Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_12.10.2015Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown December 10, 2015 at 10:00 AM at GMC Building, 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. B Introduction of Visitors C Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates D Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. E Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Legislative Regular Agenda F Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on October 9, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison G Consideration and possible recommendation to award the annual Street Striping bid to DIJ Construction Company, of Bertram, Texas. Services to be provided on an as needed basis in the estimated amount of $125,220.00 annually. – Mark Miller - Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP – Transportation Services Director H Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order A&F-16-003 with Aguirre & Fields, LP, of Austin, Texas, for professional services to provide engineering and support services required to develop preliminary design alternatives, conduct public involvement, initiate Page 1 of 133 environmental services and the prepare 30% plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) package for replacing the Austin Avenue bridges and roadway improvements from Morrow Street to 3rd Street in the amount of $662,546.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. I Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Joe Bland Construction, LP, of Austin, TX, for the Jim Hogg at Williams Drive Intersection Improvements Project, in the amount of $724,241.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, J Discussion and possible recommendation of approval of a Scope of Work for the Williams Drive Study with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). - Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, Transportation Services, Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator, City Manager's Office, Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 2 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Call to Order The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Ker Page 3 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Introduction of Visitors ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern Page 4 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern Page 5 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: GTAB Projects 2nd Street (Austin Avenue to College Street) Austin Avenue Bridge Evaluation and Repairs CDBG Sidewalk Improvements - MLK/3rd St (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.) - University Ave. (I 35 to Hart St.) FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue FM 1460 Improvements Project Jim Hogg Drive/Road at Williams Drive Southwest Bypass Project (Leander Road to I 35) Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance GTEC Projects Project Status Report 2015 Road Bond Program Overview - Southwest Bypass (Leander Dr./RM 2243 to Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension) and Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Rd.) FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GTAB Project Reports Exhibit GTEC - Project Statue Report Exhibit 2015 Road Bond Program Projects Exhibit Page 6 of 133 2nd Street  Austin Avenue to College Street  Project No. 1BU     TIP None  December 2015  Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the  widening and reconstruction of 2nd Street from Austin Avenue to College Street.  Purpose To provide a safer roadway between Austin Avenue and College Street serving the  citizens of the north portion of “Old Town” and VFW baseball fields.  The proposed  project provides improved sidewalk for pedestrian activities along the roadway.  Project Manager Mark Miller and Joel Weaver  Engineer KPA, LP      Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way Existing  Utility Relocations Water Improvements have been installed, tested and tied in.  Subgrade and base work is being installed from College Street to Myrtle Street.   Curb work 90% complete.  First block of 2nd Street (Austin to Main) was opened to traffic before Thanksgiving  to provide better access to this business/residential transition area.    Construction Construction is on schedule.  Other Issues None    Page 7 of 133 Austin Avenue Bridges (North and South San Gabriel Rivers)  Project No. TBD     TIP Project No. N/A  December 2015  Project  Description  Develop 30% plans for the replacement of the North and South San Gabriel Rivers  Bridges as the Northern Gateway into the City’s Downtown District.  The project will  involve several phases and will include participation from various elements  stakeholders in the ultimate project – interested citizens, residents, community  businesses, engineering and landscaping professionals, Parks Department,  Transportation Services Department and City Council.  Schedule Phase Activity Completion   1 Forensic testing to determine the extent of failure   December 2015  2 Public involvement and alternative analyses, evaluating 4  alternatives for feasibility and costs, etc. May 2016  3 Develop geometric layouts and preliminary construction  estimates for two alternatives June 2016  4 Selection of alignment by Council July 2016  5 Develop schematic and 30% plans. March 2017 Proj. Mgrs Ed Polasek, AICP; Bill Dryden, P.E.; Nat Waggoner, PMP® Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP  Element Status/Issues  Design The Task Order is on the agenda for preliminary engineering and public  involvement.  Engineer is completing the report on the forensic testing of the existing  bridges.  Surveying  TBD  Environmental TBD  Rights of Way Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow; Additional ROW may be required 3rd to  N. of 2nd.  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction TBD  Other Issues     Page 8 of 133 CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project  MLK/3rd Street (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.)  Project No. None    TIP No. None  December 2015  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for  sidewalk improvements along MLK/ and 3rd streets from Scenic Drive to Austin  Avenue.  Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Steger Bizzell    Element Status / Issues  Design Engineer has completed 95% plans and is completing the construction  documents.  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD  Rights of Way N/A  Utility Relocations N/A  Construction On hold pending construction funding from WilCo CDBG  Other Issues Awaiting construction funding approval from WilCo CDBG Coordinator.    Page 9 of 133 CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project  University Avenue (SH 29) (I 35 to Hart St.)  Project No. None    TIP No. None  December 2015  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for  sidewalk improvements along University Avenue (SH 29) from I 35 to Hart Street.  Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Steger Bizzell    Element Status / Issues  Design Design is 95% plans; Engineer is completing the Bidding and Contract  Documents.  Environmental/  Archeological  N/A  Rights of Way Existing  Utility Relocations TBD  Construction TBD  Other Issues Project has been submitted to TxDOT for coordination.  Project has been submitted for T.A.S./TDLR compliance review.  The original design firm Baker‐Aicklen has closed its doors.  Council has approved a Multiple Use Agreement with TxDOT to install new  sidewalk within TxDOT ROW; paperwork has been submitted; process will  require approximately 2½ months for TxDOT to complete.  City has engaged the firm of Steger Bizzell to complete Construction  Documents and to provide Construction Administration services.  Engineer is addressing some TCEQ‐raised issues regarding water quality.    Page 10 of 133 FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Realignment Intersection Improvements  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. AG  December 2015  Unchanged  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 Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Preliminary Engineering complete;   Engineer working on 60% design submittal  Environmental/  Archeological  10/2015  Rights of Way Complete  Utility Relocations TBD  Construction 10/2016  Other Issues Staff has submitted the paperwork to TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding  Agreement for plans review and construction administration.    Page 11 of 133 FM 1460  Quail Valley Drive to University Drive  Project No. 5RB     TIP No. BO & CD  December 2015  Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the  widening and reconstruction of FM 1460.  Project will include review and update  to existing Schematic, Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and  completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway.  Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW,  effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT  letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding.  Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and  Use Agreements or have closings planned for all the  remaining FM 1460 parcels.  Remaining parcel – pending closing documents.  Acquired: 35  Pending: 0  Condemnation: 1  Total: 36  Utility Relocations Ongoing  Construction Ground breaking was held October 19th  Contractor is working on the project.  Other Issues Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.    Page 12 of 133 Jim Hogg Drive/Road at Williams Drive  Intersection and Signalization Improvements  Project No. 1DE    TIP No. None  December 2015  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the  widening of Jim Hogg at the intersection of Williams Drive, inclusive of installation  of a traffic signal.  Purpose To provide a widened 3‐lane section with signal at the intersection of Jim Hogg and  Williams Drive.  The proposed improvements will provide improved access for the  residents and the employees of the new City Service Center to Williams Drive.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way Existing  Utility Relocations Included with construction project  Construction Bids were opened with Joe Bland Construction, Ltd., submitting the lowest  responsive bid.  Construction to begin February 2016.  Other Issues None    Page 13 of 133 Southwest Bypass Project   (RM 2243 to IH 35)  Project No. 1CA     Project No. BK  December 2105  Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM  2243) to IH 35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications  and Estimate (PS&E) 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.  The portion from Leander Road to the east property line  of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from the east line to the existing Inner  Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC.  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 and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer HDR, Inc.      Element Status / Issues  Williamson County  Project Status  (from WilCo’s  status  report)  Comments were issued on 10/20/15 on a 60% PS&E driveway submittal received on  10/12/15.  Project layout alternatives for RM 2243 was received on 10/12/15 and  alternative cost estimates were received on 10/26/15.  A GEC Constructability  Review meeting was held on 10/16/15.  Typical sections and a Design Summary  Form were submitted on 9/29/15 and reviewed.  A project status meeting was held  on 9/9/15.  Driveway permits for driveways at IH 35 SB frontage road and RM 2243  were approved by the City of Georgetown on 8/7/15.Estimated letting date for  driveways is December 2015.  Rights of Way Special Commissioners have awarded the value for one of the two remaining  parcels; funding has been posted with the Court.  PUA has been obtained for the final parcel of property; condemnation hearing was  scheduled for the end of September 2015, but has been postponed at the request of  property owner.  Other Issues City and WilCo completing the Interlocal Agreement for the Project.    Page 14 of 133 Transportation Services Operations  CIP Maintenance  December 2015  Project Description 2015‐2016 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays,  Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects.  Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of  85%.  Project Manager Mark Miller  Engineer/Engineers KPA, LP  Task Status / Issues     Chip Seal  2015 scheduled work complete.  2016 schedule is being put together for both in‐house and contract work.  Fog Seal 2015 – Rejuvenation is continuing as the weather allows. Original schedule  was October 19th to November 7th.  The wet weather pattern limits the window  of application time.  As of December 2, the work was 30% complete.  The  crews are proceeding as weather allows.  HIPR/overlay 2015 – Complete.  Engineering 2016 A Task Order is being prepared for engineering services related to the 2016  Street Maintenance.    Page 15 of 133 Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP No. Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Projected Current Year Cost Current Year Available Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete. Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) #14A 5QW Project Complete. Complete 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350 Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Project Complete. Complete 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer is coordinating design with the design for Rivery Boulevard in moving towards construction PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work between these two projects. Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid-FY 2019. In-process 1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590 NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. In-process Unchanged 613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0 ROW - 1460 #EEa #EEb #EEc 5RB Ground breaking was held October 19th Contractor has begun work on the project. Utility relocations - ongoing. As of October 16th, the City has obtained PUAs or have closings completed or planned for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. In-process 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete. Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0 FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete. Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete. Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer is coordinating design with the design for Northwest Boulevard in moving towards construction PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work between these two projects. Offers have been made to the 15 parcel owners from Park Lane southward to Williams Drive. Engineer is completing appraisals on remaining 7 parcels. Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid FY 2018 On Schedule Snead Drive 5QZ Construction on‐going for the installation of the sewer line. Water line relocations crossing Snead Dr. have begun. Easement has been acquired for the water quality pond. On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100 Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineer has submitted 60% plans for review. Engineer is completing the ROW documents for Mays Street south of Westinghouse Road and finalizing the alignment and ROW requirements for Rabbit Hill Road north of Westinghouse Road. In Process 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0 IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT December 2015 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-11.xlsx Page 1 of 2 12/1/2015Page 16 of 133 Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP No. Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Projected Current Year Cost Current Year Available GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT December 2015 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) Current Economic Development Projects Project Type Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Budget Current Year Cost Current Year Available 100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo Project 5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 0 Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives and preliminary cost estimates. On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 0 0 Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500 16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-11.xlsx Page 2 of 2 12/1/2015Page 17 of 133 2015 Road Bond Program Program  Overview  In May 2015, voters approved the 2015 Road Bond Program (“the Program”) in the amount of  $105M.  Staff has prioritized the projects schedule based on various existing and pending  commitments into which the City has entered through industrial agreements and/or development  agreements, projected bond funding cash flow and travel demand needs of the citizens.  The proposed schedule was developed over the entire 10‐year life of the Program and presented  to GTAB with the caveat that the schedule was firmly established for only the first two years of  project implementation.  Future scheduling will be responsive to funding availability, changes in  development patterns and demands, future coordination of our projects with TxDOT and  Williamson County.  Further, the Program projects will be included with the annual CIP projects  list.  At its June 2015 meeting, GTAB unanimously adopted the schedule and caveat and unanimously  recommended is adoption by Council.  Given that priorities and needs are dynamic and subject to  change, the schedule will be reviewed annually as part of the CIP to assure it continues to meet  the goals and objectives of the City and maintains the terms of the “Contract with the Voters” of  not having greater than 2¢ per year increase to the City’s tax rate not more than 10¢ total increase  in the tax rate over the life of the Program.    Project  Managers  Ed Polasek, AICP  Transportation Services Director  Bill Dryden, P.E.  Transportation Engineer  Wes Wright, P.E.  Systems Engineering Director    Page 18 of 133 2015 Road Bond Program Southwest Bypass (Leander Rd. to Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension)  Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Rd.)  Project No. 1DI       OTP Project No. AD & AZ1  November 2015  Project  Description  Construction of Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to Wolf Ranch  Parkway Extension and Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension from Southwest Bypass to  DB Wood Road.  Project Schedule  Bid Opening January 25th GTAB for Recommendation February 12th Council for award February 24th Notice to Proceed week of March 7th – 11th  Completion of Construction Summer 2018 Purpose To complete a connection from Leander Road (RM 2243) to University Avenue  (SH 29)  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer HDR, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Engineer is completing the final design PS&E package.  Surveying  Complete  Environmental Engineer is completing the final environmental documents.  Rights of Way ROW through the Weir Trust property is still pending.  Utility  Relocations  TBD  Construction NTP tentatively scheduled for first quarter 2016.  Other Issues Weir ROW still outstanding.    Page 19 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Projects/Reports: FAA Tower Report - Sep FAA Tower Report - Oct Fuel Sales Report - Sep Fuel Sales Report - Oct Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update 2015 Accomplishments and Projects Grant Funding Airport Monthly Financial Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Tower Report for Sep Backup Material Tower Report for Oct Backup Material Fuel Sales Report for Sep Backup Material Fuel Sales Report for Oct Backup Material Hangar Report Backup Material 2015 Goals and Accomplishments Backup Material Grant Funding Backup Material Monthly Financials Backup Material Page 20 of 133 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update For Month of Sep 2015 Project Description Georgetown Tower Update Purpose Tower Monthly Report Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators For the Month of: Sep 2015 Sep 2014 Y-T-D Sep 2015 Y-T-D Variance Take Offs and Landings Day* Night* VFR 5673 328 67,249 68,659 1,410 2.1% IFR 537 14 5,985 6,350 365 5.8% Total Take Offs/Landings 6210 342 73,234 75,009 1,775 2.3% Total for Month 6,552 * This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.). Page 21 of 133 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update For Month of Oct 2015 Project Description Georgetown Tower Update Purpose Tower Monthly Report Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators For the Month of: Oct 2015 Oct 2014 Y-T-D Oct 2015 Y-T-D Variance Take Offs and Landings Day* Night* VFR 5614 313 6,327 5,927 <400> <6.7>% IFR 450 31 598 481 <117> <20>% Total Take Offs/Landings 6064 344 6,925 6,408 <517> <7.5>% Total for Month 6,408 * This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.). Page 22 of 133 Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update For Month of Sep 2015 Project Description Georgetown Fuel Sales Update Purpose Fuel Sales Monthly Report Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators Gallons For the Month of: Sep Sep 2014 Y-T-D Sep 2015 Y-T-D Variance Type of Fuel 2014 2015 AVGAS 18,542 23,450 208,106 237,995 29,889 12.6% JET A 35,938 34,754 439,909 398,122 <41,787> <9.5>% Total Gallons Sold 54,480 58,204 648,015 636,117 <11,898> <1.9>% Page 23 of 133 Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update For Month of Oct 2015 Project Description Georgetown Fuel Sales Update Purpose Fuel Sales Monthly Report Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators Gallons For the Month of: Oct Oct 2014 Y-T-D Oct 2015 Y-T-D Variance Type of Fuel 2014 2015 AVGAS 21,944 23,903 21,944 23,903 1,959 9% JET A 46,873 41,037 46,873 41,037 <5,836> <14>% Total Gallons Sold 68,817 64,940 68,817 64,940 <3,877> <6>% Page 24 of 133 Airport Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update Dec 2015 Project Description Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Agreements Purpose Occupancy Rates Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Unit Stats Total Hangars – 114 • 100 Percent Occupied Total Storage Units – 7 • 5 Occupied • 2 Vacant Total Tie-Downs – 39 Monthly, 14 for Overnight/Transient Parking • 3 Vacant Page 25 of 133 GTU Airport In-Work Projects Installing air compressor in Maintenance Shop. Fence estimates for ASM Hangar location. Replace door seals on Hangars E, F, and G. Replace bottom door seals on Hangars H, I, and J. Develop Airport Preventative Maintenance Program. Updating Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Update to Airport Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards. Interviewing for regular part-time Airport Maintenance staff position. Obtaining Pesticide Application License to allow for airport staff to spray weed killer. Planned Projects Develop Hangar Routine Maintenance Program. Evaluate possible software solutions for a technology based Pavement Management Program. Evaluate possible software solutions for a technology based Airport Self Inspection Program. Install aviation radio in Polaris. Upgrade electrical service to Hangars H, I, and J. Replace gate rollers on south electronic gate. Repairs to terminal ramp to reduce FOD issues. Upgrade to bi-fold doors drive motors on Hangars BB and CC. Developing lease agreement for storage locations. Page 26 of 133 Accomplishments 2015 Installed vehicle mounted aviation radio in airport truck and tractor to improve communication with tower while out on airfield. Implemented new lease rates and agreements with existing tenants in city owned T-Hangars. Implemented new lease rates and agreements with existing tenants in city owned Tie-Downs. Accomplished CPI adjustments for Land Leases on the airport, generating additional revenue for the airport fund. Performed CPI adjustments for both fuel flowage fee and commercial wholesale fuel margin. As part of the city budget process, conducted an airport financial review of 15 months of expenses and revenues. Identified potential cost savings. Prepared and submitted airport budget to better breakdown and track airport expenses for future and continual evaluation. Airfield lighting upgrade project for Runway 11/29 and 18/36. Draft Environmental Assessment for new Fuel Storage Facility. Assisted in edits and responses to public comments. Repairs to Tower communication consoles. Asphalt temporary repair to taxilane between hangars B & C. Review of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Expanded daily airport self-inspection program. Implemented inspection checklist to track inspection results. Filled Airport Business Coordinator position with permanent employee. Accomplished personnel training, annual testing and certification for Underground Storage Tank (UST) program. Reviewed Foreign Object Debris program. Currently the airport does not have any equipment to assist with FOD removal. Identified two possible pieces of equipment which would allow for removal of FOD from airport surfaces. Submitted request in budget to purchase equipment. Page 27 of 133 Reviewed Weed Abatement program. Previously, airport contracted with private contractor for twice a year weed spraying. Airport now has equipment to accomplish weed spraying using airport personnel and equipment. Established Pavement Management Program to include required monthly inspections. Inspection results are used for evaluation of when and what type of pavement maintenance should be programmed. Established electronic gate preventative maintenance program which involves quarterly gate inspections, lubrication, testing and adjustments. Established a vehicle care program for airport operated courtesy cars and truck. Program involves routine cleaning, inspection, and fuel servicing. Developed training outline for Airport Fuel Attendant position. Conducted airport terminal and control tower site survey with city IT personnel to review current and future equipment requirements for both facilities. Conducted airport terminal and control tower site survey with city Facilities personnel to review current condition of facilities and program for future maintenance items. Accomplished asbestos survey on two old concrete structures near the airport terminal. Participated in four meetings with citizen groups. Groups included members of the ACC, R-C Modelers Club of Sun City, Experimental Aircraft Association, and Georgetown Aero Modelers Association. Added a second On-Call Airport Fuel Attendant. Painted Storage Location doors on Hangars. Conducting quarterly inspections for FBO operated fuel trucks. Reviewed the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures program to ensure all methods and equipment are in place to deal with aviation fuel spills. Demolition of old CAP facility just east of Tower. Conducting based airplane inventory and updating FAA database. Developing training program for performing fuel truck inspections. Accomplished adjustments to fuel margins. Replaced main breaker panel in BB Hangar. Hired exterminator to spray around H, I, and J Hangars. Page 28 of 133 Added a third FBO to the airport. Added an Airport Maintenance Truck. Replaced Polaris Ranger with Kubota RTV. Replaced gate rollers on North Airport Road gate. Selected software vendor for the Airport Business Operations area. Received FOD removal equipment and implemented a scheduled FOD cleaning program. Replaced recorder on Control Tower. Cleaned up south drainage discharge and terrain. Page 29 of 133 Airport Improvement Grants Funding Process Dec 2015 Description AIP Grant Funding Purpose Provide Information Related to Airport Grant Funding Process Grant Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Notes: The normal process for budgeting/financing airport grants is in conjunction with the city’s budget process. Since the grant is actually administered and managed by TxDOT Aviation, only the city’s 10% share appears in our budget/financial documents. When the city knows in advance of a grant, the city’s share is budgeted as a CIP item in the airport budget. A funding source is determined for the cost share. The funding sources for the most recent five airport improvement grants included the airport fund, bond proceeds and a cash transfer from the general fund. A breakdown is as follows: 1114GRGTN cash funded from Airport fund 1214GRGTN Cash funded from Airport fund 1314GRGTN Bond issuance 1414GRGTN Cash for general fund 1514GRGTN Bond issuance Page 30 of 133 Georgetown Municipal Airport Income Statement  10/31/2015 FY2016          Budget FY2016      YTD Actual Variance         to Budget FY2015           YTD Actual   FY2015           Variance Beginning Fund Balance 748,167                   [A] 1,000,261       252,094                  363,339                  636,922$                   Operating Revenues Fuel Sales 2,875,000         183,897           6.40% 256,361                    ‐28.27% Lease & Rentals 684,400            56,569             8.27% 46,775                     20.94% Interest & Other 41,550              194                   0.47% 590                            ‐67.08% Total Operating Revenue 3,600,950               240,660           6.68% 303,726                   ‐20.76% Operating Expenses Personnel 321,471            17,838             5.55% 18,808                      ‐5.16% Operations ‐ Fuel 2,448,882         145,644           5.95% 241,776                    ‐39.76% Operations ‐ Non Fuel 659,759            229,663           34.81% 216,734                   5.97% Capital 20,000               ‐                    0.00%‐                            0.00% Total Operating Expenses 3,450,112               393,145           11.40% 477,318                   ‐17.63% Policy Compliance (Rev. ‐ Exp.) 150,838                   (152,485)         (173,592)                  Non Operating Non Operating Revenues 25,000              ‐                    0.00%‐                            0.00% Non Operating Expenses 938,157           ‐                    0.00%‐                            0.00% Ending Fund Balance (14,152)                    847,776           189,747                   Reservations      Restricted Bond Proceeds ‐                   (852,876)           ‐                             Available Fund Balance (14,152)                    (5,100)              189,747                   Notes:  A) Preliminary beginning fund balance.  1)  The Electric Fund is covering the contingency requirements for Airport to meet City‐wide contingency  reserves per policy. Airport reserve was decreased to 45 days effective October 1, 2014.  Page 31 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on October 9, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison ITEM SUMMARY: Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on October 9, 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Minutes Backup Material Page 32 of 133 Notice of Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas October 9, 2015 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 four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members: Truman Hunt – Chair, John Pettitt – Vice Chair, Ray Armour - Secretary, John Hesser, Rachel Jonrowe ARRIVED AT 10:03 am, Chris H’Luz, Scott Rankin, Steve Johnston, Donna Courtney Board Members Absent: Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Bill Dryden, Mark Miller, Russ Volk, Paul Diaz, Skye Masson, Trina Bickford Others Present: Regular Session A. Call to Order Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board Meeting to order on Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:02 AM 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 Visitors C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: Nat Waggoner is not here today because he is in Galveston receiving an award for the Sidewalk Master Plan. TxDOT: Using the Proposition 1 money that TxDOT received last year, they have programed and started the design work for the IH 35/Williams Drive interchange improvements. In design for the next two years with construct scheduled to let in the 2017/18 time period. We also have the GTEC Rivery Extension project that will be starting around the same time as the Williams Dr. interchange project. We do not all want to be working the area at the same time so we are trying to coordinate the timing with TxDOT. Working with Congressman Carter office, TxDOT has scheduled a ground breaking date for October 19, 2015 for the FM 1460 project. D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines – Bill Dryden, P. E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on September 10, 2015 – Jana Kern Motion by Jonrowe second by Hesser to approve the minutes as presented. Approved unanimously 9-0 Page 33 of 133 G. Presentation, discussion and possible recommendation of a DRAFT Ordinance “Illicit Discharge of pollutants into the MS4 or Conveyances”. Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Skye Masson, Asst. City Attorney Polasek gave an overview of the first year’s progress. There was also discussion on what is an illicit discharge Motion by Rankin second by Jonrowe to recommend the draft Ordinance. Approved unanimously 9-0 H. Discussion and possible recommendation to reorganize the Transportation Services Division to accommodate MS4 Program Administration, ADA Coordination and other Planning and Program Management Responsibilities. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Polasek gave an overview of this item. After a lengthy discussion on this item, the Board asked that this be tabled and brought back to the November Board meeting. The Board of the new responsibilities that will be taken on with the new MS4 project. Motion by H’Luz second by Johnston to approve the Transportation Services Division reorganization. Opened up for further discussion. Jonrowe stated that she feels that this needs to be looked at in a littler greater detail and look at the bigger picture what is the grand plan etc. Briggs stated that he understands what the Board is asking and we can table this item, until next month, and bring to you a bigger overall picture of the Transportation Division. H’Luz withdraws his motion Johnston seconded. Motion by Jonrowe second by Hesser to table this item until the next GTAB Board Meeting (November) to discuss in greater detail. Approved unanimously 9-0 I. Public Hearing for and Airport Improvement Project involving relocation of a proposed fuel farm at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. - Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Volk gave an overview of the fuel farm. The citizens that signed up to speak on this item are: Dr. Dominic Dekeratry, Richard Ballentine, Judy Brown, Jerry Brown, Frances Deisselle, Ted Greenslait, John Milford, Nancy Zenner, Pete Zenner, Sue Hains, Lori Ford, Colin O’Dowd, Terry Reed, John Swain, Wendy Dew, Robert Spears, Cobby Caputo, Carla Wills, Barbara Campbell, Ronald Bindas, Cally Ellington, Bob Meeker, Rodney Rainy, Walter Greilich (withdrew his name), Keith Peshak, Jim Ray, Carl Norris, Paul Demaio, Hugh Stowe, Hugh Taylor, John Jebens: All of the citizens’ comments are part of the recorded minutes. For those that provided written comments, they are at the end of these minutes. Adjournment Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to adjourn meeting. Approved unanimously 9-0. Meeting adjourned at 12:04 pm. Approved: Attested: _______________________ ______________________ Truman Hunt - Chair Ray Armour – Secretary _________________________________ Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison Page 34 of 133 Good Morning, My name is Terry Reed. Mary Ann and I have lived at 4406 W Cordoba Circle in Serenade for over 21 years. I am opposed to any issuance of a Notice of No Significant Impact for the Fuel Farm and I demand preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 1514GRGTN federal grant for the 25 component Airport 2015 CIP. Thank You Speech for council meeting October 9, 2015 Good morning, Mr. Chairman—council members. My name is Jerry Brown, and I reside at 100 Pilot Place, immediately north of the airport. During my almost 50 years of teaching, I have always encouraged my students at every level to be active in their community. It would be foolish of me not to set the example for them and others I continue to influence. Therefore, I am here to speak in opposition to any increase in fuel storage without a full and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement. More fuel could lead to more risk of crashes, more risk of explosions, and more runway expansion. I also speak for those in the neighborhoods around the airport who are unaware of developments because of the lack of communication by the city in a clear and public manner. Over 10 years ago, our family carefully chose the property we now own—examining the area including the animal and plant life. The residential area surrounding the airport includes a variety of trees that are 200 to 400 years old as well as a wide variety of wildlife. Our property is designated by the National Wildlife Federation as an advanced, certified wildlife habitat, and each fall I continue to plant more wild flowers in the meadows on the property to continue to encourage the presence of wildlife, especially bees, which are currently in danger. Since the airport is already surrounded by residential area that continues to expand, it seems that Georgetown might well follow the example of Austin by moving the airport to another location and developing the current airport into a residential and commercial area which would help to offset the cost of the new airport. This would also preserve the current wildlife from further exposure to noise, light, and fuel pollution as well as enhancing the current residential housing and providing additional housing space for families continuing to move to this area. Therefore, I strongly oppose any Findings of No Significant Impact being issued for the Fuel Farm. Instead a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared not only for the Airport 2015 Capital Improvement Plan, but for any federal grants issued for the GTU in the past decade. I further firmly request that the National Environmental Policy Act federal grant review process used by the city and TxDOT for our airport be reviewed and corrected. Speech for council meeting October 9, 2015 Good morning, Mr. Chairman—council members. My name is Judy Brown. I reside at 100 Pilot Place, immediately north of the airport. I am opposed to any FONSI for the fuel farm. In 2004, after decades of teaching, my husband and I moved to Georgetown to be near our children and grandchildren, and to be of help to my parents. We chose our house carefully, so that the whole family could enjoy the open space, trees, wildlife, and peace it provided, and so we would have room for my parents, who lived with us from 2008 until their deaths four years later. After more than ten years of work, both physical labor and extra jobs, we have created the Page 35 of 133 home we wanted to live in for the rest of our lives—a gathering place for our extended family and neighbors. It is designated by the National Wildlife Federation as an advanced, certified wildlife habitat, and in the spring we enjoy a neighborhood decorated with a profusion of wild flowers. During this time, the airport was a fairly good neighbor, but without any provision for discussion and in spite of repeated verbal assurances that no airport expansion was planned, runways were lengthened and traffic increased—adding to the fuel and noise pollution of our neighborhood. Lights were added, which erased much of the splendor of the night sky. Now, if it weren’t for the vigilance of a neighbor, we would not have been aware of this meeting—to discuss plans for a huge increase in fuel storage. At the least, this would lead to even more traffic, more noise and fuel pollution, more risk for the natural environment and for our family—especially the children, who love to run and play outside at Millhaven (the name they helped us choose). At worst, more fuel would lead to more risk of crashes, more risk of explosions, and more runway expansion. This action would rob us of our home and rob our children and grandchildren of their inheritance. We are not the only family who will be affected. Some have been here—coexisting with the airport—for over 30 years. Some are caring for elderly parents, children, or grandchildren. Some, like the young doctors deKeratry and Fields, just built a home in which to raise their little boys. They have devoted their lives to caring for the people of Georgetown. Your actions will put them and many other families at risk. Do not make this disastrous mistake. There are other options available, such as relocating our airport to a property that would allow for long term growth without ruining neighborhoods. We are opposed to any FONSI and demand a full and comprehensive EIS. We, the people who live here, demand the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness here in Georgetown RE: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fuel Facility For the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU), Georgetown, TX. Name: My name is Lori Ford and my husband and I have lived in Georgetown for 17 years and reside at 3801 Roble Grande Circle. Do to the time set for this meeting my husband, Rollie Ford was unable to attend and wanted to make the following statement. It is clear that an expansion of the Fuel Facility will enable expansion of the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU), Georgetown, TX. I have 30 years of public school experience, with more than half as an administrator. Any expansion of Georgetown's airport will have an adverse effect on the education of thousands of students in Georgetown. Page 36 of 133 The Noise Sensitive Map only shows three schools and overstates their distance from airport property. Three schools which have been open for many years are entirely omitted: The charter school that directly borders airport property and located at Northwest and Serenada. Gateway Tech High School located between Dawn Drive and Williams (behind Taco Bell). Georgetown Alternative School (which is not a part of Georgetown High School and located at the corner of Stadium Drive and N. Austin Ave. A middle school and elementary school are within 2000ft of the airport property and the flight pattern is near Georgetown High School, and the Alternative School. The airport is near center of the city and the flight pattern, landings and takeoff cover an enormous area of the city proper. The City of Georgetown will become Georgetown Airport City. What is ironic, the City wants to expand the airport, but there is no large Georgetown citizen group advocating for its expansion. A survey of who uses the airport and who benefits from an airport expansion shows that most of these people do not live in Georgetown, and their children would not be harmed by a larger airport. From the Transportation Research Board: As is evident from numerous studies, there is a considerable body of research demonstrating that chronic exposure to noise is associated with learning deficits in children (see citations in Special Note A). For example, a recent study prepared for the European Union suggests that a 5dB-increase in noise exposure translates to a 2-month delay in reading scores. The data that supports the claim that students are harmed by airports is indisputable. Below are multiple links of studies that prove this point. Assessing Aircraft Noise Conditions Affecting Student Learning Vol. 1 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_webdoc_016v1.pdf Project Experience: Effects of Aircraft Noise on Students Learning http://www.hmmh.com/aircraft-noise-childrens-learning.html Page 37 of 133 Noise and Student Learning: page 5 Acoustical Quality https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439#page-2 Have You Heard? Noise can Affect Learning Children in schools bombarded by frequent aircraft noise don't learn to read as well as children in quiet schools do, say Cornell University http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr011.shtml The impact of noise on school performance http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/779/1/Dockrell2006Acoustical509.pdf Gauging the Impact of Noise on Children's Learning: http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/08/gauging-the-impact-of-noise-on- childrens-learning/ Based on the Federal Grant Proposal from the city to expand the capacity of the Fuel Farm to support an increase in aircraft operations, I’m in total opposition to any FONSI for the Fuel Farm and demand for preparation of a full and comprehensive NEPA process Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the GTU 2015 CIP (1514GRGTN) and all federal grants of the past decade. Rollie and Lori Ford 3801 Roble Grande Circle Georgetown, TX 78628 Date: Public Hearing on Oct 9th at 10am RE: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fuel Facility For the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU), Georgetown, TX. Name: My name is Lori Ford and I reside at 3801 Roble Grande Circle, Georgetown, TX “ I have lived in Georgetown for 17 years and have observed contentious and documented citizen objections over those years to any increase or expansion of aircraft numbers and take offs and landings at the airport. Disturbing noise both day and night, safety from falling aircraft, night take offs and landings, air quality and environmental issues at homes, schools, and churches, and adverse impacts on property values, have and continue to be of utmost citizen concerns and are mine. I am aware that the Fuel Farm is only one of 25 components of the Airport 2015 CIP. It is the adverse direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the 25 components of the Airport 2015 CIP as a whole and of past federal grants that must be examined. I strongly oppose any FONSI being issued for the Fuel Farm. Instead, I demand a full and complete Page 38 of 133 Environmental Impact Statement be prepared not only for the Airport 2015 CIP, but for all federal grants issued for the GTU in the past decade. I further demand that the flawed NEPA federal grant review process used by the city and TxDOT for our airport be corrected.” The citizens of Georgetown elect our city officials to protect our community and our environment. Each one of our elected officials need to ask themselves if they are in good faith doing this. If not, be a leader and change. You will fill good about the position you are filling in a community in which you live. Thank you. Colin & Charlotte O’Dowd October 8th 2015 126 Serenada Drive Georgetown, TX 78628 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - GTU We have lived in Serenada addition, Georgetown for the past 10 years. In a straight line, we are about ½ a mile from the Airport. During this time we have noticed a considerable increase in traffic through the airport, especially jet aircraft. The level of noise has increased considerably. Airport FAA information dated August 20th 2015, advises that the property has the following aircraft numbers based at Georgetown:- 225 Single engine aircraft 20 Multi engine aircraft 4 Jet aircraft 4 Helicopters Approximately an average of 201 aircraft operations per day are advised. As a retired couple on a fixed income we are definitely not interested in sitting here and watching the value of our property decrease. We are willing to accept the airport as it is, and do not want to see it increase in size and noise values. We are sure that any of the “City Council Members” - should they live in our area would feel the very same way. Any increase or expansion of aircraft numbers, take offs and landings at the airport, disturbing noise both day and night, safety from falling aircraft, night take offs and landings, air quality and environmental issues at homes, schools, and churches, will have an adverse impacts on property values. These all have, and continue to be of utmost citizen concerns, and are ours. We are also amazed that this is the “First Ever Public Meeting” that the City fathers have arranged for input from us “The Owners” of the Airport, as citizens of Georgetown that is managed by the City. The City has “other public meetings” as Page 39 of 133 advertised in the local Sun newspaper for roads and buildings etc., but never before for the Airport. We are aware that the Fuel Farm is only one of 25 components of the Airport 2015 CIP. It is the adverse direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the 25 components of the Airport 2015 CIP as a whole and of past federal grants that must be examined. We strongly oppose any FONSI being issued for the Fuel Farm. Instead, we demand a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement be prepared not only for the Airport 2015 CIP, but for all federal grants issued for the GTU in the past decade. We further request that the flawed NEPA federal grant review process used by the city and TxDOT for our airport be corrected. Thank you. Georgetown City Council Meeting Friday, October 9, 2015 My name is Dr. Dominic deKeratry. I live at 3301 Cavu Road, Georgetown, TX 78628; which falls within District 5. My wife, Dr. Esther Fields, and I co-own Georgetown Pulmonary Associates, PA and (along with our partner) are the only pulmonary and critical care physicians in the Georgetown area. We have two young children, Nathanial and Liam. Liam is in a pre-K program at Frost Elementary School. I am adamantly opposed to the issuance of a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) pertaining to the proposal for a Federal Grant (1514GRGTN) to fund the Fuel Farm for Georgetown Municipal Airport. I petition for a formal Environmental Impact Survey. The funding is just a small part of a larger project proposed by the City and Tx Dot to expand airport operations. The governing assumptions of the Executive Summary of the GT Airport Business Analysis, established ‘through discussions with airport and City staff’ (not by citizens), are that the GT Airport is a ‘key public transportation facility, tied directly to the long-term economic well-being of GT’; and it specifically states that the potential upside for revenue is tied to the fueling options (i.e. increasing aircraft volumes). I believe there are other, more appropriate, opportunities for economic growth of GT. The summary also references an extension to the runway 18/36 to increase volume and types of aircraft. It also states that ‘extending the runway would likely generate some local neighborhood controversy’ (which is why I and others are here). I’m stunned by the marketing approach to attract business aircraft owners who make airport decisions based upon criteria such as: convenience to their executive residences. Millions of dollars would be spent to construct longer runways and that number doesn’t even include costs to move a roadway, or to purchase property (mine or my neighbors). It boggles the mind that we would accommodate business executives so that they’ll have a short hop to their house at the cost of local and federal tax dollars that my neighbors and I pay; so that we would ultimately be pushed right out of our own devalued homes. One of my Page 40 of 133 neighbors who actually worked for the local government for 30 years would likely have his own home condemned; and my personal home would be devalued to the point of threatening my families entire financial stability….while at the same time my wife and I work up to 100 hours per week to accommodate the critical care medical needs of this community. The proposed enhancements (starting with the fuel farm) will negatively impact our neighborhood, our livelihood, our quality of life and that of our children. The increased noise pollution and the traffic unequivocally reduce our home and property values, including re-sale value. There is also added disruption to our families sleep hygiene, especially with aircraft coming and going in the early morning hours or at night (the volumes are noted on the latest Tower Report). My son, Dominic Liam, suffers from pervasive developmental disorder on the Autism spectrum. He requires consistent routines in his life with minimal disruption (including regular sleep-wake cycles and avoidance of environmental stressors). Thus, the Draft Environmental Assessment of this project, consistent with the expansion plans of the airport, threatens a vulnerable population of the citizenry; specifically, my son. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Dominic R. DeKeratry, MD OPPOSITION STATEMENT FUEL FARM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DEA) PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 AM, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2015 OCTOBER GTAB MEETING My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My wife and I have resided at 4400 Luna Trail for over 16 years. The Fuel Farm is only one of 25 elements of the Airport 2015 Capital Improvements Program, a proposed 90%, $10 Million, federal grant program shown on page 360 and identified in this DEA as proposed federal grant 1514GRGTN. This new federal grant is the current proposed federal action. To extract the Fuel Farm, a gas station for aircraft, from the 25 element group of 1514GRGTN, is an illicit practice termed “segmenting”. The practice is intentional mismanagement of the Categorical Exclusion review level authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for proposed federal actions having no impact on the human environment. This practice was challenged by my letter dated September 10, 2014 to TxDOT which has never been addressed by any official. By reference I am making that letter a part of this statement in its entirety. The “segmented” status of the Fuel Farm eliminates any consideration for its FONSI determination and its levels of review contained in this DEA are irrelevant and without merit. The new Categorical Exclusion dated May 12, 2015 for the proposed 1514GRGTN contained in this revised DEA is invalid as contrary to FAA Order 1050.1F which excludes such determinations when the proposed federal action is in the presence of any of the Extraordinary Circumstances identified therein. The May 12, 2015 determination is directly or indirectly impacted by at least 20 or more Extraordinary Circumstances. Page 41 of 133 Throughout the years of our residency we have observed contentious and documented citizen objections to any increase or expansion of aircraft numbers and take offs and landings at the airport. Disturbing noise both day and night, safety from falling aircraft, night take offs and landings, air quality, environmental issues at homes, schools, and churches, and adverse impacts on property values, have and continue to be of utmost citizen concerns and are ours. It is the adverse direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the 25 components of this proposed federal funding action as a whole and of past federal grants that must be examined in this or any other hearing involving that program. I strongly oppose any FONSI being issued for the Fuel Farm. Instead, I demand a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement be prepared not only for the 1514GRGTN program, but for all federal grants issued for the airport in the past decade. I further demand that the flawed NEPA federal grant review process used by the city and TxDOT for our airport be corrected. Thank you. Speech presented at GTAB Public Hearing for Airport Improvement Project Oct. 9, 2015 My name is Nancy Zenner and I reside with my husband, Pete, at 901 Bosque Trail. We bought our property in 1985. It was the last home on a dead end street and had acreage on two sides covered with beautiful oaks trees. We were neighbors to Georgetown Airport and enjoyed watching the gliders and aircraft that used the airport. FAST FORWARD – TIMES HAVE CHANGED!! The road has opened between Bosque Trail and Vortac Lane and is a major artery for people leaving Serenada via Airport Road. All the acreage now has homes on it and the airport traffic now involves many more planes along with jets and helicopters, flying in and out at all hours of the day and night. Georgetown is no longer a sleepy bedroom community of Austin. In my opinion, Georgetown Airport (GTU) has outgrown its present location! I am opposed to any issuance of a notice of “no significant impact” for the fuel farm. The fuel farm is only one of 25 components of the Airport 2015 C.I.P. We need to stop pumping money into a land locked airport, surrounded by homes and with schools and churches in the flight paths. I am in favor of city and airport officials re-implementing the Georgetown Airport Advisory Board that was dissolved in 2013. I would recommend a careful selection of people with diverse backgrounds and aviation knowledge to study the best solution for our airport so it can effectively serve our city and county but still ensure the safety and well being of our citizens and those of surrounding communities as well as protecting our environment. I request preparation of a full environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed 1514 GRGTN federal grant for the 25 component Airport 2015 C.I.P. (Capital Improvement Plan). Thank you for your time, Nancy Zenner 901 Bosque Trail, Georgetown, TX. 78628 512-863-4038 Page 42 of 133 npzenner@suddenlink.net Speech presented at GTAB Public Hearing for Airport Improvement Project Oct. 9, 2015 My name is Pete Zenner and I live with my wife, Nancy, at 901 Bosque Trail, just north of the airport fence line. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the city staffs’ and council’s part regarding the desire of the ACC (Airport Concerned Citizens) to close the airport. Nothing is further from the truth. We are a group of concerned citizens who would like for our city government to be receptive to citizen input regarding airport issues and to make a concerted effort to openly present to the public, all 25 components of the 2015 CIP through television and newspaper outlets, as well as mail outs to the public. This would be a perfect opportunity for city government to explain “in detail” each component of the plan, not just the Fuel Farm Facility issue presented today. In my opinon, having a hearing at 10:00 AM on a workday does not give much opportunity for feedback from the entire citizenry. Because of concerns for safety, noise increases, environmental issues, and a loss of property values, I am opposed to any issuance of a Notice of No Significant Impact for the Fuel Farm and request preparation of a full EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for the proposed 1514 GRGTN federal grant for the 25 component Airport 2015 CIP. Thank you, Pete Zenner 901 Bosque Trail, Georgetown, TX. 78628 512-863-4038 npzenner@suddenlink.net My name is Cobby Caputo, I live at 1817 Terry Lane, Georgetown, TX 78628. My wife and I moved to Georgetown 10 years ago. We had to make a rather quick decision on a home in Georgetown because our home had been sold very quickly. We were concerned due to the proximity of the airport, but our real estate agent assured us that it was just a small town airport. Soon after we moved in, due to all the traffic generated at the airport I spoke with the Airport Manager regarding the status of the airport. He assured me that the airport was self sufficient and required no city funding. He also assured me that there were no plans to expand beyond it's current size. We are on the south side of the airport, and virtually ever takeoff from the airport flies directly over our home. We frequently have noisy jets and turboprops flying over our house at 5:30 in the morning, often interrupting our sleep. Over the past few years, it became public knowledge that business was lost to the the Pflugerville Airport which opened on the 130 Toll way, a good distance away from their city. In addition, After a financial evaluation of the Georgetown Airport it was discovered that the fuel charges and hanger rentals were not nearly high enough to support the airport profitably. There have been numerous rumors concerning expansion of the airport, but Georgetown city officials have continuously denied that there are any plans to expand. I would hate to have an increase in traffic into and out of the Georgetown Airport over my home and I firmly oppose any further expansion of the airport beyond it's current capacity and in it's current location Cobby S. Caputo Page 43 of 133 1817 Terry Lane, Georgetown, TX 78628 512-859-1385 pamcob@suddenlink.net Statement for record: My name is Robert Meeker and I live at 4404 Luna Trail. I am strongly opposed to any issuance of a FONSI for the proposed fuel farm, and I demand preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 1514GRGTN federal grant for the (25) component Airport 2015 CP. The people of Georgetown are sending the GTAB and the GCC a message: WE are the bosses government; not the other way around. Robert Meeker 512-825-8653 robmeeker@gmail.com This project, to build a new above ground fuel facility with 60% more fuel capacity at the Georgetown Airport, is designed to attract and support more and larger aircraft that will take off and land at the Georgetown Airport (GTU). This project, to increase the stored fuel capacity by more that 60% , like other planned development projects, will directly contribute to the increase of: • Aviation Noise (increased take offs and landings, maintenance, run-ups) • Community Safety (crashes into housing, schools, churches, business, etc.. 29 crashes to-date 9 deaths) • Hazardous Material Exposure ( airports store fuel and numerous toxic chemicals used for maintenance and flight operations) • Property Devaluation (a problematic noisy, airport, with safety concerns, and a long history of citizen complaints will affect property values) This project, is part of a much larger “Airport Development Agreement” between the City of Georgetown and TxDot Aviation. As is defined in this agreement, it is in place specifically for the “development of a public aviation facility”. This agreement and all of the development projects that make it up are focused on the the common goal to expand and grow capacity and aircraft operations at the Georgetown Airport (GTU). This development project has been in place for many years (2005-2015). The 2014 version of this agreement is posted on the city's web site. In the opening statement of this Draft DEA, for the new fuel facility, the writer attempts to segment this proposed action from the rest of the airport development projects in the much larger “Airport Development Agreement”. This segmentation directly violates the National Environmental Policy Act law and EPA regulations. One cannot “cherry pick” or segment an item from the much larger “Airport Development Agreement” and and treat it as a benign item, with no affect on the surrounding community. This project, combined with all the other airport development projects, will have a direct impact on increasing aviation noise, community safety concerns, hazardous material exposure, and decreasing property values. By EPA regulations this project ,along with all “Airport Development Agreement” projects, must be viewed as a single airport development project. The entire project and all of it's elements must be evaluated together to determine the short term and long term affects on the community and surrounding environment. In conclusion I urge everyone to reject this draft DEA. Instruct the writers to return to the drafting table and put a process in place to perform a complete “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS). A EIS that takes into account the fuel farm, and all elements of the “Airport Development Agreement” project plans. A process that will examine any practical alternatives to expansion, such as airport relocation. Page 44 of 133 The “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS) is the only process that can fully examine the short/long term direct/indirect impacts this and other projects in “Airport Development Agreement” will bear on the surrounding community, it's citizens and environment. Sincerely, John Milford I am a commercial pilot, single and multiengine aircraft, instrument airplane ratings, a double degreed engineer, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, those are engineering honor societies, a retired college professor teaching engineering and aviation, and an avionics inventor. No person ever sitting on the airport board, when we had one, or city council, which some argue is not a representative democracy, has these credentials; which explains our diametrically opposed positions. Now, I know how to fix ignorant, been there done that, tried here, but discovered that stupid is forever. I bought a house here, rented a hanger here for my airplane, and moved here in 1989 specifically because I needed a safe airport with a reliable concrete runway and an on the field electronic instrument approach for low ceiling and or low visibility operations. From the perspective of being ignored at both airport board meetings and city council meetings, a frequent attendant, I have seen this airport become unsafe with no reliable working runway and no on the field electronic instrument approach. I will not operate here under low ceiling and or low visibility. I have witnessed theft of FAA grant money, poisoning of the airport environment, institution of anti race policies in who will be allowed to use the airport, and many many other illegal things. I would very much like to go into these in detail here now, but your three minute rule will not allow for even a brief summary of bullet points. Therefore I will offer a written submission for that, and move on. What bothers me most is the continuing violations of federal law here. Public meetings are not posted, happen at three o'clock in the morning, the public's business is conducted in secret or even in total privacy. I have observed contentious and documented citizen objections over the years since 1989 to any increase or expansion of the airport, to aircraft numbers and take offs and landings at the airport. To disturbing noise both day and night from large aircraft, to safety from falling aircraft, to environmental issues impacting homes, schools, and churches, and to adverse impacts on property values. These continue to be of utmost citizen concerns, are also mine, and are all ignored at the city council and by TxDot. I am aware that the Fuel Farm is only one of 25 components of the Airport 2015 CIP. It is the adverse direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the 25 components of the Airport 2015 CIP as a whole, and of past federal grants back to 1989, that must be examined. I strongly oppose any FONSI being issued for the Fuel Farm. Instead, I demand a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement be prepared not only for the Airport 2015 CIP, but for all federal grants issued for the GTU airport through the city of Georgetown by TxDot since 1989. I further demand that the flawed NEPA federal grant review process used by the city of Georgetown and TxDOT for our airport be immediately corrected to be in full and specific compliance with federal law. This, literally, would be a first for Georgetown. Keith Peshak Page 45 of 133 Statement to the Georgetown, Texas GTAB Public Hearing on Fuel Tank Replacements at GTU Airport – September 9, 2015 My name is Richard Ballentine and I reside at 212 Estrella Crossing, Georgetown, Texas. I am retired from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water in Washington, DC. I want to thank the City of Georgetown for finally cracking the door open to its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act . This hearing is specifically limited to discussing one element of the city’s 25 element 2015 CIP which addresses construction and maintenance activities at Georgetown’s airport. That element is the removal of two below ground fuel storage tanks. In my comments on TXDOT’s draft environmental assessment I noted that the City had been fined some $7,000 by the Texas CEQ some years ago because of fuel leakage from these tanks. I therefore noted that it would be prudent to carefully evaluate the site upon removal of the old tanks to check for additional fuel leakage and perhaps the existence of a plume flowing down gradient from the tanks location before backfilling. These tanks are located on the recharge area for the Edwards Aquifer -- a critically important water resource in an increasingly arid area. I also want to point out a couple of areas that should be addressed by the City in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for construction proposed in the 2015 CIP. If the main runway is strengthened to handle much larger jet aircraft, and in fact the take-offs and landings meet the City’s projections, then there will be a major increase in noise pollution and a much greater likelihood of much more severe damage from off-airport events. Noise pollution per se has not been addressed in the draft environmental assessment. That constitutes a major oversight since noise pollution adversely affects predominantly older people. Many areas around the airport like Seranada and the Berry Creek subdivisions have a significant percentage of older residents. The peer reviewed literature shows that noise is a significant cause of cardiac events with subsequent hospitalizations being required. Another issue not addressed is the safety issue. Residences, an elementary school, a middle school and the Georgetown Charter School are in close proximity to the airport boundary. Small Cessna’s land at about 45 knots airspeed; private jets in excess of 100 knots airspeed and are considerably heavier than a Cessna. An overshoot on landing by a jet could be disastrous. Because of these shortcomings, a Finding of No Significant Impact under NEPA is absurd. Good morning. My name is Cally Ellington. I live at 4404 Luna Trail. About 4 yrs ago I ran away from the noisy city life to come to Serenada to start a new life with my husband. I took off work today to be here to express my opposition to any issuance of a finding of no significant impact for the fuel farm, and I request preparation of a full environmental impact statement for the proposed 1514GRGTN federal grant for the 25 component Airport 2015 CIP. Thank you. Page 46 of 133 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FUEL FARM GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (GTU) PUBLIC HEARING – 10-9-15 My name is Frances A. Desselle. I reside at 212 Estrella Crossing, Georgetown, TX. The Fuel Farm, the subject of this hearing, is one of 25 elements included in the Georgetown Municipal Airport 2015 Capital Improvement Program. To extract the Fuel Farm, from the 25 elements in the Airport 2015 Capital Improvement Program, is a practice referred to as “segmentation”, which directly violates the spirit and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. It is of the utmost importance that the 2015 Airport Capital Improvement Program, and its 25 components, be considered as a single airport development project in order to assess and evaluate the impacts of the program on the Georgetown community, its citizens and impacts to the environment. I oppose the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), being issued for the Fuel Farm. An Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared for all of the elements reflected in the Airport 2015 Capital Improvement Program, in order to assess and evaluate impacts on human populations, impacts on the ecosystem and other pertinent considerations. Thank you. Dear Ms. Kern, Originally emailed: Friday, October 9, 2015 Following is a summary of my comments at the GTAB, Fuel Farm DEA Public Hearing October 9, 2015, for inclusion in your minutes. My name is Cobby S. Caputo and I live at 1817 Terry Lane, Georgetown, Tx. 78628. My wife and I moved to Georgetown 10 years ago. We had to make a rather quick decision on a home in Georgetown because our home in Plano, Tx. sold very quickly. We were concerned due to the proximity of the airport to the house on Terry Ln., but our Real Estate agent assured us that it was “just a little bitty old country airport”. Soon after we moved in due to all the traffic generated at the airport, I spoke with the then Airport Manager regarding the status of the airport. He assured me that the airport was self sufficient and required no city funding. He also assured me that there were no plans to expand beyond the current size. We are on the south side of the airport, and most of the year virtually every takeoff from the airport flies directly over our home. The jets started shortly after we moved in, and we frequently have noisy jets and turboprops flying over our house at 5:30 in the morning awakening us from sleep. Over the past few years, it became public knowledge that business was lost to the new Pflugerville Airport opened on the 130 Toll way, which they had the good sense to position a goodly distance from their city. In addition, after a financial evaluation of the Georgetown Airport it was discovered that the fuel charges and hanger rentals were not nearly high enough to support the airport profitably and changes needed to be made. There have been numerous rumors concerning expansion of this airport, but Georgetown city officials have continuously denied that there are any plans to expand. Period. Page 47 of 133 Now comes discussion of a new, larger fuel farm. Where’s the need for this increase? Why is the increased size necessary? I would hate to have an increase in traffic into and out of the Georgetown Airport over my home, and I firmly oppose any further expansion of the airport beyond its current capacity and in its current location. Cobby S. Caputo 1817 Terry Lane, Georgetown, Tx. 78628 512-869-1385 pamcob@suddenlink.net Page 48 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to award the annual Street Striping bid to DIJ Construction Company, of Bertram, Texas. Services to be provided on an as needed basis in the estimated amount of $125,220.00 annually. – Mark Miller - Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP – Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Bids were solicited for the annual thermoplastic street striping and pavement marking contract on an as needed basis for a period of approximately two years from date of order through September 30, 2017, with the option to renew for two additional one year periods. Invitations to bid were issued to all vendors registered on the City’s bid list (approximately 125). As thermoplastic striping is a very specialized field, only one bid was received from DIJ Construction Company of Bertram, Texas. DIJ has performed satisfactorily on numerous striping tasks and contracts for the City in the past. COMMENTS: The annual bid in 2011 was for $119,425.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of the bid award to DIJ Construction Company. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for this expenditure are budgeted in 100-5-0846-51-513 Street Maintenance SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller by jk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Bis Tab Backup Material Page 49 of 133 Striping & Marking (including both new and re-striping) 90 mil Thermoplastic Paint with Type 2 Glass Beads in both yellow and white color * Qty Unit DIJ Construction DIJ Bertram, TX Item #Description Unit Price Total 1 4" Yellow Line Solid (Tx Dot Spec 666.2111) 0.39 39,000.00 2 4" Whilte Line Solid (Tx Dot Spec 666.2012) 0.32 32,000.00 Total Estimated Annual Qty Solid White & Yellow 200,000 lft 3 4" Yellow Dashed (Tx Dot Spec 666.2105) 4 4" White Dashed (Tx Dot Spec 666.2003) Total Estimated Annual Qty Dashed White & Yellow 10 miles 550.00 2,750.00 600.00 3,000.00 5 8" White Line Solid (TX Dot Spec 666.2036) Total Estimated Annual Qty 3,000 lft 0.75 2,250.00 6 12" White Line Solid (Tx Dot Spec666.2042) Total Estimated Annual Qty 2,000 lft 3.30 6,600.00 7 24" White Line Solid (Tx Dot Spec 666.2048) Total Estimated Annual Qty 1,000 lft 6.60 6,600.00 8 4" White Line Solid Parking Lot Pavement Marking Hand Striped approximately 15-18 feet in length 5,000 lft 1.25 6,250.00 9 Single White Arrow (Tx Dot Spec 666.2054) Total Estimated Annual Qty of single arrow 150 ea 100.00 15,000.00 10 Double Arrow (Tx Dot Spec 666.2054) Total Estimated Annual Qty of double arrow 25 ea 120.00 3,000.00 11 White Number (Tx Dot Spec 668.2096) Estimated annual quantity 50 ea 70.00 3,500.00 12 Words (tx Dot Spec 666.2096) STOP 1 ea 300.00 300.00 AHEAD 1 ea 395.00 395.00 SCHOOL 1 ea 425.00 425.00 ZONE 1 ea 300.00 300.00 MPH 1 ea 155.00 155.00 ONLY 1 ea 195.00 195.00 13 NO PARKING-FIRE LANE-TOW AWAY ZONE 200 phrases 11.00 2,200.00 14 Pavement Markers including installation with epoxy adhesive as per (TX dot Spec 672.2A)200 ea 6.00 1,200.00 15 Removal of pavement marker as per (TX Dot Spec 677)200 ea 0.50 100.00 15 Advance Notice needed prior to completion date/calendar days 7 calendar days Estimated Annual Total 125,220.00 *Recommended Award - DIJ Construction, Bertram, TX Insurance requirement affidavit  Summary of Qualifications  Project Manager information  Safety manaual  Substance Abuse Policy  Employee certifications  Completed Bid Summary  Best Value only bidder References Williamson Co., City of Round Rock, City of Lakeway, Bell County, TX Dot - Brownwood Payment/Performance Bond if amount exceeds $ requirements as required by TX Gov. Code No Bid Trantex Transportation Products of Texas 360 Press Solutions No Response Bid sent to 127 Registered Bidders for road maintenance commodity Bid 201552 - Street Striping *2 year bid with option to renew for two additional 12 month periods October 1, 2015 - September 30, 2017 201552bidtabstreetstriping Page 50 of 133 201552bidtabstreetstriping Page 51 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order A&F-16-003 with Aguirre & Fields, LP, of Austin, Texas, for professional services to provide engineering and support services required to develop preliminary design alternatives, conduct public involvement, initiate environmental services and the prepare 30% plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) package for replacing the Austin Avenue bridges and roadway improvements from Morrow Street to 3rd Street in the amount of $662,546.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: In December 2013, TxDOT, conducted a detailed field investigation of the North and South San Gabriel River Bridges as part of an Off-System Bridge Inventory, Inspection and Appraisal Program (BRINSAP). The BRINSAP Report recommended “A Load Posting with Gross Weight Limit = 48,000 lbs (Tandem Axle Weight Limit of 21,000 lbs).” The report also stated, “Those structures included in the list should be repaired as soon as maintenance funds are available within the County's normal maintenance program. State law (Sec. 9 of House Bill 1547) requires that all structures which have been structurally analyzed and rated in this report be posted or closed in accordance with the recommendations herein.” In March 2014, the City engaged Aguirre & Fields, LP (A&F), to conduct an assessment of bridge superstructure and substructure, wearing surface/joints and approaches and deliver a Condition assessment report documenting condition of bridge elements and immediate-, short- and long-term repair/maintenance/replacement considerations. In a joint workshop with City Council and GTAB on July 8, 2014, Staff and A&F delivered the findings and recommendations. In August 2014, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization awarded the city of Georgetown $1.3M in Surface Transportation Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) monies for construction. Further, Staff is pursuing potential funding options through the Texas Department of Transportation Off-System Bridge Replacement Program. In July and August 2015, as part of the budget development and approval process, Downtown and Community Services requested and was approved funding for forensic evaluation, public participation planning, feasibility of options and schematic design of the bridges. Staff has conducted several scoping meetings with Aguirre and Fields and their subconsultants since budget approval and has developed a Task Order that facilitates the public involvement process and provides a 30% design schematic to Council by March 2017. Staff has reviewed the Scope of Services and the proposed Fee for these services and recommends approval of the proposed Task Order A&F-16-003 based on presentations to Council in FY 2015 and the approved FY 2015-2016 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Task Order A&F-16-003 with Aguirre & Fields, LP, of Austin, Texas, for professional services to provide engineering and support services required to develop Page 52 of 133 preliminary design alternatives, conduct public involvement, initiate environmental services and the prepare 30% plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) package for replacing the Austin Avenue bridges and roadway improvements from Morrow Street to 3rd Street in the amount of $662,546.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial worksheet is attached. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Financial Worksheet Exhibit Proposed Task Order with Attachments Exhibit Page 53 of 133 PROJECT No.DATE: PROJECT NAME: 1DL 11/20/2015 Division/Department:Director Approval Prepared By:Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 675,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting (A&F-16-00x)49,500.00 662,546.00 712,046.00 105% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 49,500.00 662,546.00 712,046.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 120-9-0880-90-054 675,000.00 Total Budget 675,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 675,000.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 49,500.00 662,546.00 712,046.00 105% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 49,500.00 662,546.00 712,046.00 Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Transportation Services Austin Ave Bridges - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Comments: Austin Avenue Bridges Austin Avenue Bridges Prelim Eng'r & Public Input Page 54 of 133 Page 55 of 133 Page 56 of 133 Page 57 of 133 Page 58 of 133 Page 59 of 133 Page 60 of 133 Page 61 of 133 Page 62 of 133 Page 63 of 133 Page 64 of 133 Page 65 of 133 Page 66 of 133 Page 67 of 133 Page 68 of 133 Page 69 of 133 Page 70 of 133 Page 71 of 133 Page 72 of 133 Page 73 of 133 Page 74 of 133 Page 75 of 133 Page 76 of 133 Page 77 of 133 Page 78 of 133 Page 79 of 133 Page 80 of 133 Page 81 of 133 Page 82 of 133 Page 83 of 133 Page 84 of 133 Page 85 of 133 Page 86 of 133 Page 87 of 133 Page 88 of 133 Page 89 of 133 Page 90 of 133 Page 91 of 133 Page 92 of 133 Page 93 of 133 Page 94 of 133 Page 95 of 133 Page 96 of 133 Page 97 of 133 Page 98 of 133 Page 99 of 133 Page 100 of 133 Page 101 of 133 Page 102 of 133 Page 103 of 133 Page 104 of 133 Page 105 of 133 Page 106 of 133 Page 107 of 133 Page 108 of 133 Page 109 of 133 Page 110 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Joe Bland Construction, LP, of Austin, TX, for the Jim Hogg at Williams Drive Intersection Improvements Project, in the amount of $724,241.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is engaged in a contract for the construction of the Westside Service Center near the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road. In conjunction with that project, the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road requires upgrades for operations and safety of the intersection and to accommodate anticipated traffic growth. Previously, the City engaged the firm of Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. (KHA), to design construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the for improvements to this intersection. The project was advertised for bids on November 8th and 15th with sealed construction bids being received on Monday, November 23, 2015. Six bids were received, with Joe Bland Construction, LP, of Austin, TX, submitting the apparent low bid in the amount of $724,241.00 ($447,786.00 for roadway improvements, $218,765.00 for signal installation and $57,690.00 for water line relocations). The Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs was $827,554.08 ($752,321.89 plus 10% contingencies). KHA has evaluated all the bids for accuracy and compliance with the bid documents, checked Bidder’s references and has determined Joe Bland’s bid to be the lowest and most responsive bid. KHA recommends award of the Construction Contract to Joe Bland Construction, LP, of Austin, TX, for the Jim Hogg at Williams Drive Intersection Improvements Project, in the amount of $724,241.00. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with KHA and recommends award of the Construction Contract to Joe Bland Construction, LP, of Austin, TX, for the Jim Hogg at Williams Drive Intersection Improvements Project, in the amount of $724,241.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project GTEC Budgetary Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Project Budget Worksheet Exhibit Engineer’s Letter of Recommendation w/Bid Tabulation Exhibit Page 111 of 133 PROJECT No.DATE: PROJECT NAME: 1DE 11/30/2015 Division/Department: Director Approval Prepared By:Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 825,476.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting (KHA-15-001)0.00 0% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 724,241.00 724,241.00 88% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 724,241.00 724,241.00 Approved P.O. GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget Allocation 660-9-0580-90-156 505,476.00 505,476.00 100-5-0846-52-809 320,000.00 218,765.00 Total Budget 825,476.00 724,241.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 825,476.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 79,955.06 0.00 79,955.06 10% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 724,241.00 724,241.00 88% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 79,955.06 724,241.00 804,196.06 Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Transportation Services CIP - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Comments: Project in conjunction with Westside Facility project. Westside Facility Traff. Signals Upgrade Construction Intersection Improvements Williams Dr @ Jim Hogg Page 112 of 133 Page 113 of 133 PROJECT:JIM HOGG AT WILLIAMS DRIVE CITY:GEORGETOWN COUNTY:WILLIAMSON BID TABS COMPARISON ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY Unit Price on Bid Form Cost on Bid Form Unit Price on Bid Form Cost on Bid Form Unit Price on Bid Form Cost on Bid Form Unit Price on Bid Form Cost on Bid Form Unit Price on Bid Form Cost on Bid Form Unit Price on Bid Form Cost on Bid Form UNIT PRICE COST 1 MOBILIZATION, BONDS AND INSURANCE, NOT-TO-EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT LS 1 33,000.00$33,000.00$34,500.00$34,500.00$39,000.00$39,000.00$25,000.00$25,000.00$34,916.80$34,916.80$-$-$35,853.04$35,853.04$ 2 SITE PREPARATION STA 12 350.00$4,200.00$1,500.00$18,000.00$3,100.00$37,200.00$165.00$1,980.00$1,717.20$20,606.40$1,500.00$18,000.00$710.00$8,520.00$ 3 PLACEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EA 2 2,500.00$5,000.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$10,000.00$20,000.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$2,866.90$5,733.80$5,500.00$11,000.00$9,000.00$18,000.00$ 4 IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER BARRICADE, SIGNING AND TRAFIC SAFETY PLAN LS 1 11,000.00$11,000.00$8,300.00$8,300.00$18,000.00$18,000.00$3,500.00$3,500.00$15,136.90$15,136.90$10,000.00$10,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$ 5 FURNISH, INSTALL AND REMOVAL OF SILT FENCE LF 505 2.00$1,010.00$2.50$1,262.50$2.00$1,010.00$2.50$1,262.50$4.00$2,020.00$2.75$1,388.75$4.30$2,171.50$ 6 FURNISH, INSTALL AND REMOVAL OF ROCK BERM LF 108 18.00$1,944.00$30.00$3,240.00$18.00$1,944.00$35.00$3,780.00$34.40$3,715.20$33.00$3,564.00$42.50$4,590.00$ 7 FURNISH, INSTALL AND REMOVAL OF STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT SY 80 20.00$1,600.00$21.00$1,680.00$14.00$1,120.00$2,500.00$200,000.00$22.90$1,832.00$45.00$3,600.00$20.00$1,600.00$ 8 SAWCUTTING EXISTING ASPHALT LF 455 5.00$2,275.00$2.00$910.00$10.00$4,550.00$5.00$2,275.00$12.60$5,733.00$10.00$4,550.00$19.00$8,645.00$ 9 UNCLASSIFIED ROADWAY EXCAVATION, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF EXISTING ASPALT ROADWAY, CURB AND GUTTER, AND EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPES AND CULVERTS CY 2,702 14.00$37,828.00$18.00$48,636.00$24.00$64,848.00$15.00$40,530.00$14.30$38,638.60$18.00$48,636.00$14.50$39,179.00$ 10 PLACE AND COMPACT UNCLASSIFIED FILL (ROADWAY)CY 122 10.00$1,220.00$9.00$1,098.00$50.00$6,100.00$20.00$2,440.00$22.90$2,793.80$45.00$5,490.00$21.00$2,562.00$ 11 MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUBGRADE SY 4,178 4.00$16,712.00$3.00$12,534.00$3.50$14,623.00$6.00$25,068.00$3.40$14,205.20$6.00$25,068.00$2.00$8,356.00$ 12 FOR FURNISHING AND PLACING TxDOT ITEM 217 (TYPE A, GRADE 1) CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL CY 1,422 45.00$63,990.00$43.00$61,146.00$57.00$81,054.00$30.00$42,660.00$49.30$70,104.60$45.00$63,990.00$44.00$62,568.00$ 13 FURNISH AND INSTALL TYPE "B" HMAC WITH PRIME AND TACK COAT TON 560 102.00$57,120.00$115.00$64,400.00$90.00$50,400.00$87.00$48,720.00$103.20$57,792.00$95.00$53,200.00$127.00$71,120.00$ 14 FURNISH AND INSTALL TYPE "C" HMAC WITH PRIME AND TACK COAT TON 777 118.00$91,686.00$120.00$93,240.00$100.00$77,700.00$100.00$77,700.00$117.00$90,909.00$110.00$85,470.00$115.00$89,355.00$ 15 FURNISH AND INSTALL CONCRETE RIBBON CURB LF 1,595 18.00$28,710.00$11.00$17,545.00$14.00$22,330.00$10.00$15,950.00$14.30$22,808.50$27.00$43,065.00$16.00$25,520.00$ 16 CONSTRUCT 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SY 346 84.00$29,064.00$66.00$22,836.00$85.00$29,410.00$72.00$24,912.00$88.30$30,551.80$54.00$18,684.00$100.00$34,600.00$ 17 FURNISH AND INSTALL 18" CLASS III REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE INCLUDING BEDDING AND BACKFILL LF 268 104.00$27,872.00$58.00$15,544.00$120.00$32,160.00$50.00$13,400.00$49.30$13,212.40$85.00$22,780.00$60.00$16,080.00$ 18 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" CLASS III REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE INCLUDING BEDDING AND BACKFILL LF 42 99.00$4,158.00$49.00$2,058.00$90.00$3,780.00$35.00$1,470.00$43.10$1,810.20$72.00$3,024.00$50.00$2,100.00$ 19 FURNISH AND INSTALL CONCRETE RIP-RAP PER DETAIL SY 59 134.00$7,906.00$445.00$26,255.00$170.00$10,030.00$75.00$4,425.00$298.20$17,593.80$54.00$3,186.00$500.00$29,500.00$ 20 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" COMMON DRY STONE RIP-RAP PER DETAIL SY 28 36.00$1,008.00$75.00$2,100.00$48.00$1,344.00$40.00$1,120.00$114.60$3,208.80$90.00$2,520.00$90.00$2,520.00$ 21 FURNISH ALL MATERIALS AND LABOR NECESSARY TO RELOCATE EXISTING MAIL BOX EA 2 400.00$800.00$1,000.00$2,000.00$1,000.00$2,000.00$250.00$500.00$343.40$686.80$450.00$900.00$300.00$600.00$ 22 FURNISH AND INSTALL 4" YELLOW SOLID THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 2,601 0.50$1,300.50$2.00$5,202.00$1.00$2,601.00$1.80$4,681.80$2.00$5,202.00$2.00$5,202.00$1.20$3,121.20$ 23 FURNISH AND INSTALL 4" YELLOW BROKEN THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 200 0.50$100.00$2.00$400.00$1.00$200.00$1.80$360.00$2.00$400.00$2.00$400.00$1.00$200.00$ 24 FURNISH AND INSTALL 24" YELLOW SOLID THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 120 9.00$1,080.00$14.00$1,680.00$8.00$960.00$12.75$1,530.00$14.30$1,716.00$10.00$1,200.00$7.50$900.00$ 25 FURNISH AND INSTALL 4" WHITE SOLID THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 377 0.50$188.50$2.00$754.00$1.00$377.00$1.80$678.60$2.00$754.00$2.00$754.00$1.20$452.40$ 26 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" WHITE SOLID THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 331 1.00$331.00$4.00$1,324.00$1.60$529.60$3.75$1,241.25$4.00$1,324.00$4.00$1,324.00$3.00$993.00$ 27 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" WHITE SOLID THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 403 5.00$2,015.00$5.90$2,377.70$4.00$1,612.00$5.25$2,115.75$5.70$2,297.10$5.00$2,015.00$5.00$2,015.00$ 28 FURNISH AND INSTALL 24" WHITE STOP BAR THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING LF 132 9.00$1,188.00$14.00$1,848.00$8.00$1,056.00$12.75$1,683.00$14.30$1,887.60$10.00$1,320.00$7.50$990.00$ 29 FURNISH AND INSTALL THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING (ARROW)EA 3 120.00$360.00$316.00$948.00$130.00$390.00$285.00$855.00$315.40$946.20$250.00$750.00$120.00$360.00$ 30 FURNISH AND INSTALL THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING (WORD)EA 3 140.00$420.00$374.00$1,122.00$150.00$450.00$350.00$1,050.00$372.70$1,118.10$300.00$900.00$225.00$675.00$ 31 FURNISH AND INSTALL RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS TxDOT TY I-C EA 16 8.00$128.00$13.50$216.00$7.00$112.00$12.00$192.00$13.50$216.00$35.00$560.00$6.50$104.00$ 32 FURNISH AND INSTALL RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS TxDOT TY II-A-A EA 105 8.00$840.00$13.50$1,417.50$7.00$735.00$12.00$1,260.00$13.50$1,417.50$35.00$3,675.00$6.50$682.50$ 33 FURNISH AND INSTALL SMALL ROAD SIGN EA 4 400.00$1,600.00$373.00$1,492.00$600.00$2,400.00$350.00$1,400.00$372.70$1,490.80$750.00$3,000.00$500.00$2,000.00$ 34 RELOCATE AND INSTALL SMALL ROAD SIGN EA 2 350.00$700.00$287.00$574.00$800.00$1,600.00$275.00$550.00$286.70$573.40$350.00$700.00$500.00$1,000.00$ 35 FURNISH AND INSTALL SEEDING AND 6" TOPSOIL SY 3,144 3.00$9,432.00$5.50$17,292.00$4.50$14,148.00$2.00$6,288.00$3.40$10,689.60$6.00$18,864.00$3.50$11,004.00$ 447,786.00$477,931.70$545,773.60$564,577.90$484,041.90$468,779.75$TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS 492,936.64$ 36 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 36-INCH DIAMETER DRILL SHAFTS BY OPEN CUT, TxDOT ITEM 416, FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES LF 53 380.00$20,140.00$276.00$14,628.00$420.00$22,260.00$250.00$13,250.00$458.70$24,311.10$600.00$31,800.00$265.00$14,045.00$ 37 CONSTRUCT 6" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 18 60.00$1,080.00$50.00$900.00$200.00$3,600.00$72.00$1,296.00$88.90$1,600.20$63.00$1,134.00$70.00$1,260.00$ 38 FURNISH AND INSTALL TxDOT CURB RAMP, TYPE 7 EA 6 1,800.00$10,800.00$1,600.00$9,600.00$2,800.00$16,800.00$1,200.00$7,200.00$1,376.10$8,256.60$1,500.00$9,000.00$1,800.00$10,800.00$ 39 FURNISH AND INSTALL 2" SCHEDULE 40, PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, TxDOT ITEM 618, FOR SIGNAL WIRING, TRENCHED LF 660 9.00$5,940.00$9.00$5,940.00$16.00$10,560.00$8.20$5,412.00$17.20$11,352.00$18.00$11,880.00$12.00$7,920.00$ 40 FURNISH AND INSTALL 3" SCHEDULE 40, PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, TxDOT ITEM 618, FOR SIGNAL WIRING, TRENCHED LF 100 17.00$1,700.00$16.00$1,600.00$21.00$2,100.00$14.20$1,420.00$22.90$2,290.00$24.00$2,400.00$16.00$1,600.00$ 41 FURNISH AND INSTALL NO. 6 BARE ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR, TxDOT ITEM 620, IN ELECTRICAL CONDUIT LF 60 3.00$180.00$2.00$120.00$2.00$120.00$2.00$120.00$2.30$138.00$4.00$240.00$2.20$132.00$ 42 FURNISH AND INSTALL NO. 6 INSULATED ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR, TxDOT ITEM 620, IN ELECTRICAL CONDUIT LF 120 3.00$360.00$2.30$276.00$3.00$360.00$2.20$264.00$3.40$408.00$5.00$600.00$2.40$288.00$ 43 FURNISH AND INSTALL NO. 8 BARE ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR, TxDOT ITEM 620, IN ELECTRICAL CONDUIT LF 1,980 1.50$2,970.00$1.30$2,574.00$1.00$1,980.00$1.50$2,970.00$1.20$2,376.00$4.00$7,920.00$2.00$3,960.00$ 44 FURNISH AND INSTALL NO. 8 INSULATED ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR, TxDOT ITEM 620, IN ELECTRICAL CONDUIT LF 950 1.50$1,425.00$1.40$1,330.00$1.00$950.00$1.50$1,425.00$1.20$1,140.00$4.00$3,800.00$2.00$1,900.00$ 45 FURNISH AND INSTALL TxDOT ITEM 624 TYPE D ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (162922) WITH APRON EA 2 1,100.00$2,200.00$1,000.00$2,000.00$1,500.00$3,000.00$925.00$1,850.00$1,605.40$3,210.80$1,900.00$3,800.00$875.00$1,750.00$ 46 FURNISH AND INSTALL TxDOT TYPE D PEDESTAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE EA 1 6,300.00$6,300.00$6,000.00$6,000.00$6,000.00$6,000.00$5,250.00$5,250.00$6,536.40$6,536.40$6,900.00$6,900.00$3,500.00$3,500.00$ 47 INSTALL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SIGNAL (ISOLATED) TxDOT ITEM 680 EA 1 33,000.00$33,000.00$32,000.00$32,000.00$19,000.00$19,000.00$27,775.00$27,775.00$20,641.30$20,641.30$23,000.00$23,000.00$15,000.00$15,000.00$ 48 FURNISH AND INSTALL 3-SECTION 12" BACK PLATE, TxDOT ITEM 682, FOR VEHICLE SIGNAL SECTIONS EA 8 110.00$880.00$104.00$832.00$44.00$352.00$95.00$760.00$49.30$394.40$55.00$440.00$65.00$520.00$ 49 FURNISH AND INSTALL 4-SECTION 12" BACK PLATE, TxDOT ITEM 682, FOR VEHICLE SIGNAL SECTIONS EA 4 120.00$480.00$115.00$460.00$58.00$232.00$100.00$400.00$65.40$261.60$70.00$280.00$75.00$300.00$ 50 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" LED GREEN ARROW SIGNAL SECTION, TxDOT ITEM 682 EA 4 300.00$1,200.00$288.00$1,152.00$180.00$720.00$260.00$1,040.00$195.00$780.00$225.00$900.00$300.00$1,200.00$ 51 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" LED GREEN BALL SIGNAL SECTION, TxDOT ITEM 682 EA 8 300.00$2,400.00$288.00$2,304.00$170.00$1,360.00$260.00$2,080.00$189.20$1,513.60$225.00$1,800.00$300.00$2,400.00$ 52 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" LED YELLOW ARROW SIGNAL SECTION, TxDOT ITEM 682 EA 4 300.00$1,200.00$288.00$1,152.00$180.00$720.00$260.00$1,040.00$195.00$780.00$225.00$900.00$300.00$1,200.00$ 53 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" LED YELLOW BALL SIGNAL SECTION, TxDOT ITEM 682 EA 8 300.00$2,400.00$288.00$2,304.00$180.00$1,440.00$260.00$2,080.00$189.20$1,513.60$225.00$1,800.00$300.00$2,400.00$ 54 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" LED RED ARROW SIGNAL SECTION, TxDOT ITEM 682 EA 4 300.00$1,200.00$288.00$1,152.00$180.00$720.00$260.00$1,040.00$195.00$780.00$225.00$900.00$300.00$1,200.00$ 55 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" LED RED BALL SIGNAL SECTION, TxDOT ITEM 682 EA 8 300.00$2,400.00$288.00$2,304.00$170.00$1,360.00$260.00$2,080.00$189.20$1,513.60$225.00$1,800.00$300.00$2,400.00$ 56 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" TxDOT ITEM 682 LED COUNTDOWN PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL SECTION EA 6 900.00$5,400.00$863.00$5,178.00$600.00$3,600.00$775.00$4,650.00$611.20$3,667.20$700.00$4,200.00$700.00$4,200.00$ 57 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABLE TxDOT ITEM 684 (TYPE A, 12 AWG, 3 CONDUCTOR)LF 1,805 2.00$3,610.00$2.00$3,610.00$1.00$1,805.00$2.00$3,610.00$1.20$2,166.00$3.00$5,415.00$2.20$3,971.00$ 58 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABLE TxDOT ITEM 684 (TYPE A, 14 AWG, 5 CONDUCTOR)LF 1,859 2.00$3,718.00$1.75$3,253.25$2.00$3,718.00$2.00$3,718.00$2.30$4,275.70$5.00$9,295.00$2.50$4,647.50$ 59 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABLE TxDOT ITEM 684 (TYPE A, 14 AWG, 7 CONDUCTOR)LF 905 2.00$1,810.00$2.00$1,810.00$3.00$2,715.00$2.00$1,810.00$3.40$3,077.00$7.00$6,335.00$3.30$2,986.50$ 60 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABLE TxDOT ITEM 684 (TYPE A, 18 AWG, 2 CONDUCTOR)LF 970 2.00$1,940.00$1.50$1,455.00$2.00$1,940.00$2.00$1,940.00$2.30$2,231.00$5.00$4,850.00$3.80$3,686.00$ 61 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND ARM ASSEMBLY (STEEL) TxDOT ITEM 684 (1 36 FT. ARM WITH LUMINAIRE AND ILSN)EA 2 11,000.00$22,000.00$10,000.00$20,000.00$10,000.00$20,000.00$9,000.00$18,000.00$10,664.70$21,329.40$12,000.00$24,000.00$9,000.00$18,000.00$ 62 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND ARM ASSEMBLY (STEEL) TxDOT ITEM 684 (1 44 FT. ARM)EA 1 8,000.00$8,000.00$8,000.00$8,000.00$7,500.00$7,500.00$7,000.00$7,000.00$8,141.80$8,141.80$9,000.00$9,000.00$7,500.00$7,500.00$ 63 FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND ARM ASSEMBLY (STEEL) TxDOT ITEM 684 (1 48 FT. ARM)EA 1 9,000.00$9,000.00$8,900.00$8,900.00$9,000.00$9,000.00$8,000.00$8,000.00$9,403.30$9,403.30$10,500.00$10,500.00$7,800.00$7,800.00$ 64 FURNISH AND INSTALL PEDESTRIAN POLE ASSEMBLY TxDOT ITEM 687 EA 5 2,500.00$12,500.00$2,300.00$11,500.00$2,300.00$11,500.00$2,000.00$10,000.00$2,522.80$12,614.00$3,000.00$15,000.00$2,000.00$10,000.00$ 65 FURNISH AND INSTALL PEDESTRIAN DETECTION PUSH BUTTONS, TxDOT ITEM 688 (ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS)EA 6 900.00$5,400.00$860.00$5,160.00$900.00$5,400.00$775.00$4,650.00$917.40$5,504.40$1,100.00$6,600.00$1,800.00$10,800.00$ 66 FURNISH AND INSTALL VIDEO IMAGING VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM (VIVDS) CAMERA ASSEMBLY, TxDOT ITEM 6002 EA 6 2,000.00$12,000.00$1,800.00$10,800.00$1,700.00$10,200.00$1,600.00$9,600.00$1,915.10$11,490.60$2,200.00$13,200.00$2,150.00$12,900.00$ 67 FURNISH AND INSTALL VIDEO IMAGING VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM (VIVDS) SET-UP SYSTEM, TxDOT ITEM 6002 EA 1 1,500.00$1,500.00$1,400.00$1,400.00$320.00$320.00$1,275.00$1,275.00$344.00$344.00$1,500.00$1,500.00$900.00$900.00$ 68 FURNISH AND INSTALL VIDEO IMAGING VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM (VIVDS) CENTRAL CONTROL, TxDOT ITEM 6002 EA 1 1,200.00$1,200.00$1,100.00$1,100.00$2,700.00$2,700.00$1,000.00$1,000.00$2,981.50$2,981.50$3,500.00$3,500.00$3,250.00$3,250.00$ 69 FURNISH AND INSTALL VIDEO IMAGING VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM (VIVDS) COMMUNICATION CABLE, TxDOT ITEM 6002 LF 1,283 4.00$5,132.00$3.40$4,362.20$3.00$3,849.00$3.25$4,169.75$3.40$4,362.20$7.00$8,981.00$4.75$6,094.25$ 70 LED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED STREET NAME SIGNS (IISN) TxDOT ITEM 6090 (SINGLE SIDED, 8 FT.)EA 4 3,400.00$13,600.00$3,200.00$12,800.00$2,800.00$11,200.00$2,850.00$11,400.00$3,096.20$12,384.80$3,500.00$14,000.00$3,500.00$14,000.00$ 87 FURNISH AND INSTALL PEDESTRIAN DETECTION CONTROLLER UNIT, TXDOT ITEM 688 EA 1 3,700.00$3,700.00$3,600.00$3,600.00$3,000.00$3,000.00$3,200.00$3,200.00$3,130.60$3,130.60$3,900.00$3,900.00$3,900.00$3,900.00$ 88 FURNISH AND INSTALL VIDEO IMAGING VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM (VIVDS) PROCESSOR SYSTEM, TXDOT ITEM 6002 EA 1 10,000.00$10,000.00$10,000.00$10,000.00$9,000.00$9,000.00$9,000.00$9,000.00$9,976.60$9,976.60$12,000.00$12,000.00$7,300.00$7,300.00$ 218,765.00$201,556.45$201,081.00$181,774.75$206,877.30$263,570.00$TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS 195,710.25$ 71 RELOCATE EXISTING WATER METER EA 1 1,500.00$1,500.00$1,500.00$1,500.00$9,000.00$9,000.00$8,500.00$8,500.00$1,475.30$1,475.30$1,000.00$1,000.00$1,200.00$1,200.00$ 72 COMPELTE FOR LF 530 55.00$29,150.00$53.00$28,090.00$45.00$23,850.00$60.00$31,800.00$41.60$22,048.00$47.00$24,910.00$75.00$39,750.00$ 73 FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING 8-INCH GATE VALVE, COMPLETE IN PLACE FOR EA 2 3,000.00$6,000.00$1,500.00$3,000.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$1,650.00$3,300.00$1,647.40$3,294.80$3,000.00$6,000.00$1,500.00$3,000.00$ 74 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 8" X 8" TEE, COMPLETE EA 1 500.00$500.00$800.00$800.00$1,000.00$1,000.00$650.00$650.00$429.90$429.90$1,100.00$1,100.00$350.00$350.00$ 75 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 8" CAP, COMPLETE FOR EA 1 250.00$250.00$500.00$500.00$500.00$500.00$200.00$200.00$171.90$171.90$700.00$700.00$150.00$150.00$ 76 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 2" CAP, COMPLETE FOR EA 1 250.00$250.00$500.00$500.00$300.00$300.00$100.00$100.00$24.00$24.00$500.00$500.00$50.00$50.00$ 77 FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT INCLUDING TEE AND 6" GATE VALVE, COMPLETE IN PLACE FOR EA 1 5,000.00$5,000.00$3,800.00$3,800.00$6,000.00$6,000.00$4,500.00$4,500.00$5,100.10$5,100.10$5,900.00$5,900.00$4,000.00$4,000.00$ 78 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 6-INCH WET TAP TO EXISTING 8-INCH WATER LINE, COMPLETE IN PLACE FOR EA 1 3,000.00$3,000.00$4,600.00$4,600.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$2,500.00$2,500.00$3,065.40$3,065.40$2,500.00$2,500.00$4,500.00$4,500.00$ 79 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 2-INCH DIAMETER PVC WATERLINE, INCLUDING THRUST RESTRAINT, COMPLETE FOR LF 86 40.00$3,440.00$8.30$713.80$40.00$3,440.00$35.00$3,010.00$35.10$3,018.60$33.00$2,838.00$25.00$2,150.00$ 80 FURNISH MATERIAL FOR PROPOSED 2-INCH TIE-IN TO EXISTING 2-INCH WATER LINE, COMPLETE IN PLACE FOR EA 1 500.00$500.00$420.00$420.00$500.00$500.00$2,500.00$2,500.00$51.60$51.60$1,500.00$1,500.00$1,500.00$1,500.00$ 81 CUT AND CAP (ABANDON) EXISITNG 2-INCH LINE OR SMALLER, COMPLETE FOR EA 2 500.00$1,000.00$420.00$840.00$400.00$800.00$500.00$1,000.00$63.00$126.00$800.00$1,600.00$150.00$300.00$ 82 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 8" X 6" REDUCER, COMPLETE FOR EA 1 250.00$250.00$137.00$137.00$600.00$600.00$250.00$250.00$160.50$160.50$1,100.00$1,100.00$125.00$125.00$ 83 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 8" BLIND FLANGE WITH 2" THREADED TAP, COMPLETE FOR EA 1 250.00$250.00$85.00$85.00$600.00$600.00$100.00$100.00$108.90$108.90$1,200.00$1,200.00$75.00$75.00$ 84 PROVIDE AND INSTALL 6" STEEL CASING, COMPLETE FOR LF 13 200.00$2,600.00$59.00$767.00$100.00$1,300.00$90.00$1,170.00$143.30$1,862.90$300.00$3,900.00$25.00$325.00$ 85 FOR FURNISHING ALL MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS AND LABOR NECESSARY FOR PRESSURE TESTING WATER PIPE, INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS, COMPLETE FOR LS 1 2,000.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$4,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00$1,500.00$1,500.00$1,720.10$1,720.10$8,500.00$8,500.00$2,000.00$2,000.00$ 86 FURNISH AND INSTALL SAMPLING STATIONS FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C-651, COMPLETE FOR LS 1 2,000.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$4,000.00$1,000.00$1,000.00$750.00$750.00$4,012.60$4,012.60$5,500.00$5,500.00$4,200.00$4,200.00$ TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS 57,690.00$53,752.80$58,890.00$61,830.00$46,670.60$68,748.00$TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS 63,675.00$ 10% CONTINGENCY 75,232.19$ TOTAL 724,241.00$TOTAL 733,240.95$TOTAL 805,744.60$TOTAL 808,182.65$TOTAL 737,589.80$TOTAL 801,097.75$ 724,241.00$733,240.95$805,744.60$808,182.65$737,589.80$801,097.75$ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 827,554.08$ ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE PATIN BID TOTAL CHASCO CONSTRUCTORS 2801 E. OLD SETTLERS BLVD ROUND ROCK, TX 78665 JOE BLAND CONSTRUCTION, LP 13111 DESSAU ROAD AUSTIN, TX 78754 SMITH CONTRACTING CO., INC. 15308 GINGER ST. AUSTIN, TX 78728 CENTRAL ROAD AND UTILITY, LTD. 8760 A RESEARCH BLVD., #192 AUSTIN, TX 78758 WESTSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC. 4500 WILLIAMS DR., STE. 212-PMB 411 GEORGETOWN, TX 78633 PATIN CONSTRUCTION, LLC 3800 W. 2ND STREET TAYLOR, TX 76574 SMITH BID TOTALJOE BLAND BID TOTAL CENTRAL ROAD BID TOTAL WESTSTAR BID TOTALCHASCO BID TOTAL TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS TOTAL SIGNAL ITEMS TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS TOTAL UTILITIES ITEMS Page 114 of 133 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board December 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible recommendation of approval of a Scope of Work for the Williams Drive Study with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). - Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, Transportation Services, Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator, City Manager's Office, Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is working with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to conduct a study of Williams Drive to address historic and emerging mobility and economic development issues along this corridor. The study area includes Williams Drive from an area east of Austin Ave to the City limits (Exhibit 1, Location Map). The study will recommend projects and provide implementation plans that enhance transportation safety, mobility and connectivity; enhance economic development potential; and establish the area as a premier gateway into Georgetown (Exhibit 2, Scope of Services). Williams Drive is a four-lane roadway with continuous center turn lanes. More than 29,000 cars access this major arterial daily, and the trend is expected to grow with the City’s expanding population. The City of Georgetown and TxDOT have identified projects and committed funding within the corridor before 2025 that will inform and impact development and mobility patterns as part of the recently approved 2015 Transportation Bond program. Key projects that will be completed in the area as a result of the 2015 Bond include: · The Northwest Boulevard Bridge extension; · The Rivery Boulevard extension; · Improvements to the Interstate 35 southbound service road including the addition of a dedicated right-turn lane from Williams Drive; and · Improvements to the Interstate 35 northbound service road from Williams Drive to Lakeway Drive. It should also be noted that in 2006, the City accepted a Redevelopment Plan for a portion of the corridor generally located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Interstate 35 (Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan). The purpose of this Plan was to promote and guide redevelopment of the aging and highway oriented uses with a livelier mix of uses in a denser and more pedestrian friendly environment. As part of this effort, the City established a special taxing district designed to further the development within the district consistent with this plan, and designated the subject and surrounding area with a Specialty Mixed Use Area Future Land Use designation. The adoption of the Gateway Redevelopment Plan and subsequent follow through by City staff resulted in several transportation improvements and efforts to the corridor, including Northwest Boulevard Bridge, Rivery Boulevard Extension, and improvements to the Interstate 35 southbound service road from Williams Drive. However, despite enormous growth across the City and specific, renewed focus in the Downtown area, the Williams Drive Gateway area has remained largely unchanged, hampered by poor access, a fragmented property ownership pattern, limited infrastructure improvements, and changes in the market. In order to address the mobility issues of Williams Drive, a more comprehensive review and analysis is needed of the entire corridor, to include the Gateway area identified in the 2006 Plan. A comprehensive study will identify recommendations to promote synergy between transportation, land use and other planning areas, as well as an update of the 2006 Plan and an implementation Page 115 of 133 program. CAMPO has committed federal funding to support the City’s efforts to address the transportation needs and demands for this corridor through its Platinum Planning Program. Through a localized planning effort, Plans completed as part of this program meet shared goals and are consistent with CAMPO’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations from plans completed through this program will inform future iterations of the Regional Transportation Plan, and be eligible for future federal funding allocated by CAMPO. The Williams Drive Study seeks to help Georgetown and the region manage its growth challenges by creating environments that provide for an efficient, effective and reliable system for moving people and goods through multiple travel options; enhanced economic development and housing options near high-quality transportation investment projects; ultimately positioning Williams Drive as a premier gateway for the City of Georgetown and the Austin region. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the attached scope of work. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Matching funds for study approved as part of the FY16 budget process. SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP® ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1, Location Map Exhibit DRAFT of Scope of Work Exhibit Page 116 of 133 KAT YC ROSSIN GBLVD PAR Q U E VIS T A D R WAGON WHEEL TRL W S E Q U O I A S P U R S T A D I U M D R E E S P A R A D A D R C R15 2 RIVER CHASE BLVD A V I A T I O N D R JIMHO G G RD B O O T Y S C R O S S I N GRD RIVERY BLVD NAUSTIN AVE S H 130 T O L L N B S H E L L R D AIRPORT RD SERE N A DA D R N O RTHWES T B L V D VERDEVISTA E S E Q U O I A T R L W E S T E R N T R L KATHI LN C OU N T R Y C L U B RD WESPARA D A D R WOLFRANCHPK W Y GAB RIELVIE W D R M ADRI D DR WSEQ U O I A T R L O LD AIRPO RT RD D B W O O D R D L O G A NR A N C H R D E 2 N D S T PO W ER RD G A NNST RIVER BENDDR SH195EB GOL D E N OAKS D R DA W ND R H O L L Y S TS IH 35 NB ENTR262 NB F M 971 S IH 35 SB NIH35NB DEL W E B BBLVD C H A M P I O N SD R WIL DWOO D D R N E I N N E RLOOP WILLIA M S D R S H 130 S B ESTRELL A X I N G N IH 35 SB L A K E W AYDR N IH 35 FWY NB E CENTRAL DR NIH35FWYSB L U N A T R L N C O L L E G EST R A N C H R D W EST W O O DLN GARDEN VIEW DR DAWN DR P A R K E R DR T H OR N TON LN M ESQ UITE LN N CHURCH S T STARVIEWDR N M Y R T L E S T P O W E R R D E CENTRAL DR E JANIS DR P A R K W A YST C E D A R D R RIVERRD G A R D E N M E A D O W D R R O Y A LDR O A K L N SPRINGVAL L E YRD HIG H VIEW RD FONTANADR T H O M A S C T P E C A N V I S T ALN E MO R R O W S T PARKL N BRAND Y L N JUD Y DR RIDGECREST R D WOLF RD L O W E R PARKRD W L W A L D E N D R RIVERYBLVD N AUSTIN AVE N IH 35 FWY SB WOLF R A N C H PK W Y NIH35SB NCO L L E G E S T GANNST RIVER BEND DR H O L L Y S TS IH 35 NB C O UNTRY C L UB R D F M 9 7 1 ENTR262 NB S IH 35 SB GA BRIELVIE W DR O L D AIRPORT RD 4,250 0 4,2502,125 Feet Document Path: L:\Division\Gus\TRANSPORTATION SERVICES\GIS PROJECTS\Williams Dr. Corridor Study (2015)\Study Area.mxd Williams Dr. Corridor Study Center s Study Area Parcels William s Dr. Gateway TIRZ William s Dr. Corridor Study Area Georgetown City Limits ³ 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Kilometers Page 117 of 133 1 DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK CAMPO Platinum Planning Project Name: Georgetown, TX Williams Drive Study CAMPO is seeking services from a qualified consultant to conduct a study and develop a plan to further the goals of CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program and the City of Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) and Future Land Use Map, as well as address the immediate and future mobility issues that stem from population growth and development pressures. The Consultant will develop a plan that applies the elements of the Platinum Planning Program to the study area, and recommends projects and implementation plans that enhance multi-modal transportation safety, mobility and connectivity, enhance economic development potential, and establish the area as a premier gateway into Georgetown. CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program seeks to generate comprehensive and detailed multimodal transportation planning at the local level that will generate regionally significant benefits through projects and policies. The program aligns local and regional planning through a progressive , integrated, and inclusive process. Plans completed as part of this program meet shared goals and are inclusive of state of the practice elements consistent with CAMPO’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan goals. Specifically, these plans will outline synergies between transportation, land use, and other planning areas to better understand how the system performs. Recommendations from plans completed through this program will inform future iterations of the Regional Transportation Plan and be eligible for future Federal funding allocated by CAMPO. The Platinum Planning Program includes three spatial areas: Subregions, Corridors, and Centers. Georgetown, Texas, is a rapidly growing community about 30 miles north of Austin. The city has a population of over 50,000 people and serves as the county seat for Williamson County. Georgetown is known for its walkable, historic downtown, family oriented neighborhoods, and as a retirement destination. The city also serves as the northern gateway for the Capital Area. This study seeks to help Georgetown and the region manage its growth challenges by creating environments that provide for an efficient, effective and reliable system for moving people and goods through multiple travel options, enhance economic development and housing options near high-quality transportation investments, and position Williams Drive to become a premier gateway for the City of Georgetown and the Austin region . Williams Drive is a four-lane roadway with continuous center turn lanes. More than 29,000 cars access this major arterial daily, and the trend is expected to grow with the City’s expanding population. The City of Georgetown and TxDOT have identified projects and committed funding within the corridor before 2025 that will inform and impact development and mobility patterns as part of the recently approved 2015 Transportation Bond program. Key projects that will be completed in the area as a result of the 2015 Bond include:  The Northwest Boulevard Bridge extension;  The Rivery Boulevard extension; Page 118 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 2  Improvements to the Interstate 35 southbound service road including the addition of a dedicated right-turn lane from Williams Drive; and  Improvements to the Interstate 35 northbound service road from Williams Drive to Lakeway Drive. The City envisions a transportation bond election in 2025 that may include recommendations from this study. In addition, the City accepted a Master Redevelopment Plan for a portion of the Corridor in 2006, and established a special taxing district designed to further the development within the district limits in accordance with this plan. To further this effort, the City also designated this area with a Specialty Mixed Use Future Land Use designation, as well as created a new zoning district, the Mixed-Use district, with the intent of drafting and adopting a mixed - use Regulating Plan for the area. CAMPO has identified a portion of the Corridor as a Growth Center in its 2040 Plan. The Williams Drive Study will recommend policy, programming, projects and an implementation plan for the study area that address and enhance mobility, safety, and livability. The Williams Drive Plan includes two Platinum Planning spatial area types: 1. Corridor Plan – Development of a context-sensitive corridor plan for several miles on Williams Drive, which addresses access management strategies, multi-modal transportation elements, safety and operat ional improvements, and recommendations for a private realm built-form that supports different modes of transportation and a sense of place. 2. Centers Plan – Development of a plan for a vibrant mixed -use center and gateway along Williams Drive from an area south of Austin Avenue to Lakeway Drive, consistent with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and special taxing district and land use overlays. This includes development concepts for a mixed -use catalytic project on the Georgetown ISD site. In order to better respect the context of the City of Georgetown , key words used in this scope are defined as below: 1. Multimodal – design and policy that ensures the safe, efficient, effective, reliable and comfortable accommodation of various modes of travel including cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and where/if appropriate, transit. 2. Mixed-use – the appropriate combination and mixture of land uses and density that can produce a feasible amount of origins, destinations, and trip generators (jobs, housing, services) that allow communities and the region gain the biggest benefits/use from multi- modal transportation investments. Mixed-use may include uses mixed vertically, or complimentary single uses adjacent to one another. 3. Equity – Ensuring robust engagement of all segments of the population, minimizing any adverse impacts of plan recommendations, and increasing access to opportunity for all members of the community. Page 119 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 3 The consultant should have experience and knowledge in planning for implementation consistent with the Platinum Planning Program elements: 1. Multimodal and Mixed-Use – Create connections to housing, jobs, and services through the establishment of dynamic mixed-use environments, well-connected street grids, high-quality transit options, as well as safe and useful pedestrian/bicycle accommodations. 2. Housing – Develop a mix of housing types and price points appropriate for the study area context that provides living options that can accommodate a variety of incomes, abilities, and familial types. 3. Environment – Create a healthy environment that proactively protects and enhances air, water, land, and people. 4. Economic Development – Promote the economic competitiveness of the study area to yield positive impacts on the local tax base, high-quality jobs, and community services. 5. Equity – Create positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes for all residents and stakeholders in the study areas while minimizing adverse impacts. Study Area (See below for the study area maps) The focus of the Williams Drive study is inclusive of the corridor from an area east of Austin Avenue, just north of downtown, to the Georgetown City Limits. As stated previously, this study includes two areas of focus:  Corridor Plan Focus Area - Williams Drive from Lakeway Drive on the south, to the Georgetown City Limits on the north. This area of Williams Drive is four lanes with a center turn lane, discontinuous sidewalks, and a lack of streetscaping. Land use along this section of the corridor includes mostly strip malls, retail power centers at major nodes, some multi-family uses, and an overall auto-centric low-density built form. Page 120 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 4  Centers Plan Focus Area - San Gabriel River on the south and east, Rivery Boulevard, Oak Lane and Mesquite Lane on the West, and San Gabriel Park, Apple Creek Drive, Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive on the north. This area includes some low-density commercial uses, single-family homes, and a new mixed use area off Rivery Boulevard. The area is also bisected by Interstate 35, and includes a mix of a disjointed traditional street grid on the southern portion, and a curvilinear suburban street system in the northern portion. Corridor Plan Focus Area Map Page 121 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 5 Downtown Georgetown Centers Plan Focus Area Map Page 122 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 6 Schedule Work is to begin upon the execution of a Notice to Proceed from CAMPO and is expected to take nine months to complete. CAMPO reserves the right to extend this timeline, subject to the approval of the Transportation Policy Board. Our Scope of Services is presented in five stages (Tasks 0– 4): Task 0. Public and Stakeholder Engagement Task 1. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Task 2. Concept Plan Task 3. Draft Project, Policy Recommendations, Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization Task 4. Final Report Project Management CAMPO’s Long-Range Planning Manager, or his designee, will serve as the CAMPO Project Manager, and the City of Georgetown will serve as the local partner for this study. The consulting firm's Project Manager will serve as the primary point of contact for all communication between CAMPO and the consulting team. The CAMPO Project Manager will serve as the liaison between the local partners and the consultant team. The consulting team may not change team membership or organizational structure without the written approval of the CAMPO Executive Director. Effective two-way communication is essential on a project of this complexity and importance. The Consultant will schedule bi-weekly (or more frequent, if directed by CAMPO) meetings with CAMPO staff and local partners with ad hoc meetings as needed. On-line conference calls will be scheduled with screen sharing, as needed or as directed by CAMPO, to go over issues and maintain communication in the most efficient way. Progress Reports and Invoices The Consultant will prepare and submit detailed narrative progress reports and itemized invoices to the Project Manager. Invoices will include all work performed during the reporting period only. Detailed narrative progress reports shall include:  A brief description of work accomplished for each task.  The percentage of completion of the overall work project and eac h task.  Changes in the estimated value (budget) of each work task.  Special problems or delays encountered or anticipated.  The anticipated work activities for the next work period.  Log of communication associated with study that includes the person and entity contacted, reason, date, and time (includes phone calls, emails, etc.)  Additional information as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager . Page 123 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 7 The progress reports must include work performed by all sub-consultants associated with the consultant team. The Consultant will be required to submit to the CAMPO Project Manager one consolidated progress report for review, accompanied by supporting documentation for each reimbursement request. Sub-Consultant Management and Meetings The consultant will prepare contracts for any sub-consultant(s), monitor sub-consultant staff activities, ensure sub-consultant(s) adherence to the project schedule, and review and recommend approval of sub-consultant invoices. Quality Assurance and Quality Control: The Consultant will provide continuous quality assurance and quality control throughout the life of the study. CAMPO may refuse to process invoices for payment until work, deliverables and related project management tasks are completed to CAMPO’s satisfaction. Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO:  Copies of sub-consultant contracts, within 30 days of contract execution.  Monthly invoices and detailed narrative progress reports (including travel related expense receipts, and any equipment purchase receipts, time -sheets and other direct expense receipts). All receipts and documentation shall be maintained at the billing site for contract monitoring/audit purposes. The consultant is also required to submit a project schedule and timeline which includes important tasks and milestones for review and approval by the CAMPO project manager. TASK 0. Public and Stakeholder Engagement The Consultant will work with CAMPO staff and the City of Georgetown to develop a robust and inclusive public participation plan that will lead to meaningful participation of various stakeholders. The stakeholder participation plan shall include but is not limited to the following subtasks: 0.1- Steering Committee Meetings (Minimum of Three) A Steering Committee will be established by CAMPO and the City of Georgetown to guide the study. This committee will have representation from CAMPO, City of Georgetown, TxDOT, and other stakeholders. Prior to each project meeting or activity, the Consultant shall prepare agenda and agenda support materials for the next upcoming Steering Committee meeting. The CAMPO Project Manager and City of Georgetown representative will review and approve all meeting materials prior to their delivery to the Steering Committee members. At least one public meeting shall be held as part of each task (1-4) in the planning process. A project kick-off meeting shall be held with the CAMPO and the City of Georgetown to develop draft study goals that are consistent with both the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program elements. Page 124 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 8 0.2 - Public Meetings (Minimum of Three) Public meetings will be held at integral points during the study pursuant to a schedule proposed by the Consultant within 10 business days of contract execution and approved by the CAMPO Project Manager. The purpose of the public meetings is to gain the perspective of local residents, key Homeowner Associations, Business Leaders, Community Leaders, and other entities or specific groups recommended by the Steering Committee. This planning process shall be conducted in close coordination with CAMPO and the City of Georgetown. Through the public outreach processes, people will have the opportunity to comment on the plan and planning efforts via email, social media, post mail, or in person at meetings. The Consultant team shall collaborate with CAMPO’s Public Outreach Group and Georgetown Project Team to broaden the channels of communications with the public. The Consultant shall facilitate and provide support personnel and exhibits for the outreach meetings. The Consultant shall collaborate with the CAMPO Public Outreach personnel and Georgetown Project Team to coordinate necessary logistics for the meetings. The public meeting schedule shall be revised, to include scheduling additional public meetings, as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager. Throughout the project, if CAMPO and the City of Georgetown determines there is a need for public outreach materials to be advertised or produced in a language other than English, the consultant shall produce print and generate electronic materials in multiple languages (prevalent in the study area) as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager. 0.3 - Project Web Site and Other Methods CAMPO will develop and host a project web site throughout the duration of the study effort. The Consultant shall be responsible for submitting deliverables and other content as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager for posting to the project web site. As part of Task 0, the consultant may suggest to CAMPO, and upon approval, develop additional outreach methods relevant to the study area; such as through social media, online town hall meetings, apps, webinars, focus groups, etc. Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO: 1. Public Participation Plan, including a proposed public meeting schedule. 2. Surveys, questionnaires, or comment cards for public meeting participants to fill out, including an electronic version to post on the CAMPO study website. 3. Meeting materials including, but not limited to, informational hand-outs, written materials, sign-in sheets, the printing of meeting hand-outs, and the preparation and production of meeting display boards in high resolution color. 4. Documentation of the meetings shall include: photographs of each event, copies of informational displays, the number of people in attendance at each meeting, copies of handouts and questionnaires distributed at the meetings, comment cards and letters received, attendance sheets from each meeting, and the contact information used in mailings. 5. Meeting summaries of each meeting in Microsoft Word format within 10 business days of the meeting date. Page 125 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 9 6. An appropriate range of exhibits and displays for all meetings. The Consultant shall produce additional exhibits and displays for any and all meetings as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager. The quality and content of exhibits and displays shall be subject to review and approval as required by the CAMPO Project Manager. The CAMPO Project Manager may direct edits and revisions to exhibits and displays for any scheduled public meeting. The Consultant shall be responsible for submitting content and deliverables to the CAMPO Project Manager for posting on the project website. Task 1. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment 1.1 - Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports This task involves the review and evaluation of current local, state, and regional documents and policies relevant to transportation and supportive land use planning. The following documents will be provided for review by the City of Georgetown:  City of Georgetown Williams Drive Corridor Study (2003)  City of Georgetown Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan (2006)  City of Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM)  City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan  Overall Transportation Plan including the approved 2015 Road Bond  Public Safety Plan  Housing Plan  Parks and Trails Master Plan  Utility Master Plan  Downtown Master Plan  Airport Master Plan  Future Land Use Plan  My35 Plans and Projects List  Sidewalk Master Plan  City of Georgetown Unified Development Code  City of Georgetown ADA Transition Plan  City of Georgetown Data Files – Most recent Geographic Information System (GIS) files from the City and other databases, includ ing aerial mapping and associated data files that shows the location of City limits property lines, street curbs, street names, sidewalks, trails, MPO boundary, topography, known environmental features, land use, zoning and other features  Traffic Counts  Signal Timing Plans  City of Georgetown Trails Map  Central Texas Greenprint for Growth  Other previous studies relevant to the project Page 126 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 10 1.2 - Existing conditions The Consultant shall collect any other data necessary to evaluate existing transportation, demographic, market, and land use conditions relevant to the Platinum Planning Program elements within the corridor and center areas. This effort shall include, at a minimum, an evaluation of the existing street network and connectivity (specifically across Interstate 35 and connections to Williams Drive from adjacent areas); access management, mode split, and any impediments to the use of alternative modes of transportation; an inventory of existing land uses and a supportive built environment; and any other data requested by the CAMPO Project Manager. The data collection will pay particular attention to the use of various multimodal transportation related items such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, streetscapes and street sections, and branding and wayfinding/signage traffic operations, parking, safety, and land use related items such as market trends, existing built form and building types, infill development, adaptive reuse, public spaces and the opportunities for economic development, and housing. Specific tasks that shall be examined as part of both the Centers and Corridor components of this study include , but shall not be limited to:  Parking analysis  Traffic counts and operations analysis  Driveway and access assessment  Street grid connectivity and barriers analysis  Vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis  Traffic signal analysis  Intersection analysis  Roadway design and loading  Sidewalk inventory  Pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis  Fiscal impact analysis  Land suitability analysis  Land use susceptibility to change analysis  Public health Impacts  Additional tasks for examination deemed necessary by the CAMPO Project Manager The Consultant shall complete a housing and retail market conditions analysis as part of the centers component of the study. 1.3 – Revision of Goals and Objectives The Consultant shall work with CAMPO, City of Georgetown and the Steering Committee to revise the study goals and objectives as needed. Consultant to Deliver to CAMPO:  Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Report Page 127 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 11 Task 2: Develop Concept Plan The Consultant shall prepare draft conceptual plans that are specific for both the corridor and centers components of the study based on the existing conditions and needs assessment. Although the study has two components, the concepts for both component shall be complimentary. This concept plan shall identify relevant projects and policies to improve the transportation network and supportive land uses that, if implemented, will enhance mobility, connectivity, safety, and various multimodal travel options; support economic development in the area with minimal impact on the environment; provide for a housing mix that meets the needs of the community; and enhance a sense of place. Specifically, the study shall provide an analysis of the current and potential system network and future land use mix within the study area. This analysis should propose specific improvements to transportation infrastructure that will improve multimodal transportation safety, connectivity and access. The analysis shall also identify possible investment strategies and policies to leverage the desired land use and housing mix, and development types in accordance with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as analyze the market feasibility of the improvements. 2.1A - Concept Plan for the Corridor Component  Corridor Performance – Develop concepts that will improve and optimize the transportation network’s performance and safety in the corridor through an efficient, effective and reliable system. This includes development of access management concepts, traffic signal timing plans, intersection improvements, roadway cross-sections and streetscaping concepts that balance the needs of a variety of users/modes (pedestrians, cyclist, and cars), and enhance traffic flow, environmental quality and economic development.  Land Use, Private Realm, and the Transect – Develop land use and built form recommendations that are supportive and complementary to an effective transportation corridor. This should include concepts for development pattern intensities that may change and transition along Williams Drive from the centers area on the south end to the more suburban areas on the north end. All concepts shall include recommendations that will be conducive to and promote mobility, as well as address the placement and supply of parking. In addition, recommendations shall include strategies on how the corridor should develop and redevelop to become an effective multimodal transportation corridor and iconic gateway into Georgetown over time. Development of a specific transect for this corridor shall be included.  Connections to Subdivisions – Develop concepts that identify ways to better connect the subdivisions along Williams Drive to the corridor and one another. Page 128 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 12 2.1B - The Concept Plan for the Centers Component shall include:  Circulation and Connectivity - Develop a multimodal connectivity plan. The concept shall address: o Identifying transportation opportunities and specific needs for all modes of transportation in the corridor and center. The potential for multimodal transportation connections between the study area and Downtown Georgetown, the Rivery Park Development, San Gabriel Park, and adjacent neighborhoods. Specific attention shall be given to connectivity across Interstate 35 and the San Gabriel River, as well as the intersection of Austin Avenue, Williams Drive and Interstate 35. o Strategies for parking management, including on-street, shared parking (public and private), and other arrangements. o Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle realm, appropriate sidewalks and bikeways, streetscapes, pedestrian crossings, intersection improvements signals and other supportive infrastructure. o Identifying opportunities and specific needs for transit in the area, where and if appropriate. o Other strategies that will help balance the needs of users traveling thru the centers area, as well as those destined to the centers. Addressing street grid connections and redundancy, as well as mode shift will be crucial in this analysis.  Economic and Urban Development - Identify opportunities for context sensitive, mixed- use infill, grayfield/brownfield redevelopment, and new greenfield development (both vertical and horizontal) that creates a multimodal, safe, comfortable, and vibrant environment, destination, and investment opportunity. o Concept shall include provisions for additional retail, services, entertainment and other amenities that will enhance the neighborhoods; make the area attractive and provide basic services for its residents and a unique experience for visitors; complimenting services and amenities offered in the downtown district; complimenting and ancillary services for the City’s and Capital Area’s business/employment centers. o A catalytic project concept should be developed to examine the redevelopment of the Georgetown ISD site that is conducive to multi-modal transportation investment. This may include mixed-use or housing components. Pro formas, maps, renderings, and other pertinent information , shall be developed as part each case study project. o Potential opportunities for public/private partnerships should be explored as part of this task.  Housing - Identify concepts and strategies for inclusion of an appropriate mix of housing types (including price points and typology) that serves the needs of the community and properly utilizes and leverages the local and regional transportation investments in the area. Page 129 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 13  Environment and Place o Infrastructure Design – Develop concepts for infrastructure design that minimize impacts to the natural environment, including construction materials, storm water infrastructure, water quality, landscaping, scenic roadway design, etc. o Public and Green Space – Concept should identify the areas of opportunity for high-quality public/gathering spaces, green space, and areas that should be considered for preservation or limited development. o Place-making – Develop concepts and visuals that demonstrate elements of high- quality aesthetics in both the public and private realm through streetscaping, greenery, public art, architecture, and view sheds. The place-making concept shall include provisions for wayfinding and branding of the area. o Environmental Justice - Provide guidance on policies and projects that will benefit and minimize adverse impacts to vulnerable populations. Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO: 1. Completed concept plan report narrative with graphics and methodology inclusive of parking and connectivity strategies. 2. Catalytic project case study narrative, maps, pro formas, and rendering. 3. Corridor Transect for Williams Drive TASK 3: DRAFT RECCOMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, AND PRIORITIZATION 3.1 - Recommendations The consultant shall create near-, short-, medium - and long-term projects, and policy recommendations that are tailored to the needs of the stakeholder/implementing entities in the study area. Timeframes for the recommendations and implementation strategies are defined as:  Near-Term – 1 Year or Less  Short - Term – 2 to 4 years  Medium-Term – 5 – 10 years  Long-Term – 11 years or more Recommendations and strategies shall include, but shall not be limited to: • Maps, renderings, and drawings of proposed improvements and concepts • Recommended roadway sections/schematics • Recommended mobility management solutions to include traffic flow, signal timing, access management • Proposed changes or additions to the infrastructure design criteria • Cost Estimates and funding sources for proposed improvements (separated by implementer(s)) • Draft final fiscal impact analysis • Description of tools and partnerships needed for housing economic development concepts Page 130 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 14 • Proposed Unified Development Code language or zoning map changes, this should include recommendations on parking, consistent with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. • Proposed changes to local and regional thoroughfare maps • Proposed economic development agreement and partnership language (as needed) 3.2 - Evaluation Categories and Measures of Effectiveness The Consultant shall develop a set of criteria to assist in evaluating each improvement concept. The broad categories of transportation efficacy, safety, VMT, travel times, right-of-way, socio- economic impacts, urban design, health impacts, environmental impacts, and pedestrian/bicyclist impacts and cost effectiveness will be further defined into evaluation criteria. These criteria shall be written so that it may be included in the CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program and Regional Transportation Plan project selection criteria, if so desired. 3.3 - Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness, Impacts, and Priorities The Consultant shall evaluate cost-effectiveness to determine if the improvements cause sufficient user benefits to justify the investment. The Consultant shall evaluate cost effectiveness by determining the monetary benefits associated with the reduction in vehicle delay due to short- term improvements, as well as compare the benefit to the implementation cost. Benefits shall be determined using the results of the peak hour mo del and converting the hourly delay values to estimated daily and annual delays, which will then be multiplied by an average cost per hour of delay to achieve annual benefits (dollar -value). Projects and policies shall also be evaluated based on the metrics outlined in Task 3.2. The consultant shall develop a prioritized list of projects and policies based on the outcomes of the evaluation. Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO: 1. A summary of current and planned transportation projects and near, short, medium, and long-term project recommendations that will impact the study area. 2. Proposed cost estimates, funding sources, policy changes or additions, and partnership(s) needed to implement study recommendations. 3. Draft catalytic project and centers implementation strategy and marketing brief (not to exceed two pages). 4. Prioritized list of projects and policies. 5. Draft environmental justice analysis. 6. Draft health impact assessment. 7. Draft final fiscal impact analysis. 8. Draft ordinance and design manual changes or amendments. 9. Draft interlocal and economic development agreement language. 10. Traffic modeling data and analysis Page 131 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 15 TASK 4: FINAL REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS The Consultant shall prepare and deliver a final report at the conclusion of the study. The report will be reviewed by CAMPO staff, City of Georgetown and the Steering Committee. The report, executive summary, and visuals must be approved by CAMPO before going to print. The report shall include: • Documentation of public and stakeholder input across all project stages, overview of the planning process, existing conditions report, concept plan, and final recommendations/implementation report; • Discussion of any concepts considered but eliminated for not addressing the study goals and objectives; • Description of the study effort associated with identification, definition, development, and refinement of urban design and multimodal transportation improvement concepts; • Explanation of methodology and evaluation criteria used; • Summary of recommended transportation and land use projects along with project descriptions, costs, benefits, and potential funding sources for each of the implementing entities; • Catalytic project and centers implementation strategy and marketing document; • Corridor Transect that includes concepts for both the public and private realm; • Complete fiscal impact analysis for the concept plan methodology; • Narrative on air quality benefits; • List of recommended projects prioritized in cooperation with the Steering Committee and the stakeholders; • Narrative on impacts and benefits to Environmental Justice populations; • Health impact assessment; • Sample ordinances, design manual, and agreement language needed for implementation , as applicable (include in appendix); • GISD Catalytic project proformas (include in appendix); • Any additional content deemed necessary by the CAMPO Project Manager. Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO: 1. Recommended concept for future development with integrated transportation concepts. 2. A minimum of five ground level and/or bird's eye level artistic renderings and/or computer generated photo simulations of (transportation) improvement concepts to help the public visualize recommended improvements of significance. 3. Suggested strategies to influence development toward achieving the concept plan. 4. Recommended near-, short-, medium - and long-term transportation projects to improve mobility in the study area. 5. Benefit cost analysis for each recommended project. 6. Identify potential funding sources for each project recommended. 7. Base maps showing the location, layout, and typical sections for each concept considered (one high resolution, reproducible digital copy). 8. Executive Summary of the study report with its high resolution, reproducible digital copy, Page 132 of 133 CAMPO and City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study 16 not to exceed five pages. (Word and PDF format). 9. Catalytic project and centers implementation marketing brief with its high resolution, reproducible digital copy, not to exceed two pages (Word and PDF format) for use in private realm development efforts. 10. All associated supporting documents located in the appendices. 11. Twenty-five (25) Hard Color Copies of the Final Report, Fifty (50) Hard Color Copies of the Executive Summary and Ten (10) Hard Color Copies Appendices. Final Report should be in 8.5’ X 11’ format. 12. All GIS, Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, MSWord, MS Excel, photo, graphics and other associated files. Page 133 of 133