Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_01.09.2015Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown January 9, 2015 at 10:00 AM at 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown Texas 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. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director F Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, PMP®, Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services. Legislative Regular Agenda G Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on December 11, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison H Consideration and possible action to approve the amended board bylaws in accordance with the revised Code of Ordinances – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney I Consideration and possible recommendation on a Resolution approving an Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and authorizing the Mayor to sign -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director J Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, for the construction of the CDBG – Madella Hilliard Sidewalk Improvements Project in the amount of $ $69,973.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. K Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order KHA-15-001 with Kimley- Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road Intersection Improvements in the amount of $79,955.06. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. L Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a task order with KPA of Georgetown, Texas, for the 2014-2015 CIP Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $184,605.00. – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager. M Discussion and possible recommendation for Council acceptance of the pavement condition assessment findings and report prepared by Kasberg, Patrick and Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas. Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 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 Austin Avenue Bridge Evaluation and Repairs FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue FM 971 Improvements in San Gabriel Park FM 1460 Improvements Project N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements OTP Update Sidewalk Master Plan Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Southwest Bypass Project (TIP #14C) Transit Study as Requested by City Council Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance GTEC Projects Project Update and Status Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GTAB Project Updates Exhibit GTEC Project Status Exhibit Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations  (North and South San Gabriel Rivers)  Project No. TBD     TIP Project No. N/A  January 2015  Unchanged  Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue  bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers.  The process will involve several  phases – I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and  evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project  budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents,  estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration.  Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long‐term vehicular  capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP    Element Status / Issues  Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action.  There are four basic  paths to consider:  Do Nothing.  Short Term Temporary Fix.  Medium Term Fix.  Replace  Structure.  Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed  reconstruction of the bridge.  Surveying  TBD  Environmental TBD during Phase II  Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street.  Utility Reloc’ns TBD (future)  Construction TBD  Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election;  Project submitted for CAMPO funding;  Project eligible for TxDOT Off‐System Bridge Replacement Program.    FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Realignment Intersection Improvements  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. QQ1  January 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 Working with TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding Agreement for plans review  and construction administration.    FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Improvements in San Gabriel Park  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. QQ1  January 2015  Unchanged  Project Description Design of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the moving of all park  amenities from the new FM 971 ROW.  Purpose To clear the ROW of park amenities and allow TxDOT review of the PS&E. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  N/A  Rights of Way Complete  Utility Relocations Complete  Construction Contractor had defaulted; Surety has a replacement contractor and work is back  under way; scheduled for completion in January 2015.  Other Issues See Construction, above.     FM 1460  Quail Valley Drive to University Drive  Project No. 5RB     TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc  January 2015  Unchanged  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 within the  next couple weeks for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels.  Acquired: 31  Pending: 3  Condemnation: 2  Total: 36  Utility Relocations Ongoing as ROW is being acquired.  Construction Bid opened August 2014  Construction scheduled to commence February 2015.  Other Issues None Pending    N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements  Rec Center to Georgetown High School  Project No. 1CV     TIP No. None  January 2015  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the sidewalk  improvements along N. Austin Avenue between the Georgetown Recreational Center and  Georgetown High School.  Purpose To provide a safe pedestrian route along North Austin avenue.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer URS Corporation    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way None  Utility Relocations None  Construction City and Contractor have completed the walk‐through and Contractor has the  punch list of remaining items of work.  Other Issues (Dec 2014) GTAB had asked about needing MBGF along Austin Avenue where the  new sidewalk and retaining wall cross the creek just north of the Dollar General  store.  Under AASHTO guidelines, slopes of 3:1 or flatter do not warrant  installation of MBGF.  The finished slope in this area is 4:1.    Overall Transportation Plan Update  January 2015  Project  Description  The updated OTP is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004  with the adoption of the initial OTP.  That document provided an analysis of  existing conditions and travel characteristics, a refined area‐wide travel demand  model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system and a revised  Thoroughfare Plan.  Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, Bill Dryden, P.E., Nat Waggoner, PMP® and Jordan Maddox,  AICP  Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Key  Accomplishments  • 2012 roadway network update completed.  • 11 of 13 project elements completed.  Final two elements (Chapters 8 and 9) are  under review and are nearly complete.  • OTP Chapter 6 has been updated to include 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and  Park’s Trails Master Plan by reference.  Upcoming Tasks Staff:  • Will present the DRAFT OTP to GTAB for its review and comments January  9th.  • Will present the DRAFT OTP to P&Z for its review and comments January 20th. • Will compile all comments and present the FINAL DRAFT OTP to GTAB  February 13th for its recommendation to Council.   • Will present the Final DRAFT OTP to Council February 24th for Public  Hearing and 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP.  • Will present 2nd Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP March 10th.  Issues Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has not yet adopted  the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan nor the 2010 Travel Demand Model  supporting that plan.  Once adopted, the 2040 plan and model will provide key  data which will allow supporting jurisdictions the opportunity to update their  transportation plans.  Georgetown transportation planning efforts will benefit from  updated modeling data and should pursue funding to update the 2012 data  currently informing the OTP.    Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit January 2015 Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of Georgetown City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future program requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan. Project Manager Nat Waggoner, PMP® Engineer HDR, Inc. Task Status / Issues Initiation - Task 1.3 – Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014. Planning - Task 6.2 – Public Meetings (Adoption) Execution - See below Task Name Start End ADA Reporting Criteria for Sidewalk Analysis May-14 Jun-14  Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports May-14 Jun-14  Self-Assessment Survey of Downtown District May-14 Jul-14  Data Collection and Field Inventory Jun-14 Aug-14  City Facilities Survey Jul-14 Sep-14  Sidewalk Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization May-14 Oct-14  Parks and Amenities Survey Nov-14 Jan-14 Ongoing Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May-14 Jan-15 Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Mar-15 ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Mar-15 Other Notes ADA  NOV–Transition Plan amendment planning audit by Altura Solutions  JAN –RAS review & recommended revisions complete  JAN –Staff input complete  FEB –Boards, Commissions and Council review  MAR–Adoption Project Website  Launched July 15, 2014 Open House #2  January 22, 2015, McCoy Elementary Library, 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Description Estimated Fee Priority 1 Projects $10,600,000 Priority 2 Projects $7,040,000 Priority 3 Projects $7,770,000 Remaining Sidewalk Master Plan Projects $244,590,000 Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study  (IH 35 to Rockride Lane)  Project No. None     Project No. None  January 2015  Project  Description    Develop preliminary design schematic alternatives, perform preliminary engineering and  prepare an engineering report for the Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design from I 35 to  Rockride Lane (CR 110) and Sam Houston Avenue.  Purpose To determine ultimate alignment, interim and ultimate engineer’s estimates of probable project  costs and ROW needs for the future SH 29 Bypass, connecting the westerly route (SH 29 to I 35)  with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue.  Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates      Element Status / Issues  Design Draft Final Report and Alignment were presented to GTAB in September; and were  forwarded to Council with a unanimous recommendation of the Board for adoption.  Surveying  TBD (future)  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD (future)  Rights of Way To be conceptually established during the preliminary schematic phase and further  refined through the design phases.  Utility  Relocations  TBD (future)  Construction TBD (future)  Other Issues The Final Report and Alignment will be presented to Council at its January 13th  meeting for adoption.    Southwest Bypass Project   (RM 2243 to IH 35)  Project No. 1CA     Project No. 14c  January 2015  Unchanged  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  Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility.  Alignment has been presented to staff and management.  Surveying  City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be  acquired from Texas Crushed Stone.  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD by preliminary engineering phase.  Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the  schematic design phase.  Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2  lanes of the ultimate roadway.  Other Issues None    Transit Study  as Requested by City Council   Project No. None     Project No. None  January 2015  Unchanged  Project  Description    Council Motion:  Discussion and possible direction to the City of Georgetownʹs Transportation  Advisory Board (GTAB) to conduct an analysis and make a recommendation to the City Council  no later than June 24, 2014 ,regarding the Cityʹs potential future participation in State and  Regional Transportation Organizations including the benefits, conditions, and justification which  would prompt the Cityʹs participation in Project Connect, Lone Star Rail and any other relevant  State and Regional Transportation Organizations that the City should be involved with ‐‐ Steve  Fought, Councilmember, District 4  Amended Motion:  1. The City Manager to determine what time and effort staff have available to conduct this type  of study over the next year.  If it is not in the Transportation Division, Planning Department,  Finance Department and/or City Manager’s Office work program, as outlined in the current  draft budget, can it be adequately staffed to complete this level of work over the next year?  2. Is the challenge to research Federal, State and Regional transportation organizations or is it  transit programs?  This direction to staff is assuming it is transit programs.  3. Narrow the specific analysis to programs that are actually authorized to receive Federal  formula and discretionary funding programs found within the current Federal Transit  Administration.  However, that would narrow the field down to three agencies or programs.   Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail and the State of Texas through the Texas Department of  Transportation.  CARTS is only a contractor to Capital Metro and provides certain 5310  transit opportunities to persons outside of the Capital Metro Service Area in our jurisdiction.   CAMPO, Project Connect, Project Connect North and My35 are simply planning programs  that include staff from Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, and TxDOT and  representatives from local governments.  4. The analysis should be based on how those planning programs will lead to funding through  the project delivery agencies.  (Fought amended to include financial risk and benefits to the City)  5. The Council should provide the Board and staff specifics on what type of economic analysis  data will lead to an ultimate decision by the City Council.  6. Finally, some people ‘can’t see what the final project would look like’ or ‘can’t see what a  Transit Oriented Development would look like.’  Years ago, when the City was looking at  transportation options and creating a TOD ordinance, there was a field trip to perform some  on the ground research.  Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and staff  (GTAB was not in existence at the time) went and stayed at a TOD to see for themselves.   We should have at least one field trip during this study.  Since it has been about 8 years or  so since that first and only field trip, it should be extremely informative to do it again and  see what a TOD looks like today and how the project has performed over the years.  Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved (6‐1) (Hesser opposed)    Project  Manager  Ed Polasek, AICP  Engineer TBD  Project Status Workplan Under Development    Transportation Services Operations  CIP Maintenance  January 2015  Project Description 2013/14‐2015 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, Steger Bizzell, Halff Assoc.  Task Status / Issues  2nd and 6th Street  Engineering  (KPA) 2nd St to College St plans are complete. Advertising, bidding and  construction will coincide with Parks and Recreation VFW Field  reconstruction project in approximately June / July minimizing disruption to  baseball season and to residents.  The engineer’s estimate is much greater than  the project budget.  Last year’s 2nd Street funds (scheduled to roll) were  utilized on additional 9th Street rehabilitation costs.  The 2nd Street project can  be bid and awarded by rolling and utilizing the funds for the 10th and 11th  Street construction scheduled for 2015.  Some of the downtown merchants  have expressed concerns about the constant disruptions of the ongoing  downtown rehabilitation.  Rolling the projects would give a one year break  from rehabilitation in this area.  9th Street  (Main to Rock)  (KPA) (Patin Construction)  Austin to Rock portion 98% completed.  A  separate electric contractor is working on the Austin Ave. to Main St. portion  placing additional underground conduit placement.  Patin is scheduled to  return to this section in early January when the conduit is in place.  Contractor  has worked hard to accommodate businesses during shopping season.   Chip Seal  2015 proposed Chip Seal (2015 CIP Presentation for January GTAB)  Fog Seal 2015 Fog sealing will be completed in‐house.  New product utilized by staff in  October is performing well.  Staff hopes to evaluate one more product  manufactured by Western Emulsions before Spring.  Cutler/overlay 2015 proposed Cutler Overlays (2015 CIP Presentation for January GTAB)  Pavement  Evaluation  KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP  presentation scheduled for January GTAB.  A final PCI report, 5 year CIP  roadway maintenance plan, and FY 15 CIP design task order will be presented to  GTAB on January 9th.      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 Engineer is completing the fencing plans, its required environmental clearance documents (to determine the fee for WCCF) and the construction PS&E bidding package. ROW has been acquired. On Schedule Unchanged 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350 Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual construction. We have reached agreement with the representative of the Guy/Knight properties. ROW Acquisition process moving to condemnation for the Weir Trust properties. Appraisals have been updated. Wolf property – Acquisition complete. On Schedule Unchanged 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Engineer is developing ROW strip map and In-process Unchanged 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 Construction scheduled to begin in February 2015. Utility coordination on-going as ROW is acquired. All appraisals are complete. Final offers have been made for all ROW parcels. The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring condemnation. As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings planned within the next couple weeks for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Utility Relocation Agreements were approved by Council at its October 28th meeting On Schedule 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 shall develop the ROW Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction PS&E in anticipation of future funding availability. On Schedule Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is complete; Awaiting ROW for water quality pond. On Schedule Unchanged 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100 Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed alignment and is working on the 30%PS&E. On Schedule Unchanged 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 January 2105 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-01.xlsx Page 1 of 2 12/29/2014 GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT January 2105 Current Economic Development Projects Project Type Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Budget Current Year Cost Current Year Available 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 - 2015-01.xlsx Page 2 of 2 12/29/2014 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Projects: CIP - Air Field Electrical Improvements Development and Timeline FAA Tower report Airport Monthly Financial FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CIP Backup Material Tower Backup Material Financial Backup Material Airfield Electrical Improvements Project No. 1314GRGTN January 2015 Project Description FY2014 project: Runways / taxiways lighting and signage. Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport lighting. Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Engineer Garver Engineering Notes: Construction progression report Construction period: 60 calendar days / nights. Estimated construction completion: Mid February 2015 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update January 2015 Project Description Georgetown Tower Update Purpose Tower Monthly Report Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Engineer Notes: Tower Facility Monthly Report Tower Takeoff and Landing Report. Item ____ Page _____ City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, PMP®, Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services. ITEM SUMMARY: This Plan is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a travel demand model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system, and a revised Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This update serves many purposes. It builds upon the previous plan, accommodates city wide changes, recommends new roadway locations and functional classifications, revises the implementation program and improves design recommendations through the implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions. The update also provides a review of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and outlines the requirements for future analysis and planning studies. Improvements offered for consideration include roadway widening and/or extensions, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The study involves an evaluation of various transportation improvements and considers the impacts related to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction, and right-of-way costs as well as environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the travel demand model has been updated and integrated with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2035 plan/model providing a more detailed transportation zone structure and socioeconomic data enabling a better forecast of future travel demands in and around the Georgetown area. The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of Georgetown Staff and other City-supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory Committee was not specifically set up for this effort, the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis. During each of the presentations, comments and suggestions were solicited and considered during completion of the OTP. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP® ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Executive Summary Cover Memo City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan Update 901 South MoPac Expressway Building V, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78746 Texas PE Firm Registration No. F-929 Project No. 0573.003.001 December 2014 ES-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a result of completion of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (CAMPO) 2035 Transportation Plan, the City of Georgetown has updated the City’s Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). The implementation of the OTP is critical in the overall development of the City as it guides future roadway improvements, construction of new facilities, and outlines the City’s transportation goals. The revision and adoption of the OTP is a deliberate and thoughtful process whose goal is the complete understanding of the relationship between land use and the transportation infrastructure required to support those land uses. The adoption of the OTP by ordinance, sets forth long term capital planning and financing considerations designed to ensure that basic transportation infrastructure needs and right-of-way will be available as the city grows and network needs improvements. STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This updated document is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a travel demand model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system, and a revised Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The 2004 OTP assisted the City in defining cross-sectional needs as well as access management and detailed intersection needs. Since the 2004 OTP, the City has experienced tremendous growth, including several major retail and residential developments. Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008 includes a revised Future Land Use Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for physical growth and land use within the City, the OTP provides guidelines for transportation management and development. These documents should be used in coordination with one another, not as separate competing documents. This update serves many purposes. It builds upon the previous plan, accommodates city wide changes, recommends new roadway locations and functional classifications, revises the implementation program and improves design recommendations through the implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions. The update also provides a review of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and outlines the requirements for future analysis and planning studies. ES-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update The transportation improvement recommendations are based on the projected 2035 travel demands. The implementation program categorizes improvements through short-term and long-term prioritization recommendations. The improvements already chosen for funding are identified as “near term” and those where funding, routing, and right-of-way have not been identified are considered “long term”. Improvements offered for consideration include roadway widening and/or extensions, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The study involves an evaluation of various transportation improvements and considers the impacts related to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction, and right-of-way costs as well as environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the travel demand model has been updated and integrated with the CAMPO’s 2035 plan/model providing a more detailed transportation zone structure and socioeconomic data enabling a better forecast of future travel demands in and around the Georgetown area. STUDY AREA The study area for the OTP includes the City of Georgetown city limits as well as the Extra Territorial Jurisdictional (ETJ) area, which typically extends one to two miles beyond the city’s limits. This area includes added roadways of which the City has sole control, including Williams Drive, Shell Road, D B Wood Road, and Inner Loop. These facilities provide critical connectivity for the residents within the City and, while there are some limitations, there are opportunities for roadway expansion. The study area is depicted in Figure ES-1. There are many transportation facilities within the city that are not under the City’s jurisdictional control. These include Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) facilities such as Interstate Highway 35, Business Highway 35 (Austin Avenue), State Highways 29 and 195, as well as the tolled State Highway 130. There are also state facilities that provide regional circulation – Farm-to-Market Roads 971, 972 and 1460, as well as Ranch-to-Market roads 2243 (Leander Road) and 2338 (Williams Drive). These facilities are outside of the purview of the City and as such, only limited improvements can be recommended. In addition, many roads are challenged by the surrounding geography and land uses such that improvement recommendations are extremely difficult and cost prohibitive to implement. Many of these facilities provide a critical link in the City’s overall development plan yet there is little opportunity for roadway improvement. §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Georgetown Round Roc k Cedar Par k ¬«29 Weir ¬«195 ¬«29 Lake Georgetown Study Area ²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles Figure ES-1 FM 971 U n i v e r s it y A v e . I n n e r L o o p C R 1 1 0 C R 1 5 0 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d . D B W o o d R d . W illia m s Dr. Airport Rd.S h ell R d .D el W e b b Blv d. S un City Blvd. Roads Rivers & Streams Lakes Round Rock Georgetown Georgetown ETJ Weir Cedar Park FM 1460 RM 2243 Path: G:\0573.003.001 Finalize OTP Updates\07.00 CADD\Revised Exhibits_2014_12_11\ES-1 Study Area.mxd ES-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update STUDY PARTICIPANTS The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of Georgetown Staff and other City-supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory Committee was not specifically set up for this effort, the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis. During each of the presentations, comments and suggestions were solicited and considered during completion of the OTP. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Four public meetings were held, inviting the public to learn about the project and the changes that have occurred city wide since the previously adopted OTP. Two meetings were held on April 13, 2010 and two were held on November 10, 2010. On April 13, one meeting occurred in the morning at Sun City and the second meeting occurred that evening at the City of Georgetown offices. There were a total of 20 people in attendance at these two meetings. Individuals were invited to discuss issues and concerns as they related to the Georgetown transportation system and network, including the existing roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle trails/paths, and transit needs/usage. The meeting attendees were asked to provide input regarding all aspects of the updated OTP. The feedback received at the first two meetings was analyzed and a second set of public meetings was held in November 2010 to present the recommended roadway improvements. As with the April 2010 meetings, the morning meeting was held at Sun City and the evening meeting was held at the City of Georgetown offices. There were approximately 20 people at the morning session and four people at the evening session. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals established as part of this study will mirror those set forth in the previous 2004 plan as well as the overriding transportation goals from the recently completed 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the OTP is to develop a transportation system that is safe, efficient and economically feasible and will accommodate present and future needs for mobility of all people and goods traveling within and through the Georgetown area. This goal will be revisited during subsequent updates, but will remain unchanged; only the underlying objectives will be further refined. A ES-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update secondary goal of this study is to review the existing pedestrian/bicycle plans and recommend further planning development and programming needs. These recommendations provide a foundation on which to build a more complete system through the implementation and adoption of a comprehensive bicycle and sidewalk plan. The following goals and objectives established in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provided the framework for the development of the OTP. They establish the community values and aspirations, as they relate to transportation, in each of four main themes: quality of life, sustainable development, balanced transportation/efficient mobility, and effective governance. The transportation goals and objectives are: · Implement improvements to the local road and traffic control system, including new thoroughfare linkages to enhance connectivity, improved and coordinated traffic signalization, standards for access management to enhance traffic flow and safety. · Progress toward a functional, well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system that provides a variety of choices – bicycle, public transportation, and pedestrian – on a local and regional level. · Reduce reliance on single-occupant automobile traffic by retrofitting bicycle lanes and sidewalks in underserved areas to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility; incorporating these facilities in new developments; and encouraging compact mixed-use and other “walkable” development types. · Guide the future growth and development of the City toward a more balanced approach between employment and commercial centers, schools and other high traffic generators. As further refined by the stakeholders, the following goals and objectives were set forth to guide the development of the OTP: 1. Provide for a high degree of safety for motorists, transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists 2. The transportation system should be a total system approach, incorporating the various modes of transportation in appropriate combination, based on analysis of travel demand and consideration of community costs, benefits and needs. ES-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update a. Roadway facilities should be planned and classified by function and relative importance, providing a proper balance of freeways, toll ways, expressways, major/minor arterials, collectors and local streets. b. Through traffic should be encouraged and accommodated on the classified roadway network and discouraged on collectors and local neighborhood streets. c. The most efficient use of existing and future highway and street facilities should be encouraged to maximize the benefits of capital investments. 3. The transportation system should consider planned development patterns, accessibility and mobility needs. a. Improve overall accessibility to employment, education, public facilities, downtown and other activity centers b. Provide access between all developed areas of the region and connections to other cities and facilities in the region c. Minimize disruption of existing and planned developments and establish community patterns d. Consider development potential within and beyond the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) for the design years and provide tools to assess the impacts of growth to assist the decision making. This includes the recently adopted CAMPO Growth Center model, the specifics of which are discussed further within this report. 4. Meet the area’s long range transportation needs. a. Establish the procedures for monitoring the OTP and provide for periodic updating and revision. The OTP should be updated on a pre-scheduled annual basis to allow for incorporation of all new developments and roadway projects. It should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in land use planning for the City of Georgetown and other unforeseen changes and conditions. b. Preserve right-of-way for future roadway development and expansion. ES-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update c. Transportation planning should be performed within the framework of comprehensive regional planning and should support regional growth and development goals. d. Provide for an orderly improvement and expansion of the roadway system at a minimum cost as the need for improvement arises. 5. Consideration should be given to social and environmental impacts. a. Minimize air and water pollution, noise and other environmental impacts of transportation improvement and new facility construction and reduce negative impacts when possible. b. Minimize the impacts social impacts to particular areas of the City. All roadway improvement recommendations should not be concentrated in a single location. As much as possible they should be equitable across the City. TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT The primary focus of the updated OTP is the development and refinement of the existing Travel Demand Model (TDM). Using this travel demand model, existing and forecasted future traffic demands on the transportation network were determined. For this study both the completed 2035 CAMPO model and the existing Georgetown TDM were used. The CAMPO model was used to project future traffic demands on a regional basis and the existing roadway network was obtained from the Georgetown TDM. These two models were combined to complete the refined Georgetown network using 2035 regional data in conjunction with the existing Georgetown model network. The refined Georgetown network has been input into the existing TDM and was defined further to include areas that had been annexed and/or developed since completion of the 2004 OTP. Once completed, both models (CAMPO and Georgetown) work in coordination with one another providing not only a regional review of roadway operating conditions, but a more localized analysis based solely on the refined Georgetown network. ES-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Roadway functional classification refers to the hierarchical arrangement between roadways and the interaction therein. The City of Georgetown UDC uses eight distinct classifications; Alley, Residential Lane, Residential Local Street, Residential and Major Collector, Minor and Major Arterial, and Freeway. Each classification has a distinct function in terms of allowing movement in and around the City of Georgetown. For example, alleys serve local residences, providing access to and from individual residences at low speeds and volumes. In comparison, freeways primarily provide regional access, traveling across town or connecting Georgetown to other cities within the region. Those roadway classifications within the study area are depicted in Figure ES-2. §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Georgetown Round Roc k Cedar Par k ¬«29 Weir ¬«195 ¬«29 Lake Georgetown Existing Functional Classification ²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles Figure ES-2 FM 971 U n i v e r s it y A v e . I n n e r L o o p C R 1 1 0 C R 1 5 0 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d . D B W o o d R d . W illia m s Dr. Airport Rd.S h ell R d .D el W e b b Blv d. S un City Blvd. Freeways/Frontage Roads Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Roads Rivers & Streams Georgetown Georgetown ETJ Round Rock Weir Cedar Park Lakes Path: G:\0573.003.001 Finalize OTP Updates\07.00 CADD\Revised Exhibits_2014_12_11\ES-2 Existing Functional Classification.mxd RM 2243 FM 1460 ES-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Using the refined TDM, a detailed roadway analysis was completed. This analysis, commonly referred to as a Level of Service (LOS) analysis, is used to evaluate existing and projected traffic volumes on the study area roadways. Once the operating conditions have been analyzed, an operational LOS is assigned to each roadway link. There are six LOS capacity conditions for each roadway facility, designated “A” through “F”. This is much like a rating system with roadway segments ranked from LOS A (representing a free-flow optimal condition) to LOS F (representing a congested forced flow condition). As proposed within the OTP, LOS D is the threshold at which a roadway operates at or above acceptable conditions. Currently the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code has a threshold of LOS C; however, this is primarily for peak hour intersection conditions. Improvements are easier to make at intersections as opposed to roadway segments because attaining LOS C is more difficult and costly. Typically LOS D is utilized in more urbanized areas. As the City of Georgetown continues to grow, this LOS threshold may need to be evaluated. LOS D is a more realistic performance measure to achieve in roadway operations, and as such, it is the recommended goal threshold. Under existing conditions, most roadways operate at or better than LOS D. There are some exceptions, primarily segments of Williams Drive and SH 29. A number of segments associated with these roadways are operating at LOS E or LOS F. FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT As was highlighted within the CAMPO 2035 plan, the City of Georgetown is expected to experience significant growth and development. With this influx of residential developments and the myriad commercial/office developments, population and employment are projected to increase. It is anticipated that Georgetown will attain a population level of at least 100,000 residents by 2030, a substantial increase from 47,400 residents in 2010. This has significant funding and control implications for the City, from control of all traffic signals to funding a separate/independent transit system. Thus, the need for transportation infrastructure improvements becomes paramount. ES-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update As part of the CAMPO 2035 Plan, the concept of Activity Centers was developed. This concept evolved out of the Envision Central Texas (ECT) initiative that began in the early 2000s and has spurred a number of new ideas to improve the way Central Texas grows into the future. The preferred growth pattern developed through the scenario planning effort of the ECT identified key areas where future population and employment growth could be developed into walkable activity centers around the region. Within the Georgetown city limits and ETJ, there is only one activity center. Another 36 activity centers are located in the surrounding Central Texas region, including one large center, 13 medium centers, and 23 small centers. The Georgetown activity center is medium and is centered on the proposed location of the planned Lone Star rail station in the City’s southeast quadrant. Since the ECT was initiated and the scenario planning efforts were accomplished, CAMPO has adopted these concepts and integrated them into their growth projections for 2035. The following descriptions were adapted from CAMPO’s 2035 Regional Growth Concept report from May 2007. The large growth area is the Austin Central City, which consists of the central business district (CBD), the Capitol, and the University of Texas. This area has the region’s highest amount of housing, jobs and recreational opportunities. It has a radius of approximately two miles and has the potential to contain a population of at least 125,000 and employment of 200,000 in 2035. The medium growth areas (within the Georgetown city limits) are large regional cores that are major centers for population and employment in the future. They have a radius of approximately one mile and have the potential to contain a population in the range of 9,000 to 75,000. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, the Georgetown Activity Center had 1,400 employees in 2005. The potential for this area ranges from 9,000 to 40,000 employees in full build-out. The small growth areas are smaller centers that are more focused on serving medium-sized communities and neighborhoods. In most instances, these centers have a key transit node that connects to the larger regional transportation network. These small activity centers have a radius of approximately ½ mile and have the potential to contain a population in the range of 2,000 to 10,000 and employment of 2,000 to 10,000. ES-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS The roadway design standards presented below in Figure ES-3 represent the minimum criteria required to support the City’s rights-of-way preservation and roadway spatial planning needs as well as ensure the functionality of the City’s transportation network. The minimum criteria prescribed by this Plan includes utility location reservation, the total number of lanes and their width, median widths, parking allowances, bike lanes and sidewalks per roadway functional classification. Although the Plan recommends a typical cross-section design for each of the functional classifications, this Plan does recognize the value in providing guidelines that are flexible and complement the City’s varying land uses and community characteristics. The OTP provides roadway design flexibility through the incorporation of Context Sensitive Solutions; allowing alternating configuration of those minimum criteria which support the density and urban form achieved through the City’s development code. 12'12'12'25'MEDIAN12'12'12' 110' VAR IES ROW = 135' MINIMUM 22' MEDIAN 12'12'12'12' 80' ROW = 110' MINIMU M 14.5'14.5'8' 45' 14'14' ROW = 73' MINIMUM 10.5'10.5'8'14'14' 37' ROW = 65' MINIMUM 8.0'6'8'6'11' BORDERAREA 11' 8'8' 28' ROW = 50' MINIMUM BORDERAREA PARK PARK BORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREABORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREA PARK PARK VARIES VARIESVARIES 1 1 1 1 1 3 NOTES: FAC E OF CUR B TO FACE OF CURB. Major ArterialADT > 24,000 Minor ArterialADT > 12,500 ADT > 2,500Major Collector Residential CollectorADT > 800 5' BIKE BIKE 5' 5' BIKE 5' BIKE 2 REQUIR ED, PENDING ADOPTION OF FU TU RE FIREC OD E WHICH CALLSFOR MINIMUM 32' ROADWAY. OPTIONS FOR 3 AND 4 LANE CON FIGURATIONS. 2 SEE CHAPTER 2 FOR COLLECTOR 1 PAVEMENT MEASUREMENTS ARE 3 UPDATES TO WIDTH MAY BE Functional Classification SystemCross-Sections Figure ES-3 Path: G :\0573.003.001 Finalize O TP Updates\07.00 CADD\Revised Exhibits_2014_12_11\ES-3 Cross-Sections.mxd NOTES: PAVEMEN T MEASUREMENTS ARE FACE OF C UR B TO FACE OF CURB. SEE CH APTER 2 FOR COLLECTOR OPT ION S FOR 3 AND 4 LANE C ONF IG UR AT IO NS. U PDATES TO WIDTH MAY BE REQU IRED , PENDING ADOPTION OF F UTU RE FIR ECODE WHICH CALLS F OR MIN IMU M 32' ROADWAY. 1 2 3 28' ES-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS OVERVIEW In an on-going effort to coordinate transportation engineering and planning efforts, a national dialogue has been established to move toward the implementation of CSS applications to new roadway projects. CSS is a philosophy that guides public agencies and private entities in all phases of project development, from planning through project scoping, design and into construction and maintenance. CSS strives for outcomes that meet transportation service and safety needs in addition to environmental, scenic, aesthetic, cultural, natural resource and community needs. Context sensitive projects recognize community goals, and are planned, scoped, designed, built and maintained while minimizing disruption to the community and the environment. CSS is not an aesthetic treatment; rather, it involves development of a transportation solution that fits into the project’s surroundings. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended transportation plan for the City of Georgetown has been developed based on three primary components: community input, community needs and TDM results. Subsidiary inputs to the TDM ultimately determined what recommendations were made. These inputs included forecasted future traffic volumes, network continuity, future developments (based upon adopted future land use plan), corridor preservation and access management. The recommendations included in this Plan are for both roadway extensions and widening, as well as for construction of new roadways. While many of these recommendations have been previously identified, there are a number of new projects that have developed because of the growth and development that has occurred and is projected to continue. All identified roadway improvement projects are listed in Chapter 5 and the 2035 proposed thoroughfare plan is shown in Figure ES-4. PLAN ADOPTION Once the public has had an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations, the updated OTP will be finalized and implementation strategies will be developed. It is imperative that the Plan be fully adopted by the City Council and GTAB in order to recognize the development of the OTP as part of the City’s policies and guidelines. ES-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update PLAN AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES The OTP is developed through a deliberate, thoughtful and collaborative process. It forecasts needs based on existing conditions and assumptions and therefore is critical that it remain a flexible and working document. Acknowledging that as land uses, economic environment, and travel demand needs evolve over time, amendments to the adopted network may be warranted. The recommendations provided herein set forth long term financing and technical design work flows for both public and private sector activities. Changes to the City’s transportation infrastructure plan must recognize and fully understand the affect those changes will have on private and public interests. Modifications to the recommended transportation networks described by this OTP should only result from similar, deliberate and technical studies and the appropriate public processes set forth in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Georgetown Round Roc k Cedar Par k ¬«29 Weir ¬«195 ¬«29 Lake Georgetown Proposed 2035 Thoroughfare Plan Figure ES-4 FILE PATH: G:\0573.003.000 OTP Update\07.00 CADD\GIS Exhibits\ES-4 2035Functional Classification.m xd F M 9 7 1 U N I V E R S I T Y A V E I N N E R L O O P W E S T I N G H O U S E R D D B W O O D R D WILLIA M S D R AIRPORT RDSHELL R D D E L W E B B B L V D S U N CIT Y B L V D Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Collector Proposed Freeway Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Collector \\\Proposed Rail Local Roads Cedar Park Round Rock Weir Georgetown Georgetown ETJ F M 1 4 6 0 RM 2 2 4 3 ²0 1 2Miles City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on December 11, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison ITEM SUMMARY: Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on December 11, 2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Minutes Backup Material Notice of Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas December 11, 2014 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 Hesser – Secretary, Scott Rankin, John Pettitt, Steve Johnston Board Members Absent: David Johnson, Ray Armour, Chris H’Luz, Rachel Jonrowe – Vice Chair, Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Micki Rundell, Ed Polasek, Wes Wright, Jana Kern, Bridget chapman, Bill Dryden Mark Miller, Curtis Benkendorfer, Vickie Graff, Matt Synatschk, Paul Diaz, Nat Waggoner Others Present: John Milford Ron Bindas, Robert Meeker – ACC, Trae Sutton –KPA Engineering, Josh Crawford – Garver Engineering, Raymond Chan – Chan & Partners Engineering Regular Session A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board Meeting to order on Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 10:00 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: The new Airport Manager will start in January 2015 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. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Tr ansportation Services Director. Persons signed up to speak on this item: John Milford - See presentation at the end of these minutes. F. Presentation and Discussion of DRAFT Elements of the Sidewalk Master Plan. – Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Waggoner gave a brief overview then gave a power point presentation to the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: G. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on November 14, 2014 – Jana Kern Motion by Hesser, second by Pettitt to approve the minutes as presented. Approved Unanimous 5-0 (Jonrowe, Johnson, Armour, H’Luz absent) H. Consideration and possible recommendation on a contract for professional engineering services with Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $425,207.43. – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Wright stated that Council approved an agreement with the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for a flood protection planning grant in August 2014. The grant provided for a 50/50 cost sharing (up to $200,000) for an updated drainage study and flood protection planning for the following basins: Berry Creek, Mankins Branch, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River Chan & Partners was instrumental in preparing the successful grant application and has completed multiple drainage studies for the city over the past decade. Additionally, they have successfully completed multiple TWDB grant programs in the past. The results of the study will include a more accurate floodplain boundar y for the basins noted above. Also, the study will provide recommended improvements for inclusion in the drainage capital improvement plan focused on reducing potential future flooding. Finally, the study will be built on updated topographical data to be acquired as part of this project, and usable on a multitude of city projects and master plans. Motion by Pettitt, second by Rankin to approve contract with Chan & Partners, LLC in the amount of $425,207.43. Approved Unanimous 5-0 (Jonrowe, Johnson, Armour, H’Luz absent) I. Discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation for the adoption of a Sidewalk Accessibility Ordinance. – Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Synatschk gave the board a brief explanation of the ordinance. Motion by Pettitt, second by Johnston to adopt the Sidewalk Accessibility Ordinance. Approved Unanimous 5-0 (Jonrowe, Johnson, Armour, H’Luz absent) J. Discussion and possible recommendation on Appraisal Report prepared by Airport & Aviation Appraisals, Inc. regarding Market Rate Analysis and Rate Schedule for leasing Georgetown Municipal Airport facilities. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Action Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Manager Polasek stated the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) operates from the Airport Fund to provide maintenance and operations as well as match to TxDOT and FAA grants. The Airport fund has two sources of revenue - fuel sales and lease payments. The Georgetown Airport Business Analysis recommended Short-Term Financial Improvements for GTU that included modifying the lease rates to market conditions to provide a return that covered debt service for the facilities as well as maintenance and return on investment coverage. Federal Aviation Administration guidelines require that lease rates at a municipal airports lease rates be based on a market analysis, along with cost of maintenance and debt coverage considerations. In July 2010, the T-Hanger, Tiedown and Hanger A rates were increased by City Council Action, from the 2002 level by 10%. Another 10% adjustment was made in 2012, based on the procedure adopted in 2010. In October of 2014, another adjustment was scheduled based on CPI - W increase from October 2012 to October 2014. Never once was the rate or adjustment made based on a market analysis created from an appraisal of the facilities. Airport & Aviation Appraisals, Inc. were contracted to complete the market analysis and provide recommended rates for consideration to the City. The Market Rate Analysis provides a proposed Rate Schedule for GTU to bring the current lease rates to current market value. If approved, staff will use the updated lease rates to complete the Contract and Lease forms prepared by legal to complete one of the Finance/Legal general best practice recommendations from the Business Case Analysis. Mr. Diaz then gave the Board a power point presentation. Motion by Johnston, second by Hesser to approve the Market Analysis report and to move it forward to City Council. Approved Unanimous 5-0 (Jonrowe, Johnson, Armour, H’Luz absent) Adjournment Motion by Pettitt, second by Rankin to adjourn meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:48 AM Approved: Attested: _______________________ ______________________ Truman Hunt - Chair John Hesser – Secretary _________________________________ Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison GTAB MEETING - 121114 AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS AND TIME LINES POINT PAPER 34th ACC presentation since February 2014 Name: John Milford As the year draws to a close, I ask you once more to consider implementing in 2015 the eight requests, made by ACC, for action to monitor expansion of operations at the Georgetown Airport. To date these request remain ignored by the board. These requests are as follows:  place a hold on Airport CIP funding pending citizen consensus of program;  proved a bar chart at GTAB monthly presentations on status of Airport CIP;  conduct staff briefings on 12 acre airport property condemnation proj ect;  conduct off-agenda Workshops between GTAB, staff and public on Airport CIP;  contract a professional engineering study for viable regional airport as alternative to the current airport program for use in citizen consensus process;  contract a professional consultant for management of the citizen consensus process;  select a City Council committee for oversight and management of the two requested professional contracts;  provide documentation of any workshops or hearings held pursuant to Federal regulations for FAA federal funded capital programs. This Monday I was reminded of how important, it should be, to conduct an engineering study that looks at the possibility of relocating the airport outside the city of Georgetown. Monday, at the Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg, MD a small jet crashed into a house on its way to the airport. The crash killed three people on the private jet and three others, a mother and two small children, in a house near the airport. Montgomery County Airpark is similar to Georgetown's airport in size and operations. The airport became completely surrounded by homes, schools, churches and business's as the community experienced explosive growth. Now, unlike Georgetown, there is no land available to even consider relocating the Montgomery County Airpark. You might say that won’t happen here. As Georgetown continues to grow and the airport expands operations it too will become completely surrounded by homes, schools, churches and business's. The likely hood of a disastrous crash will increase as well. Since 1983 there have been 29 crashes with 9 people killed at Georgetown's airport. At least four of those crashes occurred off airport grounds. I can recall 3 crashes, with one death, in the Seranada and Sanaloma communities. Yes, it can and mostly likely will happen again... City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the amended board bylaws in accordance with the revised Code of Ordinances – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: The City Council revised the Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.113 regarding the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board on November 11, 2014. The Board Bylaws are being amended to conform with the revisions made to Chapter 2.113 and are submitted to the Board for review at this time. The Bylaws will be submitted to the City Council for review and approval in February 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Legal ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Ordinance Ordinance RedLine Bylaws Backup Material Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 1 of 8 CITY OF GEORGETOWN GEORGETOWN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD BYLAWS ARTICLE I. NAME AND PURPOSE Section 1.1. Name. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (“Board” or “GTAB”). Section 1.2. Purpose. a. The purpose and goals of the Board are toshall be: 1. To assist in the development of a continuing, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation planning process carried on cooperatively with State and local transportation agencies in concurrence with State and Federal guidelines; 2. To advise the City Council on the status of the needs identified through the continuing multi-modal transportation planning process; 2.3. To facilitate coordination and communication between policy boards and agencies represented on the Board; 3.4. To assist the general public in understanding transportation decisions and policies of the boards; 4.5. To act as a conduit for cooperative decision making by transportation officials of this urbanized area in cooperation with Federal, State, Rregional, state, cCounty, and local transportation agencies, thereby serving as the basis for a cooperativean integrative transportation planning process; 5.6. To review items related to transportation improvements, transportation modeling, transportation development, transportation planning, and transportation infrastructure, and stormwater and conveyance systems, including, but not limited to, streets, roads, sidewalks, highways, freeways, aviation, transit services, and rail; Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 2 of 8 7. To review items related to safety, construction, leases, charges, maintenance and the operation of the airport; 6.8. examine To review/recommend various potential funding mechanisms to conduct necessary transportation improvements and projects; and 7.9. To make recommendations and advise the City Council on the status of the needs identified through the continuing multi-modal transportation planning processmatters requiring Council action or direction as prepared by staff for Council consideration; See Ordinance Chapter 2.113. b. Based on Council established short-term and long-term goals and objectives for the transportation planning process; tThe responsibilities of the Board shall include to review and recommend: 1. Establishment of short-term and long-term goals and objectives for the approval of transportation planning projects for the Cityprocess; 2. Review and recommend approval of transportation planning, design, and implementation projects for the City; 3. Review and recommend approval of leases, rates and other revenue options related to transportation and stormwater utilities; 2.4. Review and recommend changes to the Urbanized Area Boundary, the Transportation Planning Area Boundary and the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP), Airport Master Plan, and other special area transportation, stormwater, and drainage studies; 3.5. Review and recommend changes to the adopted Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Plan; and 4.6. Review and recommend approval of the City's Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP) for multi-modal capital and operating expenditures to insure coordination between local, countyCounty, regional Regional and state State capital and operating improvement programs. See Ordinance Chapter 2.113. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 3 of 8 ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP Section 2.1. Number of Members. The Board will be comprised of seven (7)consist of nine (9) Members. Section 2.2. Eligibility. Each All Members shall reside in the City of Georgetown corporate City limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City. Two members shall be Members of the City Council; and two Members shall have expertise in the aviation field; and oOne Member shall be from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), preferably the ChairmanChairperson; and . Oone Member shall be from the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission, preferably the ChairmanChairperson; and the remaining three Members shall be citizens appointed in accordance with the City Charter. No more than two Board Members will be members of the City Council. Section 2.3. Appointment of Board Members. Members of the Board shall be appointed pursuant to and in accordance with the City Charter. Section 2.4. Terms of Office. Generally, terms of office for each Member shall be two (2) years. Generally, a Member may serve two (2) consecutive terms. Refer to Ordinance Section 2.36.030A for additional provisions regarding terms of office. Section 2.5. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur during a term shall be filled as soon as reasonably possible and in the same manner as an appointment in accordance with the City Charter. If possible, the Member shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled. An appointment to fill a vacated term is not included as a term for purposes of counting consecutive terms. Section 2.6. Compensation and Expenditure of Funds. Members serve without compensation. The Board and its Members have no authority to expend funds or to incur or make an obligation on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by the City Council. Members may be reimbursed for expenses authorized and approved by the City Council and the Board. Section 2.7. Compliance with City Policy. Members will comply with City Ordinances, Rules and Policies applicable to the Board and the Members, including but not limited to Ethics Ordinance Chapter 2.20 and City Commissions, Committees and Boards Ordinance Chapter 2.36. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 4 of 8 Section 2.8. Removal. Any Member may be removed from their position on the Board for any reason, or for no reason, by a majority vote of the City Council. ARTICLE III. BOARD OFFICERS Section 3.1. Officers. The Board Officers are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Chairman is appointed by the City Council during the annual appointment process. The other Board Officers are elected by a majority vote of the Members at the first meeting after the annual appointment process. Section 3.2. Terms of Office for Board Officers. Board Officers serve for a term of one year. In the event of vacancy in the office of Chairman, the Vice-Chairman shall serve as Chairman until the City Council appoints a replacement Chairman. A vacancy in the other offices shall be elected by majority vote of the Members at the next regularly scheduled meeting, or as soon as reasonably practical for the unexpired term. If possible, a Board Officer shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled. Section 3.3. Duties. a. The Chairman presides at Board meetings. The Chairman shall generally manage the business of the Board. The Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Chairman by the Board. b. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Vice-Chairman by the Board. The Vice-Chairman presides at Board meetings in the Chairman’s absence. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman in the Chairman’s absence or disability. c. The Secretary shall perform the duties delegated to the Secretary by the Board. ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS Section 4.1. Time and Date of Regular Meeting. The Board shall meet once a month on the same week of the month, the same day of the week, at the same time, and at the same place. The regular date, time and place of the Board meeting will be decided by the Members at the first meeting of the Board after the annual appointment process. Section 4.2. Agenda. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman, the City Manager or designee, or at the request of a Member. The party (or individual) Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 5 of 8 requesting the agenda item will be responsible for preparing an agenda item cover sheet and for the initial presentation at the meeting. Items included on the agenda must be submitted to the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the Board meeting at which the agenda item will be considered. Agenda packets for regular meetings will be provided to the Members in advance of the scheduled Board meeting. Agenda packets will contain the posted agenda, agenda item cover sheets, and written minutes of the last meeting. Section 4.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman or by three (3) Members. Section 4.4. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members. A quorum is required for the Board to convene a meeting and to conduct business at a meeting. Section 4.5. Call to Order. Board meetings will be called to order by the Chairman or, if absent, by the Vice-Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice- Chairman, the meeting shall be called to order by the Secretary, and a temporary Chairman shall be elected to preside over the meeting. Section 4.6. Conduct of Meeting. Board meetings will be conducted in accordance with these Bylaws and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures, as applicable to the Board. See Ordinance Chapter 2.24. Section 4.7. Voting. Each Member shall vote on all agenda items, except on matters involving a conflict of interest, substantial financial interest or substantial economic interest under state law, the City’s Ethics Ordinance, or other applicable Laws, Rules and Policies. In such instances the Member shall make the required disclosures and shall refrain from participating in both the discussion and vote on the matter. The Member may remain at the dais or leave the dais, at the Member’s option, while the matter is being considered and voted on by the other Board Members. Unless otherwise provided by law, if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved by a majority of the Board Members present at the meeting. Section 4.8. Minutes. A recording or written minutes shall be made of all open sessions of Board meetings. The Staff Liaison is the custodian of all Board records and documents. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 6 of 8 Section 4.9. Attendance. Members are required to attend Board meetings prepared to discuss the issues on the agenda. A Member shall notify the Chairman and the Staff Liaison if the Member is unable to attend a meeting. Excessive absenteeism will be subject to action under Council policy and may result in the Member being replaced on the Board. See Ordinance Section 2.36.010D. Excessive absenteeism means failure to attend at least 75% of regularly scheduled meetings, including Board meetings and Subcommittee meetings. If a Member is removed from the Board that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be appointed to the Board in accordance with Section 2.5 above. Section 4.10. Public Participation. In accordance with City policy, the public is welcome and invited to attend Board meetings and to speak on any item on the agenda. A person wishing to address the Board must sign up to speak in accordance with the policy of the Council concerning participation and general public comment at public meetings. Sign-up sheets will be available and should be submitted to the Chairman prior to the start of the meeting. If any written materials are to be provided to the Board, a copy shall also be provided to the Staff Liaison for inclusion in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers shall be allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak, but may take up to six minutes if another individual who signs up to speak yields the time to the speaker. If a person wishes to speak on an issue that is not posted on the agenda, they must file a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the scheduled meeting. The written request must state the specific topic to be addressed and include sufficient information to inform the Board and the public. A person who disrupts the meeting may be asked to leave and be removed. Section 4.11. Open Meetings. Public notice of Board meetings shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. All Board meetings and deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Section 4.12. Closed Sessions. The Board may conduct closed sessions as allowed by law, on properly noticed closed session matters, such as consultation with attorney on legal matters, deliberation regarding the value of real property, competitive utility matters, and economic development negotiations. A recording or certified agenda shall be made of all closed sessions of Board meetings. ARTICLE V. REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 7 of 8 The Board shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how the Board may best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports from the Board at regularly scheduled Council meetings. ARTICLE VI. SUBCOMMITTEES Section 6.1. Formation. When deemed necessary by a majority of the Board, Subcommittees may be formed for specific projects related to Board matters. Subcommittees comprised of non-Members may only be formed with the prior consent and confirmation of the City Council. Section 6.2. Expenditure of Funds. No Subcommittee, or member of a Subcommittee, has the authority to expend funds or incur an obligation on behalf of the City or the Board. Subcommittee expenses may be reimbursed if authorized and approved by the Board or by City Council. Section 6.3. Open Meetings. Subcommittee meetings and deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. ARTICLE VII. BYLAW AMENDMENTS These Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the Board Members at any regular meeting of the Board. The Board’s proposed amendments to the Bylaws must be approved by City Council at the next Council meeting after the Board’s approval. Bylaw amendments are not effective until approved by City Council. Approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of ____________________, 20__.15. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN _____ _____ City Secretary Mayor Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Bylaws Revised May 2011February 2015 Page 8 of 8 Approved and adopted at a meeting of the Board on the ______ day of _________________, 20____.15. ATTEST: BOARD _____ _____ Board Secretary Board Chairman City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation on a Resolution approving an Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and authorizing the Mayor to sign -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director ITEM SUMMARY: In 2014, the City was awarded a grant from the TWDB for flood protection planning of all the city's major watersheds except the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River. The reason for their exclusion was the fact that the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River watershed boundaries extend far outside of Georgetown's regulatory limits. Staff is requesting permission to submit an application under the TWDB's most recent Request for Applications for Flood Protection Planning. Similar to the previously awarded grant, the terms would require a 50/50 match between the applicant and the TWDB. In this instance, the City of Georgetown would be co-applicants with the City of Liberty Hill, the City of Leander, and Williamson County. All three entities have agreed to participate in the grant application with the intention of sharing the required match based on each entity's proportional watershed area. If awarded, an interlocal agreement between entities as well as funding would be considered in next year's (FY 16) annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the TWDB Flood Protection Planning grant application for the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City of Georgetown's proportional share of the required match, based on watershed area would be approximately $200,000. If the grant is awarded, these funds can be programmed through our normal CIP process. SUBMITTED BY: Wesley Wright ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Backup Material TWDB Request for Applications Backup Material Resolution # TWDB Flood Protection Planning Grant January 27, 2015 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, (“City”) Authorizing the submittal of an application to the Texas Water Development Board for a Flood Protection Planning Grant WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) published a request for applications for flood protection planning, pursuant to 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §355.3, in November 2014; and WHEREAS, the TWDB offers grants to political subdivisions of the State of Texas for the evaluation of structural and non-structural solutions to flooding problems with consideration of flood protection need of the entire watershed(s); and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, has the authority to apply for a grant, enter into a contract and participate in a study with the Texas Water Development Board for this planning grant program; and WHEREAS, the proposed planning study would be conducted in order to adequately evaluate the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River and the watersheds located within and outside the City of Georgetown. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policies. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown finds it to be in the best interest of the citizens of Georgetown to submit an application to the Texas Water Development Board for potential grant funds to conduct a fold protection planning study. SECTION 3. The City of Georgetown will commit local matching funds of $200,000 cash and in-kind services toward the regional study. SECTION 4. The mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City Secretary is authorized to attest thereto, on behalf of the City of Georgetown. Resolution # TWDB Flood Protection Planning Grant January 27, 2015 Page 2 of 2 This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption Resolved this the day of January, 2015. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica E. Brettle, City Secretary Dale Ross, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney <<Prev Document Next Document>> AGENCY Texas Water Development Board ISSUE 11/07/2014 ACTION Miscellaneous Request for Applications for Flood Protection Planning The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) requests, pursuant to 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §355.3, the submission of applications leading to the possible award of contracts to develop flood protection plans for areas in Texas from political subdivisions with the legal authority to plan for and abate flooding and which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Protection Planning Grant applications may be submitted by eligible political subdivisions from any area of the State and will be considered and evaluated. In addition, applicants must supply a map of the geographical planning area to be studied. Description of Planning Purpose and Objectives. The purpose of the Flood Protection Planning Grant Program is for the State to provide financial assistance to local governments to develop flood protection plans for entire major or minor watersheds (as opposed to local drainage areas) that provide protection from flooding through structural and non-structural measures as described in 31 TAC §355.2. Planning for flood protection will include studies and analyses to determine and describe problems resulting from or relating to flooding and the views and needs of the affected public relating to flooding problems. Potential solutions to flooding problems will be identified, and the benefits and costs of these solutions will be estimated. From the planning analysis, feasible solutions to flooding problems will be recommended. The flood protection planning study should also include an assessment of the environmental and cultural resources of the planning area as necessary to evaluate the flood control alternatives being considered. Solutions for localized drainage problems are not eligible for grant funding. Description of Funding Consideration. Up to $900,000 has been initially authorized for Fiscal Year 2015 assistance for flood protection planning from the TWDB's Research and Planning Fund. Up to fifty percent of the total cost of the project may be provided to individual applicants, with up to seventy-five percent funding available to areas identified in 31 TAC §355.10(a) as economically disadvantaged. In the event that acceptable applications are not submitted, the TWDB retains the right to not award contract funds. Deadline, Review Criteria, and Contact Person for Additional Information. Six double-sided copies on recycled paper and one digital copy (CD) of a complete Flood Protection Planning Grant application including the required attachments must be filed with the TWDB prior to noon, 12:00 p.m., February 25, 2015. Applications can be directed either in person to Mr. David Carter, Texas Water Development Board, Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas or by mail to Mr. David Carter, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-3231. Applications will be evaluated according to 31 TAC §355.5. All potential applicants can contact the TWDB to obtain these rules and an application instruction sheet. Requests for information, the TWDB's rules and instruction sheet covering the research and planning fund may be directed to Mr. Gilbert Ward at the preceding mailing address, or by email at gilbert.ward@twdb.texas.gov or by calling (512) 463-6418. This information can also be found on the Internet at the following address: http://www.twdb.texas.gov. TRD-201404980 : Texas Register http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=R&app=... Les Trobman General Counsel Texas Water Development Board Filed: October 24, 2014 Next Page Previous Page ||| : Texas Register http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=R&app=... City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, for the construction of the CDBG – Madella Hilliard Sidewalk Improvements Project in the amount of $ $69,973.00. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is the recipient of a grant Community Development Block Grant to install sidewalk improvements in economically eligible areas of the City. The City engaged Steger Bizzell to provide professional services to develop Plans Specifications and Estimate for sidewalk improvements around the Madella Hilliard Center and along 8th Street to MLK Street. The City received sealed bids for this work on Monday, December 15, 2014. Six bids were received, with Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, submitting the apparent low bid in the amount of $69,973.00. The project consists of furnishing and installing and providing all labor and materials required for concrete sidewalk, ADA compliant ramps, temporary erosion and sedimentation control and miscellaneous items. Steger Bizzell has evaluated all the bids for accuracy and compliance with the bid documents, checked Bidder’s references and has determined Westar’s bid to be the lowest and most responsive bid. Steger Bizzell recommends award of the Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, in the amount of $69,973.00. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with Steger Bizzell and recommends award of the Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, for construction of sidewalks around the Madella Hilliard Center and along 8th Street to MLK Street in the amount of $69,973.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project CIP Budgetary Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Budgetary Worksheet Exhibit Engineer's Recommendation and Bid Tabulation Exhibit PROJECT No.DATE: PROJECT NAME: 9AT 12/31/2014 Division/Department: Director Approval Prepared By:Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 69,973.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting (SBE-14-004)1 27,500.00 27,500.00 39% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction (Westar)69,973.00 69,973.00 100% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 27,500.00 69,973.00 97,473.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 100-5-0846-52-806 69,973.00 9AT Total Budget 69,973.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 69,973.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting1 27,500.00 0.00 27,500.00 39% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 69,973.00 69,973.00 100% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 27,500.00 69,973.00 97,473.00 1 Not part of the CDBG Grant Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Transportation Services CDBG - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Comments: Project to be reimbursed by the CDBG Program 2011 - 2102 CDBG Sidewalk Imp. Proj. Madellia Hillard Construction Madella Hilliard Center to MLK City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order KHA-15-001 with Kimley- Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road Intersection Improvements in the amount of $79,955.06. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is developing plans for the West Side Service Center near the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road. In conjunction with those plans, 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 had engaged the firm of Kimley-Horn Associated, Inc., to conduct a signal warrant study for this intersection; the study determined that a signal was warranted at the intersection. The City proposes to engage the firm of Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, (KHA) for professional services for developing construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the proposed work to the intersection, inclusive of geometric and signal improvements. KHA proposes to provide these services in the amount of $79,955.06 for PS&E. Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends the proposed Task Order KHA-15-001 based upon an acceptable scope of services for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Task Order KHA-15-001 with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, Texas, to provide Final PS&E services for the Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road Intersections Improvements Project in the amount of $79,955.06. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project CIP Financial Analysis Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Project Budgetary Worksheet Exhibit Proposed Task Order KHA-15-001 Exhibit PROJECT No.DATE: PROJECT NAME: 2BW 12/31/2014 Division/Department: Director Approval Prepared By:Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 80,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting (KHA-15-001)79,955.06 79,955.06 100% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 79,955.06 79,955.06 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 660-9-0580-90-156 80,000.00 Total Budget 80,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 80,000.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 0.00 79,955.06 79,955.06 100% 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 0.00 79,955.06 79,955.06 1 Not part of the CDBG Grant Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Transportation Services CDBG - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Comments: Project to PART OF THE Westside Service Center project. Williams Dr @ Jim Hogg Rd Westside Facility Design Intersection Improvements TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 1 of 4 Task Order In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated November 18, 2011, ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Intersection and Signal Improvements for Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road. B. Description: Prepare construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the intersection improvements and traffic signal installation for Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road, inclusive of bidding and construction administration activities. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 100-5-0846-52-809 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: __________________________________ F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2011-718-MSA 2. Services of Engineer As shown in Exhibit B – Scope of Services. 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: As Described in Exhibit C – Services to be Provided by the City 4. Times for Rendering Services As shown in Exhibit E – Project Schedule 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Basic Services Lump Sum $79,955.06 (See Attached Fee Schedule) TOTAL FEE $79,955.06 Task Order No. KHA-15-001, consisting of 17 pages. ki m l e y - h o r n . c o m 10 8 1 4 J o l l y v i l l e R o a d , A v a l l o n I V , S u i t e 3 0 0 , A u s t i n , T X 7 8 7 5 9 51 2 4 1 8 1 7 7 1 Ex h i b i t A – L o c a t i o n M a p In t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s a n d T r a f f i c S i g n a l D e s i g n Wi l l i a m s D r i v e a n d J i m H o g g R o a d December 11, 2014 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 EXHIBIT B Scope of Services Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signal Design Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road SCOPE OF WORK OVERVIEW Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) will provide design plans, specifications, estimates, and bid documents for intersection improvements and a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road in Georgetown, Texas. The following assumptions pertain to this Scope of Work: § The signal design will consist of a mast arm pole installation with VIVDS detection. An empty conduit will be provided for future connection to the City fiber network. § A left turn lane will be constructed on Jim Hogg Road from the intersection to the proposed City Service Center driveway as part of the Base Bid. § Two alternate bid items will be included in the plan set, for 1) the construction of a turning roadway for eastbound Jim Hogg Road and 2) construction of an acceleration lane along Williams Drive for right turning traffic from eastbound Jim Hogg Road. Both alternatives will include provision for bicycle traffic travelling southbound along Williams Drive. § Base drawings for the intersection will be based on record drawings provided by the City of Georgetown and survey data collected by The Wallace Group. A One-Call Utility locate will be issued to field verify all marked utilities. § Signal design will be based on TxDOT standards and specifications. Roadway design will be in accordance with the City of Georgetown standards and specifications. § Signal plans will be prepared in accordance with the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD). § Bid Documents will be based on standard contract material provided by the City of Georgetown. Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 § Federal funds will not be used in the construction of these projects. § This site is located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. For the purposes of this scope, it is assumed that an exception will be obtained. TASK 1.0 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Project management spans the entire duration of the project and involves monitoring and coordination of services provided to the City to assure timely and efficient completion of the project. Included in this task are project control and scheduling, documentation, reporting requirements, staff forums, meetings, and quality control. Subtask 1A. Documentation Surveying notes, reports, technical memoranda, status reports, invoices, and other correspondence relevant to the project will be summarized and turned over to the City at the conclusion of the project. Subtask 1B. Reporting Requirements Monthly status reports will be prepared and submitted to the City as part of the invoice, describing the services provided. Subtask 1C. Meetings Project review and project specific technical meetings will be conducted under this subtask. Unless otherwise stated herein, it is assumed that all Project review meetings will be held at the City of Georgetown’s Engineering Department offices. It is agreed for budgeting purposes that one kickoff meeting, one field review meeting, one PS&E review meeting and one technical meeting will be held relative to the Project. Subtask 1D. Project Coordination The Engineer will coordinate data collection and design efforts with City staff. The Engineer will prepare up to three exhibits and attend up to two meetings for utility coordination. Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 3 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 TASK 2.0 BASE MAPS, AND SPECIFICATIONS ASSEMBLY This task includes the collection and organization of data by the Engineer for use in other tasks of this project. The specific type, quantity and other requirements of the data to be surveyed, collected, reduced, and/or organized by the Engineer are described in the following subtasks. (a) KHA will assemble applicable design standards and specifications from the City of Georgetown and TxDOT. (TxDOT 2004 Standard Specifications.) (b) KHA will gather available existing record drawings and design file information of the Project from City files. (c) KHA will perform a field reconnaissance of the intersection to determine existing pavement widths, lane configurations, traffic control devices, and above ground utility locations. (d) KHA will hire a surveyor to collect data on existing utilities, pavement, and traffic control devices for 300 feet in either direction along Williams Drive, 400 feet along Jim Hogg to the east and 100 feet along Jim Hogg to the west. (e) KHA will prepare a base map of existing geometrics, utilities, and traffic control devices, from record drawings and site reconnaissance. TASK 3.0 PRELIMINARY PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS KHA will prepare preliminary traffic signal designs for the project locations. The basic design parameters will be based on discussions with the City and applicable TxDOT standards. Using the base maps from Task 2.0, KHA will prepare a conceptual layout showing the locations of the controller cabinet and signal poles. The conceptual layout will be utilized in a field review meeting with City staff and the electric utility provider. Adjustments will be made based on field conditions. Following the field review meeting, KHA will produce, provide internal quality control/quality assurance for, and submit preliminary plans to the City for review and comment. The anticipated sheets to be prepared and submitted are: (a) Title Sheet; (b) Project Layout; (c) Typical Sections; (d) General Notes; Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 4 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 (e) Quantity Estimates; (f)Plan and Profile (3 Sheets)*; (g) Traffic Control Plan (3 Sheets)* (h) SW3P (i)Cross Sections (50 foot intervals)**; (j)Signing and Pavement Markings (3 Sheets)*; (k) Existing Conditions; (l)Signal Layout; (m) Signal Elevations; (n) Conduit Run and Wiring Summaries; (o) Phasing and Detection Schemes; and (p) Preliminary detail sheets. * 1 Base Bid Sheet and 2 Alternate Bid Sheets ** Cross Sections will be in the form of a secondary informational packages and not part of the construction plans. KHA will submit specifications and special specifications for inclusion in the bid documents to the City for review and comment. Task 3 deliverables will include: Preliminary Plans. KHA will provide three (3) paper copies, on 11” X 17” paper, to the City. Following receipt of construction as built markups from the contractor, one (1) set of reproducible record drawings will be provided to the City. TASK 4.0 FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & ESTIMATES Following the review meeting described in Subtask 1(c), KHA will produce the final plans, specifications, engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost, and bid document package. Final plans and specifications will be submitted to the City. Task 4 deliverables will include: Final Plans. KHA will provide three (3) paper copies, on 11” X 17” paper, and an electronic copy, to the City. Following receipt of construction as built markups from the contractor, one (1) set of reproducible record drawings and an electronic copy will be provided to the City. Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 5 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 Final Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. KHA will provide three (3) copies to the City. TASK 5.0 EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE EXCEPTION REQUEST This project is located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Under this scope, KHA will prepare and submit a request to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a project exception due to the limited size and scope of this project. If a Recharge Zone Water Pollution Abatement Plan Application is required, it will be considered as additional services and reimbursed on an hourly basis. Any fees required with or for submittals to TCEQ will be paid directly by the City. TASK 6.0 BIDDING ASSISTANCE KHA will provide the following bid assistance items: (a) Prepare bidding documents based on the standard City format. (b) Provide a Sharefile site for prospective bidders to download and print the plan sets and bid documents. (c) Prepare the Notice to Bidders and submit to the City for advertising. (d) Issue addenda and respond to bidding Requests for Information (RFIs) as required. (e) Attend one pre-bid meeting, attend the bid opening, prepare a tabulation of bids, and prepare a letter of recommendation for award of the contract. (f) Prepare the contract documents for execution by the contractor, receive and review such documents for completeness, and forward to the City for review and execution. The deliverables under this task will include: Preliminary Bid Documents. One (1) unbound set will be provided to the City, along with a PDF copy. Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 6 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 Final Specifications. One (1) set of reproducible originals and one (1) bound copy will be provided to the City. TASK 7.0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING PLANS KHA will develop signal timing plans for the intersection that are coordinated with the existing plans along Williams Drive. KHA will use existing traffic counts from 2013 to develop signal phase times. KHA will obtain existing timing plans for the intersections of Williams Drive and Dell Webb Boulevard, Woodlake Drive, Wildwood Drive, and Shell Road. KHA will update the 2012 Synchro models for Williams Drive with existing timings and extend the model to the Jim Hogg Road / Williams Drive Boulevard intersection. KHA will use the updated Synchro models to determine signal plan offsets for green band progression along Williams Drive. No new traffic counts will be conducted under this task. The deliverables under this task will be signal timing plans at the intersection of Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive for the morning, noon, afternoon and weekend. TASK 8.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES KHA will provide the City with the services during construction listed below, which are only related to the civil improvements designed under this contract for one phase. The City will administer all construction contracts. KHA will: (a) Make periodic visits to the project site, at intervals appropriate to the various stages of construction as KHA deems necessary, in order to observe the progress and quality of the civil aspects of the work of the construction contractor. Based on KHA's site visits, KHA will inform the City as to the progress of the work and advise the City of any substantial defects and deficiencies in the work of the contractor which are discovered by KHA, or are otherwise brought to KHA's attention. (b) Attend one (1) pre-construction meeting with the City, Contractor, or other members of the project team. Additional meetings, if required, will be invoiced on an hourly basis. (c) Consult with and advise the City and issue instructions to the contractor on civil engineering items requested by the City. Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 7 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 (d) Conduct, in company with City staff, a final inspection of the traffic signal facilities of the project for conformance with the design concept of the project and in general compliance with the Contract. (e) Provide Engineer’s concurrence letter to the City indicating that the traffic signal and median modification-related portions of the project were constructed in general conformance with the construction plans and specifications. KHA shall not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by the Contractor or the safety precautions and programs incidental to the work of the Contractor. KHA shall not guarantee the performance of the Contractor nor be responsible for the acts, errors, omissions, or the failure of the Contractor to perform the construction work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The City agrees to include in all construction contract provisions for Contract indemnification of both the City and KHA for Contractor’s negligence and to name both the City and KHA as additional insured on applicable contractor's insurance policies. December 11, 2014 kimley-horn.com 10814 Jollyville Road, Avallon IV, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78759 512 418 1771 EXHIBIT C Services To Be Performed By The City Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signal Design Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road SCOPE OF WORK OVERVIEW Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) will provide design plans, specifications, estimates, and bid documents for intersection improvements and a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road in Georgetown, Texas. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY A.Provide a project coordinator to work with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) during the development of the project. B.Provide example plans for City formatting preferences. C.Provide GIS layers with City utility locations for each of the intersections. D.Provide plat and site plan information for surrounding properties, if available. E.Provide example Bid Documents and specifications for City formatting preference. F.Provide available as-built plans showing the location of storm sewer, water lines, and wastewater lines. G. Provide City specific detail sheets for traffic signals, where applicable. H.Provide existing signal timing plans at the intersections of Williams Drive and Dell Webb Boulevard, Woodlake Drive, Wildwood Drive, and Shell Road. I.Provide utility contact information. J.Provide timely review of submittals. W i l l i a m s D r i v e a n d J i m H o g g R o a d - G e o r g e t o w n , T e x a s Fe e Pl a n Se n i o r Ro a d w a y Pr o j e c t En g i n e e r Pr o j Cl e r i c a l To t a l Di r e c t Ty p e DE S C R I P T I O N O F W O R K T A S K Sh e e t s En g r En g i n e e r En g i n e e r i n T r a i n i n g Ac c t Ad m i n La b o r La b o r Pr i n t i n g Mi l e a g e Su b To t a l $2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 6 8 . 5 4 $1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $1 0 1 . 1 2 $7 5 . 8 4 Ho u r s Co s t Pl o t t i n g Co n s u l t a n t Co s t a Pr o j e c t S e t u p - 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 3. 0 $4 1 2 . 9 3 $4 1 2 . 9 3 b Me e t i n g s ( u p t o 5 ) - 10 . 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 $3 , 9 0 9 . 5 8 $7 3 . 9 2 $3 , 9 8 3 . 5 0 c Mo n t h l y R e p o r t i n g / I n v o i c i n g - 3. 0 3. 0 6. 0 $1 , 0 1 1 . 2 5 $1 , 0 1 1 . 2 5 d Pr o j e c t / U t i l i t y C o o r d i n a t i o n ( u p t o 2 m e e t i n g s ) - 3. 0 6. 0 9. 0 $1 , 6 3 7 . 8 7 $1 , 6 3 7 . 8 7 17 . 0 16 . 0 4. 0 1. 0 38 . 0 $6 , 9 7 1 . 6 2 $7 3 . 9 2 $7 , 0 4 5 . 5 4 a As s e m b l e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n s - 1. 0 9. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 3 6 0 . 9 6 $1 , 3 6 0 . 9 6 b Ga t h e r A v a i l a b l e R e c o r d D r a w i n g s - 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 6. 0 $9 2 0 . 9 6 $9 2 0 . 9 6 c On e C a l l U t i l i t y L o c a t e - 1. 0 4. 0 5. 0 $7 3 5 . 9 6 $7 3 5 . 9 6 d Si t e R e c o n - 5. 0 5. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 8 0 4 . 7 9 $4 9 . 2 8 $1 , 8 5 4 . 0 7 e Su r v e y - 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 $3 9 0 . 9 6 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 3 9 0 . 9 6 e Pr e p a r e B a s e M a p s - 1. 0 1. 0 16 . 0 18 . 0 $2 , 3 9 0 . 9 6 $2 , 3 9 0 . 9 6 10 . 0 4. 0 37 . 0 51 . 0 $7 , 6 0 4 . 5 8 $4 9 . 2 8 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 6 5 3 . 8 6 a 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 $2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $2 3 7 . 7 6 b 1. 0 1. 0 8. 0 9. 0 $1 , 2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 c 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 6. 0 $9 0 4 . 5 0 $1 . 8 0 d 2. 0 3. 0 2. 0 5. 0 $9 5 7 . 8 7 $3 . 6 0 $9 6 1 . 4 7 e 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 $5 4 5 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $5 4 7 . 7 6 f 1. 0 1. 0 8. 0 16 . 0 25 . 0 $3 , 5 8 4 . 2 9 $1 . 8 0 g 4. 0 2. 0 4. 0 16 . 0 22 . 0 $3 , 1 4 6 . 0 8 $7 . 2 0 h 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 4. 0 9. 0 $1 , 4 1 0 . 1 2 $1 . 8 0 i 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 8. 0 13 . 0 $1 , 9 1 0 . 1 2 $1 . 8 0 j 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 4. 0 9. 0 $1 , 4 1 0 . 1 2 $1 . 8 0 k 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 8. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 3 9 0 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $1 , 3 9 2 . 7 6 l 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 6. 0 8. 0 $1 , 1 4 0 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $1 , 1 4 2 . 7 6 m 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 6. 0 $8 9 0 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $8 9 2 . 7 6 n 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 3. 0 $5 1 5 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $5 1 7 . 7 6 o 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 7. 0 $1 , 0 4 5 . 9 6 $1 . 8 0 $1 , 0 4 7 . 7 6 p 30 . 0 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 8. 0 12 . 0 $1 , 7 1 4 . 5 0 $1 3 . 5 0 $1 , 7 2 8 . 0 0 49 . 0 19 . 0 26 . 0 10 . 0 93 . 0 14 8 . 0 $2 2 , 0 4 0 . 2 6 $4 7 . 7 0 $8 , 4 6 8 . 7 7 Pr o j e c t L a y o u t Ty p i c a l S e c t i o n s Pl a n a n d P r o f i l e S h e e t s TC P N a r r a t i v e a n d T C P S h e e t s Co n d u i t a n d C a b l i n g C h a r t s II I - A P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S - B A S E B I D II . B A S E M A P S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S I. P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T Lu m p Su m Lu m p Su m Lu m p Su m Su b t o t a l Ti t l e S h e e t E X H I B I T D Ma n H o u r s a n d F e e E s t i m a t e Su b t o t a l Su b t o t a l PS & E f o r T r a f f i c S i g n a l D e s i g n A n d I n t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s A t : Ge n e r a l N o t e s Qu a n t i t y E s t i m a t e s Si g n a l L a y o u t Si g n a l E l e v a t i o n s Ph a s i n g a n d W i r i n g D i a g r a m s De t e c t i o n S c h e m e s SW 3 P S h e e t Cr o s s S e c t i o n s Si g n i n g a n d P a v e m e n t M a r k i n g s S h e e t s Pr e l i m i n a r y D e t a i l S h e e t s Wi l l i a m s D r / J i m H o g g R d Pa g e 1 o f 3 12 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 4 Ex h i b i t D - M a n H o u r s a n d F e e E s t i m a t e Ki m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . W i l l i a m s D r i v e a n d J i m H o g g R o a d - G e o r g e t o w n , T e x a s Fe e Pl a n Se n i o r Ro a d w a y Pr o j e c t En g i n e e r Pr o j Cl e r i c a l To t a l Di r e c t Ty p e DE S C R I P T I O N O F W O R K T A S K Sh e e t s En g r En g i n e e r En g i n e e r i n T r a i n i n g Ac c t Ad m i n La b o r La b o r Pr i n t i n g Mi l e a g e Su b To t a l $2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 6 8 . 5 4 $1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $1 0 1 . 1 2 $7 5 . 8 4 Ho u r s Co s t Pl o t t i n g Co n s u l t a n t Co s t E X H I B I T D Ma n H o u r s a n d F e e E s t i m a t e PS & E f o r T r a f f i c S i g n a l D e s i g n A n d I n t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s A t : a 1. 0 2. 0 8. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 3 1 0 . 0 0 $0 . 4 5 $1 , 3 1 0 . 4 5 b 1. 0 2. 0 8. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 3 1 0 . 0 0 $0 . 4 5 $1 , 3 1 0 . 4 5 2. 0 4. 0 16 . 0 20 . 0 $2 , 6 2 0 . 0 0 $0 . 9 0 $2 , 6 2 0 . 9 0 a 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 $2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $2 3 7 . 4 1 b 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 5. 0 $7 3 5 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 c 4. 0 2. 0 2. 0 4. 0 8. 0 $1 , 3 0 9 . 0 0 $5 . 8 0 d 3. 0 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 $5 4 5 . 9 6 $4 . 3 5 $5 5 0 . 3 1 e 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 $5 4 5 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $5 4 7 . 4 1 f 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 8. 0 13 . 0 $1 , 9 1 0 . 1 2 $1 . 4 5 g 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 7. 0 $1 , 0 7 3 . 0 4 $1 . 4 5 h 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 7. 0 $1 , 0 7 3 . 0 4 $1 . 4 5 i 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 $2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 j 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 7. 0 $1 , 0 7 3 . 0 4 $1 . 4 5 k 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 $6 4 0 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $6 4 2 . 4 1 l 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 $6 4 0 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $6 4 2 . 4 1 m 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 2. 0 5. 0 $7 9 5 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $7 9 7 . 4 1 n 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 $3 9 0 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $3 9 2 . 4 1 o 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 $5 4 5 . 9 6 $1 . 4 5 $5 4 7 . 4 1 p 30 . 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 7. 0 $1 , 0 7 3 . 0 4 $4 3 . 5 0 $1 , 1 1 6 . 5 4 50 . 0 17 . 0 14 . 0 11 . 0 38 . 0 80 . 0 $1 2 , 8 2 5 . 8 6 $7 2 . 5 0 $5 , 4 7 3 . 7 0 a 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 5. 0 $6 6 8 . 5 4 $6 6 8 . 5 4 b 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 5. 0 $6 6 8 . 5 4 $6 6 8 . 5 4 2. 0 2. 0 8. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 3 3 7 . 0 8 $1 , 3 3 7 . 0 8 a 1. 0 4. 0 8. 0 2. 0 15 . 0 $2 , 0 6 1 . 8 1 $2 , 0 6 1 . 8 1 b 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 $5 7 3 . 0 4 $5 7 3 . 0 4 c 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 1. 0 8. 0 $1 , 1 4 8 . 8 8 $1 , 1 4 8 . 8 8 3. 0 8. 0 12 . 0 3. 0 26 . 0 $3 , 7 8 3 . 7 3 $3 , 7 8 3 . 7 3 Co m m e n t R e s p o n s e s / R e v i s i o n s Mo n i t o r A p p r o v a l P r o c e s s Re c h a r g e Z o n e E x c e p t i o n R e q u e s t Lu m p Su m SW 3 P S h e e t s Cr o s s S e c t i o n s Si g n i n g a n d P a v e m e n t M a r k i n g s S h e e t s Su b t o t a l Pr o j e c t L a y o u t Ty p i c a l S e c t i o n s Pl a n a n d P r o f i l e S h e e t s Ti t l e S h e e t Su b t o t a l Lu m p Su m NB R T T u r n i n g R o a d w a y NB R T A c c e l e r a t i o n L a n e Qu a n t i t y E s t i m a t e s Si g n a l L a y o u t Si g n a l E l e v a t i o n s TC P N a r r a t i v e a n d T C P S h e e t s Ph a s i n g a n d W i r i n g D i a g r a m s De t e c t i o n S c h e m e s Lu m p Su m Lu m p Su m Su b t o t a l Su b t o t a l St a n d a r d D e t a i l S h e e t s IV - A F I N A L P L A N S - B A S E B I D II I - B P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S - A L T E R N A T E B I D I T E M S Co n d u i t a n d C a b l i n g C h a r t s Ge n e r a l N o t e s NB R T T u r n i n g R o a d w a y NB R T A c c e l e r a t i o n L a n e V. E D W A R D S A Q U I F E R R E C H A R G E Z O N E E X C E P T I O N R E Q U E S T IV - B . F I N A L P L A N S - A L T E R N A T E B I D I T E M S Wi l l i a m s D r / J i m H o g g R d Pa g e 2 o f 3 12 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 4 Ex h i b i t D - M a n H o u r s a n d F e e E s t i m a t e Ki m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . W i l l i a m s D r i v e a n d J i m H o g g R o a d - G e o r g e t o w n , T e x a s Fe e Pl a n Se n i o r Ro a d w a y Pr o j e c t En g i n e e r Pr o j Cl e r i c a l To t a l Di r e c t Ty p e DE S C R I P T I O N O F W O R K T A S K Sh e e t s En g r En g i n e e r En g i n e e r i n T r a i n i n g Ac c t Ad m i n La b o r La b o r Pr i n t i n g Mi l e a g e Su b To t a l $2 3 5 . 9 6 $1 6 8 . 5 4 $1 5 5 . 0 0 $1 2 5 . 0 0 $1 0 1 . 1 2 $7 5 . 8 4 Ho u r s Co s t Pl o t t i n g Co n s u l t a n t Co s t E X H I B I T D Ma n H o u r s a n d F e e E s t i m a t e PS & E f o r T r a f f i c S i g n a l D e s i g n A n d I n t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s A t : VI . B I D D O C U M E N T S / B I D D I N G A S S I S T A N C E a 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 4. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 5 2 4 . 5 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $1 , 5 8 4 . 5 0 b 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 6. 0 $1 , 0 2 4 . 5 0 $6 . 0 0 $1 , 0 3 0 . 5 0 c 1. 0 1. 0 8. 0 10 . 0 $1 , 6 4 4 . 5 0 $6 . 0 0 $1 , 6 5 0 . 5 0 d 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 7. 0 $8 6 2 . 8 7 $6 . 0 0 $8 6 8 . 8 7 e 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 $7 1 4 . 5 0 $6 . 0 0 $7 2 0 . 5 0 f 1. 0 2. 0 2. 0 5. 0 $8 8 3 . 0 4 $6 . 0 0 $8 8 9 . 0 4 g 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 6. 0 $1 , 0 2 4 . 5 0 $6 . 0 0 $1 , 0 3 0 . 5 0 h 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 6. 0 $7 0 7 . 8 7 $6 . 0 0 $7 1 3 . 8 7 8. 0 9. 0 25 . 0 4. 0 8. 0 54 . 0 $8 , 3 8 6 . 2 8 $1 0 2 . 0 0 $8 , 4 8 8 . 2 8 a 1. 0 1. 0 4. 0 6. 0 $8 9 0 . 9 6 $6 . 0 0 $8 9 6 . 9 6 b 1. 0 3. 0 4. 0 $5 3 0 . 0 0 $6 . 0 0 $5 3 6 . 0 0 c 1. 0 3. 0 4. 0 $7 0 0 . 9 6 $6 . 0 0 $7 0 6 . 9 6 d 3. 0 3. 0 $7 0 7 . 8 7 $6 . 0 0 $2 4 . 6 4 $7 3 8 . 5 1 5. 0 5. 0 7. 0 17 . 0 $2 , 8 2 9 . 7 9 $2 4 . 0 0 $2 4 . 6 4 $2 , 8 7 8 . 4 3 a 6. 0 6. 0 12 . 0 $2 , 4 2 6 . 9 9 $7 3 . 9 2 $2 , 5 0 0 . 9 1 b 2. 0 2. 0 2. 0 6. 0 $1 , 1 1 9 . 0 0 $2 4 . 6 4 $1 , 1 4 3 . 6 4 c 4. 0 4. 0 8. 0 $1 , 6 1 8 . 0 0 $1 , 6 1 8 . 0 0 d 3. 0 3. 0 3. 0 9. 0 $1 , 5 8 8 . 5 0 $7 3 . 9 2 $1 , 6 6 2 . 4 2 e 1. 0 1. 0 $2 3 5 . 9 6 $2 3 5 . 9 6 16 . 0 15 . 0 2. 0 3. 0 36 . 0 $6 , 9 8 8 . 4 4 $1 7 2 . 4 8 $7 , 1 6 0 . 9 2 10 3 . 0 92 . 0 66 . 0 77 . 0 20 6 . 0 4. 0 9. 0 45 4 . 0 $7 5 , 3 8 7 . 6 4 $2 4 7 . 1 0 $3 2 0 . 3 2 $4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 8 , 9 1 1 . 2 2 De v e l o p T i m i n g P l a n s Im p l e m e n t T i m i n g P l a n s Su b t o t a l Lu m p Su m Ho u r l y Lu m p Su m Bi d D o c u m e n t s Pr e p a r e c o n t r a c t d o c s f o r e x e c u t i o n At t e n d B i d O p e n i n g Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s Su b t o t a l VI I I . C O N S T R U C T I O N P H A S E S E R V I C E S VI I . C O O R D I N A T E D S I G N A L T I M I N G P L A N S Ob t a i n e x i s t i n g s i g n a l t i m i n g p l a n s Up d a t e S y n c h r o M o d e l s ( 3 P e a k s ) Sp e c i a l S p e c i f i c a t i o n s Pr e p a r e 1 0 s e t s o f B i d D o c u m e n t s Su b t o t a l HO U R S T O T A L S FE E T O T A L S Co n c u r r e n c e L e t t e r Fi n a l I n s p e c t i o n s / S i g n a l T u r n O n ( 2 H r s + t r a v e l ) RF I s Pr e - C o n s t r u c t i o n M e e t i n g ( 1 ) Pe r i o d i c S i t e v i s i t s ( A s s u m e s u p t o 3 ) Pr e p a r e B i d T a b s a n d L e t t e r o f R e c o m m e n d a t i o n Pr e p a r e N o t i c e t o B i d d e r s Wi l l i a m s D r / J i m H o g g R d Pa g e 3 o f 3 12 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 4 Ex h i b i t D - M a n H o u r s a n d F e e E s t i m a t e Ki m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . Pr o j e c t N a m e : W i l l i a m s D r i v e a t J i m H o g g R o a d Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n : Tr a f f i c S i g n a l D e s i g n a n d I n t e r s e c t i o n M o d i f i c a t i o n s Pr e p a r e d B y : Ki m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . Ta s k # Ta s k N a m e 1 Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t 2 Ba s e M a p s / S p e c i f i c a t o n s 3 Pr e l i m i n a r y D e s i g n Ci t y R e v i e w 4 Fi n a l i z e P l a n s 5 Ed w a r d s A q u i f e r R e c h a r g e Z o n e E x c e p t i o n R e q u e s t 6 Bi d D o c s / B i d d i n g A s s i s t a n c e 7 Co o r d i n a t e d S i g n a l T i m i n g P l a n s 8 Co n s t r u c t i o n P h a s e S e r v i c e s Oc t 20 1 5 20 1 5 20 1 5 Se p 20 1 5 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 5 20 1 5 20 1 5 20 1 5 Ju n Ju l Au g Pr o j e c t Sc h e d u l e EX H I B I T E : P R O J E C T S C H E D U L E Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Wi l l i a m s D r / J i m H o g g R d Pa g e 1 o f 1 12 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 4 Ex h i b i t E - W o r k S c h e d u l e Ki m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a task order with KPA of Georgetown, Texas, for the 2014-2015 CIP Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $184,605.00. – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager. ITEM SUMMARY: This project involves final design, bidding and construction administration services for the City of Georgetown’s 2015 Street Maintenance Projects. The project consists of four (4) different roadway maintenance methods: chip seal with fog seal and or warm mix asphalt (WMA) application, hot in place recycling (HIPR/Cutler Process), and curb and gutter / ramp replacement. In-house project support will be included in the scope. The streets proposed to receive maintenance treatments and rehabilitation have been identified in the pavement condition surveys. These identified methods will be combined into three (3) separate bid packages as outlined in task order. (See attachment) In-house projects are identified in attachment #4. Each project will also include the evaluation of all existing pedestrian ramps along the proposed project route to determine if the ramps are ADA compliant. Any pedestrian ramp identified as non-compliant will be removed and replaced in conjunction with this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: KPA has successfully completed past pavement surveys for the City and has provided satisfactory engineering services for numerous Capital Maintenance projects in the past. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Task Order of Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the 2014-2015 Street Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Project in the amount of $184,605.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project CIP – Street and Drainage Rehabilitation Project – Budgetary Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CIP Budget Form Backup Material Task Order Backup Material Map - Color Coded Backup Material Proposed in house treatments Backup Material DATE: PROJECT NAME:12/31/2014 Division/Department:Director Approval Prepared By:Mark Miller Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 2,050,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting 184,605.00 184,605.00 9% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 184,605.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 201-9-0880-90-072 rejuvenate $ 23,550 501,000.00 201-9-0880-90-075 Cutler $106,590 1,171,000.00 203-9-0880-90-076 in-house $ 54,465 378,000.00 184,605 Total Budget 2,050,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 184,605.00 184,605.00 #DIV/0! Right of Way 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Construction 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Other Costs 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Total Project Costs 0.00 184,605.00 184,605.00 Comments: Transportation Services 2015 Street CIP Engineering CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 1 of 4 Task Order In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 23, 2011 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title:  Professional Services for 2015 Street Maintenance Projects.  B. Description:  Professional Engineering Services for the preparation of plans,  specifications, bidding documents and construction administration for three (3) different  roadway maintenance methods: chip seal, warm mix asphalt and hot in place recycling  (Cutler Process) and for In‐house (City Performed) construction consisting of preparation  of specifications, project layouts, product submittal review and project support for  rejuvenation, chip seal and curb and gutter replacement.  C. City of Georgetown Project Number:    Several    D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.:    Several    E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.        F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number:    2011‐702‐MSA    2. Services of Engineer See Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement. 4. Times for Rendering Services Phase Completion Date Design Phase Package 1 & 2 (Chip Seal & WMA) March 1, 2015 Package 3 (HIPR) April 1, 2015 In-house Project Support TBD KPA Task Order No.15-004 , consisting of 16 pages. TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 Bidding Phase Package 1 & 2 (Chip Seal & WMA) May 15, 2015 Package 3 (HIPR) June 15, 2015 Construction Phase Package 1 & 2 (Chip Seal & WMA) August 30, 2015 Package 3 (HIPR) October 1, 2015 In-house Project Support TBD 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Lump Sum Compensation for Services Basic Services Final Design, Bidding and Construction Phase for 2015 Street Maintenance Projects A. Lump Sum $ 184,605.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP – Georgetown, Texas 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services  Exhibit B – Fee Schedule  Exhibit C – Overall Exhibit    9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective March 23, 2011. TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 3 of 4 Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is , 2015. OWNER: ENGINEER: By: By: Name: Name: Alvin R. Sutton III, PE, CFM Title: Dale Ross, Mayor Title: Principal Engineer License or Firm’s Certificate No. F-510 State of: Texas Date: Date: ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM “P” APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: ________________________________________ Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator STATE OF TEXAS } CORPORATE COUNTY OF } ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this _______day of ___________________, 2015, Alvin R. Sutton III, PE, CFM personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this Document in my presence. [SEAL] ____________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:____________________ TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR  TASK ORDER:  DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR  TASK ORDER:   Name: Joel Weaver Name: Alvin R. Sutton III, P.E., CFM Title: Project Manager Title: Principal Address: 300-1 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, TX 78626 Address: 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, TX 78626 E-Mail Address: joel.weaver@georgetown.org E-Mail Address: TSutton@kpaengineers.com Phone: 512-931-7698 Phone: 512-819-9478 Fax: 512-930-3559 Fax:   EXHIBIT A – DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE  SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER  KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP  GEORGETOWN, TEXAS  Project Description:    This project involves final design, bidding and construction administration services for the City  of Georgetown’s 2015 Street Maintenance Projects.  The project consists of three (3) different  roadway maintenance methods: chip seal with fog seal, hot in place recycling (HIPR/Cutler  Process), and warm mix asphalt (WMA) application.  Each project will also include the  evaluation of all existing pedestrian ramps along the proposed project route to determine if the  ramps are ADA compliant.  Any pedestrian ramp that identified as non‐compliant will be  removed and in conjunction with this project.  These methods will be combined into three (3)  separate bid packages as follows:    Bid Package 1 & 2:  Chip Seal with Fog Seal or Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications    Chip Seal with Fog Seal Projects/Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Application Street From To Length (+/-) Williams Drive Serenada DB Woods/Shell Road 6,500 Rockmoor Drive Woodview Drive IH 35 Frontage Road 3,600 San Gabriel Heights Subdivision 15,500 Norwood Drive Leander Road Leander Road River Bow Drive Leander Road Norwood Drive Riverwood Drive River Bow Drive Norwood Drive Norwood Cove Norwood Drive Cul-de-sac Ridgewood Drive Norwood Drive Inwood Drive Inwood Drive Deepwood Drive Cul-de-sac Ridge Oak Drive Ridgewood Drive Inwood Drive Tallwood Drive Ridge Oak Drive Leander Road Greenwood Drive Ridgewood Drive Inwood Drive Greenwood Court Ridgewood Drive Cul-de-sac Oakwood Drive Greenwood Drive Friendswood Drive Friendswood Drive Norwood Drive Tallwood Drive River Tree Cove Ridgewood Drive Cul-de-sac Katy Crossing Subdivision 16,800 Katy Crossing Boulevard Weir Road (FM 971) Meadowlark Circle Bastian Lane Dead End Katy Crossing Boulevard River Park Lane Katy Crossing Boulevard River Bluff Circle River Park Cove Katy Crossing Boulevard Cul-de-sac River Bluff Circle Dead End Cul-de-sac River Bluff Drive River Park Lane Stephen Lane Stephen Lane River Blugg Drive Katy Crossing Boulevard Tanner Circle Stephen Lane Katy Crossing Boulevard May Cove Tanner Circle Cul-de-sac Town Mill Lane Weir Road (FM 971) Katy Crossing Boulevard Prairie Springs Loop Town Mill Lane Town Mill Lane Kajon Court Town Mill Lane Cul-de-sac Janae Court Town Mill Lane Cul-de-sac Prairie Springs Cove Town Mill Lane Cul-de-sac Meadowlark Circle Katy Crossing Boulevard Claris Lane Claris Lane Katy Crossing Boulevard Wildflower Lane Total Length - Chip Seal with Fog Seal Project 42,400     Bid Package 3:  Hot in Place Recycling (Cutler Process)    Hot in Place Recycling (HIPR/Cutler) Projects Street From To Length (+/-) Williams Drive Lakeway Dr Serenada Drive 4,200 River Bend Road Williams Drive Gabriel View Drive 2,600 Mesquite Lane River Bend Road Judy Drive 1,500 Dunman Drive River Bend Road Mesquite Lane 1,900 Bob White Lane River Bend Road Gabriel View Drive 575 Judy Drive Ranch Road Ranch Road 1,300 Parker Drive River Bend Road Power Road 1,900 Cottonwood Drive River Bend Road Ranch Road 1,400 Power Road Parker Drive Gabriel View Drive 1,800 Total Length - HIPR/Cutler Project 17,175   This project will also include Professional Engineering Services for In‐house (City Performed)  construction consisting of preparation of specifications, project layouts, product submittal  review and project support for rejuvenation, chip seal and curb and gutter replacement.        Scope of Services:    The scope of services associated with this project is as follows:    I. Design Phase  a. Data Collection, Permits, and Utility Coordination  i. The ENGINEER will utilize existing topographic information and City  data to develop surfaces for curb and gutter replacement projects.    ii. The ENGINEER will determine areas within the project that require tree  pruning and care.  Details and procedures will be developed,  coordinated, and approved by the City of Georgetown arborist.  iii. The ENGINEER will coordinate with utility companies and other City  departments to identify any possible conflicts and/or proposed utility  improvements on the proposed street maintenance projects.  iv. The ENGINEER will investigate general drainage within the project area  and conveyance to positive flow at the connection points of the project to  existing conditions.  Any areas of concern or non‐conveyance will be  reported to the City of Georgetown Staff and discussed.  v. The ENGINEER will review curbs, driveways, etc. to determine conflicts  with existing private property connections to the project.    vi. The ENGINEER will conduct a review of all pedestrian ramps to  determine their ADA compliance status along the project routes.  vii. The ENGINEER will incorporate City of Georgetown imagery into the  field surveys and integrate the two as a model.    b. Develop Design Plans   i. The ENGINEER will utilize the survey data and surface model to develop  plan and profile sheets for the proposed curb and gutter replacement  projects. The ENGINEER will illustrate all proposed slopes, typical  sections, plan/profiles, and improvement locations.  ii. The ENGINEER will develop plan/profiles for curb and gutter  replacement projects.  iii. The ENGINEER will develop erosion control/sedimentation/tree  protection plans.  iv. The ENGINEER will develop traffic control, striping and signing plans if  required.  v. The ENGINEER will develop all standard and special details for each  construction method.  vi. The ENGINEER will develop a quantity take‐off and an estimate of  probable construction cost for each roadway rehabilitation.    c. Develop Technical Specifications for the Project  i. The ENGINEER will develop detailed technical specifications for each  roadway maintenance method.      d. Review Plans with City Staff, Incorporate Comments   i. The ENGINEER will schedule a meeting with City Staff to review the  plans at the 50%, 75% and 90% design stages to discuss issues and report  any dilemmas that have been encountered.  ii. The ENGINEER will receive all City Staff comments and incorporate into  the plans.  Once comments have been incorporated the ENGINEER will  schedule a second meeting with City Staff to review the revised plans.  iii. The ENGINEER will submit the five sets of final plans to City Staff.    II. Bidding a. The ENGINEER will develop the invitation to bid and deliver to City Staff for  advertising the project for public bidding.  The ENGINEER will also solicit bids  from past contractors to acquire as competitive a bidding process as possible; b. The ENGINEER will manage and distribute bidding documents; c. The ENGINEER will prepare for the Pre‐Bid Conference, develop an agenda and  sign in sheet, conduct the Pre‐Bid Conference, take notes at the conference,  prepare minutes and incorporate into the addenda; d. The ENGINEER will receive all questions from bidders, log the questions and  answer in the form of an addenda; e. The ENGINEER will conduct the bid letting, receive all bids, tabulate the bids  and certify them; f. The ENGINEER will research the low bidder(s) qualifications and recommend  award to the City of Georgetown. III. Construction Administration a. The ENGINEER will prepare contract documents; forward those to the contractor awarded the project by the Georgetown City Council. Once the contractor has executed the contract documents, they will be checked for proper documentation and forwarded to the City of Georgetown for execution; b. The ENGINEER will schedule and conduct the Pre-Construction Conference. Minutes from the conference will be taken and distributed; c. The ENGINEER will receive and review all submittals and material samples for the project. Documentation for the submittals will be generated and distributed to the City of Georgetown and the contractor; d. The ENGINEER will hold regularly scheduled construction progress meetings. These meetings will include meeting agendas covering project specifics and schedules. Notes will be taken by the ENGINEER at the meetings. Minutes will then be developed and distributed to the City of Georgetown Staff and the contractor; e. The ENGINEER will make periodic visits the project site. These site visits are utilized to perform a general overview of the project and answer any questions the contractor may have. The City of Georgetown will provide daily on-site representation for the project; f. The ENGINEER will develop pay estimate forms for the project. These will be distributed to City Staff and the contractor. The ENGINEER will review the pay requests with City Staff; g. The ENGINEER will conduct a final walk through of the project. Punch list items will be generated during this review. A letter addressed to City Staff will be generated discussing the findings of the walk through. The contractor will be copied on this letter as well; h. The ENGINEER will develop final record drawings for the City of Georgetown Staff. The record drawings will be presented in the form of a DVD with pdf of each plan sheet and a full 11x17 hard copy. EXHIBIT B FEE SCHEDULE KPA Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Bid Package Roadway Repair Method Proposed Professional Services Fee Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Total Project Cost 1 Chip Seal with Fog Seal Application 2 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Application Hot in Place Recycling - Local/Collector 84,290.00$ 631,710.00$ 716,000.00$ Hot in Place Recycling - Arterial Reserve 22,300.00$ 477,700.00$ 500,000.00$ 4 In-House Project Support 23,550.00$ 750,000.00$ 773,550.00$ Total Project Costs 184,605.00$ 2,479,945.00$ 2,664,550.00$ 54,465.00$ 620,535.00$ 675,000.00$ Summary of Proposed Project Costs 3 EXHIBIT B: 1 & 2 - Chip Seal & Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Final Design Incorporate Survey Data and All Utilities 62 22 12 Develop Chip Seal Plans 60 24 8 4 1 97 Develop Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Plans 40 18 8 4 1 71 Develop Traffic Control Plan 48 42 18 Develop Signing and Striping Plan 412 4 2 22 Develop Erosion/Sedimentation/Tree Protection Details 88 83 27 Develop Miscellaneous Project Details 46 42 16 Develop Opinion of Probable Cost 8 821 19 Incorporate Permitting Requirements into Plans/Details 48 42 18 Prepare Technical Specifications 12 4 2 18 Review Plans with City Staff 4 441 13 Incorporate Comments and Prepare for bidding 4 421 11 Total Hours for Final Design 0 130 114 62 31 5 342 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Final Design Total Cost -$ 9,750.00$ 11,970.00$ 8,370.00$ 4,960.00$ 1,000.00$ 36,050.00$ Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Bidding Advertise / Solicit Bidders 4 4 221 13 Distribute plans and specifications 3 3 Pre-Bid Conference 444 12 Answer Questions and Prepare Addenda 12 12 Receive & Tabulate Bids 2215 Recommend Award 21 3 Total Hours for Bidding 9 0 8 6 22 3 48 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Bidding Total Cost 495.00$ -$ 840.00$ 810.00$ 3,520.00$ 600.00$ 6,265.00$ Chip Seal & Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications EXHIBIT B: 1 & 2 - Chip Seal & Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Construction Administration Prepare Contract Documents & distribute to Contractor 2 8 4 2 1 17 Review Submittals 8 421 15 Construction Meetings/minutes/etc.444 12 Site Review 8 842 22 Final Walkthrough 444 12 Record Drawings 84 421 19 Total Hours for Construction Administration 2 8 36 28 18 5 97 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Construction Administration Total Cost 110.00$ 600.00$ 3,780.00$ 3,780.00$ 2,880.00$ 1,000.00$ 12,150.00$ Project Total 54,465.00$ EXHIBIT B: 3 - Hot in Place Recycling Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Final Design Incorporate Survey Data and All Utilities 2124 421 25 Develop Hot in Place Recycling Plans 160 80 32 12 4 288 Develop Traffic Control Plan 24 18 8 6 4 60 Develop Signing and Striping Plan 32 36 8 6 4 86 Develop Erosion/Sedimentation/Tree Protection Details 12 12 10 6 4 44 Develop Miscellaneous Project Details 18 12 4 4 1 39 Develop Opinion of Probable Cost 2 16 884 38 Incorporate Permitting Requirements into Plans/Details 812 1264 42 Prepare Technical Specifications 8 18 1084 48 Review Plans with City Staff 6 664 22 Incorporate Comments and Prepare for bidding 4 6 6 6 4 4 30 Total Hours for Final Design 16 272 220 108 68 38 722 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Final Design Total Cost 880.00$ 20,400.00$ 23,100.00$ 14,580.00$ 10,880.00$ 7,600.00$ 77,440.00$ Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Bidding Advertise / Solicit Bidders 4 4 211 12 Distribute plans and specifications 2 2 Pre-Bid Conference 444 12 Answer Questions and Prepare Addenda 8 1282 30 Receive & Tabulate Bids 2215 Recommend Award 21 3 Total Hours for Bidding 88818175 64 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Bidding Total Cost 440.00$ 600.00$ 840.00$ 2,430.00$ 2,720.00$ 1,000.00$ 8,030.00$ Hot in Place Recycling EXHIBIT B: 3 - Hot in Place Recycling Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Construction Administration Prepare Contract Documents & distribute to Contractor 4 8 4 2 2 20 Review Submittals 18 10 2 2 32 Construction Meetings/minutes/etc.4 8 1064 32 Site Review 18 16 4 2 40 Final Walkthrough 8 442 18 Record Drawings 4168 411 34 Total Hours for Construction Administration 12 16 68 48 19 13 176 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Construction Administration Total Cost 660.00$ 1,200.00$ 7,140.00$ 6,480.00$ 3,040.00$ 2,600.00$ 21,120.00$ Project Total 106,590.00$ EXHIBIT B: 4 - In-House Project Support Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Final Design Collect Survey Data 22 21 7 Develop Curb and Gutter Replacement Plan/Profiles 14 8 2 1 2 27 Indentify Non-Compliant ADA Ramps 68 211 18 Develop Non-Compliant ADA Ramps Replacement Plans/Exhibits 8 4 2 1 15 Develop Traffic Control Plan 62 21 11 Develop Striping Plan 84 21 15 Develop Miscellaneous Project Details 24 21 9 Provide Permitting Support 68 21 17 Prepare Technical Specifications 621 9 Meet with City Staff 410 882 32 Total Hours for Final Design 0 5656 2617 5 160 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Final Design Total Cost -$ 4,200.00$ 5,880.00$ 3,510.00$ 2,720.00$ 1,000.00$ 17,310.00$ Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Construction Administration Review Submittals 442 10 Meet with City Staff 6 642 18 Site Review 6 642 18 Total Hours for Construction Administration 0 0 16 16 10 4 46 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Construction Administration Total Cost -$ -$ 1,680.00$ 2,160.00$ 1,600.00$ 800.00$ 6,240.00$ Project Total 23,550.00$ In-House Project Support H U T T O R O A D K E L L Y D R SHEL L R O A D AU S T I N A V E . A I R P O R T R O A D W UNIVERSITY AVE. LAK E W A Y D R . W I L L I A M S D R I V E NE I N N E R L O O P SE I N N E R L O O P LEAND E R R O A D BLUE SP R I N G S WO L F R A N C H RIV E R Y B L V D 15TH D.B . W O O D S D R I V E SER E N A D A D R . PROPOSED 2015 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 2500 5000 N O R T H KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER F-510 January 2, 2015 ‹ 20 1 4 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 4 \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 5 Y R C I P \ C A D \ E x h i b i t \ 2 0 1 4 - 1 2 - 2 9 5 y r c i p f u g r o \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 r e h a b - e x h i b i t . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 12 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 3 : 4 7 : 5 5 P M LA Y O U T : 11 x 1 7 e x h i b i t CHIPSEAL / CURB & GUTTER / POINT REPAIR H U T T O R O A D K E L L Y D R SHEL L R O A D AU S T I N A V E . A I R P O R T R O A D W UNIVERSITY AVE. LAK E W A Y D R . W I L L I A M S D R I V E NE I N N E R L O O P SE I N N E R L O O P LEAND E R R O A D BLUE SP R I N G S WO L F R A N C H RIV E R Y B L V D 15TH D.B . W O O D S D R I V E SER E N A D A D R . PROPOSED 2015 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 2500 5000 N O R T H KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER F-510 January 2, 2015 ‹ 20 1 4 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 4 \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 5 Y R C I P \ C A D \ E x h i b i t \ 2 0 1 4 - 1 2 - 2 9 5 y r c i p f u g r o \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 r e h a b - e x h i b i t . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 12 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 3 : 4 7 : 5 5 P M LA Y O U T : 11 x 1 7 e x h i b i t CHIPSEAL / CURB & GUTTER / POINT REPAIR 2015 CIP PAVEMENT REHAB IN HOUSE CENTER LINE FEET PLANNED ACTIVITY MISC STREETS CHIP SEAL 2 COURSE Apple Creek Rd.1,000 Royal Dr.1,360 Old Airport Rd.3,200 Stadium Dr.1,000 NE Inner Lp. CR 151 to FM 971 3,300 CR 152 - FM 971 to County Line 5,587 River Haven Dr.809 WL Walden 1,523 3rd Austin Ave to Myrtle 928 TOTAL 18,707 OLD TOWN CHIP SEAL 1 COURSE 13th - Ash to James 2,520 Olive - University to 17th 1,831 15th - Olive to Hutto 1,728 Laurel - 15th to Hutto 900 Vine - University to 15th 795 James - 13th to 15th 454 Maple - 20th to 22nd 535 22nd - Maple to San Jose 496 Pine - San Jose to 13th 3,202 San Jose - E22nd to E15th 2,154 Vine - E15th to Dead End 1,524 E19th - Vine to Hutto 900 E18th - Vine to Hutto 900 E17th - Laurel to Hutto 1,123 E16th - Vine to Louise 566 Virginia - E16th to E19th 871 Louise - E16th to E19th 871 Katherine - E15th to E14th 326 E14th - Katherine to Hutto 380 TOTAL 22,076 SUN CITY REJUVENATOR / FOG SEAL Del Webb Blvd 10,000 Dove Hollow Trl 6,384 Fox Home Ln 1,586 Belfalls Dr 1,482 Breezeway Ln 3,700 River Rock Dr 800 Monarch Trl 2,600 Lindero Pass 700 Tea Tree Cv 222 Cobalt Cv 465 Farm Hill Dr 2,186 Prairie Grass Lan 550 Sunny Side Bnd 394 Fieldstone Dr 520 Butterfly Cv 444 Summit St 211 Deer Meadow Cir 3,295 Silver Bonnet Dr 506 Rosecliff Dr 1,040 Courtyard Garden Ln 306 Rainwater Cv 160 Caterpillar Ln 313 Armstrong Dr 920 Orion Rd 677 Venus Ln 546 Stardust Ln 976 Tipps Ct 114 Cowan Creek Dr 1,702 kingfisher Dr 597 Lampasas Pass 713 Travis Dr 1,078 Edwards Dr 393 Armstrong Dr 5,353 Summer Ridge Ln 1,410 Summit St 1,131 Piedmont Ln 806 Whirlwind Cv 600 Moon River Dr 330 Pristine Ln 961 Potter Ln 1,084 Chelsea Dr 355 Lake Sommerville Trl 1,442 Fieldstone Dr 1,707 Fort Boggy Dr 639 Barrington Farm Ct 507 Monument Hill Trl 2,167 Copper Breaks Dr 622 Bright Leaf Trl 1,777 Salt Creek Ln 3,341 Mill Creek Path 678 Sandy Creek Trl 551 Sun City Blvd 17,000 Mustang Island Trl 1,702 Meridian Path 267 Goose Island Dr 1,628 Mckinney Falls Ln 983 Independence Creek Ln 4,497 Angelina Cv 326 Cibolo Creek Dr 644 Mountain Creek Pass 1,039 Prairie Creek Trail 1,548 Bee Creek Ct 838 Cool Spring Wy 11,300 Pedernales Falls Dr 7,214 Lost Peak Path 1,000 Apache Mountain Ln 4,216 Sheldon Lake Dr 2,123 Cleburne Pass 546 Eisenhower Ct 425 Garner Cv 139 Huntsville Cv 722 Dixon Creek Ln 333 Trinity Ln 930 Bear Creek Ln 1,200 Caney Creek Cv 218 Old Blue Mountain Ln - PF to E. End 2,360 Star Mountain Ln 2,044 Major Peak Ln 336 Glass Mountain Cv 258 Shumard Peak Rd 1,217 Ranger Peak Rd 354 Duck Creek Ln 1,825 Pipe Creek Ln 2,010 Coleto Creek Ln 890 Hubbard Creek Ln 410 Emory Peak Trail 642 Capote Peak Dr 1,273 Eagle Mountain Cv 150 Beach Mountain Cv 487 TOTAL 146,135 ` City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board January 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible recommendation for Council acceptance of the pavement condition assessment findings and report prepared by Kasberg, Patrick and Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas. Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: KPA engineering was tasked with identifying and updating the Pavement Condition Indices and developing a Five Year Capital Improvement Program identifying and recommending annual treatments and projects for the roadways within the City of Georgetown. The City of Georgetown follows the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB-34) to manage our roadway assets. We are obligated to meet the following conditions using an asset management system: Keep an up-to-date asset inventory Perform condition assessments and report the results on a measurement scale Estimate the annual amount to maintain and preserve the eligible infrastructure assets at the condition level established and disclosed by the government The City must document that the eligible assets are being preserved approximately at or above the condition level established and disclosed by the government. In 2005, the City began its pavement management information system (PMIS) and initial roadway inventory, using the pavement Condition Index (PCI) as a tool to comparatively value the network’s worth. The roadway network overall PCI scores are updated every 3 years in accordance with GASB-34. The Council has directed staff to incorporate a policy to maintain a minimum average PCI of 85. The PCI for previous studies and the latest study are listed below: 2005 – 92 2008 – 93 2011 – 87.7 2014 – 87.3 KPA has prepared a presentation to explain their latest findings and recommendations for the 5 year Capital Improvements Projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the findings of the pavement condition assessment and the resulting Five- year Capital Improvements Project Recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller ATTACHMENTS: Description Type City Wide PCI Map Backup Material Pavement Condition Report Synopsis Backup Material C.R . 152 C.R. 150 F.M. 972 WESTI N G H O U S E ROAD C . R . 1 0 2 C.R.147 C.R.143 SHEL L ROAD S T A T E H W Y 1 9 5 ST A T E H W Y 19 5 I.H . HW Y 35 STATE H W Y 2 9 OL D U . S . 8 1 H W Y C . R . 1 1 0 F . M . 1 4 6 0 F.M. 9 7 1 WEB B C.R . 24 5 JENNI N G S BRANC H SHE L L ROA D HO G G ROA D JI M F.M.3405 A N D I C E R O A D ( F . M . 2 3 3 8 ) STATE H W Y 2 9 F.M. 2 2 4 3 DE L B L V D . I . H . H W Y 3 5 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORTL A K E G E O R G E T O W N CHAND L E R ROAD TEXAS EST. 1848GEORGETOWN © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 4 \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 5 Y R C I P \ C A D \ E x h i b i t \ 2 0 1 4 - 1 2 - 2 9 5 y r c i p f u g r o \ 5 y e a r c i p f u g r o p c i . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 12 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 1 : 3 3 : 2 8 P M LA Y O U T : 5y r c i p Pl o t D a t e : 12 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 1 1 : 2 4 : 1 8 A M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F FIVE YEAR CIP KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 CURRENT PCI ROADWAY SCORES PCI 41 - 65 66 - 75 76 - 85 86 - 95 96 - 100 0 - 40 CITY LIMITS ETJ 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 2000 4000 N O R T H Page 1 REPORT SYNOPSIS The City of Georgetown has recognized the importance of preserving existing pavement infrastructure and optimizing available maintenance and rehabilitation funding. In order to optimize existing resources, the City is implementing a pavement management tool to track roadway network performance over time in accordance with the Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34). The City of Georgetown contracted with Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates LP (KPA), who in turn utilized Fugro Roadware, Inc. (Fugro) to provide data collection for 100 percent of the road network currently maintained by the City of Georgetown. A survey was conducted using an automated system that collects pavement distress information, ride quality measurements, and rut depth measurements mounted on a host data collection platform. This information is converted to ratings or indices for the City’s roadway network, allowing for comparisons between sections. The data collected in this survey is utilized to calculate the overall road network Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Score. The PCI score facilitates decision making for selecting appropriate treatments and timing for maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (M&R) strategies. The PCI score will be utilized to develop a 5-year CIP Maintenance program for Fiscal Year 2015 through Fiscal Year 2019. This project was initiated to perform pavement condition surveys for the City of Georgetown and to report road network health at the time of the survey in 2014. Key tasks in this implementation process include: A. Review network definition for accuracy and develop parameters for data collection. B. Conduct pavement condition surveys and ride quality measurements. C. Develop, utilize, and implement the Cartegraph asset management system to analyze the City’s current pavement network. D. Prepare a report of the work conducted including background, execution, findings, conclusions and recommendations for a five-year network-level maintenance plan. Page 2 Calculation of Condition Scores Cartegraph calculates a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each pavement section. The PCI can be based on a combination of different indices such as distress, ride, geometrics, and safety among others. However, when combining two or more different indices to calculate a composite score, the meaning of such a score is occasionally lost. The PCI uses a scale from 0 for a failed pavement to 100 for a pavement in perfect condition. PCI is based on the type, severity, and extent of surface distress as illustrated in Figure 2. The types of distress collected and included in the PCI calculation are fatigue cracking, block cracking, linear cracking, and rutting. Figure 2. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) For the analysis of the City of Georgetown’s data, the PCI index calculated only takes into account distress information. Each of the distress types include a severity level (low, moderate, and high) and have different impacts or “deduct” values for a range of extent. The calculation of the PCI is based on the IRI (International Roughness Index) values obtained from the data collection as shown in the profile data collection section above. Reporting Condition Scores The overall PCI score is 87.3 for the entire City of Georgetown road network in 2014. This network PCI classification is considered to be in the “Fair” condition rating. With approximately 3,641 pavement management sections included in the analysis, reviewing condition scores on a section-by-section basis can be tedious. Rather than review individual section data, the general health of the pavement network can be interpreted by reviewing the data distribution by score. Two common methods for displaying this information are bar chart histograms by condition state and cumulative frequency distributions. Pavement conditions can be described using subjective ratings such as PCI Distress Type Distress Severity Distress Quantity Page 3 “Good,” “Fair,” and “Poor”. These subjective ratings can be defined by assigning a numeric range to each category. Table 1 shows the condition category definitions applied to pavement scores. Table 1. Pavement Condition Index Ratings Rating Excellent Good Fair Marginal Poor Damaged Range 95 – 100 85 – 95 75 – 85 65 – 75 40 – 65 < 40 The PCI by functional classification is shown in Table 2, which depicts the overall condition of the three functional classes (Arterial, Collector, and Local) with the network PCI. Lane 1 conditions are reported in the table below as these are representative of the primary driving lane. Table 2. Pavement Condition Index by Functional Class (2014 – Lane 1, all Passes) Year Local Collector Arterial Overall Network 2014 86.5 86.1 90.0 87.3 2012 87.5 86.3 89.7 87.7 PCI Scores were updated based on recent maintenance treatments as described below: • Rejuvenator – measured field PCI • 1-Course Chip Seal – maximum of field PCI and 90 • 2-Course Chip Seal – maximum of field PCI and 90 • Cutler in-Place Recycling – maximum of field PCI and 95 Multiple lanes and passes were driven during the data collection process. Data was collected in up to four lanes in up to two passes (directions). Table 3 below summarizes the multiples pass information. There were a few Local streets where multiple passes were performed, but this represents a very small percentage. Page 4 Table 3. Pavement Condition Index by Functional Class (All Test Passes) Lane/Pass Combination Local Collector Arterial Overall Network Lane 1 - All Passes 86.5 86.1 90.0 87.3 Pass 1 86.4 86.3 89.6 87.0 Pass 2 88.3 85.2 90.5 89.1 Lane 2 - All Passes -- 93.8 91.3 91.5 Pass 1 -- 94.3 91.1 91.3 Pass 2 -- 93.3 91.5 91.6 Lane 3 - All Passes -- 93.4 -- 93.4 Pass 1 -- 100.0 -- 100.0 Pass 2 -- 90.0 -- 90.0 Lane 4 - All Passes -- 90.3 -- 90.3 Pass 1 -- 90.9 -- 90.9 Pass 2 -- 90.0 -- 90.0 All Test Passes 86.5 86.5 90.5 88.0 Condition State Bar Charts Figure 3 displays the road network PCI score distribution by functional class and for the overall road network as of 2014. Over 40 percent of the network falls into the “Excellent” category, with PCI scores above 95. The condition state graph shows conditions for the Arterial classification have a proportionately better rating than other classes, while the Local classification has a proportionately worse rating than other classes. The majority of the network is composed of residential streets, as is evident by the overall network rating being at nearly the same level as the residential functional class rating. Figure 3. PCI Score Distribution (Pass 1, Lane 1) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0-40 40-65 65-75 75-85 85-95 95-100 Pe r c e n t o f F u n c t i o n a l C l a s s PCI Score Range Local Collector Arterial Overall Network Page 5 Figure 4 displays the road network IRI score (0 = perfectly smooth) distribution by functional class and for the overall road network as of 2014. Approximately 47 percent of the network (where valid readings were taken) exhibits an IRI value of less than 200. Brand new highways typically have an IRI value of between 40 and 60, damaged roadways typically have an IRI of over 200-300. As the IRI value increases, these are signs of increasingly damaged or distressed roads. Index values of over 600 are very poor and the comfortable driving speed on such roadways is likely very slow to not comfortable at any speed. The conditions of the ride quality are in line with the distribution of the PCI scores for the City’s network. It should be also noted that the Arterial roadways are performing much better than the network as a whole. This is expected as ride quality is typically more of a concern and triggers maintenance or rehabilitation actions on Arterial roadways before other roadways. The Collector and Local roadways are performing nearly the same for ride quality. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% > 600 500-600 400-500 300-400 200-300 100-200 0-100 Pe r c e n t o f F u n c t i o n a l C l a s s IRI Score Range Local Collector Arterial Overall Network Figure 4. IRI Score Distribution (Pass 1, Lane 1) At speeds below approximately 45 miles per hour, modern vehicle suspension systems diminish pavement roughness before it can be translated to the vehicle chassis, thus affecting pavement ride. Other variables such as acceleration and deceleration during testing can also influence data collection. The effects of accelerating or decelerating during data collection were not filtered from the collected roughness data. Given that the reference speed for the International Roughness Index is 50 miles per hour and that posted speed limits in the city (particularly for collectors and residential roads) are much Page 6 lower, there is little concern for the roughness of these roads at high speeds. Table 4 below shows a summary of IRI values invalidated during the QC process. Table 4. Percent of Segments with Invalidated IRI by Functional Class (Pass 1, Lane 1) Local Collector Arterial Overall Network 38% 12% 9% 30% Maintenance Policy The first step in producing a maintenance work plan is to understand the type of work activities currently in use by the City. The objective of developing a quality work plan is to select the right treatment, at the right time, for the correct pavement condition. Lists of work activities and costs for the City of Georgetown are presented in Table 4 below. Table 4 outlines the general treatments on AC roadways. Emergency maintenance such as pothole repair or patching for utilities is not included. Table 4. AC Work Plan Activities, Costs, and Impact Treatment Cost Cost + 10% Unit Growth Rate Impact Impact Type Fog Seal $0.05 $0.06 SF 5% 0-3 Relative Single Chip $0.34 $0.37 SF 5% 90 Absolute Double Chip $0.61 $0.67 SF 5% 90 Absolute Single Chip w/ Fog $0.39 $0.43 SF 5% 90 Absolute Double Chip w/ Fog $0.66 $0.73 SF 5% 90 Absolute Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) $1.71 $1.30 SF 5% 90 Absolute HIPR (Cutler) $1.71 $1.88 SF 5% 95 Absolute Rejuvenator $0.09 $0.10 SF 5% 0-2 Relative Rehabilitation (20% Patching + Mill & Overlay) $2.22 $2.45 SF 5% 30 Relative Reconstruction Backlog $15.00 $15.00 SF 0% 0 Relative For the treatments shown above, the Cost + 10% unit cost was used in the in budget analysis. An overall cost growth rate of 5% was assumed for all treatment types. Unit costs were based of the 2014 Street Maintenance Program average bid prices. Impacts classified as Relative, add the numeric value of the impact to the PCI score when a treatment is applied, whereas impacts classified as Absolute have the PCI score set to the numeric value shown. Page 7 The Cartegraph software provides tools for defining work types, associated costs, and expected improvements to the segment PCI when the treatment is applied. Current maintenance alternatives were selected based on current practices in the City of Georgetown, the State of Texas, and other similar networks. Additional maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) options can be considered by the City of Georgetown and incorporated at any time. These alternatives and their associated costs may be changed at any time to maintain current construction costs. Other policy tables include the PCI weights, which allow the weight of the condition indices to be altered if desired, and Distress and Ride Impact Factors, which represent the increase in condition index for a particular work activity. Preliminary recommendations for maintenance activities are based on the condition of the road segment or PCI score. A decision tree representing the M&R Policies was developed in based on discussions with the City Staff. Table 5 below shows the decision matrix used in the analysis. Four decision matrices were evaluated before the one below was selected as representative for the City of Georgetown for a 5-year network-level budget analysis. There is virtually no portland cement concrete (PCC) roadways in the City so the budget analysis was only set up for asphalt concrete (AC) roadways. Table 4. AC Work Plan Decision Matrix Treatment Functional Class PCI Min PCI Max Used Minimum Interval Fog Seal -- 85 95 N -- Single Chip w/ Fog Local 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Minor Collector 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Major Collector 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Minor Arterial 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Major Arterial 70 85 Y 5 yr HIPR (Cutler) All 60 70 Y -- Rejuvenator -- 75 90 N -- Rehabilitation (20% Patching + Mill & Overlay) All 40 65 Y -- Reconstruction Backlog All 0 40 N -- It should be noted that Fog Sealing and Rejuvenation as stand-alone treatments were not included in the budget analysis. Fog Sealing should be utilized in conjunction with the Chip Seal Program. Rejuvenation is a stand alone process utilized to rejuvenate asphalt Page 8 pavement that has experienced oxidation. The impact of rejuvenation and fog sealing on the PCI score is little to none. The overall impact on the network-level PCI of not including these treatments is negligible. The rejuvenation and fog sealing treatments tend to be applied to whole neighborhoods / subdivisions at a time. Deferred Maintenance Analysis An additional analysis based on the No Funding scenario can be used to calculate the cost of deferred maintenance was setup with Cartegraph. Figure 11 shows how the deterioration of an unimproved network causes the eventual price of repair to increase significantly as maintenance is put off. The unimproved network PCI is shown on the x- axis along with the plan year. The blue bars show the cost of the maintenance backlog (all activities except reconstruction). The reconstruction backlog, represented by the red line shows the total area of roadway with a PCI of less than 40 that will likely be candidate roadways for reconstruction. The total backlog that includes reconstruction can quickly escalate as reconstruction costs can run between $12 and $20 per square foot. The reason that there is a drop in maintenance between years one and two is because several roadways in the pre-critical range dropped to a PCI score below 40. The volume of these roadways made the overall maintenance lower, excluding potential reconstruction roadways. When the volume of roadways requiring reconstruction is included, the overall backlog increases each year. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 Yr 1 - PCI = 86 Yr 2 - PCI = 83 Yr 3 - PCI = 81 Yr 4 - PCI = 78 Yr 5 - PCI = 74 Sq F t o f R e c o n s t r u c t i o n ( m i l l i o n s ) Ma i n t e n a n c e B a c k l o g ( m i l l i o n s ) Year / PCI Score Maintenance Backlog Reconstruciton Area Figure 11. Deferred Maintenance Cost Page 9 For example, if “unlimited funding” were available in year one of the analysis (2015 in this case), the network would be improved to a PCI of 92, for an approximate cost of $15,400,000, excluding roadways requiring reconstruction. As shown in Figure 11, the deferred maintenance cost grows significantly with time. Some of this is due to inflation and interest; however the majority is due to deferring recommended maintenance and rehabilitation activities. The results from the deferred maintenance analyses are also summarized in tabular form in Table 9, below. Table 9. Deferred Maintenance Summary Work Plan Year Calendar Year Maintenance Backlog Reconstruction Area (SF) PCI Change in PCI 1 2014-2015 $15,391,717 1,070,962 85.8 0.0 2 2015-2016 $14,718,624 1,605,613 83.3 -2.5 3 2016-2017 $21,074,368 2,454,139 80.5 -5.3 4 2017-2018 $25,308,368 3,291,803 77.5 -8.3 5 2018-2019 $31,615,131 4,382,617 74.3 -11.5 The results in Table 9 indicate that the cost of deferred maintenance steadily rises from year 2 to year 5. The drop between years 1 and 2 was explained on the previous page. The reason for the increase in cost per PCI each year is the amount and type of activities that are required in order to address the network’s pavement deterioration. For example, what may have been a “Chip Seal” in year one of the analysis may deteriorate into a full “HIPR” by the end of year two or three. There is a large increase in deferred maintenance costs between years 3 and 4, which indicates that a large number of roadways are changing from a less expensive treatment type to a more expensive one during that plan year. In addition, the cost of treatments is rising with inflation and other market forces. These results show the importance of keeping roads in good condition, which can be accomplished by having a comprehensive pavement management system in place with reasonable M&R policies. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN OPTIMAL PMS Several scenarios have been run to demonstrate the system’s capabilities but also to seek out initial results. Although these reports are informative, PMS analysis is an iterative Page 10 process and effort must be taken by the City to seek out enhancements to the maintenance policy to better correspond with the constraints and practices of the City. Typical examples might include adding new treatments or revising cost data as it becomes available, editing the prioritization policy, and other similar enhancements. With historical information, trends in deterioration can be evaluated, identifying locations of repeated maintenance that indicate a more severe underlying problem. Identifying prevalent distress types is essential to providing recommendations to prevent or mitigate them through improvements in pavement design or maintenance policy. As technology in the maintenance treatments evolves, the City may decide to include alternative treatments in the maintenance activity selection, the Cartegraph software allows these changes. Because a pavement management system is the best tool to track performance of different treatment types, it is recommended that the City of Georgetown test additional treatments to examine their performance and added value. All cost information programmed in Cartegraph and presented in this report was updated based on recent work order estimates accounting for the cost of materials, labor, and accoutrement costs associated with repaving operations.