The ENGINEER will utilize the roadway geometric design to develop existing and proposed typical roadway sections for project. c. Plan & Profile Sheets – Roadway. The ENGINEER will prepared plan & profile sheets for the project. The sheets shall include existing topography, utilities, control data, preliminary roadway geometry (vertical and horizontal), drainage improvements, and other related improvements. d. Intersection Layouts. The ENGINEER shall design typical intersection layouts that identify all horizontal and vertical geometry along the proposed project route. This will also include obtaining project data and alignment(s) from adjacent and/or connecting design projects as may affect the development of proposed alignment. e. Cross Sections for Roadway. The ENGINEER will prepare roadway cross sections at intervals not to exceed 100 feet along to the proposed roadway alignment. The cross sections shall include the proposed roadway improvements, multi-use trail facility and other related drainage improvements. f. Pedestrian Facility. The ENGINEER shall perform final design in order to develop plan and profile drawings for a pedestrian facility along the proposed project route. The design of the multi-use trail facility shall be in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Texas Department of License and Regulations (TDLR) and TxDOT design requirements for pedestrian facilities and AASHTO Guidelines for Bike Facilities. Drainage Design a. The ENGINEER will incorporate all design surveys into computer aided drafting and develop topographies and surfaces. This data will be utilized to develop final drainage areas, hydrology and hydraulics. This will include topographic working drawings to prepare the final drainage design. Page 93 of 110 Page 3 of 5 b. The ENGINEER will develop storm water hydrology for the ultimate roadway section for the project area. The hydrology will be modeled utilizing HEC-HMS with City of Georgetown drainage criteria. The model will incorporate the 10%, 4%, 2% and 1% annual chance storm events. Modeling will develop storm water flows to all cross culverts and roadway conveyances. Based on the data developed drainage infrastructure will be designed for final design for the project area. c. The ENGINEER will develop plan and profile for the proposed storm water collection systems for the project area. d. The ENGINEER will finalize the requirements for water quality for the roadway section. Designs will be based on the new impervious cover that will be established with the ultimate build out of the project and current TCEQ requirements for construction within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The ENGINEER will endeavor to combine conveyance infrastructure with water quality in an effort to minimize project costs. e. The ENGINEER will provide final design of a detention/water quality pond located on the project route and shall include final design for the pond, outlet structure, overall grading plan and typical cross sections for the pond. f. The ENGINEER will determine potential utility conflicts based on final design for the project area. Coordination with utility companies will be performed by meeting with all effected utilities during the preliminary design phase. g. The ENGINEER will meet with Staff to review the final drainage design, phasing for the project, utility conflicts and relocations, water quality options, etc. All comments and direction from the meeting will be incorporated in to the project. Utility Design a. The ENGINEER will incorporate the existing City water and wastewater lines into the proposed plan/profile plan sets. b. The ENGINEER will identify potential conflicts and develop plan and profile for the resolving potential conflicts for the water and wastewater lines in the project area. c. The ENGINEER will provide connection details and layouts for the proposed water and wastewater line adjustments. d. The ENGINEER will provide roadway crossing designs and details. Incidentals Design a. The ENGINEER will design erosion control measures to be utilized for the project and shall identify the locations of the measures to be installed in an overall erosion control exhibit to be incorporated into the plans. Page 94 of 110 Page 4 of 5 b. The ENGINEER will design an overall striping plan for the project route in accordance with City of Georgetown, TxDOT and Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) requirements. c. The ENGINEER will prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with the City of Georgetown, TxDOT and Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) requirements. d. The ENGINEER will provide miscellaneous construction details required to construct the project. e. The ENGINEER will develop and prepare project specific technical specifications. f. The ENGINEER will prepare a project bid schedule. The ENGINEER will perform a quantity take off for the project and will prepare and opinion of probable construction cost based off the 100% plan sets (bidding sets). g. The ENGINEER will prepare Contract Documents and Technical Specification books and 100% Plan Sets and deliver to the City. (10 Sets) IV. Bidding a. The ENGINEER will develop the invitation to bid and deliver to City Staff for advertising the project for public bidding. The ENGINEER will also solicit bids from past contractors to acquire as competitive a bidding process as possible. b. The ENGINEER will manage and distribute bidding documents. c. The ENGINEER will prepare for the Pre-Bid Conference, develop an agenda and sign in sheet, conduct the Pre-Bid Conference, take notes at the conference, prepare minutes and incorporate into the addenda. d. The ENGINEER will receive all questions from bidders, log the questions and answer in the form of an addenda. e. The ENGINEER will conduct the bid letting, receive all bids, tabulate the bids and certify them. f. The ENGINEER will research the low bidder(s) qualifications and recommend award to the City of Georgetown. V. Construction Administration a. The ENGINEER will prepare contract documents; forward those to the contractor awarded the project by the Georgetown City Council. Once the contractor has executed the contract documents, they will be checked for proper documentation and forwarded to the City of Georgetown for execution. Page 95 of 110 Page 5 of 5 b. The ENGINEER will prepare and distribute construction plan sets, incorporating information and changes to the plans and specifications that were addressed in the Addenda. c. The ENGINEER will schedule and conduct the Pre-Construction Conference. Minutes from the conference will be taken and distributed. d. The ENGINEER will receive and review all submittals and material samples for the project. Documentation for the submittals will be generated and distributed to the City o f Georgetown and the contractor. e. The ENGINEER will hold bi-monthly construction progress meetings. These meetings will include meeting agendas covering project specifics and schedules. Notes will be taken by the ENGINEER at the meetings. Minutes will then be developed and distributed to the City of Georgetown Staff and the contractor. f. The ENGINEER will make periodic visits the project site. These site visits are utilized to perform a general overview of the project and answer any questions the contractor may have. The City of Georgetown will provide daily on-site representation for the project. g. The ENGINEER will develop pay estimate forms for the project. These will be distributed to City Staff and the contractor. The ENGINEER will review the pay requests with City Staff. h. The ENGINEER will conduct a final walk through of the project. Punch list items will be generated during this review. A letter addressed to City Staff will be generated discussing the findings of the walk through. The contractor will be copied on this letter as well. i. The ENGINEER will develop final record Drawings for the City of Georgetown Staff. The record Drawings will be presented in the form of a DVD with pdf of each plan sheet and a full 11x17 hard copy. Page 96 of 110 EXHIBIT C: FEE SCHEDULE SUMMARY Page 1 of 1 KPA ACS TERRACON LE TOTAL 1.PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION 14,200.00$ 14,200.00$ 2.UTILITY COORDINATION 9,600.00$ 9,600.00$ 3 FINAL DESIGN 110,400.00$ 7,200.00$ 18,600.00$ 24,700.00$ 160,900.00$ 4.BIDDING 8,800.00$ 8,800.00$ 5.CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 54,200.00$ 54,200.00$ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL 197,200.00$ 7,200.00$ 18,600.00$ 24,700.00$ 247,700.00$ Project Fees: TDLR Project Registration, Review & Inspection Fee 750.00$ TCEQ WPAP Assessment Fee 4,000.00$ Project Fees Total 4,750.00$ PROJECT TOTAL 252,450.00$ Subconsultants: Topographic Surveying - All County Surveying (ACS) Environmental (Phase I ESA) - Terracon Geotechnical Report Evaluation - Terracon Signal Design - Lee Engineering (LE) COST SUMMARY Summary of Hours October 29, 2019 Summary of Professional Services Fee Williams Drive & Lakeway Drive Intersection Improvements Project Page 97 of 110 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board November 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible rec ommendation to approve the C ity of G eorgetown's Bicycle Master P lan IT E M S UMMARY: In 2018, the C ity of G eorgetown began updating its 2030 C omprehensive P lan. A c omponent of this update is the Bicycle Master P lan (the P lan), a joint effort between C ity s taff and a projec t team from the Univers ity of Texas at Austin (UT Austin). An initial study of bicycling conditions in G eorgetown was conduc ted in fall 2016 by the UT project team. T his study provided a bas eline for the formal planning process that began in fall 2018. To inform the plan-making, the project team engaged with the G eorgetown community extensively through public workshops , online surveys , and neighborhood interc ept s urveys; led s takeholder meetings with C ity and C ounty s taff and repres entatives of regional and state agencies; and administered site vis its across the c ity. In addition, the projec t team as s embled 12 case s tudies of bes t practices from around the c ountry and c ompleted 11 topic al reports on technic al c omponents of bic yc le planning, inc luding but not limited to crash analyses, c os t es timates , and des ign c onsiderations. Beginning in S eptember, representatives from the Univers ity of Texas and C ity S taff have been presenting to plan to various C ity boards and c ommis s ions, several c ommunity groups and to the public to introduc e them to the plan and to obtain their comments regarding the draft Bicycle Master P lan. Below is a summary of the meetings and groups that the plan has been pres ented to: S eptember 24, 2019 - C ity C ounc il Workshop S eptember 25,. 2019 - P lan goes live on the Web O c tober 1, 2019 - P resentation to the Youth Advis ory C ouncil (6 were in attendance) O c tober 10, 2019 - P res entation to the P arks $ R ec Board O c tober 11, 2019 - P resentation to the G TAB O c tober 15, 2019 - P res entation to the P lanning & Zoning C ommission O c tober 18, 2019 - P res entation to S un C ity C yclists (56 members were in attendanc e) O c tober 21, 2019 - P res entation to the C ommis s ion on Aging (10 were in attendance) O c tober 23, 2019 - P ublic O pen House at G eorgetown P ublic Library (20 pers ons s igned in) S tories on the Draft Bicycle Master P lan were aired on the F ollowing Austin News S tations: KXAN - NBC News, KVUE - ABC News, and F ox 7 - F ox News. T he Bicycle Master P lan was also on the C ity's Web s ite and s taff received about 50 c omments on-line. In summary mos t of the comments were in regards to additional c onnectivity; c os t and implementation of the plan; types of bicycle infrastruc ture being recommended; and improved bicycling s afety. In general the plan was well received by the public espec ially the c yc ling groups in G eorgetown. T he attac hed maps of the propose bicycle network and c os t es timates are bas ed on the comments that were received through the meetings lis ted above and on-line forum. Lis ting of Attachments : G T F inal P ropos ed Network - Edited 11-1-2019 G T F inal P ropos ed Network w/ P riorization - Edited 11-1-2019 G eorgetown Bic yc le Mas ter P lan Implementation C os ts - Edited 11-1-2019 Exec utive S ummary - Bike Mas ter P lan - O riginal P roposed Bic yc le Network F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Page 98 of 110 T he plan estimates that it would take $15.6 million to implement the full plan. S UB MIT T E D B Y: R aymond Miller AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Executive Summary - Original Proposed Bicycle Network Backup Material GT Final Proposed Network after Edits Backup Material GT Final Proposed Network with Priorities - After Edits Backup Material Cos t Es timates of Implementation - After Edits Backup Material Page 99 of 110 1 Georgetown Bicycle Master Plan Page 100 of 110 2 City of Georgetown Bicycle Master Plan (Draft as of 7.29.2019) Page 101 of 110 In 2018,the City of Georgetown began updating its 2030 Comprehensive Plan.A component of this update is the Bicycle Master Plan (the Plan),a joint effort between City staff and a project team from the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin).An initial study of bicycling conditions in Georgetown was conducted in fall 2016 by the UT project team.This study provided a baseline for the formal planning process that began in fall 2018.To inform the plan-making,the project team engaged with the Georgetown community extensively through public workshops,online surveys,and neighborhood intercept surveys;led stakeholder meetings with City and County staff and representatives of regional and state agencies;and administered site visits across the city.In addition,the project team assembled 12 case studies of best practices from around the country and completed 11 topical reports on technical components of bicycle planning, including but not limited to crash analyses,cost estimates,and design considerations. Executive Summary 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VISION,GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The vision statement of the Georgetown Bicycle Master Plan describes the bicycling environment that the Plan aims to offer to Georgetown’s residents and visitors. The goals and objectives specify strategies, actions, and paths toward the realization of that vision. Page 102 of 110 Executive Summary 12 VISION STATEMENT Georgetown will have a safe, well-connected bicycle network that is accessible to all ages, abilities, and backgrounds; supports the local economy; and improves the experience of everyone biking in the community. Goals Objectives Promote safety for cycling on-and off- road •Prioritize bike paths that minimize conflicts with vehicle traffic. •Design intersections that prioritize protected bicycle and pedestrian crossings. •Increase awareness of and respect for bicycle riders through education and enforcement. Develop connectivity across the city to provide access to popular destinations •Design and build bicycle corridors that connect residential areas with the city center and major destinations. •Integrate with regional trails and bicycle networks. •Overcome barriers at critical crossing points to provide east-west and north-south connectivity across the city. Enhance equity in bike access •Balance the needs and interests of cycling groups and the general public. •Improve bicycle and pedestrian access around schools. •Build flat paths where possible to accommodate users of all abilities. •Expand transportation choices in underserved areas through bicycle infrastructure and connections to public transportation through first and last mile bicycle connections. Support the economy through bicycling •Implement bike and pedestrian-oriented urban design to increase transportation options to downtown businesses. •Promote bicycle tourism by fostering partnership between public agencies, private business, and non-profit organizations. •Ensure that commercial destinations have adequate bicycle parking. •Attract bicycle-oriented business. Foster a bicycle friendly culture •Educate residents about proper bicycling behaviors for bicyclists, drivers, and pedestrians. •Provide bicycle network maps and install wayfinding signage. •Pursue a Bicycle Friendly Community Designation. •Promote cycling as an easy, inexpensive way to enhance public health. Page 103 of 110 Strengths •Bicycling for recreation is already very popular within the community. •Recreational trails are utilized and enjoyed by residents and visitors. •The Georgetown Public Library and the Sheraton Hotel both manage well- used public bike sharing services, and Southwestern University provides its students with on-campus bike sharing. •Residents expressed support for additional bicycling facilities. Weaknesses •The lack of bike lanes and bike facilities makes some residents feel unsafe while riding bikes. •Drivers and bike riders lack knowledge and experience comfortably sharing the road. •Most bicycle trips are recreational rather than for commuting or running errands. This is potentially due to Georgetown’s proximity to a large city, its extensive parks with existing trails, and lack of bicycle infrastructure connecting popular destinations. Opportunities •Survey respondents stated that expansion of off-street trails would encourage bicycle use. •Projects and infrastructure improvements that overlap with planned or proposed projects in other departments (e.g. Streets) can be prioritized for their low cost and high reward. •There exist roads that can be utilized as a secondary low stress network to guide bikes away from major roadways. Threats •Rapid development outside of Downtown does not lend itself to biking due to long distances between destinations. •Improvements made to major arterials without incorporated bicycle infrastructure will fortify existing barriers to bike connectivity and likely create new threats. •Lack of coordination among public agencies and private developers or advocates concerned with biking might delay or deter the implementation of City-wide bicycle system integration and infrastructure improvement. Executive Summary 13 SWOT HIGHLIGHTS A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted based on information gathered from public engagements and field investigations. Safety, connectivity, equity, economy, and culture are key themes that emerged from the SWOT analysis. These themes have become key attributes of the vision and directed the formulation of goals and objectives of the Plan. Page 104 of 110 Executive Summary 14 PROPOSED BICYCLE SYSTEM Planning and design of the bicycle network are guided by the Plan Vision, Goals, and Objectives. The essential elements of the proposed system can be characterized using the “5-4-3-2-1” framework below. A map of the proposed system is shown in Figure 1. 5 types of bicycle infrastructure It is not feasible nor economical to provide bicycle treatment on all streets, roadways, and intersections. The Plan proposes five types of common bicycle treatments: off-street path, physically protected bike lane, buffered bike lane, striped bike lane, and sharrow. Application of each type should be based on the assessment of system needs and local conditions. 4 sets of critical connections The Plan proposes improvement to four sets of critical connections in order to overcome the identified bicycling barriers. The first set includes four bicycle crossing points along I-35 to improve east-west biking connectivity. The second set includes three crossing points along San Gabriel River to improve north-south connectivity in northern Georgetown. The third set includes three crossing points along University Ave. The fourth set connects Sun City to Overlook Park and Downtown while minimizing conflicts with Williams Dr. 3 closed bicycle loops Upon completion of the four sets of critical connections, the Plan presents three closed bicycle loops to serve the whole of Georgetown. •Loop 1: Central Georgetown components San Gabriel bike trail to the north and west, Maple St. and Holly St. to the east, 15th and 16th St. to the south •Loop 2: Southern Georgetown components San Gabriel bike trail to the north, Inner Loop to the east, 21st St. to the south, Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to the west •Loop 3: Northern Georgetown components San Gabriel bike trail network to the west and south, trails in Berry Springs Park to the east, Shell Rd. to the north 2 corridors in central Georgetown Two corridors connect the three bicycle loops described above. They form a secondary low stress network that minimizes conflicts with Austin Ave. and 7th St., which carry large volumes of vehicular traffic. The north-south corridor follows Main St. and the east-west corridor is along 8th St. They intersect at the Square, Georgetown’s historic center. 1 central core The Square is the vibrant, people-centered focal point of Georgetown. The Plan aims to enhance connectivity between the Square and the rest of the city, building off of existing roads and integrating with park paths. Page 105 of 110 Executive Summary 15 Figure 1. Proposed Bike Network *for descriptions of the types of bike infrastructure shown in Figure 1, see page 44 Page 106 of 110 Executive Summary 16 ENGINEERING, EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT, ENFORCEMENT, AND EVALUATION PLAN Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation make up the “5E’s” framework, the industry standard for implementing bicycle or pedestrian improvements. The City already possesses an extensive network of off-street cycling trails, which are popular among local bike riders and visitors and stimulate economic development for local businesses. The citizens of Georgetown have expressed interest in connecting the off-street trails and other key areas of the city via on-street facilities. To fulfill these requests, this plan utilizes the 5E’s framework. High level recommendations for each E are as follows: Engineering •Strengthen the City’s Complete Streets policy •Adopt NACTO guidelines in all design manuals Education •Expand the Safe Routes to School program •Train City engineers in bicycle facility design •Partner with local bicycle advocacy groups to provide educational classes for adults and students Encouragement •Create a bicycle advisory committee •Implement bicycle encouragement programs •Work toward recognition as a Bicycle Friendly Community Enforcement •Work with the Georgetown Police Department to refresh officers on bicycle safety •Enhance local laws and regulations to improve safety for bicyclists and all Evaluation •Create a bicycle and pedestrian counting program •Implement a set of system performance measures Page 107 of 110 IH 35 S H E L L U N I V E R S I T Y WILLIA M S F M 9 7 1 L E A N D E R C R 1 5 2 F M 9 7 2 I N N E R AUSTIN S H 1 3 0 INNER LOOP S C E N I C C R 1 1 0 LAKEWAY S A M H O U S T O N NORTHWEST SH 29 M A P L E S O U T H W E S T F M 1 4 6 0 S T A D I U M M A I N B E L L G I N COLLEGE W O L F R A N C H B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G 7 T H SNEAD W E S T I N G H O U S E IN D USTRIAL S M IT H C R E E K SH 130 C R 1 1 0 SH 130 M A P L E IH 35 IH 35 IH 35 S H 130 IH 35 0 1 20.5 Miles Proposed Bicycle NetworkTreatment 1 - Sharrow 2 - Bike Lane 3 - Buffered Bike Lane 4 - Physically Protected Bike Lane 5 - Off-Street Path Date: 11/1/2019 I Page 108 of 110 N IH 35 SB F M 971 W ILLIA M S D R C R 1 5 2 N IH 35 NB S H E L L R D L E A N D E R R D F M 9 7 2 C R 1 1 0 S IH 35 SB E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E S AU S TIN AV E S H 1 3 0 S B NE INNER LOOP N AUSTIN AVE SH 130 NB S I H 3 5 N B S A M H O U S T O N A V E S C E N I C D R LA K E W AY D R F M 1 4 6 0 W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E S E I N N E R L O O P N O R T H W E S T B L V D W SH 29 M A P L E S T S T A D I U M D R S O U T H W E S T B Y P B E L L G I N R D N C O LLE G E ST B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G R D W E S T I N G H O U S E R D SNEAD DR E 7 T H S T SH 130 TOLL SB S H 1 3 0 S B N IH 35 SB S IH 35 NB C R 1 1 0 M A P L E S T I 0 1 20.5 Miles Proposed Network Prioritization Existing Network Segment Highest Priority High Priority Medium Priority Date: 11/1/2019 Page 109 of 110 MAINT_AUTH City of Georgetown Sum of MILES CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PLANNED PROPOSED Grand Total Cost Per Mile Total Cost Bike Lane 1.621708 1.615245 9.84044 13.077393 4,382.00$ 43,120.81$ Buffered Bike Lane 9.131845 9.131845 10,560.00$ 96,432.28$ Off‐Street Path 1.693553 31.006498 7.654403 18.788066 59.14252 560,000.00$ 14,807,782.64$ Physically Protected Bike Lane 2.088887 9.017335 10.829961 60,000.00$ 666,373.32$ Sharrow 7.655952 7.655952 1,000.00$ 7,655.95$ Grand Total 3.315261 32.621743 9.74329 54.157377 99.837671 15,621,365.00$ ROUGH COST ESTIMATES (low) Page 110 of 110