Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda_GTAB_03.14.2014
Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown March 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM at the GMC Building, 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. B Introduction of Visitors C Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates D Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager 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 Legislative Regular Agenda F Nominations and election of Vice-Chair of the GTAB Board. - Truman Hunt – Chair Person for GTAB G Nominations and election of Secretary of the GTAB Board. – Truman Hunt, GTAB Chair Person H Review and possible action related to the Day and Time of GTAB Board Meetings. – Truman Hunt, GTAB Chair Person I Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on February 14, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison J Review and possible recommendation regarding operational options for the Georgetown Airport. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Curtis Benkendorfer, Interim Airport Manager, Bridget Chapman, City Attorney, and Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel. K Consideration and possible recommendation to approve standard lease forms for the Georgetown Municipal Airport—Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel. L Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Draft Final Report. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. M Consideration and possible recommendation to authorize Task Order #S&A-14-001-ROW with Spitzer & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $97,600.00, plus reimbursable expenses, for acquisition services in connection with the Smith Branch Drainage Buy-outs Project. Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director, Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator. N Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order No. KPA-14-006 with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to developing Pavement Condition Indices and a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for roadways in the amount of $346,394.00 - Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. O SEC 551.071 Consultation with Attorney Discussion of legal issues concerning the Georgetown Municipal Airport. - Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel 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 __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Call to Order The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Introduction of Visitors ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: GTAB Projects - FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue FM 1460 Improvements Project N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Safe Routes to School - Churchill to Mitchell Elem Shell Road at Westbury-Bellaire - Signal Improvements Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Southwest Bypass Project (TIP #14C) Transit Study as Requested by City Council Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance Transportation Services Operations – Sidewalk Master Plan GTEC Projects Project Update and Status Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Project Updates Exhibit FM 971 at Austin Avenue Realignment Intersection Improvements Project No. 1BZ TIP No. QQ1 March 2014 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 go IH 35 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School and a more direct route to SH 130. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Engineer is progressing to the 60% Plan review phase has been authorized to proceed with the development of construction PS&E. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way Paperwork for the land swap has been completed. We will be developing a ROW exchange with TxDOT for the realigned roadway. Utility Relocations TBD Construction City and TxDOT need to develop an AFA for construction of the project by TxDOT; schedule TBD. Other Issues None at this time. FM 1460 Quail Valley Drive to University Drive Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc March 2014 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 The 90% Submittal Review with TxDOT was held in February; Engineer is making final revisions foe a March 27th 100% (Final) submittal. Environmental/ Archeological Environmental approved with Project Schematic. Rights of Way All appraisals are complete. Final offers have been made for all ROW parcels. The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring condemnation. Acquired: 22 Pending: 3 Condemnation: 11 Total: 36 Utility Relocations Ongoing as ROW is being acquired. Construction Project has been scheduled by TxDOT for a July 2014 Letting, with an anticipated construction start for the fall (estimated for September). Other Issues None Pending N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Rec Center to Georgetown High School Project No. 1CV TIP No. None March 2014 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 100% Plans were submitted December 20th to TxDOT. Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way None Utility Relocations TBD Construction Project currently being advertised with construction Award scheduled for April 2014. Other Issues None pending. Safe Routes to School Churchill Farms to Mitchell Elementary Project No. 1CK TIP No. None March 2014 Project Description Design and preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the construction of sidewalk and related safety improvements along Southeast Inner Loop between Belmont Drive and Mitchell Elementary School, to include grant and construction administration. Purpose To provide a Safe Route to School between the Churchill Farms Subdivision and Mitchell Elementary Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Huitt‐Zollars, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Complete Surveying Complete Environmental/ Archeological None Rights of Way Existing Utility Relocations None Construction Project approximately 80% complete. Pedestrian bridge and approaches have been installed. Other Issues None pending. Shell Road Signal Improvements Shell Road at Westbury Lane/Bellaire Drive Project No. N/A TIP No. None March 2014 Project Description Design and preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the construction of signal improvements for the ultimate intersection of Shell Road at Westbury Lane/Bellaire Drive and to determine future additional rights‐of‐way needs north of the intersection. Purpose To better manage traffic movements through and within the intersection. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Plans are 50% complete; final plans due March 28th Surveying TBD Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way Ultimate ROW exists along Shell Road south of the intersection Future ROW along Shell Road north of the intersection TBD. Utility Relocations None required at this time Construction To begin end of May; completion by 2nd week of August Other Issues Funding source Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study (IH 35 to Rockride Lane) Project No. None Project No. None March 2014 Project Description Develop a preliminary design schematic, perform preliminary engineering and report preparation for the Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design from IH 35 to Rockridge 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 IH 35) with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Draft Final Report being presented to GTAB in March. Subsequent to Board comments, Staff and Engineer will meet with the adjoining and affected land owners and receive any additional comments. Draft Final Report will be completed in accordance with all applicable comments and returned to GTAB before being forwarded to Council with Board recommendations for acceptance of alignment. 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 phase. Utility Relocations TBD (future) Construction TBD (future) Other Issues None at this time. Southwest Bypass Project (RM 2243 to IH 35) Project No. 1CA Project No. 14c March 2014 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 Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR Engineering, 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 at this time Transit Study as Requested by City Council Project No. None Project No. None March 2014 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 March 2014 Project Description 2012/13‐2014 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 Task Status / Issues 2nd and 6th Street Engineering (Halff) 2nd at Austin Avenue intersection improvement along with 6th Street (Austin Ave. to Rock) engineering is complete and is currently being advertised for bid. Construction of all of 2nd to Holly will move to 2015 during VFW renovation 9th Street (Main to Rock) (KPA) KPA is finalizing plans and preparing to advertise. We are looking for construction to begin after the Poppy Festival. Chip Seal Complaints about noise and fears of the road failing has prompted staff to fog seal the road to help quite the road noise and help retain aggregate. The “quick set” product produced by Western Emulsions was applied onto Sun City Blvd, Summer Crest and Pecan Branch Subdivisions on March 11th, 12th, 13th. If successful, the product will be specified on all chip seals in the future. Fog Seal Survey of unfinished sections complete: (Majority of scheduled work completed) Unfinished streets will be performed in Spring 2014. Cutler/overlay Cutler on Williams Drive, Rock Street, 16th Street complete. Additional Streets completed as a result of chip seal failures (Austin Avenue and Del Webb Blvd.) extended the schedule in cold weather and the holiday season. Contractor has indicated their intention is not to return until late Summer 2014 to complete 2013 work. (late May to early June) Pavement Evaluation Staff has prepared item concerning KPA for Engineering services related to pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP reflecting changes and updates. 2013‐14 CIP Maintenance Projects Staff and KPA are reviewing/finalizing plans and advertising for the 2014 Cutler, Fog seal and Chip seal projects. Transportation Services Operations Sidewalk Master Plan March 2014 Project Description Inventory existing assets; analyze existing and future requirements; develop a multi‐year implementation plan. Purpose To enable comprehensive planning of sidewalk maintenance and improvement across multiple city agencies and related stakeholders to meet the needs of city residents and businesses. Final document, though a stand‐ alone product, will be incorporated into the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the OTP by reference. Project Managers Bill Dryden and Nat Waggoner Engineer/Engineers HDR Architects Task Status / Issues Initiation DRAFT Scope of Services compiled with input from City of Georgetown staff and GISD. Scope of Services negotiation underway with HDR. Task Order to be completed and delivered to HDR March 13th. Planning March – April 2014 Execution May – December 2014 Monitoring Continuous feedback loops with internal stakeholders, policy bodies and public. Close/Adoption January 2015 Other Issues 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 The bridge is OPEN. Demolition beginning on old bridge and roadway. PAID TxDOT $2,500,000 on 9/16/2008. Behind Schedule (August 2014) Under Construction 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue) #12 5QG Project Complete. Two ROW Parcels have remaining issues. Completed 12,677,064 10,478,499 2,198,565 318,561 554,229 -235,668 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) #14A 5QW Engineer has completed fencing plans, inclusive of potential environmental mitigation issues. Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less actual permitting required at time of construction. ROW has been acquired. On Schedule Unchanged 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 239,600 21,250 218,350 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. ROW Acquisition process has begun; negotiations on-going for the Weir and Guy properties. Wolf property – Acquisition complete. On Schedule Unchanged 6,256,432 3,219,345 3,037,087 3,059,299 3,667 3,055,632 Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. In-process 565,000 619,488 -54,488 0 1,593 -1,593 NB Frontage Road (2338 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 250,000 231,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 ROW - 1460 #EEa #EEb #EEc 5RB 90% construction plans review with TxDOT February 13th. Utility coordination on-going as ROW is acquired. All appraisals are complete. Final offers have been made for all ROW parcels. We have reached agreement with the property on several others and are awaiting completion of the paperwork. 22 of 36 Parcels have been acquired. On Schedule 1,500,000 3,032,574 -1,532,574 1,500,000 3,031,624 -1,531,624 TCS/RR Easement 5RD 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 FM 971 / Washam 5RE GTEC Portion complete Complete 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 Rivery Road 5RF Alignment adopted by Council. Complete 750,000 29,000 721,000 750,000 29,000 721,000 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 100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo Project 5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives and preliminary cost estimates. On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 3,280 0 3,280 Economic Development Projects 1,012,500 1,012,500 1,012,500 1,012,500 7,002,240 3,641,363 3,360,877 Project to Date Current Year Budget (12/13) GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT March 2014 Project to Date Current Year Budget (12/13) C:\Documents and Settings\bdryden\Application Data\Microsoft\Excel\GTEC - Project Status - 2014-02 (version 1).xlsb Page 1 of 1 03/05/2014 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Projects: · Air Field Electrical Improvements · GTU Business Case Analysis · Airport Monthly Financial FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Curtis Benkendorfer (jk) ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Airfield Electrical Improvemments Backup Material GTU Business Case Analysis Backup Material Airfield Electrical Improvements Project No. 1314GRGTN March 2014 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: The FY2014 project involves the installation of new runway and taxiway lighting, new runway and taxiway signage, new PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) lights along with a new transformer vault and lighting controls in the tower. The final design for the FY2014 project is currently under review by TxDOT, GTU, and the City of Georgetown. Garver has scheduled a final design review meeting with all parties on March 11th. Once the final design review comments have been implemented in our design, Garver will provide signed and sealed drawings, specifications, and other bidding items to TxDOT so they may initiate the bidding process. FY2014 and FY2015 projects up to date, on schedule and moving forward. GTU Business Case Analysis March 2014 Project Description Airport lease rate adjustments and review. Purpose GTU Land Leases, Hangars & Tie downs rate review Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Notes Per the Airport memorandum released on June 16, 2010 the review was published and the recommendation for Hangars and Tie-downs was a 10% increase for hangars, tie-downs to become effective on October 1st 2010. The next increase of 10% was performed on October 1st of 2012. The next CPI-W adjustment is scheduled to begin on October 1st of 2014 and effective every two years after 2014. Currently - T hangars lease revenue ranges from $127.05 a month to $285.87 per month. Tie downs are $50.82 per month. New Airport Ground Lease: Commercial: $0.20/sq.ft./yr (Subject to City Council approval) Storage (Only): $0.14/sq.ft./yr (Subject to City Council approval) City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Nominations and election of Vice-Chair of the GTAB Board. - Truman Hunt – Chair Person for GTAB ITEM SUMMARY: Per the Bylaws of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board; “Section 3.1 – Officers. The Board Officers are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Chair 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 its first meeting after the annual appointment process.” The Chair of the Board, Mr. Truman Hunt, will take the nominations from the floor, for position of Vice- Chair. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Truman Hunt (jk) City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Nominations and election of Secretary of the GTAB Board. – Truman Hunt, GTAB Chair Person ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Truman Hunt (jk) City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible action related to the Day and Time of GTAB Board Meetings. – Truman Hunt, GTAB Chair Person ITEM SUMMARY: Per the GTAB Bylaws Section 4.1 Time & 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 Currently, the GTAB Board meets on the second Friday of each month at 10:00 a.m. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Truman Hunt (jk) ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GTAB Meetign Schedule 2014-2015 Backup Material GEORGETOWN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (GTAB) Meeting Schedule March 2014 – February 2015 All Regular Meetings will be held on the second FRIDAY of every month at 10:00 a.m. at the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300-1 Industrial Avenue Please contact Jana Kern @ 930-8473 if you have questions regarding meeting dates or times. MARCH 14, 2014 APRIL 11, 2014 MAY 09, 2014 JUNE 13, 2014 JULY 11, 2014 AUGUST 09, 2014 SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 OCTOBER 10, 2014 NOVEMBER 14, 2014 DECEMBER 11, 2014 (Thursday) JANUARY 09, 2015 FEBRUARY 13, 2015 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on February 14, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison ITEM SUMMARY: Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on February 14, 2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Feb 2014 Minutes Backup Material City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible recommendation regarding operational options for the Georgetown Airport. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Curtis Benkendorfer, Interim Airport Manager, Bridget Chapman, City Attorney, and Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel. ITEM SUMMARY: At the January 14, 2014, City Council Meeting, Council heard a speaker and received a letter related to the possible closure/relocation of the Georgetown Airport. The Council asked staff to take the item back to GTAB for consideration as part of the implementation process of the Airport Business Case Analysis. Attached you will find the Resolution creating the Georgetown Municipal Airport, a 2002 Report on the possible closure relocation of the Georgetown Municipal Airport and an updated grant history for the Georgetown Municipal Airport. In 2002, the thought of closing or relocating the Airport would be between $30 to $50 Million dollars, and would not be supported or approved by the TxDOT and the FAA. Today, TxDOT and the FAA still would not support the closure of the Airport, and relocation would cost the same amount of money, plus the cost of rebuilding the existing infrastructure at a new location if it could even get environmental clearances. Also, in most cases of airport closures, property purchased for the existing GTU will belong to the Federal Government, not the City of Georgetown, for redevelopment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue with implementation of the Airport Business Analysis for the orderly growth and development of the Georgetown Municipal Airport. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: EGP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Creating Airport Backup Material 2002 Closure Report Backup Material Updated Grant History for GTU Backup Material Executive Summary Backup Material GTU - ES Appendix A Backup Material GTU - ES Appendix B Backup Material Texas Airport System Plan Airport Development Worksheet Printed:02/06/2014 AIRPORT PROJECT HISTORY Page 1 of 2 Airport:GEORGETOWN MUNI Associated City: GEORGETOWN Airport ID:GTU FAA Site #:23934.*A48-0093NPIAS Site #: FYR Agency Local ($) State ($) Federal ($) Project Description 1969 TAC 1,250 RW and TW resurfacing. 1978 TAC 342 NDB. 1979 FAA 27,160 AMP;Bovay Engineers. 1980 TAC 50,000 Pave TWs, access roads to hangars, and parking apron;install security fencing. 1982 TAC 40,000 Install MIRL on RW 18-36. 1983 TAC 125,000 Seal coat Rw 18-36 (4100 x 100), TWs, (NPI) restripe. 1987 FAA 649,500 Expand apron (15,000 sy);acquire clear zone land. 1988 FAA 500,000 Overlay RW 18-36 (100' x 4,100') and TWs A and C. 1990 FAA 600,000 Acquire land, obstruction removal. 1991 TDA 78,750 64,099 1,153,796 Relocate Lakeway Drive; Extend & mark RW 36 (900 x 100), extend MIRL RW 36 (900 lf); extend TW to RW 36; install TW reflectors; install perimeter fencing. 1994 TDOT 29,771 29,771 535,887 Reconstruct & mark RW 11-29, TWs B & D (3200 x 50), rehab hangar access TWs (5500 sy), install MIRL RW 11-29, reflectors on TW B & D, TW signs (6 units), REIL RW 18, replace lighted windcone & segmented circle and rotating beacon. 1994 TDOT 65,475 65,475 Install 1.300 lft of 8 1996 FAA 3,002 3,002 54,027 Update airport master plan. 1998 FAA 646,576 1,919,774 Rehab & mark RW 18-36, TWs A & C; construct hangar access TWs to north T-hangar area, hangar access TWs to south corporate hangar area; repair & seal concrete apron joints; construct south corporate area apron, construct holding aprons at RW 18-36 & RW 11-29; construct water quality pond; construct access TWs to private hangar sites in s. corp. hangar; drainage; new access road to s. corp. apron; new north entrance road; realign chain link fencing; install electronic gate in s. corp. area; install water line & fire hydrants. 1999 TXDOT 222,133 222,133 Construct/remodel terminal building 2001 FAA 62,698 247,500 Conduct Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. 2002 TXDOT 82,276 748,474 Engineering/Design and Construction. Install guidance signs (6), Rehabilitate RW 11-29 (4100 x 75) (12,500 lbs.); Mark RW 11-29 (4331 sf)Rehabilitate ramp at T-hangar B & C (300 x 50) & (300 x 40) Install PAPI-4 RW 18 (05 NPE); Rehabilitate and mark TWs B & D (3200 x 50); Relocate overhead powerlines & underground water lines due to ATCT location; Install new rotating beacon & tower (05 NPE); Mark terminal apron tie-downs; Upgrade drainage pipe under access road; Relocate City owned building @ 404 Terminal Drive due to ATCT ; Modify/repair 8 ft. game fence (13,000 lf); Drainage improvements for hangar access TW between T-hangars B & C; Clean & grub trees in ATCT line of sight NPE 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 2003 TXDOT 12,862 12,862 RAMP: Security cameras at airport entrances, recorder, misc projects 2004 TXDOT 3,647 32,821 Prepare and airport layout plan 2005 TXDOT 1,500,000 1,500,000 design and construct air traffic control tower 2006 TXDOT 1,910 1,910 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for professional services for SPCC Plan services 2007 TXDOT 2,341 2,341 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for repairs to airport hangar door seals. 2008 TXDOT 5,331 5,331 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for installation of PAPI controller, base radio for tower emergency services and other projects tbd and added by amendment. 2009 TXDOT 51,808 1,020,710 Acquire RPZ RW 36 (7.15 ac.); Environmental studies; Engineering/design rehabilitate Runway 11-29 and 18-36, north hangar access area and mid hangar acres area; widen taxi lane to T-hangars E, F, and G relocate fire hydrant; install obstruction lighting on northwest runway safety area at Runway 18; improve runway safety area at Runway 36 and southwest side of Runway 36; survey and appraisal services to acquire land for runway protection zone at Runway 11,36 and 29 and acquire land southwest of Runway 11-29 SBGP-57-2009 $195,721; SBGP-46-2008 $146,077; SBGP-41-2007 $678,912 2009 TXDOT 8,550 8,550 RAMP: TxDOT- AWOS maint.;, Spon. - for NADIN interface, AWOS repairs/parts replacement; annual insp. of cont twr equip, ann. insp. and maint. of NDB, maint and meter calibration of fuel dispensers; removal of trees; tile in terminal restrooms; terminal renova 2010 TXDOT 150,302 150,302 Construct concrete ribbon curb for airport roads (14,000 lf) (already designed, in-house PM); Rehabilitate airport roads (10,500 sy) Texas Airport System Plan Airport Development Worksheet Printed:02/06/2014 AIRPORT PROJECT HISTORY Page 2 of 2 Airport:GEORGETOWN MUNI Associated City: GEORGETOWN Airport ID:GTU FAA Site #:23934.*A48-0093NPIAS Site #: FYR Agency Local ($) State ($) Federal ($) Project Description 2010 TXDOT 4,472 4,472 RAMP: MISC: Sponsor to contract for annual inspections and maintenance of fuel farm, tower equipment and NDB. 2011 TXDOT 124,865 1,123,779 Improve RSA RW 36; Improve RSA southwest side RW 36 (Corp. Eng. rock drainage put in pipe & buried); Rehabilitate corporate taxiway (south area) (28,000 sy); Widen taxilane to T-hangars E,F & G (510 x 50) & relocate fire hydrant.; Contingency, admin.fees, RPR, etc.; Rehabilitate north hangar access area (16,800 sy); Rehabilitate mid hangar access area (9985 sy) SBGP-2011-79 $598,965; SBGP-2008-49 $369,776; SBGP-2010-67 $155,039 2011 TXDOT 82,072 50,000 RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance. 2012 TXDOT 50,000 50,000 RAMP: TxDOT to contract for AWOS Maintenance, Sponsor to contract for airport general maintenance projects. Total Project ($)919,660 10,080,6073,188,840 Executive Summary Georgetown Airport Business Analysis Prepared for City of Georgetown, Texas May 28, 2013 CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. 11200 Richmond Ave, Ste. 300 Houston, TX 77082 In association with: BMEL Business Solutions, LLC Contents Section Page GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope and Process ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Governing Assumptions and Industry Best Practices.............................................................................. 2 2.1 Governing Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Industry Best Practices ........................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 Primary GTU Considerations ................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Airport Contract Tower ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Fueling Options .................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Management Options .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.3.2 Airport Authority .................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Administrative Implications ................................................................................................................. 7 3.5 GTU Marketing/branding..................................................................................................................... 8 3.6 Physical Layout, Capital Program and Planning ................................................................................... 9 3.6.1 Capital Program ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.6.2 Extending Runway 18/36 ...................................................................................................... 13 3.6.3 Runway Length Analysis ....................................................................................................... 13 3.6.4 Runway Length, Market Share and Business Case ............................................................... 15 3.7 Economic and Business Development ............................................................................................... 15 3.7.1 Runway Length and Service Levels at GTU ........................................................................... 16 3.7.2 Property Development ......................................................................................................... 16 3.8 Maintenance Standards ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.8.1 Airfield Pavement Condition Index (PCI) .............................................................................. 23 3.9 Land Lease Documents ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.9.1 Rental Rate Adjustment ........................................................................................................ 23 3.9.2 Maintenance of Leased Premise .......................................................................................... 23 3.9.3 Environmental ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.9.4 Reversion of Improvements ................................................................................................. 24 3.9.5 Rental Rates and Charges ..................................................................................................... 24 3.9.6 Leasing Recommendations ................................................................................................... 24 4.0 Best Practice Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 26 4.1 Financial Improvement Recommendations ....................................................................................... 26 4.1.1 Short-Term Financial Improvement Recommendations, (0-2 years) ................................... 26 4.1.2 Medium-Term Financial Improvement Recommendations, (2-5 years) .............................. 27 4.1.3 Long-Term Financial Improvement Recommendations, (5-15 years) .................................. 27 4.2 General Best Practice Recommendations ......................................................................................... 28 4.2.1 Operations/Safety and Security ............................................................................................ 28 4.2.2 Finance/Legal ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.2.3 Capital Development and Maintenance ............................................................................... 29 4.2.4 Administration/Organizational ............................................................................................. 29 5.0 Primary Management Options ............................................................................................................. 31 5.1 GTU Potential Management Options ................................................................................................ 31 5.2 Potential Management Options – Pros and Cons.............................................................................. 33 6.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 35 CONTENTS, CONTINUED GTU FOOTNOTED GTUEXECUTIVE SUMMARYFINALDRAFT_REV9.DOCX/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] A-ii Appendices A Current Rates and Charges Schedule B Conceptual P&L Statements Table B-1 City Managed Option Table B-2 Contract Management Option Table B-3 Full Privatization Option Table B-4 Exclusive Fueling Option Table B-5 Increased Fuel Prices List of Tables 1 Best Practices Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2 The Current 20 Year Capital Program (Page 1) ...................................................................................................... 10 3 The Current 20 Year Capital Program (Page 2) ...................................................................................................... 11 4 Short Term Capital Projects .................................................................................................................................. 12 5 GTU Runway Length Analysis, Aircraft Manufacturer Data Method ..................................................................... 13 6 GTU Runway Length Analysis, FAA Airport Design Software Methodology ......................................................... 14 7 Georgetown Airfield Pavement Condition Assessment ......................................................................................... 19 8 Georgetown Facilities Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................ 20 List of Figures 1 GTU Runway Length Chart, Aircraft Manufacturer Data Method ......................................................................... 14 2 GTU Developable Sites and Parcel Descriptions .................................................................................................... 17 3 GTU Land Use Map and Building Identification ..................................................................................................... 21 GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purposes of this Business Case Analysis for the City of Georgetown’s Municipal Airport (GTU) is to assist City Management and Airport Management in developing and operating the Municipal Airport in a manner that would be financially and operationally sustainable in both the immediate and long term. The desired outcome of the business case analysis is to, in consultation with City and airport management staff, provide a recommendation as to the most effective and financially sustainable form of long term management for the airport. 1.2 Background Georgetown Municipal Airport is a public-use airport located approximately thirty miles north of Austin, TX, and approximately three miles northwest of the central business district of Georgetown, TX. The airport is owned and operated by the City of Georgetown. The Airport Department is organized under the Division of Transportation within the Georgetown municipal structure. Day to day management and operation of the airport are the responsibility of the Airport Manager. The airport is facing challenges in the form of new competition from Austin Executive Airport, and more immediately it is being faced with the possibility of losing its contract tower operation as a result of the Federal budget sequestration. These challenges underscore the need for the City to move forward with solid business based initiatives that will allow the airport the opportunity to meet these challenges. This report develops and recommends solid action items that will assist the City in improving the business process at the airport. This executive summary brings forward the best practice recommendations for GTU in a format that includes: governing assumptions and industry best practices; primary considerations; administrative discussion; physical layout and planning; best practice recommendations; primary management options; and a report wrap up. 1.3 Scope and Process The scope and process to conduct the business case analysis was determined along with City staff. The general process is consistent with the development of a business plan for a public facility, and included the following approach: 1. Assemble all of the available information and background data. 2. Assess best practices from other successful airport operations. 3. Determine and recommend best practices which best suit GTU. 4. Develop a 10-year conceptual baseline financial model. 5. Develop alternative airport operating models for consideration. GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 2.0 Governing Assumptions and Industry Best Practices 2.1 Governing Assumptions Established through discussions with airport and City staff, the following assumptions were used to guide the business analysis: 1. GTU is a key public transportation facility, tied directly to the long term economic well being of Georgetown. The facility must be developed as a business and job creator as well as serving its intended transportation functions. It is estimated that the airport is utilized by as many as 20 fortune 1000 businesses per week, and as many as 5 fortune 100 businesses per week. 2. The airport should be viewed as one of the most significant economic development sites within the City. As such, the airport will require a focused and streamlined development approval process in order to remain competitive with other competing airports in the region. 3. The City should embrace a new Brand and Vision for the airport, and develop a policy statement that speaks to the communities’ goals for the airport. 4. Competition for Austin metropolitan area aviation demand is stronger than ever. The City and GTU staff must think strategically about how the airport will remain viable in the face of the changing aviation market. 5. The current GTU airport master plan is now outdated and has lost its usefulness. A new strategic airport master plan should be executed as soon as possible in order to help provide a single focus through all of the needed direction the airport has regarding long term capital investment, capital maintenance requirements and strategic goals. A workable solution to airport runway length limitations is also an important subject for the new airport master plan to consider. 6. In order for GTU to remain viable in its chosen role, it must be able to retain sufficient earnings to cover its operating expenses, and if possible, its local share of capital expenditures. 7. For the purposes of this business plan, it is assumed that the GTU market role will continue to accommodate all aspects of General Aviation with an emphasis on keeping and developing high end users that will make the airport more financially viable in the long term. 2.2 Industry Best Practices CH2M HILL conducted a study of seven comparable airports across the country, in order to collect a variety of best practices and provide a comparison point for GTU’s current practices. Seven airports were selected to represent a range of management and charter set ups and for their industry experience. Airports were also selected based on having a similar profile to that of GTU, including number of operations, number of based aircraft, runway length range, and type of service offerings. The airports interviewed included the following: Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO), WA Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport (CRG), FL Denton Municipal Airport (DTO), TX Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG), FL Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO), VA GOVERNING ASSUMPTIONS AND INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Morristown Municipal Airport (MMU), NJ San Marcos Municipal Airport (HYI), TX Information gathered by airport was divided into four major categories: Operations, Safety and Security Finance and Legal Capital Development and Maintenance Administrative Organization The completion of various meetings, interviews, and other information collecting tasks provided significant insight into the current and potential operation of GTU. Many of the operational and managerial aspects of the Georgetown Airport are consistent with industry standards and provide a solid basis for future successful operations. A detailed listing of general aviation best practices is presented in the final business analysis report. The following sections provide a listing of recommendations for GTU that have been compiled as a result of our best practice analysis. GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 3.0 Primary GTU Considerations 3.1 Airport Contract Tower The GTU contract tower being funded through the FAA contract tower budget has been slated for termination as a result of the current Federal budget sequestration process. GTU is one of 149 airports across the United States that are now slated to lose their contract tower function. The immediate impacts to GTU from losing the tower function would be to the safety and marketability of the airport. The City has a range of options that might be considered as a result of the federal budget impact and resulting tower closure. Those options are; 1. Allow the tower to close indefinitely 2. Fully fund the current tower operation at its current operational level, 15 hours daily, (would probably require a City RFQ for a contract operator) 3. Partially fund the tower operation in shorter daily schedule of either 8, 10, or 12 hour increments, (would probably require a City RFQ for a new contract operator) The potential financial impacts of the contract tower closure are fairly substantial in light of GTU budget and general fund implications. The full 15 hour contract operation is expected to cost almost $650,000 on an annual basis. A scaled down (8) hour minimal operation is estimated to cost roughly $250,000 on an annual basis. The possibilities for funding either a full or partial operation at GTU are few and problematic. The possible funding options for the GTU contract tower operations are as follows; Georgetown City general fund A time specific stipend from the State of Texas Funds raised from a GTU user fee tower specific assessment aimed at tenants, businesses and private flyers A combination of all of the above It is the opinion of CH2MHILL that the contract tower funding issue will put the Federal Government into a serious safety risk liability situation. Currently the FAA has pushed back any final decision to September of 2013. It is reasonable to expect that a more long term budgetary answer will be found before September, and that congress will be called on to find a long term funding remedy. If this is the case, it may be in the City’s best interest to look at a scaled down, either 10- or 12-hour daily program, with the current operator or a replacement operator, procured through a new RFP beginning in September. It may be in the City’s best interest to keep any new contract term short in duration. In the most recent congressional action that re-allocates FAA budget to fund furloughed controllers, congress has left room in the bill for the FAA to take part of the new allocation to fund all or part of the 149 contract towers. Using this available funding to continue or reinstate the contract tower program will be left to FAA discretion in beyond this coming September. 3.2 Fueling Options Under current operations, GTU is in a strong position from the standpoint of owning all of the fuel storage facilities at the airport. Because of this, the airport is able to generate revenue for wholesale jet fuel throughput and retail self service of Avgas. This fueling set up at GTU offers perhaps the highest potential revenue upside to the airport both now, and looking into the future. The prospect of upgrading the fueling facilities in the next 2 years using TxDOT grant funding and requiring potentially as little as a 10% local project match, further strengthens the business based potential revenue return to the City. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Currently, GTU generates 31 cents per gallon of Jet A wholesale fuel (includes 14 cents in fuel flowage and 17.8 cents in wholesale margin), and also retains a retail margin of 77.5 cents per gallon for self serve Avgas. Because the airport owns the fuel storage facility, GTU also retains the largest share of annual fuel service related O&M costs, as they are spread between the City and the fixed base operators. According to our analysis, under the current pricing set up, the fueling operation is rendering an approximately 8% return on investment, when all staff and fuel facility O&M costs are considered with respect to revenues generated. Central to our recommendation for both the fueling operation, and the leasing of facilities and grounds, is a stronger business based management focus. With respect to the fueling operation, a more business based return on investment would be a 10-12% ROI, versus the current 8%. Adopting a fuel pricing philosophy that offers the airport a more solid ROI, would improve revenue to the airport bottom line by approximately $60,000-$120,000 per year. Our recommendation would be to boost the fuel operation ROI through a combination of nominal increases to the following fuel rate categories: 1. Retail self service Avgas at the pump, (currently 77.5 cents per gallon) 2. Wholesale Jet fuel flowage fee, (currently 31 cents per gallon) 3. Pre-paid Avgas discount to flight schools, (currently 31 cents less the self serve retail rate of 77.5 cents per gallon) Currently, there is approximately $1 million dollars per year in retail fuel margin at GTU, shared by the private sector operators with retail fueling rights. This is primarily in jet fuel sales, in that the private operators are currently offering avgas at roughly the same price as the city, (approximately $5 per gallon). The city should consider all of the available options in determining what would make the most practical sense in potentially improving its revenue stake in the GTU fueling operation. The onus for increasing the city’s revenue stake is tied to the fact that the city carries a cost burden and liability not shared by the fixed base operators in operating and maintaining the only fuel farm at the airport. There is a general rule of thumb that states that it takes approximately one million gallons of fuel flow to support one fixed base operation. Currently, GTU has roughly between 720,000 to 750,000 gallons of annual fuel flow throughput. The annual fuel flow retail margin at GTU is currently split between four different operators, including the City. There are two full service FBO’s in Aero Centex and Longhorn Jet Center, and two partial retail operations, in Gantt Aviation and the City. Because the annual fuel flow is less than one million gallons, with four operators sharing in the retail fuel margin, it makes it difficult for any of the groups to succeed financially, which may have a bearing in the long term on reinvestment in facilities, and overall customer service. For this reason the City should adopt a set of minimum standards for fixed base operators that would ensure a high level of service and a reasonable level of initial investment for any potential new fueling operators. The long term goal should be to balance the need for competition with the need for maintaining healthy businesses that will offer a high level of customer service at the airport. Exclusive fueling is a concept and program that some general aviation airports in the United States have gone back to in order to help them achieve their operational and capital development break even need. Exclusive fueling is one of numerous commercial rights that are conferred on all airports, by the federal government, at the point of property conveyance. Typically, these fueling rights are offered to private sector fixed base operators, as they are better set up to perform the full range of services that fueling entails. In some cases, airports have rescinded, purchased, or taken back the right to provide fueling on an exclusive basis. In the right setting, exclusive fueling for the airport can provide substantial revenue upside potential, and an increase to level of service provided to the general aviation community. There is a range of fueling options that the City might consider going forward. Each of the options would offer the City certain revenue and cost considerations that should be further evaluated. The range of options is: 1. The current limited retail fueling operation: No additional changes in staff, equipment, or service offering. 2. A full retail fueling set up- non exclusive: Would require additional City staff, a hangar facility, retail fueling equipment, and a remodeled central terminal building to include higher end customer service PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 3. A partnership with a private fixed base operator: Would require either a management agreement, or a concession agreement with a private sector FBO. Would require a remodeled central terminal building to include higher end customer service amenities. If an arrangement is reached with one of the existing FBO’s those existing facilities and equipment and staff can be utilized. 4. An exclusive fueling arrangement for the City: Would require additional City staff, the full range of retail fueling equipment, a hangar or hangars, and a remodeled central terminal building. Following are general revenue and cost considerations for each of the four options: Fueling option #1, current operation: would entail the same costs as existing, with an improved ROI through a rate adjustment. The potential revenue increase would be $60,000 to $120,000 per year. Options #2 would require: approximately $250,000 dollars to renovate the existing central terminal building, (possibly TxDot grant eligible). The additional operating costs for equipment and staff, would run roughly $225,000 per year, and potential additional revenues would be $250,000 to $350,000 per year. Option #3 would require: approximately $250,000 dollars to renovate the existing central terminal building, (possibly TxDot grant eligible). The private operator should pick up all existing fuel related staff costs. Potential net revenues would range from approximately $300,000 to $600,000 depending upon which management option, (management agreement, or concession agreement) is chosen as preferable. Option #4 would require: the same facility improvements and requirements as options #2 and #3, with additional staffing and equipment costs up to $400,000 per year, and a negotiated price to secure exclusive fueling rights. The annual revenue potential would be approximately $600,000 which would be net of all expenses. Regardless of which option the city chooses, it is very important that a commercial balance is maintained at GTU so that any and all fueling operators will remain financially viable, and able to reinvest in the airport, and continue to offer a competitive level of service to airport users. 1 3.3 Management Options This business case analysis considered several airport management options that the City might consider to help move the airport forward in its development. The three primary options for managing an airport such as GTU would be: City managed (current method) Private contract managed Fully privatized There are many pros and cons associated with each of these potential management options, and these are listed section 5 of this executive summary. The airports selected to be part of the best practices analysis in this report, were selected to offer examples of these potential management options. Of the three potential management options considered, City managed, and private contract managed options are considered to be the most viable in the immediate and short term. The fully privatized option might present itself as an option, if GTU were to attain exclusive fueling rights at some point in the future. Under current operating conditions, GTU does not have sufficient commercial/revenue upside potential to provide the needed returns that a company would need in order to make a full airport privatization work financially. According to our analysis, the two most viable management options; City managed, and private contract managed would offer the City some of the following important considerations before choosing a long term path: 1 The four fueling options implicate escalating levels of legal issues which will require advice from the City Attorney. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 1. City managed: current staff must be reorganized around a strong business development and business management focus in order to have the financial returns that would keep the airport operationally viable. 2. Private contract managed: in this public-private partnership arrangement, the private operator would require a flat management fee, and an incentive based contract driven by market growth requirements/improvements. This would require active management oversight and development support on behalf of the City in order for both parties to be successful. As a result of our financial analysis, both of these options will have some difficulty in attaining an operational break even need. Both options would continue to require a City general fund commitment to cover any operating shortfalls, and local share of large capital expense in those years where large capital expenditures are planned. The analysis findings show a small benefit in favor of the private contract management option with regard to attaining an operational break even. This is primarily due to the stronger business management and business development incentive based contract that the private contract management company would operate under. A further more detailed analysis of these options is included in the recommendations section of this executive summary. The recommendations section details the necessary; administrative set up, staffing, and business development focus that will allow either of these management options to be successful going forward. 3.3.2 Airport Authority An airport authority was not considered specifically as part of this analysis, primarily because it may not operate substantially different from that of the existing City managed airport. In a typical business charter for an airport authority, the organization remains in a tight orbit with its parent organization (in this case, the City of Georgetown), while having the advantage of some administrative autonomy that would allow the organization to move more quickly, and to operate from a stronger business management focus. In our opinion, airport authorities when well chartered can offer an excellent business platform from which to manage a successful airport operation. From this perspective, the establishment of an airport authority is something worth consideration on the part of City management, and City Council. 2 3.4 Administrative Implications As mentioned in the previous section, the two most viable airport management options will continue to struggle to meet operational break even, and will not be able to cover local share of capital development costs in those years where large capital programs are planned. To the extent that many of the recommendations in this analysis are implemented, operational break even can be attained and over time, with improvements to the airport revenue base, financial self sufficiency is possible. One of the goals of this analysis was to capture a variety of different airports in our best practices analysis. This variety of airport charters, management options, and revenue production types, was meant to give the City an indication of what is working in the airport industry, and what might work for GTU in the future. The seven airports brought into our best practices analysis have operating characteristics as depicted in Table 1. 2 The establishment of an airport authority would involve legal tasks, but not significant legal obstacles. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 TABLE 1 Best Practices Analysis Operating Characteristics of Interviewed Airports Airport Name Type of Governance 1/ Operationally Break Even Local Share of Capital Costs Covered Short Fall Funding Source 2/ Non-traditional Revenue Source Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO), WA City Department under City Manager Yes Yes N/A Industrial Park Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport (CRG), FL Aviation Authority Yes No Authority Golf Course Ground Lease and Timber Sales Denton Municipal Airport (DTO), TX City Department Yes Yes N/A Natural Gas Lease Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG), FL Aviation Authority Yes Yes N/A Exclusive Fueling Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO), VA Town Owned, Department of Town Yes No City General Fund FAA Regional Security Office Lease Morristown Municipal Airport (MMU), NJ City Owned with Management Contract Yes No Management Company None San Marcos Municipal Airport (HYI), TX City Department with a contract management agreement Yes No City General Fund None Notes: 1/ Type of Governance options: airport authority, town or city managed, city managed/management contract 2/ Short Fall Funding Source options: general fund, management company, or authority From the above table, some initial conclusions can be drawn. It can be concluded that many airports in the same general size band as GTU are reasonably successful at covering their annual operating costs, but still struggle to meet local share of capital development requirements. Those airports that are successful in both meeting their operational break even need, and their annual capital development needs, do so because of the extent of their land lease business base, or a non-traditional revenue source. In the case of Denton Texas, their natural gas lease is used to help ensure break even need for capital programs. In the case of Herlong airport in Florida, their exclusive fueling operation offers the airport both operational and capital development break even. In the case of Morristown in New Jersey, their operational break even success is based on the magnitude of their high end aircraft business, and the extent of their existing land lease revenues. Due to their 99 year lease, the Morristown management company is responsible for any budgetary shortfall in local capital costs. 3.5 GTU Marketing/branding A recommendation of this analysis and report is for the City of Georgetown to develop a top down vision for GTU going forward. This unified vision is necessary for the airport to move forward to meet its financial goals and needs. More importantly, as one of the most significant transportation related economic development sites in the City, a unified vision will relate directly to jobs and economic viability for the City’s future. A policy statement from the City Council regarding the unified vision for the airport would allow staff to work to achieve the vision. Secondary to, but directly related to the vision, is the branding of GTU. Currently the airport struggles to define itself, and therefore, the branding of the airport is currently undefined. An assumption of this study is that the airport will continue to be developed to accommodate both leisure aviation and the higher end business aircraft market. If this is the vision that City leaders wish for GTU, then a more descriptive branding and marketing program can be developed for the airport. This clear cut brand and resulting marketing program for GTU is essential to both keep existing businesses and to attract new businesses to the City. The resulting top down branding and marketing program that would result from the City visioning exercise could include versions of the following airport brands: “Georgetown Executive Airport”; “Georgetown Business Airport”; PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 “North Austin Regional Airport at Georgetown”; etc. A branding process that defines GTU is considered essential for the airport to move forward, and achieve its economic development and financial goals for the City. Airport visioning and branding is a best practice that is consistent with all of the successful airport operations that this analysis has touched on. 3.6 Physical Layout, Capital Program and Planning CH2MHILL has reviewed the current GTU master plan document as it pertains to improving business activity, market growth potential, and Capital development. The current GTU master plan is now outdated, and in need of an FAA/TxDOT funded update. In this update, certain key analyses should be completed that will help guide the airport toward a stronger business based bottom line. For reference, business development items being pointed out that should be addressed in an upcoming master plan update would be the following: The potential to extend Runway 18/36 in any appreciable amount Development of an airport security plan Development of an airport wide land use plan As runway length considerations are central to potential marketing opportunities, some added discussion on runway length is provided below. The development of a security plan in the upcoming master plan will allow some of the security upgrades to be federally eligible for reimbursement, and having the upgrades, will improve the marketability of airport property and facilities. An airport wide land use plan is a very valuable part of any airport master plan. The airport land use plan will designate parcels that are to be used to support aeronautical activities, and those that can be developed for non- aeronautical purposes. This use designation is very valuable for the marketing and development of airport property. The new master plan should also reassess the 5, 10 and 20 year capital improvement program for GTU. This planning process will both update and revalidate the current airport capital improvement program projects as presented in the next section. 3 3.6.1 Capital Program The current Capital program for GTU is depicted in tables 2-4. Capital programs for GTU are administered through Texas Department of Transportation, (TxDot), under a block grant program funded by the FAA airport improvement program, (AIP). Because of the nature of federally funded projects, most of the CIP projects listed are airfield related. Tables 2 and 3 depict the current 20 year capital program for GTU, which runs from the year 2000 to the year 2020. Table 4 is a detail of short term capital projects that are scheduled to begin in 2014. Of these projects, the fuel farm relocation and the realignment of taxiway A are the largest, and also offer a substantial long term benefit to GTU. The fuel farm relocation will offer GTU a new state of the art environmentally sound facility for the long term future. Taxiway A realignment will offer the airport additional high value development area, which can be leveraged for ground lease revenue improvement.4 3 Runway extension and land use planning will involve many legal issues, primarily in the area of eminent domain and municipal land use law, but some aviation issues will be implicated. 4 The projects listed in the tables below involve primarily construction, environmental, and administrative law issues, but no significant obstacles. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 TABLE 2 The Current 20 Year Capital Program (Page 1) PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 TABLE 3 The Current 20 Year Capital Program (Page 2) PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12 TABLE 4 Short Term Capital Projects 3.6.1.1 Additional Short Term Capital Projects This business case analysis has made recommendations that will also involve capital improvements in order for the recommendations to be carried out. Below is a listing of short, medium and longer term capital improvement projects that result from recommendations in this study: Short term projects, (0-2 years) Updated GTU airport master plan; estimated $350,000, eligible for federal grant participation through TxDot, estimated local share; $35,000 Lower overhead lines on development parcel “D” to allow for setback requirements necessary for establishing a new bank of T-Hangars, estimated local share; $100,000 Establish an annual airport planning fund and function through TxDot and utilizing TxDot on-call engineering resource to assist with site specific layout planning and environmental analysis in support of the GTU property and business development initiatives. Estimated annual local share; $25,000 per year Demolition and replacement of hangar building “A” estimated local share; $15,000. Not to be demolished before the existing tenant use can be relocated. The site is a premium aviation development site that could generate development interest if marketed to the private sector through an RFP process. Other hangar facilities coming available in the short term could also be used to relocate tenant use. Medium term projects, (2-5 years) Establish an annual property development fund to perform site specific improvements on developable parcels in support of the GTU property and business development initiatives to potentially include; clearing and grubbing, grading and drainage, utility connections, etc. estimated annual local share; $50,000 per year. Central Terminal Building; Remodel and upgrade amenities, potential restaurant addition. The “public space” in this building can be eligible for federal grant participation. Estimated project cost; $250,000. Estimated local share; $125,000 (potential for TxDot participation). Security upgrades; cameras, fencing, motorized gates, lighting improvements. These upgrades can be eligible for federal grant participation if made a part of the upcoming master plan. Estimated project cost; $175,000. Estimated local share; $17,500. 5 5 All of the state and federal “grant participation” suggestions involve administrative and aviation law issues, but no significant legal obstacles. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 Longer term projects, (5-15 years) Hangar demolition; as facility leases terminate, and as necessary, given new facilities available to accommodate tenant uses. Buildings 12, 32, 36, 37. Estimated local share; $40,000. 6 3.6.2 Extending Runway 18/36 Extending Runway 18/36 would most likely generate some local neighborhood controversy. Additionally, an extension would be very difficult to accomplish technically, due to Runway Safety Area (RSA) considerations at both runway ends 18 and 36. Understanding and developing options for dealing with the technical runway extension impacts on each runway end would be the primary subject of a master plan update. Ultimately, the decision regarding adding runway length at GTU will come down to the cost both political and for potential property purchase, balanced against the safety and market development costs of not having the additional runway length. 7 3.6.3 Runway Length Analysis A runway length analysis was performed in an effort to better understand the potential business aircraft marketing impacts due to existing runway length at GTU. Refer to Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 1 below. TABLE 5 GTU Runway Length Analysis Aircraft Manufacturer Data Method MTOW (lbs)Range (nm) Takeoff Length (MTOW) Adjusted Takeoff Weight Takeoff Length (Adjusted Weight) Useful Load at Adjusted Takeoff Weight Notes Gulfstream V 89,000 6,750 7,600 Elev. 760 ft; 97⁰F. Falcon 900EX 48,300 4,500 7,500 42,500 5,000 75%Elev. 1,000 ft; 97⁰F. 20⁰ flaps Hawker 4000 39,500 3,190 7,340 32,000 4,900 53%Elev. 1,000 ft; 97⁰F. 0⁰ flaps Citation XLS 20,200 1,940 4,800 (Max)4,800 100%Elev. 1,000 ft; 97⁰F. 15⁰ flaps Learjet 45 20,200 2,000 5,350 Elev. 760 ft; 97⁰F. Citation CJ3 13,870 1,900 4,850 (Max)4,850 100%Elev. 1,000 ft; 97⁰F. 0⁰ flaps Beechcraft Premier 12,500 1,175 6,565 11,500 4,840 75%Elev. 1,000 ft; 97⁰F. 0⁰ flaps *Source: various aircraft manufacturer planning charts. Fleet Source: Sampling of high-end corporate jets Notes: General: runway lengths provided are estimates only. Distances are for max weight, adjusted for the field elevation of 790' MSL, calm winds, zero slope, and mean hottest temperature of 97° F where possible, unless otherwise noted. Where max weigth takeoff distances exceeded, an adjusted load was determined to fall within the 5,000' runway length (where charts were available for such calculations). Corporate Jet Type Sm a l l Mi d - Si z e (Chart not available) (Chart not available) La r g e 6 Whether to demolish and rebuild, lease “reversionary” hangars to a master tenant, or to retain and manage such hangars for direct lease, involve several legal issues. 7 Aviation counsel can provide RSA dimensions if need to consider the economic and non-economic costs. Runway extension legal issues would be numerous. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14 FIGURE 1 GTU Runway Length Chart Aircraft Manufacturer Data Method Prepared by: CH2M HILL, 2013. TABLE 6 GTU Runway Length Analysis FAA Airport Design Software Methodology (AD42d.exe) Aircraft Category Runway length Requirement (ft) Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs. with less than 10 seats 75% of Small Aircraft Fleet 2,860 95 % of Small Aircraft Fleet 3,400 100% of Small Aircraft Fleet 4,040 Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs with 10 or more seats 4,540 Airplanes greater than 12,500 lbs. and less than 60,000 lbs. 75 % of fleet at 60% useful load 5,100 75 % of fleet at 90% useful load 7,530 100 % of fleet at 60% useful load 6,250 100 % of fleet at 90% useful load 9,780 Airplanes over 60,000 lbs Length of Haul – 2,100 miles (GTU – SEA) 8,180 Length of Haul – 1,800 miles (GTU – NY) 7,700 Length of Haul – 1,500 miles 7,190 Length of Haul – 1,200 miles 6,650 Length of Haul – 500 miles 5,290 Source: FAA AC 150/5325 4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, AD42D.exe Design Software Note: Design Software has been discontinued as of the most recent AC 150/5300-13a update. Data provided is for comparison only. Assumptions: Field elevation of 790’ MSL, zero slope, and mean hottest temperature of 97 F 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Gulfstream V Falcon 900EX Hawker 4000 Citation XLS Learjet 45 Citation CJ3 Beechcraft Premier Landing Distance Requirement Co r p o r a t e A i r c r a f t Takeoff Length (Adjusted Weight) Takeoff Length (MTOW) Existing Runway 18/36 Length (5,000') PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 According to the runway length analysis, the following broad conclusions can be drawn with respect to the 5,000 feet of runway at GTU: 5,000 feet is minimally acceptable for all but the very largest (Gulfstream 5) class of business jets. Midsized business jets (Learjet 45) class of business jets can operate on a 5,000-foot runway with only minor maximum gross takeoff weight penalties. 100 percent of the small aircraft fleet in the less than 12,500 pound gross takeoff weight category can operate on less than a 5,000-foot runway. 75 percent of the business aircraft grouping in the 12,500 to 60,000 pound gross takeoff weight category can operate on 5,100 feet of runway at a 60 percent useful load. From a marketing perspective, additional runway length up to roughly 8,000 feet is always a safety and aircraft performance consideration for any corporation making decisions about where to base their aircraft. Because of this consideration, it is important to the airport’s future that the City continue to plan for and pursue options that would result in even minor runway length increases at GTU. Also from a marketing perspective, in favor of the current runway length at GTU, Georgetown is in the center of the U.S. geographically, which allows many of the business aircraft fleet to reach either coast with less than their full takeoff weight fuel load. Additionally, the GTU market could continue to grow with a strong marketing program aimed solely at medium and small business jet operators. 3.6.4 Runway Length, Market Share and Business Case As previously noted, 5,000 feet of runway is minimally acceptable for most corporate aircraft to operate at an airport. Most business aircraft owners make airport location decisions based upon the following criteria: convenience to their business location; convenience to their executive residences; services and amenities; and their aircraft size and performance versus runway length. Because of the variables that go into making an airport base decision, it is difficult to project in a linear fashion how much more business would come to GTU with an additional 500 or 1,000 feet of runway. It is safe to say that GTU market share increases for business aircraft will continue to be a function of business and economic development activity in the near proximity of the airport. As discussed, the upcoming airport master plan update should fully address all aspects, and develop a business case for a runway extension at GTU. According to our airfield engineers, a 1,000 foot runway extension with associated parallel taxiway would cost approximately $900,000 dollars to construct. This does not include the cost to move a roadway, (runway 36 approach), or to purchase property, (runway 18 approach). The master plan should consider the relative costs and impacts associated with these, and find an acceptable business case balance. Additionally regarding a business case approach, the master plan should consider making a strong case for federal grant support which will come from classifying the runway extension as a safety, noise abatement or capacity related project. In this way, even a $2,000,000 dollar total project cost would have a $200,000 dollar local share requirement, which could be easily supported by the added marketing benefit of such an extension. 3.7 Economic and Business Development As a part of the airport best practices evaluation of this study, the subject airports were interviewed regarding their focus on business and economic development. A result of this study is to recommend that the GTU airport manager be freed up to concentrate more fully on economic and business development. From that standpoint, the more successful airport organizations interviewed all had a strong focus on developing their property for both aviation and non-aviation land uses. One of the stronger economic development programs interviewed was that of Denton, Texas. The Denton airport manager explains that his airport is viewed as one large aviation economic development site. This focus has allowed Denton airport to move toward financial self sufficiency through a robust facility and land lease revenue base. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16 3.7.1 Runway Length and Service Levels at GTU In analyzing the future marketability and high end aviation user market share for GTU, there must be a discussion about runway length and service levels. As GTU defines its role and vision, both runway length and level of service must be addressed to avoid losing market share. Runway length notwithstanding, GTU is behind its competitors in terms of high end services offered to corporate users. It is the opinion of the GTU study team that service level gaps will need to be filled even if additional runway length is not possible in order to get to a level of equal competitiveness in the Austin region. Service level gaps are viewed in; amenities offered, level of corporate facilities, aesthetics, and trained personnel. The City should continue to work with the GTU fixed base operators to improve these aspects of their business offering. 3.7.2 Property Development GTU has numerous developable sites throughout the entire airport site. These sites vary in accessibility, availability of utilities, and environmental considerations that have an impact on the each site’s availability and cost to develop. Because of these variations in each site, they have been categorized as immediately developable and longer term developable, as illustrated and described in Figure 2. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17 FIGURE 2 GTU Developable Sites and Parcel Descriptions Immediate development potential: Parcel A This site is considered to be immediately developable for aviation, and aviation support uses. The west side of the parcel is cleared and has direct airfield access capability. East side of the parcel would require clearing and environmental analysis. The site has some landside access const raints due to routing through the local neighborhood. The potential turn back of the tennis center to the airport, (site L) would provide an alternate landside access route to the west, which would be preferable to that of existing. Because of existing development near the site, reasonable utility connections are assumed. Parcel C This is a premium immediate aviation development opportunity parcel. The site has excellent landside access via airport road, as well as through the current internal airport road way system. The site has potential direct airfield access. Site utilities are assumed to be reasonably accessed through airport road, and as a continuation through existing airport complex. This site was previously master planned for nested t-hangars. This site could potentially be connected via internal roadway to the western site A, but this would be subject to FAA approval for a private roadway traversing through a runway protection zone. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18 Parcel D This is a premium immediate aviation development opportunity parcel. This site has excellent landside access via the existing internal airport roadway. It also has direct airfield access via an existing taxilane. The site would need an initial investment of roughly $100,000 dollars to bury the above ground utilities that currently present a geometric constraint for taxiing aircraft. The site was previously master planned for nested t -hangars, and has been the subject of recent developer interest for t-hangar expansion. Parcel E Because of the central location of this site, and its landside roadway and airfield access, it is considered to be the premier aviation development parcel currently available at GTU. The site currently houses the oldest buildings at the airport, hangars A and B. These hangars are well past their useful life, and should be torn down in order to open the site up to new development. The site is considered ideal for direct aviation (community hangars, high end FBO facilities). The eastern part of the parcel that fronts the airport entrance roadway is considered to be ideal for aviation support businesses, as well as potentially an aviation themed restaurant. Parcels F and K These sites are considered to be immediately developable for direct aviation, aviation support, or FBO expansion facilities. Site F would require some clearing, and both sites would require utility connections that should be available in the central airport core. Both sites have very good landside roadway access, as well as airfield access potential. Parcel G This site is considered to be immediately developable for direct aviation, aviation support, or FBO expansion. The site would need clearing, drainage and utility connections. The site would need geometric layout improvements, to improve taxilane access to the airfield. Intermediate and longer term development potential: Parcel H This site is ideal for aviation, aviation support, and FBO expansion uses. The site is considered to be more intermediate in nature because it will require more site specific improvements in order for it to be development ready. The site will need clearing, some environmental analysis, utility connections and taxilane access to the existing east apron area. While this is a good development site, it would cost more than other preferable sites at GTU to be site ready, and is therefore considered to be more intermediate and long term in nature Parcel I This site is ideal for direct aviation uses. This site offers very good access to the airfield on both its west and north perimeters. The site is considered more intermediate and long term in its development potential due to the cost to bring in landside roadway access, site utilities and to perform the required clearing. The site will also need some initial environmental analysis, and the northern part of the site will be somewhat height limited due to the imaginary surface locations of the approach end of runway 29. Parcel J This site offers a large block site potential for aviation, aviation support and non -aviation commercial development uses. The site would need access, planning and traffic impact approvals for access to the west side roadway system. The site has environmental issues that would require mitigation in that cave spiders have already been found on the site. This site should be more thoroughly master planned in the upcoming airport master plan update. Through the master planning process, portions of this site might receive an FAA non -aviation designation, which would make them available for non-aviation commercial/industrial development uses. Non-aviation commercial/industrial uses could provide a very solid additional ground lease revenue source to the airport. Parcel B This site is ideal for aviation and aviation support uses. The site has very good potential airfield access capabilities matching up to the existing parallel taxiway system on the west side. The site would require investments in; an environmental analysis, site utility connections, clearing, and a taxilane connection to the parallel taxiway system. This site is considered to be an intermediate to long term development opportunity due to the site specific needs mentioned above. Potential reversion of property to the airport: Parcel L This site offers the potential for immediate development and ground lease revenue opport unities for the airport. The site also offers a west side landside public roadway connection that would help open up development opportunities on adjacent site A. The reversion of this site to the airport would offer the potential for immediate development opportunities on site A. 8 An important aspect of the master plan update will be the land use plan for GTU. In the master plan, the GTU development sites will be reviewed with regard to whether or not they will be needed in the long term to directly support aviation. Any parcels that are not needed to support aviation are eligible to receive a “non-aviation” land use designation. As a non-aviation development parcel, the parcel can then be marketed to non-aviation commercial/industrial/retail potential users. This designation improves the value and marketability of the parcel, and improves the options that the airport would have to diversify and grow its land lease revenue base. 8 This would involve legal issues. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19 Parcel J from the above plan on the west side of GTU appears to have potential as a future non-aviation land use development site. Parcel L and adjoining parcels also have some potential as non-aviation designated development sites. 3.8 Maintenance Standards As part of this study, CH2MHILL performed a site maintenance condition assessment walkthrough with our civil and building engineers. In this walkthrough, we wanted to identify a general state of repair, and also assess the level of maintenance necessary to bring the facilities up to good repair and thus extend their useful life. Tables 7 and 8 below highlight the summary of the airfield and facilities assessments conducted in October of 2012. Building ID’s listed in Table 8 refer to Figure 3 below, provided by the Airport. TABLE 7 Georgetown Airfield Pavement Condition Assessment Area Assessment 1 Comparison with CIP 2 Taxiway A Overall in good condition. Minor cracking and weathering. Will require maintenance in the next 0-5 years to maintain this condition. Recommend rehabilitation consisting of an overlay in 5-10 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8-10 years after. The taxiway will be relocated in FY2015 3. The existing taxiway will be left in place to provide access to the hangars. Rehabilitation for the existing taxiway is planned for 6-10 years, and 11-20 years. Taxiway B and D Overall in good condition. Minor cracking and weathering. Will require maintenance in the next 0-5 years to maintain this condition. Recommend rehabilitation consisting of an overlay in 5-10 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8-10 years after. Rehabilitation is planned for 0-5 years, 6- 10 years, and 11-20 years. Taxiway B and D Missing centerline reflectors on Taxiway B. To be included in short term maintenance. Rehabilitation is planned for 0-5 years, 6- 10 years, and 11-20 years. Taxiway C Several cracks on Taxiway C. An overlay is recommended in the next 0-5 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8-10 years after. Taxiway C is anticipated to be removed as part of the Taxiway A relocation project. Runway 11-29 Recently seal coated. Reconstructed in 1994 and a rehabilitation was completed in 2002. Several cracks on runway that require repair. Rehabilitation consisting of an overlay is recommended in the next 0-5. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8- 10 years after. Rehabilitation is planned for 0-5 years, 6- 10 years, and 11-20 years. Runway 11-29 Shoulders In failed condition. Severe cracking with weed growth throughout. Recommend removal of the pavement. No planned removal of the shoulders Runway 18-36 Recently seal coated. Overlaid in 1988 and a rehabilitation was completed in 1998. Several cracks on runway that require repair. Rehabilitation consisting of an overlay is recommended in the next 0-5. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8-10 years after. Rehabilitation is planned for 0-5 years (FY2015 3), 6-10 years, and 11-20 years. Runway 11-29 Holding Aprons Several cracks on holding aprons. An overlay is recommended in the next 0-5 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8-10 years after. Rehabilitation is planned for 0-5 years, 6- 10 years, and 11-20 years. Runway 18-36 Holding Aprons Holding aprons are in generally good condition. Crack repair and seal coat is recommended in the next 0-5 years, and 5-10 years. Rehabilitation with overlay is recommended in 11-20 years. Rehabilitation is planned for 0-5 years, 6- 10 years, and 11-20 years. Terminal Ramp Several cracks on the terminal aprons. An overlay is recommended in the next 0-5 years. Periodic rehabilitation (crack repair and seal coat) will be needed every 8-10 years after. Rehabilitation is planned for 6-10 year, and for 11-29 years. Hangar Taxilanes Overall, hangar taxilanes are in generally good condition. Crack repair and seal coat is recommended in the next 0-5 years, and 5-10 years. Rehabilitation with overlay is recommended in 11-20 years. Rehabilitation and maintenance is planned for various hangar taxilanes for 0-5 years, 6-10 years, and 11-20 years. Notes: 1) Under the assessment category: Maintenance generally refers to crack seal and seal coat. Rehabilitation generally refers to overlay or replacement of asphalt surface. 2) Dates refer to those in the “Texas Airport System Plan” revised on 10/10/12 unless otherwise noted 3) Dates based on the Texas DOT – Aviation Division “Aviation Capital Improvement Program” dated October 23, 2012 PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 20 TABLE 8 Georgetown Facilities Condition Assessment Building Name Building ID* Building Condition Cost to Demo Cost to Upgrade Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate Comments Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing 2 Fair to Good N/A $25,000 $4,000 Were not able to see inside the office areas or inside the hangar. Upgrades could include new carpet, new paint, new restroom fixtures and new HVAC. Central Texas Avionics 7 Fair to Good N/A $10,000 $3,000 The building appeared to be in reasonable condition. The interior office space could be improved as well as the hangar lighting upgraded. The exterior of the building will need to be painted within the next 5 to 10 years. Civil Aviation Building 12 Poor $2,000 to $10,000 N/A N/A The building should be demo'd. It may contain asbestos. Consequently the demo cost can vary. Gantt Aviation 19 Good to Better N/A N/A $5,000 Building appeared to be in good condition. The office areas and the lunch room had a restroom and were air conditioned. Mr. Gantt stated that the roof had been recently repaired. T - Hangar C 31 Fair N/A $15,000 $1,000 The hangar could be upgraded with the addition of an office and HVAC. T - Hangar B 32 Poor $5,000 N/A $500 per hangar Needs demo – the hangar is 60 to 70 years old. T - Hangar G 35 Fair to Good N/A N/A $1,000 The hangar is simple aircraft storage. There is no HVAC, no office areas and no restrooms. T - Hangar A 38 Poor $15,000 N/A $2,000 Needs demo – the hangar is 60 to 70 years old. Draeger Motor Company 39 Fair to Good N/A $15,000 $1,000 The hangar could be upgraded with the addition of an office and HVAC. Hangar D 48 Fair to Good N/A $10,000 $2,000 The building appeared to be in reasonable condition. The interior could be improved as well as the hangar lighting upgraded. Rent House 49 Fair to Good N/A $20,000 $1,500 The house could be upgraded with central heating and air conditioning. Terminal Building 51 Good to Better N/A N/A $4,000 The terminal building was in good condition and had recently been upgraded. T - Hangars M, N & O 28, 29, 30 Good N/A $15,000 per hangar $1,500 per hangar The building appeared to be in good condition. The interior partitions could be improved by increasing the lighting and taking the partitions that separate the hangar areas up to the underside of the roof to increase security. T - Hangars E & F 33, 34 Fair to Good N/A N/A $1,000 per hangar The hangar is simple aircraft storage. There is no HVAC or restrooms. There is one office area in each hangar. Hex Hangars BB & CC 36, 37 Fair $10,000 per hangar $15,000 per hangar $1,000 per hangar The hangar is simple aircraft storage. There is no HVAC or restrooms. The hangar has a dirt floor. * Building ID refers to Figure 3 below, provided by the Airport. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21 FIGURE 3 GTU Land Use Map and Building Identification Source: City of Georgetown, Systems Engineering Department, April 2013. GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23 Based on the facility assessment and analysis conducted it is recommended that the annual $50,000 dollar repair and replacement maintenance budget be doubled to $100,000 in order to bring the GTU facilities up to a reasonable state of repair, and extend their useful life. 3.8.1 Airfield Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Currently, GTU does not have a PCI rating for its airfield pavements. The pavement PCI is essential for establishing a deterioration baseline, and for establishing a pavement maintenance program. Additionally, the PCI will set the schedule and timing for more significant capital pavement maintenance (mill and overlay), which is necessary to greatly extend the useful life of the more heavily used runway pavements. A recommendation of this study is for GTU to work with TxDOT to scope and proceed with a non-destructive pavement structural survey which will result in establishing a PCI on all airfield pavements. Upon establishment of an airfield PCI, it is recommended that TxDOT be approached to help provide a complete pavement maintenance program that can be followed and implemented by airport management. 3.9 Land Lease Documents In reviewing industry best practices for airports of comparable size and operation, a comprehensive review of GTU’s strategic and operational documents was conducted. GTU’s Land Lease Agreement template was reviewed in depth to confirm the presence of provisions which provide for the fair and equitable leasing of real property at GTU. The following paragraphs address consistencies and inconsistencies with industry best practice language for Airport Ground/Land Lease agreements in the areas of Rental Rate Adjustment, Maintenance, environmental, and Reversion of Improvements. Also included is a paragraph addressing land and hangar lease agreement rental rates and the potential for review and adjustment. 9 3.9.1 Rental Rate Adjustment GTU currently includes land lease language for scheduled rental rate increases in five-year increments during the term of agreement using a Dallas consumer price index. During time of great economic fluctuation and activity, five year adjustments can be significant. More recent common practice is to provide for annual increases based on more universal price indices such as the CPI-U. Annual allow for a more immediate response to economic changes with more palatable, nominal increases. Annual adjustments also allow chances to occur when less than five year terms are in place or remaining on an agreement. Language should also be included that reflects that under no circumstances would an annual adjustment result in a decrease in rental rate. 3.9.2 Maintenance of Leased Premise Language outlining parameters and limits of maintenance to be provided by both lessor and lessee should be included in detail. Maintenance responsibilities are important aspects of a lessor/lessee relationship as they possess both cost and aesthetic implications. GTU’s maintenance language appears to be consistent with most common airport industry language. It contains detailed responsibilities and identifies premise parameters. To strengthen the maintenance provision further, a provision could be added to address the requirement for lessor to enter leased premises to perform contract compliance inspections, perform maintenance required by lessee and to stipulate further that the cost of such maintenance will be billed to lessee. 3.9.3 Environmental Land Lease Agreements should contain provisions addressing the protection of the environment in accordance with EPA, state, and local laws. A review of GTU’s land lease agreement confirms the presence of current industry language supporting stormwater regulations. However, the land lease agreement does not contain provisions for operations involving hazardous materials regarding operations, compliance with regulations, and remediation responsibilities. 9 All of Section 3.9 implicates legal issues. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24 3.9.4 Reversion of Improvements Reversion, as it relates to airport lease agreements, means that at the termination of a lease agreement ownership of all tenant improvements revert to the property owner/lessor. The inclusion of reversionary clauses in land lease agreements is standard practice within the airport industry for a number of reasons. Some reasons include: A level of property owner control over development and use of airport property. Future revenue stream considerations as they relate to airport self-sustainability. Control over maintenance of tenant improvements The goal of a reversion clause is to provide for the ability of an airport property owner to have a certain level of control over the use, development, and expansion of airport real property. As an industry standard and best practice GTU’s land lease agreement template should include reversion provision language. The language should allow for reversion of improvements and title to improvements to property owner; a provision for reversion of improvements at lease termination prior to full term; and a provision for either reversion of improvement or removal of improvements. By including all inclusive reversion language in a land use agreement, the owner/lessor retained the flexibility to consider and select the best option for use and reuse of leased airport property. 3.9.5 Rental Rates and Charges A review of GTU’s current rental rate schedule and proposed rental rate schedule for ground lease and t- hangar/tie down areas indicates a need for a more in-depth study of GTU’s market area to determine more balanced revenue/rate/occupancy rate ratio. Currently rental rates do not provide an adequate ROI. This along with a lengthy wait list for hangar space indicated a disparity in rental rates. The most recent proposed rate schedule is presented in Appendix A. The establishment of fair and yet equitable base rates are a key factor when considering future revenue streams as all contract driven rental adjustments are based on an established beginning base rate. Base rates set too low do not support self sustainability in the long run. Base rates set too high reduce marketability of facilities and low occupancy rates. 3.9.6 Leasing Recommendations Upon completion of review and evaluation of existing and comparable land lease agreements it is recommended GTU consider implementation of the following provisions. 1. Amend current and future lease agreements to include annual rental rate adjustments based on CPI-U. 2. Include rental adjustment language to reflect that under no circumstances will annual adjustments result in a reduction in rental rates. 3. Language to allow for periodic, scheduled, contract compliance inspections of leased premises by GTU should be added to maintenance and/or inspection sections of lease agreements. Language should include provisions for GTU to perform required maintenance at tenant’s expense. 4. Amend current and future lease agreements to include industry standard language regarding the handling, use, storage, regulatory compliance, reporting, and cleanup of hazardous materials on leased premises. 5. Amend current and future lease agreements to include strong, clearly stated, reversionary language. Move current language contained in ARTICLE III, Paragraph 3.02 (Term of Lease) regarding reversion to ARTICLE VI, Paragraph 6.04 (Surrender of Premises). Add language to reflect that upon lease termination (not to include default), current tenant will possess first right of refusal on negotiation of a new lease for premises. 6. Amend current and future lease agreements to reduce the 10-year lease extension option to 5-year options which are more in line with industry standard. Continue with annual lease rate adjustments during each executed option period. PRIMARY GTU CONSIDERATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 25 7. Conduct a market survey of comparable airports with a goal of setting rental rates that provide a more favorable economic balance. This base rate analysis will be the benchmark on which future rate review and adjustments will be established. 8. With regard to contract management in general. It is recommended that GTU explore the acquisition of online contact management software. The acquisition of such a program greatly increases the efficiency of day-to-day contract management costs by automating functions such as contract date and milestone alerting. It also allows multiple users “view only” access to actual copies of contracts and requires less labor hours to manage. GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 26 4.0 Best Practice Recommendations 4.1 Financial Improvement Recommendations 4.1.1 Short-Term Financial Improvement Recommendations, (0-2 years) The following best practice recommendations were developed as a result of airport interviews, and CH2MHILL experience managing General Aviation facilities. 1. Leasing: The city should establish a baseline commercial lease standard that will include; a rate schedule providing a rate of return that covers constructed cost and interest, debt service coverage, a standard return on investment, annual CPI increases, annual maintenance coverage if provided by the city and general maintenance and lease compliance. Cancel all month-to-month leases and renew with updated annual lease documents and rates. Replace the longer term leases with the new updated commercial lease as they expire. Section 3.9 of this report details eight discreet leasing recommendations with improved lease language that can be utilized in a new lease standard. Airport management should work directly with the city legal department to draft policy for approval that will include stronger lease terms, and ensure that all aeronautical businesses are paying their proper taxes and fees for business derived at GTU. 2. Fueling: The city should adopt minimum FBO standards that will ensure that any new entrants will invest and maintain a high level of service going forward. The City should also, fully evaluate the potential for taking a larger stake of the retail fueling margin at GTU. The range of options available to the city that would allow for a larger retail fueling revenue interest would be: 1. Existing limited retail operation, with an improved ROI; 2. Full retail fueling on a non-exclusive basis; 3. A fueling partnership with a private sector fixed base operator; 4. An exclusive fueling arrangement for the city. These options should be fully explored from a commercial, legal and financial perspective in order to determine which option would best serve the airport and its stakeholders in the long term. It is recommended that airport management develop a new rates and charges policy to be submitted to city council for FY 2014 that will cover the recommended changes. Under the current fueling operation, the city should view the wholesale fuel flowage margin as a flexible item in the annual airport budget to meet operational break even, and attain a target ROI of 10-12%. A more detailed fueling discussion is covered in section 3.2 of this report. 3. Organizational changes: best practices recommend a transition to an organization with the following full time employee contingent; (1) airport director/manager, (1) bookkeeper/business manager, (1) operations manager, (1) maintenance manager, Part-time help with maintenance, fueling and accounting as needed. 4. The GTU airport manager position should be re-chartered as a part of the recommended organizational changes. The re-chartered position would take on a much stronger business development role, while the recommended operations manager position should offer the airport manager relief from the more detailed day to day duties. The airport manager’s perspective and charge should be that of developer of an important aviation economic development site with runways. 5. The GTU administrative function should be revamped to incorporate a private sector management perspective for the fueling and leasing functions. In this business management perspective, the airport business manager would actively manage these commercial functions with dashboard performance indicators, enabling timely business modifications to ensure maximum revenue return to the airport. 6. The city should work to define a vision and brand for the airport. This vision should be in the form of a policy statement that will enable staff to develop facility plans and marketing plans that will allow for a much more focused growth opportunity in aviation and aerospace related jobs, and resulting area tax BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 27 base and economic development. This defined vision will also allow the airport to compete more successfully for the finite aviation and aerospace growth markets in the region. 7. Develop a workable theme restaurant concept in the near proximity of the main terminal building. The concept could be a private sector venture, or possibly an addition to the terminal building remodeling. The restaurant would present a strong business case, in improving fly-in and itinerant fuel sales. 4.1.2 Medium-Term Financial Improvement Recommendations, (2-5 years) 1. It is recommended that GTU be given an aviation development review and approval framework that will allow the airport to move as quickly as its competition in accommodating the regional aviation and aerospace business growth which is finite, and will present a winner or loser consequence for Georgetown. This plan recommends the initiation of an airport development City staff working group empowered to bring about priority capital and commercial development in a timely manner consistent with other airports in the metro area that are competing for the same aviation business. The committee should be chaired by the airport manager, and should include representatives from City departments; legal, finance, public works, planning and economic development departments at a minimum. The group would meet on a project specific basis. 2. Choose a long term airport management option for the airport that will work well with the selected fueling option, and meet the financial requirements and service level needs of GTU for the future. Options are further detailed in section 5 of this report. 3. Develop a comprehensive marketing plan for GTU that is based on achieving the community vision for the airport. The marketing plan would cover; aviation business development, aviation support business development, land development, developer/broker policy and include an incentive plan for private sector investment in economic development initiatives. 4. With the results of the marketing plan, develop RFP packages to go out to the private sector in order to gauge demand, and bring in private investment potential for; shade ports, t-hangars, community hangars and other aviation related facilities. 5. Consider developing shade hangars as a lower cost option to t-hangars. This concept has proven very successful in Sun Belt regions, and would bring in additional based aircraft, additional fuel sales, and the potential for additional ground lease revenue. 6. Utilize the land use plan to be developed in the upcoming airport master plan update to improve the marketing/property development plan for GTU. The land use plan will delineate highest and best use for developable parcels, and will also designate aviation support property and non-aviation use property for the long term. 7. Develop a strong relationship between airport management and the local economic development agencies to help further GTU as an important economic development community asset. This relationship will over time contribute to job growth and property development at GTU. 8. Replace terminating leases with the updated stronger commercial and lease compliance versions as current leases terminate. 4.1.3 Long-Term Financial Improvement Recommendations, (5-15 years) 1. Utilize new lease boilerplate contracts that include stronger commercial and lease compliance terms and conditions. Implement these new documents as current leases terminate. 2. Consider reinstating a limited air show at GTU. The air show would help build community interest and support, while improving itinerant fuel sales. 3. Use airport revenue improvements to fund land development initiatives in a Public/Private/ Partnership arrangement where private investment in new aviation and non aviation facilities can be leveraged. BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 28 4. Use airport revenue improvements to continue to upgrade the airport ambiance, service offerings and public facilities. 5. Continue to refine and develop GTU brand based marketing plans for attracting new aircraft owning businesses, aviation support businesses and leisure aircraft owners. 6. Implement any runway extension improvement plans that are documented and FAA approved in the upcoming airport master plan. Runway extensions usually offer strong safety and noise abatement benefits. Any extension would offer GTU a marketing boost, and offer a potential revenue boost. 4.2 General Best Practice Recommendations 4.2.1 Operations/Safety and Security 1. Develop a safety/security plan. Plan will detail Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requirements and mutual/joint response needs with other agencies, tenant watch program, security upgrades needed and associated cost, identify grant sources for security program and capital funding. The security plan may be a component of a GTU master plan update, to the extent grant funding is available for this effort. Development of a security plan is recommended regardless of funding a master plan update, however, and should not be delayed beyond 2013. A primary security best practice is to limit general public access to aircraft movement areas, and should be accomplished at a minimum as soon a possible. 2. Develop MOU with City firefighting located at GTU to promote a joint memorandum of understanding for the through the fence emergency response requirements for GTU. 3. Develop tenant security watch function as defined in the security plan. Meet with tenant security watch group on a standing schedule, recommend quarterly. 4. Work with Georgetown police to improve and expand the patrol cycle at the airport. 4.2.2 Finance/Legal 1. Develop and seek input on a new comprehensive set of airport rules and regulations and related set of tenant minimum development standards documents as stand alone, but as a compatible set to be given to existing and prospective tenants. 2. Delegate limited budgetary signing authority and commercial authority to the airport manager for administrative items included in the current budget, i.e. up to $25,000 for standard agreements of a year or less; up to $2,000 for a standard services purchase order. 3. Work with city finance with the goal of rolling up airport financial and accounting and FBO tenant reporting to include a set of mutually agreeable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that will give airport management dashboard metrics of current operating and financial information that will allow airport management solid and timely decision-making information. KPI examples: monthly fuel revenue/per actual unit cost; monthly operations/monthly fuel sales; monthly itinerant operations/monthly fuel sales; monthly based aircraft/monthly based aircraft fuel sales. 4. Work with the local tax collector and appraiser to try to find a resolution for airport tenant ad valorem/business tax assessment situation. This current assessment could be contributing to an uneven market dynamic as compared to other airports in the region. 5. Complete a comprehensive review and update of Airport Minimum Standards to reflect overall goals and objectives in airport master plan and business plan. Revise actual minimums for various commercial activities to include capital outlays for ramp/apron square footage, hangar square footage, fueling capabilities, hours of operation, terminal square footage, etc. Implement minimum standards grandfathering existing service providers with provisions that upon lease renewal new minimum standards will apply. BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 29 6. Review and update Airport Rules and Regulations to reflect actual operations occurring on the airport. For example, the Rules and Regulations should reflect the presence of the air traffic control tower (ATCT) at the airport, and its operational procedures. 7. Update contract management system to improve efficiency and automate contract provisions currently done manually. 8. Conduct an annual lease compliance inspection of all airport owned and leased facilities to ensure that these facilities are being used for their intended purpose. Follow up as necessary with any tenant deemed to be out of compliance with their facility lease. 4.2.3 Capital Development and Maintenance 1. Update GTU master plan, if possible beginning in 2013, to include all traditional short, medium and long term capital needs. The plan should also include the following, to the extent FAA grant funding is available: a strategic planning section; a safety/security plan section; a marketing/branding and commercial development section; and should include the recommendations and findings of this business plan. A final recommendation on the long term runway length requirement, based on the master plan’s updated forecast and demand/capacity assessment, should be a primary output of this master plan update. 2. Develop an airport property/commercial development plan. Work with local economic development and planning office of the City to provide input and direction for the plan. The plan should define goals for aviation, aviation support, and non-aviation development parcels. Include in the plan, provisions for State and local incentives and economic development tools. Develop a listing of workable economic development tools such as: a primary or sub zone Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ), a tax increment district, empowerment zone, etc. Work with the group to define just those tools that are available and workable in the GTU environment. 3. Establish an airport property/commercial development committee meeting and agenda as a part of a new and revised airport committee structure that will develop and provide solid recommendations to the City transportation committee. Provisions of the property/commercial development planning process should be brought forward and reflected in the GTU master plan update. 4. Develop a Landscaping and external enhancement plan to upgrade and improve the external landside look of the airport consistent with the intended high end general aviation role of GTU. 5. Develop a plan for the upgrade and internal renovation of the existing airport terminal, consistent with the intended high end general aviation role of GTU, and the service offerings of the new fuel farm facility. The terminal should include the full range of expected pilot and crew amenities and high end service levels, as well as the potential for a full service restaurant. Work with TxDOT toward identifying available economic development and other capital grants that might be available to offset the cost of the renovation. 6. Maintain and update on an annual basis, the capital maintenance plan developed as part of this business plan. Update each year with a 5 and 10 year outlook. 7. Consider accessing the TxDOT on call planning and engineering consultant contract on an as needed basis to help improve and expedite the project planning process for aviation and commercial property development proposals. 8. Work with TxDOT to determine a pavement condition index (PCI) for the GTU airfield pavements. The PCI should be developed using, if possible, non-destructive testing techniques and a review of pavement records. After determining the PCI for the various GTU airfield pavements, the City should work with TxDOT to develop a pavement maintenance program for the airport that will establish and guide future maintenance and large capital pavement investments. 4.2.4 Administration/Organizational 1. Establish a new airport advisory committee structure that will work in unison with the two airport members that are assigned to the City transportation committee. The recommended structure is as follows: BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 30 At the City Transportation Advisory Board, two members: One member assigned to cover airport operations and security One member assigned to cover airport marketing and commercial development Each of the two Transportation Committee members briefs the committee on activities from their respective airport committees for the previous quarter. At the Airport Committee level, the same two members appointed to the City Transportation committee: One member chairs the monthly airport operations and security committee meeting One member chairs the monthly airport marketing and commercial development committee 10 Committee membership is voluntary and open to all airport stakeholders. The Chairmen for the two committees is appointed by the Mayor. Each committee chair works with the airport manager to develop a quarterly meeting agenda, and prepares a brief to be delivered to the City Transportation Advisory Board. 2. Develop an Airport Marketing/Branding Plan for the airport. The plan will include a strategic visioning component that will set vision, mission, and goals and define the overarching airport role for the airport. The plan will be inclusive of a new branding exercise and a joint marketing plan that will include input from: airport, city, local chamber and economic development agency(s) and airport tenants. The plan will include: an updated airport brand name/logo; joint marketing goals for airport and tenants; aviation market development goals; annual marketing budgetary needs; listing of priority conferences with conference goals; identification of target markets; identification of airport facility needs; identification of fly in, and static aviation concepts that meet user and City goals. The Airport Marketing committee should consider renaming the airport according to strategic vision for the airport, i.e. “North Austin Executive”, “Georgetown Executive” etc. The airport marketing/branding plan can be stand alone, or it can be funded by and made a part of the airport master plan update. 3. Develop updated job descriptions for the four full time positions, and part-time positions being recommended for GTU. Airport manager job should be upgraded and should include a delegation of routine operations and maintenance duties to allow for more time to work professionally with City staff, outside agencies, economic development agencies, prospective tenants, neighborhood associations and others. The Airport Manager job description should take on more of an aviation business development aspect. 4. Develop concepts along with City Staff for identifying airport events and open house opportunities that will strengthen the airports’ ties with both the City and the local community, i.e. meet the city manager, meet the city council, neighborhood association day, etc. 5. Consider upgrading the airport manager position to a higher level reporting structure within City government in order to improve job effectiveness. 10 Involves legal issues. GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31 5.0 Primary Management Options 5.1 GTU Potential Management Options For the purposes of this study, it was requested that CH2MHILL consider alternative options for managing the airport, along with the current City managed option. The three options considered cover the full potential range of possible options available to the City of Georgetown. The three options analyzed are: 1. Current city managed airport; 2. Airport managed through a contract management arrangement; 3. Full airport privatization. All three options have relatively small potential derivative options, but these are the three primary options which provide the City with the full range of scenarios for consideration. For the purpose of analyzing each of the three concepts from an equal starting point, all three concepts assume an improved revenue production being achieved in the existing City managed option. Therefore, for this analysis, the current city managed operation with revenue improvement in fueling and leasing revenue will be the baseline concept that will be compared to the two private operation options. Finally, none of the reviewed options considers the City taking exclusive fueling rights at GTU, which is a separate option being analyzed in this business plan, and further discussion in Section 5. The following is a description of each of the three operating concepts: 11 1. City managed airport: The City managed airport is essentially the same operation as that which currently exists, with only minor modifications. The baseline profit and loss assumptions in this concept consider an improved revenue generation capability at GTU as a result of some of the following business plan recommendations: A commercially well conceived fuel pricing best practice that will render GTU a return on investment of between 10 and 12% versus the current 8%. A commercially well conceived standard lease for hangars and t-hangars that render GTU a return on each lease that will include; market based rates, a return for routine maintenance required, and annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases based on a well defined local index. An airport with a solid brand and marketing plan, with airport service offerings consistent with the airport brand. In this case, an executive or business airport brand. An improved business development scheme that will render additional opportunities for ground leases associated with new hangars, t-hangars, and potentially for non-aviation ground leases. In following the list of recommendations in this business plan, the current City managed function can improve its financial performance, and solidify its bottom line over the longer term. Under a City managed scenario the airport conceptually attains operational break even, while struggling to meet its local share of capital improvements requirement. A baseline Pro Forma Profit and Loss (P&L) statement for a city managed option is provided under Appendix B, Table B-1, City Managed Option. 2. Airport managed through a private contract management arrangement: in its simplest form, contract airport management would take over the staffing and commercial management function of GTU. There are numerous examples of private contract management of public airport facilities in the United States, and most of these arrangements can be successful as public-private partnerships, as long as both parties understand the business parameters that each party would need to achieve success. Some of the basic parameters of a contract airport management function are as follows: 12 11 Involves legal issues. 12 Involves legal issues. PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OPTIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 32 The contract operator will supply the staffing function at a cost similar to that of the public sector, with a 10-12% mark up on staffing costs as a required profit margin. The City would remain the responsible party for all other costs at the airport outside of the contract for staffing. The private operator would collect all revenues at the airport, and remit them to the City, less their monthly management fee. The private operator would most likely be retained to function as airport business developer. For this function, the private operator would have a pre-arranged incentive program in their contract that would allow both the City and private operator to share in the pre-agreed revenue improvements on a somewhat equal but varying basis. Incentive clauses may include any of the following: increases in fuel sales; increases in aviation ground leases; increases in non-aviation ground leases; scoring at a defined level on customer service surveys; increases in aviation operations activity. The private operator would be responsible for all branding and marketing requirements. The private operator would be contracted to the City under very well defined level of service requirements for a full range of airport related customer service performance indicators. The private operator would be responsible for airfield safety and security. Some example airports with contract operators include the following: San Marcos Municipal Airport (TX), Addison Airport (TX), and Teeterboro Airport (NJ). A conceptual pro-forma P&L has been prepared for the private contract airport operator scenario at GTU. Based on our analysis and understanding of these private airport operating scenarios, this concept would be a feasible option for the City of Georgetown to consider. Under the contract management scenario, the airport conceptually attains operational break even each year, and in the final 3 years begins to perform well enough financially to handle local share of capital improvement requirements. P&L information for a contract management option is provided under Appendix B, Table B-2, Contract Management Option. 3. Full airport privatization: Full airport privatization refers to a complete lease-concession of all airport activity, over a specific length of time, usually a 25-50 year term. In this management scenario, all commercial rights at the airport would be owned by the private operator. For these commercial rights, the city would delegate all of their O&M and capital development responsibilities to the private operator. In this way, the private developer would have full and comprehensive responsibility for all activities at the airport over the lease- concession term. The program that governs full airport privatizations is administered by the FAA, and will usually require at least 2 years in order to move through the FAA approval process. Some of the basic parameters of a full airport privatization are as follows: The private operator gains essentially full ownership of all operations, maintenance, and commercial activity at the airport for a specific amount of time. The private operator will usually seek property development rights for non-aviation property as a means of potentially boosting their return on investment for the project. The private operator would be responsible for all branding and marketing requirements. The private operator would be responsible to the City to meet well defined level of service and safety/security requirements. Failure to meet the pre-established KPIs would put the private operator into a default situation. PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OPTIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 33 The private operator would be responsible for delivering all planned capital improvement projects. Capital improvement projects would be planned by the City prior to the privatization, for the term of the privatization, and these would be the responsibility of the operator to deliver, using the traditional airport grant programs. The full privatization would effectively take the airport off of the City’s books from an operational standpoint over the term of the lease-concession. For an economically viable full airport privatization, the owning public entity could expect a onetime concession fee, and/or an annual concession fee paid for the commercial rights granted. A conceptual pro-forma P&L has been prepared for the full privatization scenario at GTU. Based on our analysis, there is not currently sufficient commercial activity and revenue generation upside to support the full privatization scenario. P&L information for a full airport privatization option is provided under Appendix B, Table B-3, Full Airport Privatization Option. 5.2 Potential Management Options – Pros and Cons Each of the three potential operating scenarios offers distinct pros and cons to the City of Georgetown, should they be chosen. The following Pros and Cons are general in nature, and apply to GTU and most all airports that may be considering a range of possible management options at a broad level. The following is a listing of primary Pros and Cons associated with each airport operating scenario: 1. City managed airport: PROS: Current operation is customer focused, and is supported by the stakeholders Current operation is capable of increased revenue production above that of existing Stakeholders have a comfort level with the current management set up The City does very well in maintaining the required airport safety functions The City has taken a proactive role in ensuring the long term viability of GTU CONS: The Current operation even with an improvement to revenue generation will have difficulty supporting the local share of major capital expenditures in certain years Current commercial, branding and marketing inefficiencies may be difficult to overcome as a City department City staff have a difficult time in picking up and implementing a developer or business development role Necessary staffing needs are sometimes difficult to obtain approval for and implement within the City system 2. Private contract management: PROS: Private operator is able to make staffing changes and move more quickly within the confines of their contract Private operator would be much more likely to bring a strong land developer, marketing and business development acumen to the GTU market Private operator would relieve the City of responsibility for day to day operations at GTU Private operator would probably offer the City a higher return on investment over time, particularly if they are operating under a well conceived incentive laden contract PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OPTIONS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 34 Private operator would bring a stronger business and commercial management system and operation to the airport CONS: The city would need to have strong oversight of the incentive basis and the service level performance indicators carried in the private operator contract The City may lose touch with the stakeholders, without a solid feedback process The City would still be responsible for funding all operations and capital programs After paying out private operator profit margin and incentives, the City will continue to be responsible for all expenses and major capital local share requirements Private operator may continue to be hampered by City property development constraints and time to approve new development 3. Full airport privatization: PROS: The airport operating requirements effectively come off the City books as a responsibility The private owner will have significant incentive to brand, market, and upgrade service levels at the airport since they will own all bottom line aspects of the facility The private owner will have a significant incentive to bring in their property development capabilities with regard to aviation, aviation support and non-aviation land development This method of airport management could include a onetime, and/ or annual concession fee for the City This method of airport management would most likely result in market growth and an improved level of service to stakeholders The City retains full asset ownership of the facility CONS: The City would lose direct contact with users and stakeholders The City would lose direct control of level of service at the airport The private owner, rather than the City would be responsible for all safety/security aspects at the airport The lease concession term would most likely be in excess of 25 years, in order for it to meet financial feasibility for the private owner. This would be a very long term commitment for the City to consider The City would need to secure exclusive fueling rights for the private owner, in order for the concept to be feasible The City would still need to provide direct and continual oversight for the concept in order to make sure that the private owner is complying with all pre-agreed service standards GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 35 6.0 Conclusion All of the management concepts considered offer the City distinct pros and cons. The current City managed structure could be successful in the future with certain modifications and recommendations being proposed in this business plan. Both current City management and a private contract management arrangement are feasible under the current fueling structure. The full airport privatization concept is only feasible if it included exclusive fueling rights. It should be noted that in our analysis which is backed up by the conceptual profit and loss statements, the only operating option that will cover ongoing operational requirements, and also cover all local match capital costs in the long term, is an operating option that includes improved fueling revenues from either exclusive fueling rights, or an option that includes additional retail fueling margin for GTU.. GTU is poised to become a significant business and economic development benefit to the Georgetown community. The airport needs a solid vision of the future that can only come from the community. With this vision, the airport will need to fulfill the following broad objectives in order to achieve its intended goals: Establish a fueling policy, fully evaluate and choose a fueling option that offers a proper return on investment, and best serves the airport and stakeholders in the long term. Improve the ground and building leasing program to include stronger commercial and lease compliance terms as described in section 3.9 of this report. Decide on one of the two feasible management concepts; existing with necessary staffing modifications; or, bringing in a contract management function Improve the overall business management function at the airport either under existing management, or with a contract management function Develop a City wide economic development focus for the airport, to include an interdepartmental development function to help streamline project specific development and ground lease opportunities at the airport Develop a City vision and policy statement regarding airport role and brand that will drive the marketing and business development initiatives of city and airport staff. Implement best practice recommendations as documented in section 4.0 of this report GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Disclaimers 1. The purpose of this business case assessment, as summarized in this document, is to assess background data, assemble best practices from other similar airport operations, and provide suggestions on management models based on benchmarking of other facilities, and assumptions about current operations. The information collected, evaluated, and presented to the Client is intended to provide a summary of best practices. Several factors, many of which are beyond CH2M HILL’s control, affect the Client’s operations and financial performance. Decisions on and implementation of the recommendations suitable to the airport are the responsibility of the airport/Client, and the contents of this report are provided to facilitate decision-making, and do not provide any guarantees of end-results. 2. This Executive Summary Report is intended for the Client’s sole and exclusive use and is not for the benefit of any third party and may not be distributed to, disclosed in any form to, used by, or relied upon by, any third party without prior written consent of CH2M HILL, which consent may be withheld in its sole discretion. CH2M HILL accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document / report being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was developed. Any person using or relying on this document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm this agreement to indemnify CH2M HILL for all loss or damage resulting there from. CH2M HILL accepts no responsibility or liability for this document / report to any party. To the extent that this document / report is based on information supplied by other parties, CH2M HILL accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, arising from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than CH2M HILL and used by CH2M HILL in preparing this document / report. Appendix A Current Rates and Charges Schedule Airport Memorandum ________________________________________________ DATE: June 16, 2010 TO: Airport Lessees FROM: Travis McLain, Airport Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Rates and Charges Adjustments At the request of the City Council, a review of all Airport rates and charges not subject to a long term lease agreement was done. This included T-Hangar and Tiedown monthly rental rates, the Fuel Flowage Fee, and the wholesale, bulk aviation fuel price margin. This office prepared a price history summary of each with a proposed inflation adjustment. At the March, 2010, Airport Advisory Board meeting, a subcommittee was appointed by Chairman Brown to review the material prepared by this office and to report back to the Board at the April meeting. At the April meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend the adjustments to the Council at a workshop on May 25, 2010. The City Council will consider and vote on the proposed adjustments at the July 13, 2010, meeting. The proposed adjustments are as follows: PROPOSED AIRPORT RATES AND CHARGES ADJUSTMENTS HANGAR A 10% increase effective October 1, 2010 10% increase effective October 1, 2012 CPI-W adjustment effective October 1, 2014 CPI-W adjustment effective every 2 years after 2014 T-HANGARS & TIEDOWNS 10% increase effective October 1, 2010 10% increase effective October 1, 2012 CPI-W adjustment effective October 1, 2014 CPI-W adjustment effective every 2 years after 2014 FUEL FLOWAGE FEE (FFF) CPI-W adjustment from $0.10/gallon to $0.14/gallon effective October 1, 2010 CPI-W adjustment effective October 1, 2012 and every 2 years thereafter WHOLESALE, BULK AVIATION FUEL MARGIN CPI-W adjustment from $0.15/gallon to $0.1782/gallon effective October 1, 2010 CPI-W adjustment effective October 1, 2012 and every 2 years thereafter TOTAL BULK AVIATION FUEL COST Rack Price + Federal Taxes + FFF + Margin Appendix B Conceptual P&L Statements APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL P&L STATEMENTS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B-1 TABLE A-1 CITY MANAGED OPTION Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Plan Profit & Loss Statement FY 2013 - FY 2022 Baseline Pro Forma Operating Revenues FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Operating Revenues (1) $ 3,469,936 $ 3,635,796 $ 3,696,096 $ 3,703,046 $ 3,737,348 $ 3,738,340 $ 3,773,708 $3,774,760 $ 3,812,250 $ 3,813,365 $ 3,853,104 $ 3,854,286 Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses (2) $ 3,232,845 $ 3,427,127 $ 3,561,736 $ 3,653,857 $ 3,614,688 $ 3,638,948 $ 3,663,936 $3,689,676 $ 3,716,185 $ 3,743,490 $ 3,771,616 $ 3,800,584 Net Operating Revenues (Expenses) $ 237,091 $ 208,669 $ 134,360 $ 49,189 $ 122,660 $ 99,392 $ 109,772 $ 85,084 $ 96,065 $ 69,875 $ 81,488 $ 53,702 Non-Operating Revenue/Expenses FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Non-Operating Revenues (3) $ 59,880 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 508,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Non-Operating Expenses (4) $ 331,077 $ 100,000 $ 307,221 $ 430,795 $ 422,579 $ 289,456 $ 817,618 $ 262,916 $ 253,530 $ 187,274 $ 166,628 $ 164,053 Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses) $ (271,197) $ (100,000) $ (307,221) $ (430,795) $ (422,579) $ (289,456) $ (309,618) $(262,916) $ (253,530) $ (187,274) $ (166,628) $ (164,053) Net Profit (Loss) $ (34,106) $ 108,669 $ (172,861) $ (381,606) $ (299,919) $ (190,064) $ (199,846) $(177,832) $ (157,465) $ (117,399) $ (85,140) $ (110,351) (1) Includes additional $1,000 in hangar rent effective FY 2014 Assumptions: (1) Includes $5,950 of additional ground rent for area formerly occupied by Hangars "A" and "B" (1) Fuel sales revenues are increased by making the following adjustments: * Increase jet fuel price by 10 Cents/gallon to generate an additional $35,810 annually * Reduce the flight school discount to 20 Cents/Gallon to generate an additional $8,530 annually * Adjust the 77.5 Cents Fuel Flowage Fee up to generate an additional $12,960 annually (2) Includes new staffing cost based on recommended changes (with 3% annual increase from FY 2015 to FY 2022) *Airport Manager = $90,172 *Operations Manager = $71,273 *Maintenance Manager = $71,273 *Administrative = $52,373 *Part-Time Operations Worker = $26,000 *Part-Time Maintenance Worker = $26,000 (3) Proceeds from Bonds issued by City in FY2017 (4) Capital Expense increased as follows: * FY 2014 = $100,000 to drop overhead lines (Parcel D) * FY 2014 to FY 2022 = $25,000 annually to establish site planning fund * FY 2015 = $35,000 for GTU master plan update * FY 2015 = $125,000 for central terminal renovations * FY 2015 = $17,500 for security upgrades * FY 2016 to FY 2022 = $50,000 annually for site development fund * FY 2017 to FY 2020 = $10,000 annually for miscellaneous demolition ** Does not include the annual cost of $640,000 to the City to operate the Air Traffic Control Tower if FAA no longer funds APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL P&L STATEMENTS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B-2 TABLE A-2 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT OPTION Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Plan Profit & Loss Statement FY 2013 - FY 2022 Baseline Pro Forma Operating Revenues FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Operating Revenues (1) $3,469,936 $3,635,796 $3,696,096 $3,703,046 $ 3,737,348 $ 3,738,340 $ 3,773,708 $3,774,760 $3,812,250 $3,813,365 $3,853,104 $3,854,286 Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses (2) $3,232,845 $3,427,127 $3,561,736 $3,715,617 $ 3,705,788 $ 3,759,672 $ 3,814,871 $3,885,410 $3,957,375 $4,030,802 $4,105,728 $4,182,184 Net Operating Revenues (Expenses) $ 237,091 $ 208,669 $ 134,360 $ (12,571) $ 31,560 $ (21,332) $ (41,163) $ (110,650) $ (145,125) $(217,437) $(252,624) $(327,898) Non-Operating Revenue/Expenses FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Non-Operating Revenues (3) $ 59,880 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 508,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Non-Operating Expenses (4) $ 331,077 $ 100,000 $ 307,221 $ 430,795 $ 422,579 $ 289,456 $ 817,618 $ 262,916 $ 253,530 $ 187,274 $ 166,628 $ 164,053 Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses) $ (271,197) $ (100,000) $ (307,221) $ (430,795) $ (422,579) $ (289,456) $ (309,618) $ (262,916) $ (253,530) $(187,274) $(166,628) $(164,053) Net Profit (Loss) $ (34,106) $ 108,669 $ (172,861) $ (443,366) $ (391,019) $ (310,788) $ (350,781) $ (373,566) $ (398,655) $(404,711) $(419,252) $(491,951) * City pays Management Company a fee equaling 10% of GTU's annual staffing cost. Assumptions: * Management Company is responsible for the day-to-day management of GTU. * Management Company may receive bonus payments for reaching performance goals established by the City. * Management Company would increase revenues by 2.5% with new business ideas and innovations (1) Includes additional $1,000 in hangar rent effective FY 2014 (1) Includes $5,950 of additional ground rent for area formerly occupied by Hangars "A" and "B" (1) Fuel sales revenues are increased by making the following adjustments: * Increase jet fuel price by 10 Cents/gallon to generate an additional $35,810 annually * Reduce the flight school discount to 20 Cents/Gallon to generate an additional $8,530 annually * Adjust the 77.5 Cents Fuel Flowage Fee up to generate an additional $12,960 annually (2) Includes new staffing cost based on recommended changes (with 3% annual increase from FY 2015 to FY 2022) *Airport Manager = $90,172 *Operations Manager = $71,273 *Maintenance Manager = $71,273 *Administrative = $52,373 *Part-Time Operations Worker = $26,000 *Part-Time Maintenance Worker = $26,000 (3) Proceeds from Bonds issued by City in FY2017 (4) Capital Expense increased as follows: * FY 2014 = $100,000 to drop overhead lines (Parcel D) * FY 2014 to FY 2022 = $25,000 annually to establish site planning fund * FY 2015 = $35,000 for GTU master plan update * FY 2015 = $125,000 for central terminal renovations * FY 2015 = $17,500 for security upgrades * FY 2016 to FY 2022 = $50,000 annually for site development fund * FY 2017 to FY 2020 = $10,000 annually for miscellaneous demolition ** Does not include the annual cost of $640,000 to the City to operate the Air Traffic Control Tower if FAA no longer funds APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL P&L STATEMENTS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B-3 TABLE A-3 FULL PRIVATIZATION OPTION Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Plan Profit & Loss Statement FY 2013 - FY 2022 Baseline Pro Forma Operating Revenues FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Operating Revenues $ 3,469,936 $3,635,796 $3,700,273 $4,238,107 Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses $ 3,232,845 $3,427,127 $3,561,736 $3,681,917 Net Operating Revenues/Expenses $ 237,091 $ 208,669 $ 138,537 $ 556,190 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Non-Operating Revenue/Expenses FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Non-Operating Revenues $ 59,880 $ - $ - Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 331,077 $ 100,000 $ 307,221 Net Non-Operating Revenues/Expenses $ (271,197) $(100,000) $(307,221) Net Profit (Loss) $ (34,106) $ 108,669 $(168,684) $ 556,190 * GTU receives a one-time payment of $500,000 from the private operator in FY2014 Assumptions: * GTU does not receive any additional revenue from the private operator for the term of the privatization agreement. * GTU does not pay any expenses towards the operation of the airport during the term of the privatization agreement. * The private operator with receive all profits/losses from the airport operations. ** Does not include the annual cost of $640,000 to the City to operate the Air Traffic Control Tower if FAA no longer funds this service APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL P&L STATEMENTS GEORGETOWN AIRPORT BUSINESS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B-4 TABLE A-4 EXCLUSIVE FUELING OPTION Georgetown Municipal Airport Business Plan Profit & Loss Statement FY 2013 - FY 2022 Baseline Pro Forma Operating Revenues FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Leases & Rents $ 512,719 $ 571,700 $ 571,700 $ 578,650 $ 612,952 $ 613,944 $ 649,312 $ 650,364 $ 687,854 $ 688,969 $ 728,708 $ 729,890 Fuel Sales $ 2,872,381 $ 3,023,916 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 $ 3,506,000 All Other Revenues $ 84,836 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 $ 40,180 Transfers In $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Operating Revenues $ 3,469,936 $ 3,635,796 $ 4,117,880 $ 4,124,830 $ 4,159,132 $ 4,160,124 $ 4,195,492 $ 4,196,544 $ 4,234,034 $ 4,235,149 $ 4,274,888 $ 4,276,070 Operating Expenses FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Fuel Expenses $ 2,596,399 $ 2,769,898 $ 3,448,839 $ 2,951,475 $ 2,956,617 $ 2,959,850 $ 2,963,175 $ 2,968,276 $ 2,971,794 $ 2,975,413 $ 2,979,137 $ 2,982,967 Overhead Expenses $ 636,446 $ 657,229 $ 646,788 $ 655,782 $ 608,411 $ 624,174 $ 640,362 $ 656,985 $ 674,052 $ 691,579 $ 709,581 $ 728,066 Total Operating Expenses $ 3,232,845 $ 3,427,127 $ 4,095,627 $ 3,607,257 $ 3,565,028 $ 3,584,024 $ 3,603,537 $ 3,625,260 $ 3,645,846 $ 3,666,992 $ 3,688,717 $ 3,711,033 Net Operating Revenues (Expenses) $ 237,091 $ 208,669 $ 22,253 $ 517,573 $ 594,104 $ 576,100 $ 591,955 $ 571,283 $ 588,188 $ 568,157 $ 586,171 $ 565,037 Non-Operating Revenue/Expenses FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Non-Operating Revenue Grant $ 59,880 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Bond Proceeds $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 508,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Loan from General Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Non-Operating Revenues $ 59,880 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 508,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Non-Operating Expenses Capital Projects $ 331,007 $ 100,000 $ 71,500 $ 111,000 $ 623,000 $ 100,000 $ 558,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Building Maintenance $ - $ - $ 72,723 $ 65,309 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FBO Building Upgrades $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - General Fund Loan Repayment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Debt Payments $ 164,558 $ 162,738 $ 162,998 $ 165,486 $ 164,079 $ 164,456 $ 164,458 $ 127,916 $ 118,530 $ 52,274 $ 41,628 $ 39,053 Bond Issuance Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 495,565 $ 262,738 $ 532,221 $ 341,795 $ 787,079 $ 264,456 $ 732,618 $ 227,916 $ 218,530 $ 152,274 $ 141,628 $ 139,053 Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses) $ (435,685) $ (262,738) $ (532,221) $ (341,795) $ (787,079) $ (264,456) $ (224,618) $ (227,916) $ (218,530) $ (152,274) $ (141,628) $ (139,053) Net Profit (Loss) $ (198,594) $ (54,069) $ (509,968) $ 175,778 $ (192,975) $ 311,644 $ 367,337 $ 343,367 $ 369,658 $ 415,883 $ 444,543 $ 425,984 Minimum Fund Balance per Policy $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Variance from Policy (348,594) (204,069) (659,968) 25,778 (342,975) 161,644 217,337 193,367 219,658 265,883 294,543 275,984 Debt Coverage Per Policy 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Actual Debt Coverage 1.3 0.1 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.6 4.5 5.0 10.9 14.1 14.5 Fuel Margin $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to approve standard lease forms for the Georgetown Municipal Airport—Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel. ITEM SUMMARY: Attached to this item are the proposed lease forms for future ground leases and hangar/tie-down rentals. Both forms have been updated to reflect the implementation of the goals outlined in the Airport Business Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that GTAB recommend approval of these forms to City Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Bridget Chapman (jk) ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Hanger Ground Lease Agreement Backup Material Hanger/Tie Down Agreement Backup Material City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Draft Final Report. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The voters of Georgetown approved bonds in November 2008 for various projects in the City. One of those projects was for the study of a proposed bypass around Georgetown from W. SH 29 to E. SH 29, often referenced as the “smiley face.” As part of the overall corridor analysis, the City has entered into an Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to study the portion of Southeast Inner Loop from IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110); a map of the study area is attached to the proposed task order. The City selected the firm of Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP, (KPA) of Georgetown, Texas, to provide the preliminary engineering schematic design alignment(s) and report. KPA has completed the preliminary engineering and schematic design and the draft of the final report. We are asking GTAB for Board comments in advance of conducting a public meeting on the project. Staff and KPA will present the proposed phases and alignments with specific emphasis towards those adjoining and affected property owners. The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposals alignment. Then, combined with GTAB comments, KPA will finalize the report with Schematic and Staff will return to GTAB for its recommendation to Council concerning adoption of the alignment. Council's acceptance of the proposed alignment will be the guiding document to Staff with the ability to protect Right of Way (ROW) as development occurs along the corridor and traffic demand increases. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the draft final report and schematic design requests direction towards completing this phase of the project, inclusive of public meeting, based upon GTAB comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time. Future probable costs for ROW and construction are included in the report. The final design, ROW acquisition and construction are candidate projects for future bond programs. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Preliminary Engineering Final Report - DRAFT Exhibit City of Georgetown, Texas Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design: IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110) Preliminary Engineering Report DRAFT Prepared by Kasberg, Patrick and Associates, LP Consulting Engineers, Texas Firm F-510 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 March 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Project Purpose & Scope of Report 3.0 Existing Conditions 4.0 Roadway Phasing 5.0 Public Involvement Process 6.0 Traffic Modeling Analysis 7.0 Multi-Use Trail Facility 8.0 Roadway Design Considerations 8.1 Design Standards- Typical Sections 8.2 Intersection Layouts 8.3 Drainage 8.3.1 Background 8.3.2 Hydrologic Methodology 8.3.3 Flood Plain 8.3.4 Miscellaneous 8.4 Utilities 8.4.1 Existing Water Line 8.4.2 Water Line Relocations 8.4.3 Existing Wastewater Line 8.4.4 Wastewater Line Relocations 8.4.5 Dry Utility Conflicts 8.5 Soil Conditions/Pavement Design 8.6 Major Structures 9.0 Rights-of-Way Requirements 9.1 Rights-of-Way Acquisition 9.2 Access Management 10.0 Environmental Impacts – Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 11.0 Conclusions List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity and Location Map Figure 2: SE Inner Loop – Phase I Figure 3: SE Inner Loop – Phase II Figure 4: SE Inner Loop – Ultimate Phase Figure 5: Typical Roadway Cross Section List of Tables Table 1: Design Criteria Appendix A. Opinion of Probable Costs – Phase I B. Traffic Modeling Analysis List of References Page 1 1.0 Executive Summary This preliminary engineering report (PER) consists of preparing a schematic design and analysis of the Southeast Inner Loop between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110). The schematic design and analysis was performed to identify the initial and ultimate roadway sections for Southeast Inner Loop within the study area as well as to evaluate the ultimate intersection configuration of FM 1460 and Southeast Inner Loop. This report evaluates the proposed phasing of the Southeast Inner Loop Improvements with associated opinions of probable costs (OPC). Each phase considers vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle design standards. This report addresses preliminary drainage, utility, environmental, and rights-of-way (ROW) needs. The majority of proposed rights-of-way would be required from currently undeveloped properties with open spaces. However, due to the growth patterns in this area, commercial and retail developments are in the planning stages and are rapidly moving towards construction. As a result, rights-of-way acquisition costs are a moving target and changing monthly. Currently, KPA is meeting with impacted property owners along the project route to review the project and address any questions and/or comments. These comments will be incorporated into the final version of the PER. It is also recommended to have a public meeting, involving impacted property owners and property owners in the area, to review the project to obtain written comments and concerns that can be incorporated into the final version of the PER. Page 2 2.0 Project Purpose & Scope of Report The purpose and need for the schematic design and analysis of the Southeast Inner Loop between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110) is to provide an analysis of the initial and ultimate roadway sections and alignment of Southeast Inner Loop and to evaluate shifting the future grade separation at the intersection of FM 1460 & Southeast Inner Loop from FM 1460 to the SE Inner Loop. This section of Southeast Inner Loop connects to major transportation projects that are currently under the final planning/design stage or has been recently completed. The Southwest Bypass Project, which is in its final planning/design stage for Phase I, will ultimately move vehicular traffic from SH 29 to IH 35, is located on the western end of the study area for this project. Phase I of the Southwest Bypass Project is from Leander Road to IH 35. Sam Houston Boulevard – Phase I was recently completed and is located on the eastern end of the study area and provides vehicular traffic a direct route from Southeast Inner Loop to SH 130. The ultimate vision for this corridor is to provide an alternate west-east route from IH 35 and areas west of IH 35 to SH 130 that will help alleviate the traffic congestion that University Drive (SH 29) is currently experiencing. The proposed roadway project length is approximately 17,600 linear feet along the roadway centerline (See Figure 1 Vicinity & Location Map). Fig. 1: Vicinity and Location Map Contents of this report represent data collection, field review, engineering analysis and public involvement to define the proposed roadway extension alternatives. Page 3 The primary scope of the report includes preliminary roadway alignment, preliminary engineering for drainage and utilities, and providing opinion of probable costs. This report will provide engineering support of decisions regarding moving this project through design and construction phases. Page 4 3.0 Existing Conditions Existing Southeast Inner Loop at its most western end terminates at the IH 35 Frontage Road. The existing roadway along the project route consists of an undivided roadway with two (2) 12-foot travel lanes and shoulders with varying widths (4-foot min. to 6-foot max.). Southeast Inner Loop intersects seven (7) roadways along this route. Those intersections from west to east respectively are IH 35, Snead Dr/Blue Springs Boulevard, FM 1460, Sam Houston Boulevard, Maple Street, Southwestern Boulevard and Rockride Lane (CR 110). Properties are a mix of land uses, which include currently include commercial and open pasture land with a few residential properties mixed in. The majority of proposed rights-of-way would be required from currently undeveloped properties. However, this corridor is developing rapidly and development projects are in various stages of planning. Rights-of-way and property acquisition costs are variable within this area due to the rate at which the developments are occurring. Page 5 4.0 Roadway Phasing The proposed project is planned in Phases. A traffic modeling analysis was performed for this corridor utilizing the City of Georgetown’s 2035 Travel Demand Model (TDM). The traffic model confirmed the justification for shifting the future grade separation at the intersection of FM 1460 & Southeast Inner Loop from FM 1460 to the Southeast Inner Loop. Based off this justification, the project was proposed to be constructed as three (3) phases. Phase I would consist of constructing a four (4) lane roadway from the frontage road of IH 35 to the intersection of Sam Houston Boulevard and Maple Street. This would include a divided roadway beginning approximately 1,500 linear feet east of the intersection of Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to approximately 400 linear feet west of the intersection with Sam Houston Boulevard. This section of divided roadway will serve as the future frontage roads for Southeast Inner Loop and will allow for the construction of the bridge structure over FM 1460 that is proposed as part of Phase II. The current intersection of Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street is proposed to be extended to the north of its current location. Southeast Inner Loop east of the Maple Street Intersection will be reconfigured to transition from its proposed intersection with Maple Street to its current alignment near the Williamson County Child Advocacy Center Building. Southeast Inner Loop is proposed to maintain its current alignment and size from Maple Street to Rockride Lane with the exception of intersection improvements at Southwest Boulevard and Rockride Lane, which will include the addition of left hand turn lanes. (See Figure 2 SE Inner Loop - Phase I) Fig. 2: SE Inner Loop - Phase I Page 6 Phase II of the Southeast Inner Loop Project is proposed to consist of constructing a four (4) lane roadway from the frontage roads terminus just east of Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to the intersection of Sam Houston Boulevard and Maple Street. This phase will also include the construction of the bridge structure over FM 1460 Intersection. These improvements are proposed to tie into Phase II of Sam Houston Boulevard, which includes a bridge over Maple Street. There is no proposed direct connection to Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street. (See Figure 3: SE Inner Loop - Phase I) Fig. 3: SE Inner Loop - Phase II The Ultimate Phase of the Southeast Inner Loop Project is proposed to consist of constructing a four (4) lane divided roadway from the frontage roads terminus just east of Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard west to connect with the proposed SH 29 Bypass Project. This is phase currently proposes to construct a bridge structure over IH 35 and Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard Intersection. These improvements are proposed to tie into Ultimate Phase of SH 29 Bypass Project at its ultimate terminus point with IH 35. This proposed phase is not currently projected to be constructed within the 2035 time frame that the traffic model analysis was prepared for. There is no proposed direct connection to Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street. (See Figure 4: SE Inner Loop – Ultimate Phase) Page 7 Fig. 4: SE Inner Loop - Ultimate Phase The Phase II/Ultimate Phases for the Southeast Inner Loop Project, Phase SH 29 Bypass Project from SH 29 to IH 35 and Sam Houston Boulevard Project are all interconnected as far as future expansions are concerned. These projects and their ultimate build outs are tied together as they will ultimately provide an alternate west-east route from SH 29 to HWY 130. Timing for each will have to be evaluated based off traffic counts to determine that the existing facilities are reaching their capacity. An evaluation will also have to be made to determine phasing for this entire corridor and funding sources for each project. Page 8 5.0 Public Involvement Process A public meeting with impacted and neighboring property owners is proposed to be held prior to finalizing this report. KPA is currently meeting with individual impacted property owners to review the purpose of the project and to address questions and concerns they may have. Project related questions and concerns will be incorporated into the final report submittal. 6.0 Traffic Modeling Analysis A technical memo documents the preliminary traffic analysis results for the proposed reconstruction of Southeast Inner Loop (SE Inner Loop) between IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road and Maple Street (approximate location). The data presented herein include the results obtained from each of the subarea corridor analyses and will ultimately be used in the determination of the design requirements at the frontage road intersections of SE Inner Loop and FM 1460. The analysis and discussions contained in this report focus on the projected (2035) traffic operating conditions of the corridor. The complete analysis can be seen in Appendix D. To determine the corridor operating conditions, the current 2035 Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM) was obtained. Because there are a number of recently programmed projects that have not been included within this network, edits were required. These edits were made to the regional model which was .then used as the basis for each of the subarea corridor analysis scenarios. There are a total of four scenarios included within this report and the scenario projecting the highest volumes was used in the determination of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersection geometric requirements. These scenarios included the re-routing of Maple Street north of SE Inner Loop and/or Sam Houston Avenue ramp reversals between Maple Street and CR 110. Each of the scenarios will be discussed further in the report, but are summarized below: Maple Street re-routed to intersect with Southwestern Boulevard north of existing SE Inner Loop: Scenario A: • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard Scenario B: • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Maple Street/Inner Loop • Sam Houston Avenue p EB exit ramp to CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Maple Street/Inner Loop • Maple Street re-routed to intersect with existing SE Inner Loop Scenario C: • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from CR 110 Page 9 • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Maple Street/Inner Loop • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Maple Street/Inner Loop Scenario D: • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard Based upon the TDM analysis results for all of the scenarios, both the Maple Street relocation and the Sam Houston Avenue ramp locations do have an impact on network. The ramp locations impact the usage of Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110. These are primarily localized impacts due to drivers not being able to access the Sam Houston Avenue main lanes at the desired location, but regardless of the scenario analyzed and because of geometric limitations; these impacts are expected and will be minimized. In addition, it should be noted that the volume fluctuations, due to the ramp changes, are not carried west of Maple Street and therefore do not impact the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersections. Because of the planned geometric changes to SE Inner Loop and its relation to FM 1460, the need for the proposed bridge structure along FM 1460 was analyzed. The completion of not only SE Inner Loop, but the full southern SH 29 bypass along with the anticipated growth and development, will significantly increase the projected traffic demand on SE Inner Loop. For this reason, consideration was given to relocating the proposed bridge structure from FM 1460 to SE Inner Loop. This would allow the SE Inner Loop main lanes to be placed on the bridge structure and essentially bypass the FM 1460 intersection, ultimately, allowing for improved intersection operations and traffic flow. The last section of this report addresses the geometric requirements at the intersections of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460, if the currently proposed FM 1460 bridge structure were replaced with at-grade main lanes and the bridge structure was built for the SE Inner Loop main lanes. Using the 24-hour volumes generated by the TDM, and applying peak hour factors, the peak hour turning movement counts were calculated at all of the intersections within the study area. The intersection peak hour analyses at the intersections of SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 were completed and the results showed that no additional significant geometric improvements, beyond what has been discussed, would be needed. 7.0 Multi-Use Trail Facility A proposed Multi-Use Trail Facility was developed for the proposed project that will extend from the intersection of Rockride Lane (CR 110) to IH 35. The trail facility is proposed to be a twelve (12) foot concrete sidewalk that will combine pedestrians and bicycles. Pedestrian ramps are included at roadway intersections with crosswalks and are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Texas Department of Licensure and Regulations (TDLR) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Page 10 8.0 Roadway Design Considerations 8.1 Design Standards – Typical Sections The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) book entitled “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street” provides the following definitions. • Operating Speed: the highest overall speed at which a driver can travel on a given highway under favorable weather conditions and under prevailing traffic conditions without at any time exceeding the safe speed as determined by the design speed on a section-by-section basis. • Design Speed: the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern. AASHTO’s recommended design speed for a roadway is based on the 85th percentile speed. For new roadways where 85th percentile speed is not yet available or for reconstructed roadways where the characteristics of the new roadway are likely to alter the 85th percentile speed, engineering judgment is needed to establish the 85th percentile speed. Selecting the design speed should be a logical choice decision based on topography, anticipated adjacent land uses, roadway category and anticipated pedestrian/bicycle levels. The proposed roadway horizontal centerline alignment meets a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The typical cross section for Phase I is shown below. Fig. 5: Typical Roadway Cross Section Page 11 The following table provides a summary of several roadway design criteria. A Twelve (12) foot trail is included. The minimum horizontal curve radius for a 70 mph design speed as specified by TxDOT Roadway Design Manual is 3,390 feet with a maximum superelevation rate (emax) of 6%. Therefore, the minimum horizontal curve radius that is recommended for design is 3,390 feet. The preliminary schematic layout meets the horizontal curve criteria. Table 1: Design Criteria Table 1: Design Criteria Design Speed 70 mph Posted Speed 60 mph Lane Widths 12 feet Travel Lanes 4 (2 each way) Shoulder Width 8 to 10 feet Grass Median Width (Ph. I) Varies Cross Slope .02 ft./ft. Multi-Use Trail Facility 12 ft. concrete ROW Width Varies Min. Horizontal Curve 4,575 ft. Roadway Cross Sections were created at 100-foot intervals and are located in the 30% Design Set. Page 12 8.2 Design Standards – Intersection Layouts There are four (4) intersections that have been laid out for Phase I construction and incorporated into the 30% Plan Sets. These proposed layouts of these intersections – IH 35 Frontage Roads, Snead Drive/Blue Springs Road, FM 1460 and Maple Street/Sam Houston Boulevard, are included below in Figures 6 thru Figure 9. Fig. 6: IH 35 Frontage Road & SE Inner Loop Intersection Page 13 Fig. 7: Snead Dr/Blue Springs Blvd & SE Inner Loop Intersection Fig. 8: FM 1460 & SE Inner Loop Intersection Page 14 Fig. 9: Maple Street/Sam Houston Blvd & SE Inner Loop Intersection 8.3 Drainage 8.3.1 Drainage Area Development Preliminary maps were developed for the proposed project’s watershed using two-foot interval contours. The overall drainage area consisted generally of the land from Southeast Inner Loop (project extents) southward to Westinghouse Road. The total contributing areas for the proposed drainage collections system is approximately 2,145 acres. Using the contours, eleven (11) subbasins were delineated based on perceived drainage flow patterns. These basins consist of multiple land uses including open field, moderate density residential, commercial, and industrial. There are no bridge structures in the drainage area. Multiple culverts and drainage crossings along Southeast Inner Loop were analyzed and redesigned to conform to the proper drainage criteria determined from the following hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. KPA incorporated the current Smith Branch Drainage Model prepared by KPA in 2013. 8.3.2 Hydrologic Methodology The SCS Method and HEC-HMS hydrologic modeling system were utilized for modeling peak design flow rates for storm water runoff. The lag times for each subbasin were first determined using the SCS Method. To do this, the hydraulic length and slope of the watershed were calculated using the drainage maps and contours. A SCS curve number (CN) was then determined for each individual subbasin using the surface cover, hydrologic conditions, and soil types. Once the CN was calculated, the maximum retention (S) in the watershed could Page 15 be determined. All of this information was then used to calculate the SCS lag times. This was done for both the existing and fully developed conditions. Once lag times were determined, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) was utilized to determine the peak discharge for the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year frequency storms. These respectively correlate to the 50%, 10%, 4% and 1% chance storms in a given year. These values again were determined for both the existing conditions as well as fully developed conditions in the project’s drainage subbasins. 8.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis The FEMA-approved CulvertMaster program was utilized to analyze the existing culverts along the Southeast Inner Loop and redesign them when needed. The discharge rates for the 100-year storm under fully developed conditions were used to attempt to maximize the drainage efficiency of the structures. First, the existing structures were measured for size, length, and slope and were analyzed for the storm water discharge requirements. As a result of this analysis, one (1) of the eight (8) drainage structure areas analyzed calculated to be sufficient for the required discharge. The remaining seven (7) drainage locations were then redesigned to meet the requirements and were incorporated into the 30% plan sets. 8.3.4 Flood Plain The flood zone for the project site is identified as Zone “AE” for Smith Branch and Zone “A” for an Unnamed Tributary per Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 48491C0485E dated September 26, 2008. 8.3.5 Miscellaneous Extended detention is proposed for this roadway work, however, each new development parcel in the drainage area should be evaluated for on-site detention on a case by case basis. 8.4 Utility Utility locations information was obtained from the City of Georgetown GIS database and onsite investigations. 8.4.1 Existing water lines are: • 16” WL located on the north side of Southeast Inner Loop from IH 35 Frontage Road to Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard; • 18” WL located on the south side of Southeast Inner Loop from Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to Maple Street; • 12” WL located on the north side of Southeast Inner Loop from Maple Street to approximately 2,500 LF to the east. Page 16 8.4.2 Proposed water line relocations: The majority of the existing water line along the proposed route for Phase I & II are located in areas where the horizontal alignment will be located outside the construction area. There can be potential vertical conflicts at drainage locations, but these can be remedied easily. There are anticipated conflicts with the existing 18” WL at Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street. There will be a need to perform minor modifications to the horizontal alignment in this area. 8.4.3 Existing wastewater lines are: • 21” WWL located parallel to the current northern right-of-way of Southeast Inner Loop from Maple Street to Smith Branch. 8.4.4 Proposed wastewater line relocations: The majority of the existing wastewater line along the proposed route for is located under the proposed alignment of the Phase II improvements (main lanes). This relocation will be from Maple Street to its terminus at Smith Branch. The wastewater line can remain in place for Phase I, if preferred. However, it will be required to be relocated with the main lanes of Southeast Inner Loop is constructed (Phase II). We would recommend to relocate the wastewater line as part of Phase I, should the funds be available, to have all utilities clear for future project expansions. 8.4.5 Dry Utility Conflicts: Electric, gas, telephone cable utilities are located throughout this corridor. The majority of the electric transmission/distribution lines are located on the north side of the existing Southeast Inner Loop rights-of-way line. The section of electric lines from Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to Sam Houston Boulevard would need to be relocated due to the construction of the east bound frontage road. The southern Southeast Inner Loop right of way currently contains a high pressure gas line and several underground fiber optic and telephone cables. The proposed alignments for Phase I & II do not require any major relocation of these lines. There will be some portions of the lines that maybe required to be lowered during construction should there be a conflict with any proposed drainage structures. There will be relocations required of these lines for the ultimate phase. The exact limits of this relocation will be determined as part of the final design for the ultimate phase. Affected existing water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable transmission, distribution and service lines to properties that are acquired for rights-of-way will be removed or relocated accordingly. 8.5 Soil Conditions/Pavement Design A soils and testing analysis should be performed by a competent geotechnical engineering firm during the final design phase to explore soil types and substrate that can be encountered during construction and to recommend a 20-year pavement design. Undisturbed areas within the project site appear to be gently sloping grass land. No significant rock outcrops in the project area are noticeable from surrounding viewpoints along existing roadways. For the purposes of cost estimating, the following pavement sections were used: Page 17 Proposed Southeast Inner Loop Pavement Section: • 2-inch Type C, Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) Overlay • 4-inch Type B, HMAC Overlay • 22.5-inch Crushed Limestone Base Material • TX 5 Geogrid • 6-inch Moisture Conditioned Subgrade The above pavement section is consistent with the recently completed Sam Houston Boulevard (Southeast Arterial 1) project that is located adjacent to this project. This section was used for cost estimating purposes only. A complete geotechnical soils sampling, testing and analysis is required. A geotechnical report with recommended pavement design should be conducted during the project final design phase. 8.6 Major Structures Existing topographic and anticipated roadway street slopes are generally less than 5% gradient, therefore no constructed walls are anticipated for roadway embankments for Phase I of this report. Phase II will consist of roadway embankment and a bridge structure located over FM 1460. The proposed rights-of-width at FM 1460 Intersection is set to construct the proposed bridge structure utilizing roadway embankment in lieu of retaining wall structures. The rights-of-way in this area can be narrowed should it be determined that it is more cost effective to construct the retaining walls in lieu of purchasing the additional rights-of-way. The Ultimate Phase of this project will consist of a proposed bridge structure over IH 35 that will connect Southeast Inner Loop to the SH 29 Southwest Bypass project. Currently Phase I & II are anticipated to be constructed by 2035. There is currently no projection for when the Ultimate Phase will be constructed. Page 18 9.0 Rights-of-Way Requirements 9.1 Rights-of-Way Acquisition The majority of proposed rights-of-way for Phase I & II would currently be required from primarily undeveloped properties containing open spaced pasture areas. However, due to the location of existing Rivery Boulevard intersection at Williams Drive and existing residential development, impacts to existing residential structures are unavoidable and inevitable in order to extend Rivery Boulevard to Northwest Boulevard. Rights-of-way and property acquisition costs are significant and account for approximately half of the anticipated total project expense. Where parcels appeared to be minimally impacted by proposed rights-of-way acquisition, it was assumed that public easements or similar rights-of-way easement could be acquired rather than purchasing the entire parcel. It was assumed that purchasing the property would be necessary where the proposed roadway construction (including sidewalks) appeared to cross the footprint or rooftop of existing structures. More detailed rights-of-way maps based on the ground land surveying will be provided during the design phase. Twenty-four (24) properties were identified to be potentially impacted by the alignment requiring some portion of property. The identified twenty-four (24) properties are owned by ten (10) different owners. The three largest property owners along this route are Longhorn Junction Land and Cattle Company that own ten (10) tracts, Georgetown Railroad Co, Inc. own five (5) tracts and Williamson County own three (3) tracts. This information was obtained from the Williamson County Appraisal District (WCAD). All potentially affected property owners are being contacted to meet to review the proposed alignment and impact to their property. Not all property owners have been met with at the print date of this draft report. KPA is scheduling the remaining property owners that have not been met with currently and will incorporate their comments and concerns in the final report. During these meetings, we will include aerial maps with the proposed alternative and a copy of Texas Department of Transportation’s “State Purchase of Right of Way”. The state’s document are proposed to be used because it summarizes most often asked questions and provides general answers potentially affected property owner. Each property owner was informed that this was not a state highway project and that it was a locally funded city project. Acquisition processes are not yet funded at the time of this report. Initiation of property acquisition will require future funding availability. 9.2 Access Management Controlling access points along freeway/arterial type roadways is desirable in order to facilitate uniform traffic flow and maximize travel time efficiency. Driveway spacing should meet the Texas Department of Transposition Access Driveway Standards. The location of future driveways should be reviewed for approval by city staff during the site plan review process. Page 19 10.0 Environmental Impacts – Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone The majority of the project is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and therefore require a water pollution abatement plan. A temporary solution typically includes an erosion and sedimentation control plan. An E&S control plan restrains sediment pollution during construction. Any identification of aquifer recharge “sensitive features” during construction requires immediate notification to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). For long term aquifer pollution protection, an extended detention water quality pond would be proposed to be constructed on the north side of Southeast Inner Loop, near its intersection with Smith Branch. For the purposes of this report, a portion of the offsite drainage area was included in the sizing of the anticipated extended detention water quality pond. The contractor will be typically responsible for: • Preparing and sending the Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination to TCEQ within required timeframe of commencing construction. • Receiving approval confirmation of Notice of Intent from TCEQ. • Implementation of the approved plan. • Maintaining, documenting and reporting as required by TCEQ. The appropriate TCEQ regional office location and contact information is: Austin Regional Office 2800 S. IH35, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78704 (512) 339-2929 A final summary of the environmental report was not available at the time of print for this report. The final report will incorporate the final environmental summary and report. Page 20 11.0 Conclusion This preliminary engineering report (PER) consisted of preparing a schematic design and analysis of the Southeast Inner Loop between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110). As discussed in the report the project is proposed to be developed into three (3) phases. Phase I and phase II is proposed to be constructed by 2035 as determined by the Traffic Modeling Analysis. The proposed ultimate phase of the project will need to be coordinated with the final phases of the SH 29 Bypass Project and Sam Houston Boulevard. The proposed length of the project is approximately 17,600 linear feet (approximately 3.3 miles). The preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Phase I is 18,800,000. It is important to note that rights-of-way cost will be determined as part of final negotiations with the impacted property owners. Costs are currently being developed for Phase II and the Ultimate Phases. These costs will be incorporated into the final draft of the PER. Appendix A: Phase I Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost Number Bid Quantity Unit Item Description Unit Price Extended Price 1 100%LS Insurance, Bonds and Move-In Related Expenses not to exceed 5% of Total Bid 650,000.00 650,000.00 2 176 STA Preparation of Right-of-Way 750.00 132,000.00 3 110,800 SY 2-inch Type “C” HMAC 4.00 443,200.00 4 110,800 SY 4-inch Type “B” HMAC 8.00 886,400.00 5 122,500 SY TX 5 Geogrid 3.50 428,750.00 6 122,500 SY 12.5-inches Crushed Limestone Base Material 12.00 1,470,000.00 7 122,500 SY 10.5-inches Crushed Limestone Base Material 11.00 1,347,500.00 8 122,500 SY 6-inch Moisture Conditioned Sub-Grade 1.50 183,750.00 9 1,800 SY 6-inch Concrete Channel including 18-inch Toe Ditches 50.00 90,000.00 10 17,600 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain & Remove Silt Fence 3.50 61,600.00 11 750 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain & Remove, Rock Berm 35.00 26,250.00 12 100%LS Prepare Notice of Intent to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 3,000.00 3,000.00 13 100%LS Prepare Notice of Termination to TCEQ 3,000.00 3,000.00 14 8 EA Stabilized Construction Entrance 2,500.00 20,000.00 15 15,000 LF 5-Strand Barbed Wire Fence 10.00 150,000.00 16 6 EA Galvanized Tube Access Gate (16-foot) 1,500.00 9,000.00 17 35 EA Intermediate Brace Post for Barbed Wire Fence 250.00 8,750.00 18 80 EA Barbed Wire Fence Corner Brace Post 250.00 20,000.00 19 275,000 CY Unclassified Excavation 4.00 1,100,000.00 20 275,000 CY Fill Material 4.00 1,100,000.00 21 1000 CY 18-inch Deep Rock Rip Rap Averaging 12-inche Diameter Rock 50.00 50,000.00 22 500 SY Concrete Driveway 55.00 27,500.00 23 750 SY Asphalt Driveway 40.00 30,000.00 24 750 SY Gravel Driveway 35.00 26,250.00 25 180 LF 13-8’ x 4’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 6,500.00 1,170,000.00 26 4 EA Concrete Flared Wingwall (Skewed) for 13-8’ x 4’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 22,500.00 90,000.00 27 84 LF 2-6’ x 6’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 1,000.00 84,000.00 28 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 2-6’ x 6’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 3,500.00 7,000.00 29 30 LF 4-24-inch Class III RCP 175.00 5,250.00 30 2 EA Concrete Headwall with Flared Wings for 4-24-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 4,500.00 9,000.00 31 90 LF 5-7’ x 4’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 1,400.00 126,000.00 32 2 EA Concrete Headwall with Flared Wings (Skewed) for 5-7’ x 4’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 12,500.00 25,000.00 33 180 LF 6-48-inch Class III RCP 1,250.00 225,000.00 34 4 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings (Skewed) for 6-48-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 9,500.00 38,000.00 35 140 LF 5-48-inch Class III RCP 1,100.00 154,000.00 36 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings (Skewed) for 5-48-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 8,500.00 17,000.00 37 60 LF 6-36-inch Class III RCP 900.00 54,000.00 38 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 6-36-inch RCP, Including Concrete Aprons 8,000.00 16,000.00 39 110 LF 3-10’ x 6’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 2,000.00 220,000.00 40 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 3-10’ x 6’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 7,500.00 15,000.00 41 1 EA Skewed Parallel Concrete Wingwall for 3-6’ x 3’ RCB 3,000.00 3,000.00 42 450 SY 6-inch Concrete Rip Rap, Including 18-inch Toe Ditch all Around 50.00 22,500.00 43 95 LF 4’ x 3’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 350.00 33,250.00 44 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 4’ x 3’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 2,500.00 5,000.00 45 100 LF 2-24-inch Class III RCP 150.00 15,000.00 46 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 2-24-inch RCP, Including Concrete Aprons 1,200.00 2,400.00 47 48 LF 3-30-inch Class IV RCP 350.00 16,800.00 48 1 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 3-30-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 2,500.00 2,500.00 49 250,000 SY Hydromulching, Including topsoil and Watering to Sustain Growth 0.75 187,500.00 50 100%LS Maintenance of R-O-W, Including Final Mowing Prior to Project Final Payment 20,000.00 20,000.00 51 35,000 SY Erosion Control Blankets 3.00 105,000.00 52 500 CY Miscellaneous Class A Concrete 500.00 250,000.00 53 12,200 LF 4-inch Continuous Double Yellow Striping 3.50 42,700.00 54 46,000 LF 4-inch Continuous Solid White Striping 1.75 80,500.00 55 15,000 LF 4-inch Continuous Yellow Striping 1.75 26,250.00 56 500 EA Type 11-A-A Traffic Buttons 25.00 12,500.00 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP SCHEMATIC DESIGN IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR 110) OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST Number Bid Quantity Unit Item Description Unit Price Extended Price SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP SCHEMATIC DESIGN IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR 110) OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST 57 7,500 LF 4-inch Dashed Yellow Striping 1.75 13,125.00 58 500 LF 24-inch Stop Bar 25.00 12,500.00 59 100%LS Traffic Signage 25,000.00 25,000.00 60 1,500 LF Metal Beam Guard Fence, Including Terminal Anchor Sections, & Concrete Mow Strip 200.00 300,000.00 61 100%LS Provide Pre-Construction DVD of Project Limits 3,000.00 3,000.00 62 100%LS Provide Post –Construction DVD of Project Limits 3,000.00 3,000.00 63 100%LS Provide Trench Safety Plan Signed & Sealed by a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas 5,000.00 5,000.00 64 1,400 LF Implementation of Trench Safety Plan (Pipe) 2.00 2,800.00 65 100%LS Provide All Material, Equipment, Tools & Labor Necessary to Test Waterline, Including Any Repairs 5,000.00 5,000.00 66 4,800 LF Relocate 18-inch Wastewater Line 175.00 840,000.00 67 100%LS Water Line Adjustments 25,000.00 25,000.00 12,581,525.00$ 1,258,152.50 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TO USE 13,839,677.50$ ROW ACQUISTION (35 Acres @ $75,000/Acre)2,625,000.00$ DRY UTILITY RELOCATIONS 250,000.00$ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Final Engineering Design, Geotech, etc.)2,075,951.63$ TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 18,790,629.13$ TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - USE 18,800,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES: Appendix B: Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis TECHNICAL Memorandum To: Trae Sutton, P.E., CFM From: Rebecca A. Bray, P.E., PTOE, AICP Date: October 9, 2013 Subject: Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis Executive Summary This technical memo documents the preliminary traffic analysis results for the proposed reconstruction of Southeast Inner Loop (SE Inner Loop) between IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road and Maple Street (approximate location). The data presented herein include the results obtained from each of the subarea corridor analyses and will ultimately be used in the determination of the design requirements at the frontage road intersections of SE Inner Loop and FM 1460. The analysis and discussions contained in this report focus on the projected (2035) traffic operating conditions of the corridor. To determine the corridor operating conditions, the current 2035 Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM) was obtained. Because there are a number of recently programmed projects that have not been included within this network, edits were required. These edits were made to the regional model which was then used as the basis for each of the subarea corridor analysis scenarios. There are a total of four scenarios included within this report and the scenario projecting the highest volumes was used in the determination of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersection geometric requirements. These scenarios included the re-routing of Maple Street north of SE Inner Loop and/or Sam Houston Avenue ramp reversals between Maple Street and CR 110. Each of the scenarios will be discussed further in the report, but are summarized below: Maple Street re-routed to intersect with Southwestern Boulevard north of existing SE Inner Loop: Scenario A: • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard Scenario B: • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Maple Street/Inner Loop • Sam Houston Avenue p EB exit ramp to CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Maple Street/Inner Loop Maple Street re-routed to intersect with existing SE Inner Loop Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 2 Scenario C: • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Maple Street/Inner Loop • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Maple Street/Inner Loop Scenario D: • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard Based upon the TDM analysis results for all of the scenarios, both the Maple Street relocation and the Sam Houston Avenue ramp locations do have an impact on network. The ramp locations impact the usage of Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110. These are primarily localized impacts due to drivers not being able to access the Sam Houston Avenue mainlanes at the desired location, but regardless of the scenario analyzed and because of geometric limitations, these impacts are expected and will be minimized. In addition, it should be noted that the volume fluctuations, due to the ramp changes, are not carried west of Maple Street and therefore do not impact the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersections. Because of the planned geometric changes to SE Inner Loop and its relation to FM 1460, the need for the proposed bridge structure along FM 1460 was analyzed. The completion of not only SE Inner Loop, but the full southern SH 29 bypass along with the anticipated growth and development, will significantly increase the projected traffic demand on SE Inner Loop. For this reason, consideration was given to relocating the proposed bridge structure from FM 1460 to SE Inner Loop. This would allow the SE Inner Loop mainlanes to be placed on the bridge structure and essentially bypass the FM 1460 intersection, ultimately, allowing for improved intersection operations and traffic flow. The last section of this report addresses the geometric requirements at the intersections of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460, if the currently proposed FM 1460 bridge structure were replaced with at- grade mainlanes and the bridge structure was built for the SE Inner Loop mainlanes. Using the 24- hour volumes generated by the TDM, and applying peak hour factors, the peak hour turning movement counts were calculated at all of the intersections within the study area. The intersection peak hour analyses at the intersections of SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 were completed and the results showed that no additional significant geometric improvements, beyond what has been discussed, would be needed. These geometric requirements as well as the rational supporting the bridge re-location will be discussed within this section. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 3 Section 1 Introduction This report will present the information for the proposed reconstruction of Southeast Inner Loop (SE Inner Loop) between IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road and Maple Street (approximate location). The purpose of this report is twofold: (1) Use the 2035 Travel Demand Model (TDM) to determine the projected traffic demand for the proposed SE Inner Loop, FM 1460 and Sam Houston Avenue; and (2) Use the projected traffic demand volumes to determine both the possibility of relocating the proposed FM 1460 bridge structure and determine the roadway design needs at the intersections of SE Inner Loop Frontage Road and FM 1460. The proposed SE inner Loop will be an access controlled freeway and will ultimately consist of frontage roads and freeway mainlanes. As ultimately planned, SE Inner Loop is part of the SH 29 southern by-pass. This roadway will be a freeway section connecting SH 29, west of Georgetown, to SH 29, east of SH 130. However, only the eastern segment (SE Inner Loop) between IH 35 and SH 130 and the frontage of the western segment (SW Inner Loop) are included in this study. The proposed alignment will generally follow the same route that the existing Inner Loop occupies; however, at the intersection with Maple Street, SE Inner Loop will connect to the newly constructed Sam Houston Avenue and ultimately to SH 130 and SH 29. This realignment and planned connections are shown in Figure 1. The existing section of Inner Loop, between Maple Street and SH 29 will remain in place, but the functional classification of the section between Maple Street and Southwestern Boulevard will be downgraded from a 6-lane principal arterial to a 2- or 4-lane collector. This is being done in order to reduce the traffic on existing Inner Loop and lessen the impacts on the Maple Street/SE Inner Loop/Sam Houston Avenue Frontage Road intersections. The reduction in intersection and roadway capacity will encourage drivers to use the upgraded Southwestern Boulevard section connecting existing SE Inner Loop to Sam Houston Avenue. Section 2 Study Area The study area for these analyses included primarily the southwestern portion of the City of Georgetown, however, since the citywide TDM was used, all anticipated growth and development has been accounted for. The analyses focused on all proposed SE Inner Loop intersections between IH 35 and Red Bud as well as three intersections along the remaining section of Inner Loop: Maple Street, Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110. Within the study area, existing Inner Loop is rural in nature and provides access to a few businesses as well as a number of Williamson County facilities. The majority of the surrounding properties are currently used for agricultural proposes. Because of the anticipated growth and development within the area, it is expected that this area will quickly develop with a mixture of commercial, retail and residential units. There are a number of parcels already in various planning stages of development. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 4 The completion of this roadway will provide much needed connectivity in the southwestern portion of the City and locations to the east and south, as well as open the more rural, but desirable areas for expansion. 2.1 Existing Roadway Conditions FM 1460 – FM 1460 is currently a two-lane principal arterial connecting the Cities of Round Rock and Georgetown. This north-south arterial is the primary route (other than IH 35 and SH 130) for a large portion of the residents in both Georgetown and Round Rock. At the intersection with Inner Loop both the northbound and southbound approaches have been widened to accommodate three lanes: separate right turn, through and left turn lanes. Inner Loop – Inner Loop is a two lane arterial with narrow shoulders on both sides and open ditch drainage. The only signalized intersection is at FM 1460. At this intersection both, eastbound and westbound Inner Loop approaches have been widened to accommodate three lanes: separate right turn, through and left turn lanes. Throughout the area, there are several commercial driveways, Williamson County facilities, and residential driveways directly accessing the roadway. South Austin Avenue (Business 35) – Currently South Austin Avenue/Inner Loop/Northbound IH 35 Frontage Road all intersect. South Austin Avenue is a bi-directional 4-lane principal arterial. Since the northbound frontage road intersects from the south and is only one direction (NB), the southbound portion of Austin Avenue is forced to turn right (toward the Southbound IH 35 frontage road) or to the left (onto Inner Loop). Sam Houston Avenue – Sam Houston Avenue is the newly constructed roadway that connects Inner Loop to CR 110 and ultimately, west, to SH 29. At this time only the northern most frontage road is constructed as a bi-directional two-lane arterial. Southwestern Boulevard – Southwestern Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway connecting Georgetown to Round Rock. This roadway serves primarily residential developments within the City of Georgetown. The portion of the roadway north of Inner Loop is a two-lane rural road and south of Sam Houston Avenue is a meandering county road. There are no shoulders, curbs or gutters. The section connecting Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue has recently been constructed as a three-lane roadway. Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard – Currently Snead Drive intersects Inner Loop from the north and Blue Springs Boulevard intersects Inner Loop from the south. Snead Drive is a two-lane collector roadway that serves a number of commercial establishments. The road terminates at Airborn Circle and there are no plans for future expansion to the north. Blue Springs Boulevard is a four-lane divided collector street connecting the Northbound IH 35 Frontage Road to Inner Loop. The area currently surrounding Blue Springs is vacant, but planned for a mixture of commercial, retail and residential land-uses. Maple Street – Maple Street currently intersects Inner Loop from the south; there is no approach from the north. Maple Street is a two-lane collector road that serves primarily residential developments to the south. The Maple Street and Inner Loop intersection is in close proximity to the Sam Houston Avenue and Inner Loop intersection. It is anticipated that this intersection will remain Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 5 in its current configuration until development and/or roadway construction warrant some type of operational change or geometric change. County Road 110 – County Road 110 is currently a two-lane roadway extending from Inner Loop south into Round Rock. The road is primarily rural in nature, serving agricultural fields and a GISD elementary school. There are no shoulders, but there is open channel drainage on either side of the roadway. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 6 Section 3 Planned Roadway Projects As was discussed previously, this study was initiated partly by large number of roadway projects currently under design or construction within the study area as well as the potential for significant amount of development in the future. Once completed, these roadways will not only allow for better regional connectivity, but will allow for more development opportunities with the City of Georgetown as well as the region. Currently, these projects have not been included in the 2035 Travel Demand Model. Because each will be completed prior to 2035, the following roadway changes were made to the 2035 Travel Demand Model. These changes remained in place regardless of the analysis scenario. FM 1460 – FM 1460 is currently under final design and it will be reconstructed as a four-lane divided principal arterial. In the vicinity of the SE Inner Loop Frontage Road intersections, driveway cuts and full access intersections will be limited. The ultimate configuration of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersections will be determined as a part of this study. SE Inner Loop – SE Inner Loop is planned to connect from Austin Avenue/IH 35 to Maple Street with Inner Loop continuing on and connecting to SH 29. As part of this project, SE Inner Loop will be reconstructed and will tie directly into Sam Houston Avenue. Because of this and for discussion purposes, the SE Inner Loop discussion has been broken into two sections: (1) proposed SE Inner Loop between Austin Avenue/IH 35 and Maple Street and (2) Existing Inner Loop between Maple Street to SH 29. The section between Austin Avenue/IH 35 and Maple Street (SE Inner Loop) will be reconstructed in phases with the frontage roads being completed first and mainlanes and possible overpasses/underpasses being completed at a later date when volumes warrant. It was assumed that all necessary improvements would be in place during the 2035 development year. The second section (Inner Loop) will remain in place, but portions will be downgraded in order to encourage drivers to use alternative routes. IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road – TxDOT is planning on reconstructing the existing IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road from Blue Springs Road to FM 2243/Leander Road. This project will realign the existing frontage road to more closely follow the existing IH 35 mainlane alignment and to construct a NB Frontage Road where there currently is none. The project will begin north of Blue Springs Road, continue through the Austin Avenue/SE Inner Loop intersection where there will be an at-grade railroad crossing. North of here there is no frontage road, so the project will complete the missing section between existing Inner Loop and FM 2243/Leander Road. Sam Houston Avenue – As envisioned by the City of Georgetown, the City will construct the Sam Houston Avenue mainlanes and the adjacent landowners/land developers will construct the frontage roads. Given the desire to develop this area, both the eastbound and westbound frontage roads as well as connectivity to Maple Street were assumed to be in place during the 2035 analysis year. When the ultimate cross-section is completed the roadway will be an access controlled freeway and will consist of westbound and eastbound frontage roads – two lanes each direction – and westbound and eastbound mainlanes – two lanes each direction. The exact construction year has not been determined and will be driven by the anticipated growth and development and the ultimate need for the additional roadway capacity. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 7 Southwestern Boulevard – There are no major reconstruction plans for the section of Southwestern Boulevard between SE Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue. In order to encourage drivers to use this roadway, as opposed to Maple Street or CR 110, a fourth lane will be constructed as traffic volumes warrant. Snead Drive/Blue Springs/SE Inner Loop intersection – Because of SE Inner Loop being reconstructed, the intersections with Snead Drive and Blue Springs will require modifications. These modifications will allow for the SE Inner Loop frontage roads to intersect with both roads, but all also allow for an overpass/underpass construction should traffic volumes warrant. Currently, these modifications are unknown and will need to be studied further. SW Inner Loop (West of IH 35) – The original Inner Loop project included both mainlanes and frontage roads for the segment between SH 29 W and IH 35 (South West (SW) Inner Loop) and the segment between IH 35 and SH 130/SH 29 E (South East (SE) inner Loop). The SW Inner Loop mainlanes will not be constructed by the 2035 design year, but the eastbound and westbound frontage roads will be constructed. These roads will intersect with the existing IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road. Also included as part of the originally envisioned project was a bridge over IH 35 that allowed connectivity between the West and East Inner Loop. It is also anticipated that this bridge will not be in place by the 2035 design year and subsequently it has not been included in this analysis. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 8 Section 4 Model Development For this study, the current 2035 Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM) was used to determine the 24-hour traffic volumes on the roadway network within the study area. The zonal structure and demographics were reviewed, but because the population and employment characteristics had already been adopted, neither was changed. The roadway network characteristics were reviewed and any inaccuracies were corrected. Ultimately, the only attributes changed within in the model were the known significant roadways improvements that were discussed in Section 3.0, the construction of SE Inner Loop, and the identified inaccuracies. In addition, characteristics were changed given each of the possible construction scenarios. There were two primary construction scenarios developed and within each there were two ramp configuration scenarios, for a total of four model analysis scenarios. These were derived based upon construction limitations along Sam Houston Avenue as well as the Williamson County Master plan that had recently been completed for the county owned property in the northeast corner of the intersection of Maple Street and Inner Loop. 4.1 Re-Routing of Maple to Intersect with Southwestern Boulevard Currently Williamson County has a large parcel of property along Inner Loop, in the northeast corner at the intersection with Maple Street, which includes the Williamson County Juvenile Detention Center and the animal center. The Master Plan calls for further development of the property that will ultimately include additional commercial and office buildings. Also included as part of this plan is a roadway along the northern boundary that connects Southwestern Boulevard to Maple Street. Because of the reconstruction of SE Inner Loop and the needed downgrading of existing Inner Loop, it is thought that Maple Street could terminate just north of the Williamson County property and either be re-routed to the east and intersect with Southwestern Boulevard (as this new northern roadway) or reconstructed so that it intersects with this new northern roadway. This re-alignment would remove the planned Maple Street southbound approach to Inner Loop which will allow for improved intersection operations at the newly redesigned SE Inner Loop/Maple Street (NB) and Sam Houston Avenue Frontage Road intersections. This reconfiguration is shown Figure 2. In addition to the possible re-routing of Maple Street, there are geometric limitations to Sam Houston Avenue. This is primarily due to the current intersection spacing between Sam Houston Avenue and - Maple Street, Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110. The existing spacing only allows for an entrance ramp or an exit ramp, but not both. Therefore, there were two analysis scenarios completed for the ramp configurations outlined below: Scenario A included the following ramp configuration (Figure 3): • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 9 Scenario B included the following ramp configuration (Figure 4): • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Maple Street/Inner Loop. • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Maple Street/Inner Loop 4.1.1 Model Analysis Results The model analysis results for these scenarios indicate that the reversing of the westbound and/or eastbound ramps does impact the driver’s desire to use either Southwestern Boulevard or CR 110 to access either existing Inner Loop or Sam Houston Avenue. The vehicular demand on both roadways for each scenario is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Maple Street Re-Routed to Intersect with Southwestern Boulevard Roadway Direction Scenario A Volume Scenario B Volume Peak Hour Difference 24- Hour Peak Hour 24- Hour Peak Hour Volume Percent CR 110 Northbound 8,251 825 11,515 1152 227 19.7% Southbound 10,057 1,001 9,284 928 73 8% Southwestern Boulevard Northbound 18,202 1,820 15,055 1,506 314 21% Southbound 16,640 1,664 14,906 1,491 173 12 % As shown in Table 1, depending upon the scenario, the peak hour impact to Southwestern Boulevard ranges from approximately 1,800 to 1,500 vehicles per hour (vph) and for CR 110, the peak hour volumes range from approximately 900 to 1,150 vph. This is a difference ranging from under 100 vehicles per hour (8%) to over 300 vehicles per hour (21%). For a one or two lane roadway facility, the hourly addition/reduction of 314 vehicles is enough to change the operational conditions of the roadway. Because of this, the location of the ramps is important to the overall operating characteristics of Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110 and the impacts to these facilities need to be studied further when the frontage roads are constructed and the location of the ramps is being considered. More importantly the analysis shows the continued desire by drivers to use Southwestern Boulevard. As this area of Georgetown continues to develop, it is anticipated that the vehicular demand will continue to increase. For this reason, it is important to note that the timing of the Sam Houston Avenue connection to SH 130 is critical. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 10 4.2 Re-Alignment of Maple to Intersect with SE Inner Loop If Williamson County chooses not to build the northern roadway and the City of Georgetown chooses to extend Maple Street to the south, careful consideration should be given to the preferred alignment so that operational issues can be minimized. Currently, there are two alternatives under consideration and, as result of the analysis, a modified third alternative is presented within this study. As currently being considered, the existing Inner Loop would “T” into the southbound extension of Maple Street. Drivers would be required to turn left or right at this intersection and then drivers traveling to the new SE Inner Loop would turn right onto the newly constructed frontage road. Because of the existing and planned commercial and residential developments within this area, it is thought that the number of drivers wanting to make this maneuver would be significant and therefore, intersection operations would not be desirable. The second option for the Maple Street connection would be to extend Maple Street south to intersect with SE Inner Loop, Sam Houston Avenue Westbound Frontage Road and the Maple Street approach from the south. This would create an unexpected, off-set four-way intersection and would create operational issues. This option is not recommended for consideration. To minimize intersection operational issues, it is proposed that the southbound Maple Street extension be re-routed to the east where it would “T” into existing Inner Loop, north of Sam Houston Avenue. Existing Inner Loop would then be re-routed to tie into existing northbound Maple Street; thus, creating a contiguous street consisting of part of the existing Maple Street and the existing Inner Loop. This proposed configuration is shown in Figure 5. The re-routing of this roadway will minimize the impacts that might arise given the possibility of an off-set or an unexpected intersection at SE Inner Loop/Maple Street/Sam Houston Avenue Westbound Frontage Road. As with scenarios A and B, there were two model analysis scenarios studied under this Maple street realignment condition. These were both ramp reversal options and are outlined below: Scenario C included the following ramp configuration (Figure 6): • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Maple Street/Inner Loop • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to CR 110 • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Maple Street/Inner Loop Scenario D included the following ramp configuration (Figure 7): • Sam Houston Avenue WB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue WB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB entrance ramp from Southwestern Boulevard • Sam Houston Avenue EB exit ramp to Southwestern Boulevard Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 11 4.2.1 Model Analysis Results The analysis results for these scenarios were similar to those presented earlier in that the reversing and reconfiguring of the eastbound and westbound ramps does impact the volume of traffic utilizing either Southwestern Boulevard or CR 110. As expected, the re-alignment of Maple Street so that it intersects with SE Inner Loop also impacts the selection of Southwestern Boulevard or CR 110. The vehicular demand on both Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110 for each scenario is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Realignment of Maple Street to SE Inner Loop Roadway Direction Scenario C Volume Scenario D Volume Peak Hour Difference 24- Hour Peak Hour 24- Hour Peak Hour Volume Percent CR 110 Northbound 9,688 969 8,140 814 155 15 % Southbound 11,447 1,145 9,752 975 170 15 % Southwestern Boulevard Northbound 13,231 1,323 17,361 1,736 413 31 % Southbound 12,072 1,207 15,419 1,542 335 28 % As shown in Table 2, depending upon the scenario, the peak hour impact to Southwestern Boulevard ranges from approximately 1,750 to 1,200 vehicles per hour (vph) and for CR 110 the peak hour volumes range from approximately 800 to 1,150 vph. This is a peak hour difference ranging from 150 vehicles per hour (15%) to over 400 vehicles per hour (31%). For a one or two lane roadway facility the hourly addition/reduction of over 400 vehicles is enough to change the operational conditions of the roadway. Because of this, it is felt that the location of the ramps is important to the overall operating characteristics of Southwestern Boulevard and CR 110 and these facilities need to be considered when the ramps are ultimately constructed. 4.3 Ramp Configuration Summary The model scenarios presented above were analyzed to determine if any of the proposed ramp configurations and/or the Maple Street re-alignments contributed significantly to the overall traffic anticipated at the proposed SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersections. When comparing the generated daily trip traffic it appears that while there are localized impacts due to ramp locations or roadway modifications, these impacts are not continued west to the FM 1460 intersections. Those drivers traveling westbound have a minimum of two westbound entrance ramps prior to FM 1460. Under these conditions, it was determined that the drivers are able to access the SE Inner Loop mainlanes and bypass the frontage road intersections. The same is true for drivers traveling in the eastbound direction. Because of the proposed construction plans at Austin Avenue and SE Inner Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 12 Loop (no IH 35 overpass), there will be an entrance ramp just west of FM 1460 (between Snead Drive and FM 1460) and under these conditions drivers are able to bypass the FM 1460 frontage road intersections as well. The model analysis results also indicate that Maple Street alignment does impact the drivers’ ability to use Southwestern Boulevard or CR 110. Drivers using Maple Street are more inclined to directly access SE Inner Loop via existing Inner Loop/Maple Street as opposed to traveling to Southwestern Boulevard and access Sam Houston Avenue. However, this potential alignment does not greatly impact the intersection design at SE Inner Loop and FM 1460. In summary, the ultimate ramp locations and Maple Street modifications greatly impact the drivers’ access to either Sam Houston Avenue or SE Inner Loop. When finalizing plans for the Sam Houston Avenue entrance/exit ramps and the Maple Street construction, careful consideration should be given to the network impacts as opposed to isolated intersection review. If the City would like more drivers to utilize the newly upgraded Southwestern Boulevard, it is recommended that the westbound entrance ramp be constructed west of Southwestern Boulevard. This will encourage more drivers to utilize Southwestern Boulevard as opposed to CR 110. In addition, the City should consider partnering with Williamson County and reconstructing Maple Street as the northern access roadway connecting to Southwestern Boulevard. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 13 Section 5 FM 1460 Analysis The primary focus of this study was to use the TDM model results to determine whether or not the proposed FM 1460 bridge structure could be relocated and to determine the geometric requirements at the intersections of SE Inner Loop Frontage Roads and FM 1460. The planned roadway improvements were detailed in Section 3.0 and in summary, because of the proposed geometric changes to SE Inner Loop, it is projected that this will lead to an increase in vehicular demand along SE Inner Loop. This increase in vehicular demand required a re-examination of the grade separation needs at this intersection. Therefore, both SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 were analyzed for grade separation requirements, intersection operations and geometric requirements. 5.1 Grade Separation Requirements As proposed, SE Inner Loop will ultimately connect to IH 35 and be an access controlled freeway cross section with frontage roads and FM 1460 will remain a limited access, at-grade major arterial. Because of the connection to IH 35 and eventually SH 29 (both east and west of Georgetown), SE Inner Loop is considered the southern SH 29 by-pass. Under these conditions, is it projected that the increase in traffic demand will be significant. The analysis used in the grade separation determination took into the account the connection to the IH 35 frontage roads, but not the bridge over IH 35. The analysis for these conditions was completed under the same four scenarios and as expected, because of the geometric changes to SE Inner Loop, the projected SE Inner Loop traffic volumes are significantly higher than those projected for FM 1460. The projected total 24-hour and hourly approach volumes that were developed using the TDM, for each scenario are detailed in Table 3. Of particular note, the total SE Inner Loop volumes include both mainlane and frontage road volumes. The mainlanes averaged approximately 43,000 daily vehicles and the frontage roads averaged approximately 14,000 daily vehicles for each of the scenarios. Because the traffic demand that is projected along SE Inner Loop is significantly higher that the projected FM 1460 traffic demand, it is recommended that the bridge structure that was originally proposed for FM 1460, be relocated and constructed for the SE Inner Loop mainlanes. This would allow for the SE Inner Loop frontage road and FM 1460 to remain at-grade and intersect with one another, while the SE Inner Loop mainlanes will be constructed on the bridge structure going over FM 1460. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 14 Table 3: FM 1460 at SE Inner Loop – 2035 Projected Volumes Model Analysis Time Period Southeast Inner Loop (mainlanes and frontage road) FM 1460 Westbound Eastbound Northbound Southbound Scenario A Daily (vpd) 30,319 28,391 20,514 23,744 Hourly (vph) 3,032 2,839 2,051 2,374 Scenario B Daily (vpd) 30,181 27,797 20,293 24,077 Hourly (vph) 3,018 2,780 2,029 2,408 Scenario C Daily (vpd) 29,174 27,085 20,329 23,927 Hourly (vph) 2,917 2,709 2,033 2,398 Scenario D Daily (vpd) 29,778 28,460 20,535 23,642 Hourly (vph) 2,978 2,846 2,054 2,364 5.2 Turning Movement Calculations Since it is recommended that the bridge structure be relocated to the SE Inner Loop mainlanes, the operational characteristics and geometric needs of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 at-grade intersections need to be determined. In order to complete this analysis peak hour turning movement counts (TMCs) are required. Beginning with the projected daily volumes, the calculation of the turning movement counts was a multi-step process. While the travel demand model projected daily traffic volumes, it does not project peak hour volumes and/or turning movement counts. The steps required for the calculation of the TMCs are: 1. Determination of the peak analysis time period. The PM peak period was chosen since it traditionally has the highest hourly traffic volumes. 2. Determination of the peak hour factor. Given the TDM projections regarding population and employment, it was determined that a 10% factor be applied to the 24-hour volumes; thus, 10% of the daily volumes occur during the peak period. 3. Determine the directional distribution factor to be applied to the projected approach volumes. This factor accounted for differences in travel patterns by time of day. Since this area is a heavy commuter route, a directional distribution of: 60% Northbound and 40% Southbound Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 15 was applied. Using these percentages the directional approach volumes by time of day were calculated. 4. Calculation of intersection TMCs. The TMCs were calculated by comparing existing TMC data and approach and departure volumes projected at each of the intersections. These volumes were balanced and as a result the turning movement counts were calculated. 5.3 Preliminary Determination of Intersection Geometrics Once each of the intersection TMCs was calculated, the volumes were reviewed to determine the intersection geometric needs. This initial review is primarily based on known capacity limitations for each of the travel lanes. The interim geometrics planned by the City of Georgetown and ultimate right-of-way were also considered. The geometrics that were identified included two lanes in each exterior intersection approach with intersection widening to accommodate turn lanes as needed. The ultimate intersection geometric requirements are shown in Figure 8 along with the projected turning movement volumes developed in Section 5.2. 5.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis Levels of service for each of the signalized intersection are based on average delay in seconds per vehicle, shown in Table 4. For signalized intersections, LOS “A” through “D” are considered acceptable while LOS “E” and “F” are considered unacceptable. Table 4: Level of Service Summary for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Signalized Intersection (delay) (seconds per vehicle) A < 10 sec B 10 – 20 sec C 20 – 35 sec D 35 – 55 sec E 55 – 85 sec F < 85 sec Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 16 Using the intersection geometrics and the projected TMCs shown in Figure 8, the projected intersection LOS and average delay were calculated for each of the SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 intersections. Levels of service and average delay for each intersection are shown in Table 5. The analysis results presented in this table indicate that when utilizing the projected traffic volumes and the proposed intersection geometrics, each of the intersections is anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS B) with minimal vehicular delays. Table 5: SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 Projected 2035 Intersection Operations Intersection Control Type PM Peak Hour Level of Service Delay (sec/veh) SE Inner Loop EB Frontage Road and SB FM 1460 Traffic Signal B 16.7 SE Inner Loop EB Frontage Road and NB FM 1460 Traffic Signal B 18.4 SE Inner Loop WB Frontage Road and NB FM 1460 Traffic Signal B 12.3 SE Inner Loop WB Frontage Road and SB FM 1460 Traffic Signal B 19.4 In summary, based upon the model analysis results, both the SE Inner Loop Frontage Roads and FM 1460 can operate acceptably without significant geometric improvements. The recommended intersection geometrics include a minimum of four lanes on each of the exterior intersection approaches with these additional lanes be accommodated through the widening at the intersections. The widening should include: a third through lane (carried into the interior intersections as the left turn lane) and a right turn lane. This allows for a total of four lanes. Each of the interior intersections should have a total of three lanes that are the length of the intersection. This third lane will allow for the construction of a separate left turn lane. Figure 8, presented previously, details the intersection requirements. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 17 Section 6 Conclusions and Recommendations This technical memorandum documents the traffic analysis completed as part of the Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis. The purpose of this study is two-fold: first, use the 2035 TDM to determine the projected network-wide traffic volumes given the proposed roadway network improvements and second, to determine the geometric requirements at the intersection of the SE Inner Loop Frontage Roads and FM 1460. Currently SE Inner Loop and FM 1460 are under design and this study will aid in the ultimate determination of the geometric needs given the City of Georgetown’s projected growth and development. 6.1 Modeling Analysis In order to determine the geometric requirements, the 2035 traffic volumes had to be projected. This was done with the aid of the existing 2035 Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM). Using the TDM, this study evaluated the City’s roadway network with all newly planned roadway projects as well as various design scenarios. Each of the modeling scenarios included changes to Maple Street and/or Sam Houston Avenue ramp re-locations. The modeling analysis indicated that the Maple Street alignment is important because it directly impacts the access to and from the remaining segment of Inner Loop. If Maple Street is routed to the south to intersect with existing Inner Loop, the utilization of the Maple Street/SE Inner Loop/Sam Houston Avenue intersections will be significantly higher and the utilization of Southwestern Boulevard will be lower. This will potentially create more vehicular demand at these intersections and could ultimately necessitate significant geometric improvements. However, if Maple Street is re-routed to the north, such that it connects to Southwestern Boulevard, drivers will be more inclined to continue south, along Southwestern Boulevard, in order to access Sam Houston Avenue and therefore few geometric improvements are required at the Maple Street/SE Inner Loop/Sam Houston Avenue intersections. As discussed in Section 4.0, the ramp configuration does impact the usage of both CR 110 and Southwestern Boulevard. The location of the entrance ramp, west of Maple Street appears to be a consideration when drivers are deciding on using either Southwestern Boulevard or CR 110. With the westbound entrance ramp located between Southwestern Boulevard and Maple Street, it is expected that more drivers will use Southwestern Boulevard, which is the preferable north/south route. It is recommended that when both the Maple Street construction and the Sam Houston Avenue Ramps are considered, a careful network wide review be undertaken. This will allow for a review of impacts to the entire network as opposed to local impacts. To provide optimal operations, the Maple Street re-routing and the Sam Houston Avenue ramp configuration discussed in Scenario A should be considered. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 18 6.2 SE Inner Loop / FM 1460 Analysis The TDM projected significantly higher traffic volumes for SE Inner Loop as opposed to FM 1460. Because of this, it is recommended that the bridge structure originally proposed for FM 1460 be relocated and constructed for the SE Inner Loop mainlanes. In addition, SE Inner Loop is part of the overall SH 29 southern by-pass route, and it is anticipated to continue experiencing an increase in traffic. To ensure that the relocation of the bridge would not adversely impact intersection operations or require significant geometric improvements, the analysis of the SE Inner Loop frontage road and FM 1460 intersections was required. This analysis determined the geometric needs given the projected 2035 turning movement counts. Based upon these projections it was determined that minor geometric improvements are required. Each of these can easily be accommodated with the existing right-of-way and ultimately allow for acceptable intersection operations. The geometric requirements were previously detailed and shown on Figure 8. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 19 APPENDIX: REPORT FIGURES List of References City of Georgetown, TX. January 12, 2004. Drainage Criteria Manual; 1st Edition, Version Two. City of Georgetown, TX. 2004. Overall Transportation Plan (OTC). Texas Department of Transportation. May 2010. Roadway Design Manual. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . 1984. “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street” City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to authorize Task Order #S&A-14-001-ROW with Spitzer & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $97,600.00, plus reimbursable expenses, for acquisition services in connection with the Smith Branch Drainage Buy-outs Project. Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director, Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator. ITEM SUMMARY: On November 8, 2011, Council approved the Smith Branch Watershed Master Plan (SBWMP). The plan analyzed potential options to mitigate flood damage to residential structures in the area. Consideration was given to channelization improvements and detention pond construction. The SBWMP ultimately recommended buy-outs of 16 properties located within the 100-year floodplain as the best option. The actual recommendation was a three phased buyout plan as follows: Phase 1 - 902 22nd Street & 906 22nd Street Phase 2 - 904 22nd Street, 908 22nd Street & 22nd Street (unknown address) Phase 3 - 2304 Trails End Drive, 2207 Hunters Glen Drive, and 1600, 1602, 1604, 1606, 1700, 1702, 1704, 1706, 1708 Greenbranch Drive At the time the SBWMP was approved, the 16 properties noted above were identified as being located within the 100-year floodplain (aka - base flood elevation). The 100-year floodplain elevation is the industry standard for determining acceptable risk regarding flooding, and can also be defined as having a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. It is important to note that properties above the 100-year floodplain can still flood, and often do. However, structures elevated above the 100-year floodplain and generally deemed "reasonably safe from flooding." Funding has not been readily available to purchase any properties until the current fiscal year. Upon receiving clear direction from Council to pursue buy-outs, staff worked with the engineering firm that completed the SBWMP to prepare a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to update/correct the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) based on the hydraulic analysis. Of the original 16 properties discussed in the SBWMP, all were found to still remain in the floodplain based on the updated/corrected FIRM. As part of that work, actual finished floor elevations for properties in the area were surveyed, and 8 homes were found to have finished floor elevations below the 100-year floodplain elevation. Those 8 homes with finished floor elevations below the 100-year floodplain elevation are generally considered to be at a higher risk of flooding and recommended for purchase: 2304 Trails End Drive 1600 Greenbranch Drive 1602 Greenbranch Drive 1604 Greenbranch Drive 1606 Greenbranch Drive 1706 Greenbranch Drive 1708 Greenbranch Drive 2207 Hunters Glen The remaining 7 homes with finished floor elevations above the 100-year floodplain elevation are generally deemed reasonably safe from flooding by industry standards and NOT recommended for purchase. One additional property remains undeveloped. Since a home built on that property would be required (by ordinance) to elevate the structure above the 100-year floodplain, staff is NOT recommending pursing acquisition of that tract. While (almost) all properties are eligible for flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, homes with finished floor elevations above the 100-year floodplain elevation typically receive premiums much lower than homes below the 100-year floodplain elevation. Flood insurance premiums increase exponentially as the finished floor elevation decreases below the 100-year floodplain. As a result of these facts and findings, staff recommends that authorization be made to pursue "willing buyer - willing seller" transactions of the 8 homes with finished floor elevations BELOW the 100-year floodplain elevation (base flood elevation). Staff proposes to use the services of Spitzer and Associates, Inc., for property acquisition services. Spitzer and Associates has significant experience facilitating similar floodplain buyouts in our area. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Individual property transactions will be brought forward for approval. Spitzer and Associates fee total contract fee is $97,600.00 and will be funded through the current year Drainage Capital Improvement Plan. Please see attached budget worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Wesley Wright ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Spitzer and Associates Task Order Cover Memo Spitzer and Associates Task Order Exhibit A Cover Memo Spitzer and Associates Task Order Exhibit B Cover Memo Budget Worksheet Cover Memo Smith Branch Area Map Cover Memo Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The services shall consist of the following major tasks: Project management and coordination Feasibility Studies Facility/Route selection Survey permission and notification Administrative support Title and closing services Environmental assessment of site Appraisal/appraisal review/appraisal update(s) Negotiation services Relocation services Condemnation support A. Communication and Project Administration – Required Communications 1. All project files must be available to the City at all times. 2. Monthly, or at intervals agreed upon by the City, summary reports of project expenses, including authorized amounts, amounts paid and budget forecasting. 3. Status reports of all parcel and project activities must be maintained and provided to the City monthly. 4. A schedule of all areas of work, including anticipated commencement and completion dates, must be provided to the City. 5. The Contractor must participate in project review meetings scheduled by the City. 6. The Contractor shall be responsible for preparation of initial property owner contact list for use by the City in distribution of introduction letters prior to commencement of work, or as otherwise required by the City. B. File Management 1. All working files must be maintained at the Contractor’s project administration offices. 2. All files and documents must be made available to the City immediately upon request. At the City’s request, upon completion of any project, a copy of all files associated with the project must be provided to the City. Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services Page 2 of 6 3. Invoices must be prepared and submitted monthly to the City. All invoices must contain an itemized, detailed description of the services performed and charges therefor. 4. Contractor must retain copies of all correspondence and documentation of all contact with property owners for a period of time to be specified by the City for each project. C. Title and Closing Services 1. Contractor shall secure preliminary title commitment from a title company specified by the City. Any title company charges for the preliminary title commitments shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contactor’s fee schedule. 2. Contractor shall secure title commitment updates in accordance with applicable insurance rules and regulations for parcel payment submissions. Any title company charges shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 3. Contractor shall secure title insurance for all parcels acquired, insuring acceptable title to the City. Advance written authorization from the City is required for any exceptions. Any title company charges for the title insurance shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 4. Charges for the curative services necessary to provide clear title to the City are the responsibility of the Contractor and must be included in Contractor’s fee schedule for this service. Charges may not include costs/expenses that qualify as payment of incidental expenses to transfer real property to the State of Texas, if applicable. 5. Contractor shall be responsible for direct contact with the title company to obtain updated title commitments along with other forms and certified copies of instruments of conveyance necessary when requesting funds from the City for property purchases. 6. Contractor shall provide closing services in conjunction with the title company and must attend closings as requested by the City. 7. Any fee related to obtaining certified court documents, and fees for recording same, which are not collected at the closing of the parcel, shall be direct pass through fees. Contractor may be required to submit proof of fees. 8. The Contractor shall cause the recording of all original instruments immediately after closing at the appropriate County Clerk’s office. Fees for the recording and/or filing of documents shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services Page 3 of 6 D. Environmental Site Assessment 1. If required, the Contractor shall cause a report to be prepared by an environmental professional that meets ASTM E-IS27-05, Standard Practices for Environmental Site Assessments meeting the following requirements. Fees for Environmental Site Assessments shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 2. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“EA1”) process shall include the documentation of the environmental condition of each parcel, which may be based on field investigations and/or historical review as appropriate for the particular parcel. The report shall be completed in coordination with the surveyor and appraiser, and shall be made available to the appraiser. The EA1 must be performed for all properties, if required by the project. Fees for EA1 shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 3. A Phase II investigation shall be performed, if potential environmental risks exist, as determined by the EA1. Fees for Phase II investigation shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 4. If justified by the Phase II report, a Phase III investigation shall be performed. The resulting Phase III report must indicate the approximate cost to remediate the parcel to maintain its current use, and to achieve its highest and best use. Fees for Phase III investigation shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 5. Contractor must provide written notification to the City of any environmental or other concerns associated with the project or additional property to be acquired which may require environmental remediation. E. Appraisal 1. Appraiser(s) will be specified by the City. 2. The scope of services under this Task Order is for right-of-way acquisition services overall and appraisal services may be required as a part of the overall services. Fees for appraisal services shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 3. Contractor must oversee appraiser’s preparation of the appraisal report for each parcel to be acquired. Reports must conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. 4. Contractor must prepare and conduct personal pre-appraisal contact with the property owner(s) for each parcel. 5. All completed appraisals are subject to administrative review and recommendation for approval by the City or its assignees. Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services Page 4 of 6 6. As necessary, the Contractor shall coordinate with appraiser regarding revisions, comments and/or any additional information which may be required. 7. If required, the Contractor shall coordinate appraiser’s preparation and testimony as an expert witness in eminent domain proceedings through the Special Commissioners Hearing. All fees associated with oversight and coordination of such preparation and testimony must be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. F. Appraisal Review/Update 1. Review appraiser(s) will be specified by the City. 2. Contractor shall oversee the review/update of all appraisals for each parcel to determine consistency of values, supporting documentation related to the conclusion reached and compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. 3. Review appraiser must submit a written report of their review findings to the Contractor for subsequent submission to the City for its review and acceptance/approval. Fees for appraisal services shall be paid directly by the City and must not be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 4. If required, Contractor must oversee review appraiser’s preparation, appearance and testimony as an expert witness at Special Commissioners Hearings. Any fees associated with this oversight must be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. 5. Any fees associated with oversight of the appraiser or the review appraiser during preparation of an updated appraisal must be included in the Contractor’s fee schedule. 6. If required, the Contractor must ensure that the appraiser and/or the review appraiser are available for pre-trail meetings as directed by the City. G. Negotiation Services 1. Contractor shall analyze preliminary title report(s) to determine potential title problems and shall propose methods to cure title deficiencies. 2. Contractor shall analyze appraisal and appraisal review/update reports and confirm the City’s approved value prior to extending an offer for a parcel. 3. Contractor shall deliver the Landowner Bill of Rights to each property owner in accordance with the applicable law and obtain written proof of owner’s receipt thereof. 4. Contractor shall prepare the initial offer letter, memorandum of agreement, instruments of conveyance and any other documents required or requested by the City, on forms approved by the City. Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services Page 5 of 6 5. Contractor shall contact each property owner or the property owner’s designated representative to present the written offer in person (when practical) and to deliver the appraisal report. Upon acceptance of the offer by the property owner, Contractor must maintain follow up contacts and secure any other necessary instruments for closing. 6. Contractor must provide a copy of the appraisal report for the subject property exclusively to the property owner, or their authorized representative, at the time the offer is presented, and obtain written proof of owner’s receipt thereof. The original signed receipt of the appraisal must be retained with the file. 7. Contractor must respond to the property owner’s inquiries verbally and/or in writing within two (2) business days. 8. Contractor must prepare a separate negotiator contact report for each substantive contact with the property owner. 9. Contractor must maintain parcel files, including all original documentation, related to the transaction. 10. Contractor must advise the property owner of the administrative settlement process. If a counter offer is presented by the property owner, the Contractor must present such as offer to the City, along with the supporting documentation and a recommendation for response. 11. Contractor must prepare the final offer letter and all necessary documents of conveyance. 12. At the City’s request, Contractor shall appear and provide expert witness testimony at Special Commissioners Hearing and/or trial. 13. Securing any necessary rights of entry. H. Relocation Services 1. Contractor shall determine the applicability of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (1970), as amended, based on use of federal funds for any part of the project and, at the time of initial contact, shall notify all property owners and potential displaced persons of eligibility for relocation assistance. 2. As necessary, Contractor shall subcontract for and provide relocation assistance services to all eligible parties impacted by the project. I. Condemnation Support Services 1. At the direction of the City, Contractor shall prepare an eminent domain packet with two (2) copies of all documents required to initiate condemnation proceedings and submit the packets to the City’s Legal Representative. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, initial and final offer letters, negotiator reports, appraisals and updated title commitment. Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services Page 6 of 6 2. At the City’s request, the Contractor shall appear and provide expert witness testimony at Special Commissioners Hearing and/or trial. Fees for such appearances must be included in Contractor’s fee schedule. FINANCIAL IMPACT: YTD Spent/Enc Agenda Item Engineering 238,550 Right of Way 60,000 Construction 1,159,755 Other Costs testing/inspection Current Budget Available Budget BUDGET BALANCE Variance TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78% General Ledger Account Number COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE FINANCIAL IMPACT: YTD Spent/Enc Agenda Item Engineering 238,550 Right of Way 60,000 Construction 1,220,000 Other Costs testing/inspection Current Budget Available Budget BUDGET BALANCE Variance TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24% General Ledger Account Number COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE Example Project Project 2 Example DATE: PROJECT NAME:5AT 3/4/2012 Division/Department:GTAB/Streets & Drainage Director Approval Prepared By:Wesley Wright, P.E.Finance Approval La'Ke 3/5/14 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 940,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting 97,600.00 97,600.00 10% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 97,600.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget Billable Amount 640-9-0880-90-025 940,000.00 97,600.00 Total Budget 940,000.00 97,600.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 940,000.00 (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 97,600.00 97,600.00 10% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 0.00 97,600.00 97,600.00 Comments: S&A 14-001 Smith Branch Buyouts CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet 1704 GREENBRANCH DR718.64 BFE718.84 FFE 1702 GREENBRANCH DR718.94 BFE719.19 FFE 1700 GREENBRANCH DR719.09 BFE719.37 FFE 1600 GREENBRANCH D R720.69 BFE719.16 FFE 1706 GREEN BRANCH DR718.26 BFE717.99 FFE 1606 GREEN BRANCH DR719.31 BFE718.96 FFE 1708 GREENBRANCH D R718.14 BFE717.81 FFE 2304 TRAILS EN D DR720.69 BFE720.14 FFE 1602 GREEN BRANCH DR719.8 BFE719.16 FFE 2207 HUNTERS GLEN DR718 BFE717.6 FFE 1604 GREENBRANCH D R719.61 BFE719.24 FFE Q U A I L V A L L E Y D R M C C O O K D R TRAILSENDDR P E R K I N S P L R A I N T R E E D R J A N L N LONG BRANCH DR GREENBRANCH DR H U N T E RS GLENRD C A R O L CT Q U A I L M E A D O W D R SOUTH WESTERN BLVD Potential Property FEMA Floodplain E BFE - Base Flood Eleva tion (ft)FFE - Finish Floor Elevation (ft) Pote ntial Smit h BranchBuy Out Prope rties 0 0.02 0.04 Miles City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order No. KPA-14-006 with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to developing Pavement Condition Indices and a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for roadways in the amount of $346,394.00 - Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director ITEM SUMMARY: The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 34 (GASB-34) allows for an alternative to depreciation expense for certain infrastructure, termed the modified approach. The following conditions must be met: The government manages the eligible assets using an asset management system to: 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 government must document that the eligible assets are being preserved approximately at or above the condition level established and disclosed by the government. The City's roadway network makes up a significant portion of those assets. In 2005, the City began its pavement management information system (PMIS) and the 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 GASB-34. The Council has directed staff to incorporate a policy to maintain a minimum average PCI of 85. The PCI for previous studies is listed below: 2005 - 92 2008 - 93 2011 - 87 2014 - TBD The project goals for this Task Order will be to develop Pavement Condition Indices and develop the Five Year Capital Improvement Program for the roadways within the City of Georgetown System. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The current year Transportation Capital Improvement Plan will fund the study. Please see attached Budget Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Wesley Wright ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Task Order KPA 14-006 & Scope Cover Memo Task Order Subconsultant Cover Memo Budget Worksheet Cover Memo 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: Pavement Condition Indices & Five Year Capital Improvement Program B. Description: Engineering Services to develop Pavement Condition Indices and develop a Capital Improvement Program for the City of Georgetown Roadway Network C. City of Georgetown Project Number: D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No. F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 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 subject to the following: The City of Georgetown will provide records and data of the existing Pavement Management System and all information on existing utilities within remediation projects 4. Times for Rendering Services Phase Completion Date Notice to Proceed April 8, 2014 Complete Pavement Condition Indices September 15, 2014 60% Submittal 5 Year CIP November 15, 2014 95% Submittal 5 Year CIP January 12, 2015 100% Submittal 5 Year CIP February 15, 2015 Task Order No. KPA-14-006, consisting of 15 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 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 Pavement Conditions Survey & Five Year Capital Improvement Program A. Lump Sum B. Standard Hourly Rates C. [Insert any other compensation method] $346,394.00 TOTAL: $346,394.00 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 Fugro Roadware, Inc. Consultants – Austin, Texas 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services Exhibit B – Fee Schedules 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 , 2014. OWNER: ENGINEER: By: By: Name: George G. Garver Name: R. David Patrick, P.E. Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown 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 ___________________, 2014, R. David Patrick 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 Owner: Engineer: Designated Representative for Task Order: Designated Representative for Task Order: Name: Mark Miller Name: Trae Sutton, P.E., CFM Title: Transportation Services Manager Title: Senior Project Manager Address: P.O. Box 409 Address: 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, TX78627 Georgetown, TX 78626 Phone: (512) 930-2576 Phone: (512) 819-9478 Fax: (512) 930-3559 Fax: (254) 773-6667 E-Mail: Mark.Miller@georgetown.org E-Mail: TSutton@kpaengineers.com EXHIBIT A DETAILED SCOPE of SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Project Description: This project involves gathering data on the City of Georgetown’s roadway network to develop Pavement Condition Indices (PCI) and develop a 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for roadway rehabilitation. Deliverables will include reports of the City network’s PCI, a 5-year CIP, and data for input into the CarteGraph Pavement View Plus database. The project will also include Program Management. Scope of Services: The scope of services for this project to be provided by the ENGINEER includes developing the Pavement Condition Indices and the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program for the roadways within the City of Georgetown network as well as the Program Management of these projects. The project will evaluate 384 test miles of the City’s roadway network. This will include utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) and the existing Pavement Management System (PMS) as well as other inventory sources. After all of the existing data has been analyzed, the process of collection of distress and profile data will begin. Automated Distress data will be collected on the City’s road network. This process will involve collecting digital images of the pavement surface and cracking distresses extracted from the images. Rutting and ride will be recorded with laser systems that can scan the transverse and longitudinal road profiles. The distress data will be uploaded to the pavement segment surveyed. Additionally, ride index values will be developed from the International Roughness Index values recorded in the field. All of the data gathered will then be developed into a system that methodically produces organized areas of the City of Georgetown. In the field observations of each area will be reviewed to confirm the results of the data collected. This will be accomplished by inspecting the streets. Areas in question will be reviewed jointly with City Staff. A rehabilitation and remediation program will be developed. Different rehabilitation methods will be developed during the review of the streets in the field. These will include, but not be limited to sub-grade stabilization and overlay, drainage enhancement and pavement rehabilitation, hot-in-place asphalt recycling, surface treatments, asphalt rejuvenation, asphalt overlays, cape seals, micro-surfacing, etc. Visual collection of data will include reviewing the street to determine if the data collection is accurate and looking at contributing issues, such as drainage, that are creating poor PCI numbers. At this time a meeting with City Staff will be held to review the conclusions before proceeding to development of the report and the 5-year CIP. The final report and the 5-year CIP with cost estimates will be developed with graphical representation of the project. A final meeting with City Staff will be scheduled to review the final document, reports and illustrations. After final comments the final report, illustrations and cost estimates will be delivered. Digital copies of the reports as well as CarteGraph data files for use by the City will also be submitted. A General Project Scope follows; I. Pavement Condition Surveys A. Develop program B. Review Inventory C. Data Collection, Quality Control and Upload D. Routing E. Equipment Calibration F. Data Collection in the field II. Overall Pavement Condition Index and Inventory City Roadway Infrastructure A. Data Processing B. Review and Update Current Database C. Upload to CarteGraph D. Develop initial strategies E. Review all the data developed from the data collection phase of the project F. Organize data into segments within the City G. Develop graphical representation of the data collected. H. Identify locations that do not meet the Council directed PCI of 85 I. Inventory roadway infrastructure J. Review locations of undesirable PCI in the field K. Develop exhibits that illustrate locations of questionable PCI L. Review questionable locations with City Staff M. Complete overall PCI and roadway infrastructure inventory III. Development of 5-year CIP A. Organize deficient streets into geographical areas B. Develop options for rehabilitation C. Develop projects for sustainability in bidding and construction D. Organize project and develop graphical representation E. Prepare cost estimates for all projects in all rehabilitation methods F. Review projects and rehabilitation methods with City Staff G. Develop 5-year CIP projects with graphical representation and cost estimates H. Review documents with City Staff I. Produce preliminary draft for 5-year CIP J. Review preliminary draft with City Staff K. Develop final 5-year CIP, graphical representation, cost estimates, maps, etc. L. Deliver 10 copies of the report, maps, graphical representations and cost estimates to City Staff (Editorial comment – These are a FINAL deliverable, not due until the 5-year CIP has been approved.) A Detailed Project Scope follows; I. Pavement Condition Surveys A. The ENGINEER will coordinate the project through the City of Georgetown and gather information for data collection. Confirmations of condition data will be obtained and verification of format delivery. Specific discussions and verification will be held concerning the processing and use of PMS and GIS information. B. The ENGINEER will conduct an official inventory of the roads to be surveyed. Any inventory data identified as being required for the proposed PMS or found to be missing or inaccurate will be located or collected. This will be reviewed and consulted with City Staff. C. The ENGINEER will assist the City in identifying and resolving discrepancies between data sets in its inventory. These data sets include any existing databases and GIS data files. D. The ENGINEER will provide quality control checks for the GIS and PMS database. E. The ENGINEER will collect digital images of the pavement surface and cracking distresses will be extracted from the images. Laser systems will be utilized to scan the transverse and longitudinal road profiles to determine rutting and ride. F. The ENGINEER will upload the distress data to the pavement management system to determine a calculated Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The data collected will be on approximately 384 test miles of the City of Georgetown’s roadway network. G. The ENGINEER will develop a routing process based on the final road listing developed. H. The ENGINEER will perform equipment checks and calibrations to ensure the quality of the data. The data collection database will be uploaded and tested on field computers. I. The ENGINEER will collect, store and transfer to the City digital images on portable Universal Serial Bus (USB) drives. These images can be used for subsequent evaluations and comparisons by the City. J. The ENGINEER will perform data collection in accordance with ASTM Standard E-1656 (Standard Guide for Classification of Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment), utilizing a Class 1 device as defined by the specifications. K. The ENGINEER will collect transverse profile data using a 5-sensor profiler to locate the presence of ruts and/or irregularities in the cross slope or utilize area scan lasers obtaining a full cross sectional profile. This will determine the rutting characteristics for each of the roadway segments profiled. This will be performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E-1656 (Standard Guide for Classification of Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment) and ASTM Test Standard E-950 (Standard Test Method for Measuring Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Surfaces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference). The transverse profile will be recorded every ten feet and summarized as an average “rut depth” for each wheel path over the roadway segment. L. The ENGINEER will collect longitudinal profile data simultaneously with the transverse profile data at 0.5 foot intervals throughout the length of each section selected in each direction and summarized at 0.01 to 0.1 mile intervals to provide International Roughness Indices (IRI) throughout the network. The collected IRI values will be reported as an average IRI value for each roadway segment. This will be performed in accordance with ASTM Test Standard E950 (Standard Test Method for Measuring Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Surfaces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference). II. Overall Pavement Condition Index and Inventory City Roadway Infrastructure A. The ENGINEER will extract the following PCC distresses, if any, from the images – 1) Cracked Slabs 2) Shattered Slabs 3) Corner Breaks 4) Faulting. B. The ENGINEER will extract the following AC distresses from the images – 1) Alligator Cracking 2) Longitudinal Cracking 3) Transverse Cracking 4) Block Cracking. C. The ENGINEER will extract rutting from the profile information. D. The ENGINEER will develop IRI for each roadway and report. This will be converted to a Ride Condition Index (RCI). This will be reported on a 0 to 100 scale. E. The ENGINEER will review and update the current database. The database will be converted to SQL/SQL Express. Microsoft Access is being phased out and no longer functions with CarteGraph versions 8.2 or greater. 8.2 is the current version. SQL databases allow for larger databases than Access. F. The ENGINEER will upload to CarteGraph. The upload will include distress inspection and asset inventory information to the CarteGraph Software. G. The ENGINEER will take photographs in the field by utilizing the downward pavement camera and the forward right-of-way camera. Copies will be provided to the City on USB drive. Upload of any data for distress or ride will be an update to the existing system. Upload of right-of-way and/or pavement images taken during data collection will be attached to the asset records in the Pavement View (all ROW/Pavement Images) module. H. The ENGINEER will review all of the data developed from the collection phase for the project. Data will be analyzed for PCI scores with the data being managed for areas of grouped scores above and below the required PCI of 85. I. The ENGINEER will organize the data in to areas and segments within the City. The segments will be broken out into geographical locations to develop projects. J. The ENGINEER will develop graphical representations of the data collected within the segments established. The streets and areas will be color coded to show PCI scores on a ten point range based on above and below the required PCI score of 85. Each ten point range will be assigned a color and streets will be reviewed in detail to deliver a score for street segments. This will create areas of interest for review. K. The ENGINEER will review the graphical representations created with City Staff illustrating the areas that do not meet the PCI minimum of 85. L. The ENGINEER will review and inventory the streets in the field to verify the data collected during Phase I of the project. Notes on areas of questionable data will be made with graphical representations developed. Contributing conditions will be reviewed for inclusion in the CIP development. These will include drainage issues, driveways, curb and gutter deficiencies, pavement structure, etc. M. The ENGINEER will meet with City Staff to review the locations that are questionable. Field visits will be made to have a consensus of the PCI of these areas. N. The ENGINEER will develop the overall PCI based on the data, field reviews and meetings. Final exhibits and maps shall be created for the City’s Roadway network. O. The ENGINEER will evaluate the financial impacts of having an overall PCI Score of 80, 85 and 90. III. Development of 5 Year CIP A. The ENGINEER will organize the deficient streets developed in Phase II into geographical areas of the City. These shall focus on areas that can create projects that can be bid and constructed. Attention will be paid to traffic control issues, main thoroughfares, construction procedures, need for utility adjustments or replacements, etc. B. The ENGINEER will provide a summary of the financial impacts of adjusting the current minimum overall PCI Score of 85 to PCI Scores of 80 and 90 respectively. C. The ENGINEER will develop options for rehabilitation. These shall include full street re-construction, subgrade stabilization and paving, hot in place asphalt recycling, surface treatments, etc. D. The ENGINEER will prepare cost estimates for all rehabilitation methods. These will be based on historical data and discussions with contractors. Unit prices will be developed for utilization in the development of the CIP. E. The ENGINEER will develop and organize projects to be considered for the 5-year CIP. Projects will be created that are sustainable for bidding and construction. These will be placed into exhibits to show locations of projects and begin the exhibits that will illustrate the final 5-year CIP. F. The ENGINEER will assign rehabilitation methods for the projects developed. These will be based on the methods developed in the beginning part of this phase of the project. These will be assigned in the exhibits. A meeting with City Staff will be scheduled to review the projects and discuss the rehabilitation methods for each area. Confirmation of the budget for each year of the 5-year CIP will be discussed and documented to develop the final 5-year CIP. All comments will be addressed and agreed upon prior to proceeding with the final documents. G. The ENGINEER shall develop the final 5-year CIP. The budget for each year of the CIP will be the basis for project development to maximize the rehabilitation of the City’s roadway network and maintain the overall City PCI. Projects will be developed and organized by method of rehabilitation and geographical area as practical. Contributing factors for poor PCI scores will be addressed within the projects and incorporated into the projects. Meetings with the City’s utility project manager will occur to establish any City utilities within the project(s) limits that need to be addressed during the construction phase. Costs for rehabilitation or reconstruction of utilities will be developed for the final report, but separated such that individual budgets are established. Each year of the CIP will have projects established with estimated costs and exhibits. Water and wastewater rehabilitation needs will be determined and planned in conjunction with the Water Services Division. An overall exhibit will also be created for the 5-year CIP. A report for the 5-year CIP will be developed as well. H. The ENGINEER shall schedule a series of meetings with City Staff to review and edit the 5-year CIP. Notes will be developed and incorporated into all documents. I. The ENGINEER shall produce the final estimates and exhibits 5-year CIP and deliver ten sets to City Staff. EXHIBIT B FEE SCHEDULE SUMMARY Project Name: 2014 Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas 169,180.00$ Fugro Roadware, Inc., Austin, Texas 177,214.00$ Total Project Costs 346,394.00$ Summary of Professional Services Fees EXHIBIT B FEE SCHEDULE Project Name: Pavement Conditions Survey and 5 Year CIP Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Pavement Conditions Survey Management of sub-consultant (FUGRO)4 8 12 12 18 2 56 Project Kick Off Meeting 2 6 4 4 2 18 Meeting #2 - Review Initial Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Scores 2 4 4 4 1 15 Meeting #3 - Field Audit to Review PCI Scores 4 4 4 12 Meeting #4 - Review Preliminary Work Plan & Draft Report 4 8 4 4 20 Meeting #5 - Review Final Work Plan & Report 6 4 4 2 16 Total Hours for Pavement Conditions Survey 4 16 40 32 38 7 137 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Pavement Conditions Survey Total Cost 220.00$ 1,200.00$ 4,200.00$ 4,320.00$ 6,080.00$ 1,400.00$ 17,420.00$ Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Overall PCI & Inventory City Roadway Infrastructure Develop initial strategies 18 10 4 1 33 Review all data developed in data collection phase 32 18 8 58 Organize data into segments within the City 40 32 12 6 90 Develop graphical representation of data collected 50 36 18 10 114 Identify locations below PCI of 80, 85 & 90 18 48 18 8 92 Inventory roadway infrastructure 8 40 16 64 Review locations below PCI of 80, 85 & 90 30 14 6 1 51 Develop exhibits illustrating PCIs 45 32 18 10 105 Review questionable PCIs with City 2 8 8 2 20 Complete overall PCI and roadway infrastructure inventory 35 30 18 8 91 Total Hours for Preliminary Design 2 188 266 174 84 4 718 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Overall PCI City Roadway Infrastructure Total Cost 110.00$ 14,100.00$ 27,930.00$ 23,490.00$ 13,440.00$ 800.00$ 79,870.00$ Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Development of Five Year CIP Organize deficient streets into geographical areas 25 12 10 6 53 Develop rehabilitation methods and alternatives 8 8 6 22 Develop technical specifications and recommendations for rehabilitation alternatives 24 18 8 50 Develop projects for sustainability in bidding and construction 35 28 12 8 83 Organize projects and develop graphical representation 38 18 8 6 70 Prepare cost estimates for all projects 10 42 22 6 80 Review projects and rehabilitation methods with City Staff 4 4 4 12 Develop five year CIP projects with graphical representation and cost estimates 8 45 32 16 8 109 Review documents with City Staff 2 2 2 6 Produce preliminary draft for five year CIP 8 26 26 12 6 78 Review preliminary draft with City Staff 2 4 4 4 14 Develop final five year CIP Plan & Report 16 30 15 8 4 73 Total Hours for Preliminary Design 36 209 213 124 68 0 650 Hourly Rate 55.00$ 75.00$ 105.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 200.00$ Cost Estimates Total Cost 1,980.00$ 15,675.00$ 22,365.00$ 16,740.00$ 10,880.00$ -$ 67,640.00$ Deliverables Total Cost 4,250.00$ Project Total - KPA 169,180.00$ EXHIBIT B FEE SCHEDULE FUGRO Project Name: Professional Engineering Services for Pavement Condition Index and Five-Year Capital Improvements Program Fugro Roadware, Inc., Austin, Texas Phase 1 - Project Management Lump Sum Fees (amount) Automated Data Colleciton (lump sum) Administrati ve Support (hours) Technican/Draft ing (hours) Sr. Technician (hours) Data Analyst (hours) GIS Analyst (hours) Database Administrator (hours) Graduate Engineer (hours) Project Engineer (hours) Project Manager (hours) Data Collection / Processing Project Management (hours) Sr. Project Manager (hours) Total Hours (hours only) Task 1 - Project Management Project Management 8 48 56 Initial Meeting 100.00$ 4 4 8 Meeting #2 - With Transportation Manager 100.00$ 4 4 Meeting #3 - Review Condition Scores 100.00$ 4 4 8 Meeting #4 - Review Preliminary Work Plan w/ City 100.00$ 4 4 8 Final Meeting 100.00$ 4 4 8 Task 2 - Review Inventory Review Inventory 24 24 Total Hours/Mileage/Days 500.00$ 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 68 120 Hourly Rate (labor) / Mileage ----65.00$ 75.00$ 110.00$ 85.00$ 110.00$ 160.00$ 110.00$ 125.00$ 160.00$ 150.00$ 220.00$ Subtotal Cost 500.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,720.00$ -$ -$ -$ 14,960.00$ 21,180.00$ Phase 2 - Data Collection, QC, and Upload (Distress, Profile)Lump Sum Fees (amount) Automated Data Colleciton (lump sum) Administrati ve Support (hours) Technican/Draft ing (hours) Sr. Technician (hours) Data Analyst (hours) GIS Analyst (hours) Database Administrator (hours) Graduate Engineer (hours) Project Engineer (hours) Project Manager (hours) Data Collection / Processing Project Management (hours) Sr. Project Manager (hours) Total Hours (hours only) Task 1 - Data Collection Data Collection 62,208.00$ 56 56 Total Hours/Mileage/Days -$ 62,208.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 56 Hourly Rate (labor) / Mileage ----65.00$ 75.00$ 110.00$ 85.00$ 110.00$ 160.00$ 110.00$ 125.00$ 160.00$ 150.00$ 220.00$ Subtotal Cost -$ 62,208.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,400.00$ -$ 70,608.00$ Phase 3 - Data Processing, QA/QC, and Upload Lump Sum Fees (amount) Automated Data Colleciton (lump sum) Administrati ve Support (hours) Technican/Draft ing (hours) Sr. Technician (hours) Data Analyst (hours) GIS Analyst (hours) Database Administrator (hours) Graduate Engineer (hours) Project Engineer (hours) Project Manager (hours) Data Collection / Processing Project Management (hours) Sr. Project Manager (hours) Total Hours (hours only) Task 1 - Distress and Profile Rating and Analysis Distress and Profile Processing 38,400.00$ 0 QA/QC 16 16 Task 2 - Create 1:1 Match between Cartegraph Database & GIS Centerline File Create 1:1 Match Between Databases 12 12 24 Task 3 - Embed X, Y Coordinates in Cartegraph Database Ebmbed X, Y Coodrinates in database file 2 4 6 Task 4 - Create Consistent Functional Class in Cartegraph Database Upload Consistent Functional Class in Cartegraph Database 4 4 Task 5 - Update Previous CIP and Maintenance to the Cartegraph Database Update CIP and Maintenance Activities Performed by the City 4 4 Task 6 - Confirm Formulas within Cartegraph Database Utilize Current Data Check Formulas in Cartegraph 8 2 10 Task 7 - Delivery Condition Scores in Excel and KML/KMZ Format Deliver Excel, KML/KMS Formats 8 2 10 Task 8 - Update City to Current Version of Cartegraph Update Cartegraph Version 8 8 Task 9 - Data Upload to Cartegraph Upload Data to Cartegraph 6 6 6 18 Task 10 - PCI Calculation and QA/QC Calculate PCI 12 8 20 Task 11 - iVision Upload iVision Upload 1,536.00$ 4 4 Total Hours/Mileage/Days -$ 39,936.00$ 0 0 0 18 20 8 76 0 0 0 2 124 Hourly Rate (labor) / Mileage ----65.00$ 75.00$ 110.00$ 85.00$ 110.00$ 160.00$ 110.00$ 125.00$ 160.00$ 150.00$ 220.00$ Subtotal Cost -$ 39,936.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1,530.00$ 2,200.00$ 1,280.00$ 8,360.00$ -$ -$ -$ 440.00$ 53,746.00$ Phase 4 - Develop Initial Strategies Lump Sum Fees (amount) Automated Data Colleciton (lump sum) Administrati ve Support (hours) Technican/Draft ing (hours) Sr. Technician (hours) Data Analyst (hours) GIS Analyst (hours) Database Administrator (hours) Graduate Engineer (hours) Project Engineer (hours) Project Manager (hours) Data Collection / Processing Project Management (hours) Sr. Project Manager (hours) Total Hours (hours only) Task 1 - Develop Initial Strategies Update Decision Trees 8 2 10 Evaluate Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies 8 2 10 Update Unit Costs 8 2 10 Upldate Performance Curves 8 2 10 Target PCI Analysis 30 6 36 Develop Preliminary Work Plan 24 4 28 Finalize Work Plan 24 4 28 Total Hours/Mileage/Days -$ -$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 22 132 Hourly Rate (labor) / Mileage ----65.00$ 75.00$ 110.00$ 85.00$ 110.00$ 160.00$ 110.00$ 125.00$ 160.00$ 150.00$ 220.00$ Subtotal Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,100.00$ -$ -$ -$ 4,840.00$ 16,940.00$ Phase 5 - Final Report Lump Sum Fees (amount) Automated Data Colleciton (lump sum) Administrati ve Support (hours) Technican/Draft ing (hours) Sr. Technician (hours) Data Analyst (hours) GIS Analyst (hours) Database Administrator (hours) Graduate Engineer (hours) Project Engineer (hours) Project Manager (hours) Data Collection / Processing Project Management (hours) Sr. Project Manager (hours) Total Hours (hours only) Task 1 - Final Report Final Report 12 40 12 64 GIS Mapping and Exhibits 12 2 14 Total Hours/Mileage/Days -$ 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 42 0 0 0 12 78 Hourly Rate (labor) / Mileage ----65.00$ 75.00$ 110.00$ 85.00$ 110.00$ 160.00$ 110.00$ 125.00$ 160.00$ 150.00$ 220.00$ Subtotal Cost -$ -$ 780.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1,320.00$ -$ 4,620.00$ -$ -$ -$ 2,640.00$ 9,360.00$ Phase 6 - Cartegraph Functionality Follow-up Meeting Lump Sum Fees (amount) Automated Data Colleciton (lump sum) Administrati ve Support (hours) Technican/Draft ing (hours) Sr. Technician (hours) Data Analyst (hours) GIS Analyst (hours) Database Administrator (hours) Graduate Engineer (hours) Project Engineer (hours) Project Manager (hours) Data Collection / Processing Project Management (hours) Sr. Project Manager (hours) Total Hours (hours only) Task 1 - Set-up and Installation of Cartegraph Database Installation at Final Meeting from Phase 1 4 4 8 Task 2 - On Site Meeting On-Site Meeting 100.00$ 12 12 24 Total Hours/Mileage/Days 100.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 32 Hourly Rate (labor) / Mileage ----65.00$ 75.00$ 110.00$ 85.00$ 110.00$ 160.00$ 110.00$ 125.00$ 160.00$ 150.00$ 220.00$ Subtotal Cost 100.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,760.00$ -$ -$ -$ 3,520.00$ 5,380.00$ Project Total - Fugro Roadware, Inc.177,214.00$ FUGRO ROADWARE, INC. Proposal No. 04.3214-2005 8613 Cross Park Drive Revision 3: February 14, 2014 Austin, TX 78754 Phone: 512-977-1800 Fax: 512-973-9565 www.fugroroadware.com Trae Sutton, P.E. Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP 1008 S. Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Attention: Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. Proposal for Pavement Management System Update, City of Georgetown, Texas Submitted herein is Fugro’s proposal to assist the Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP (KPA) and the City of Georgetown with pavement condition surveys and work plan development for roadways maintained by the City. The following sections of this proposal describe the scope of our services, a cost estimate for the evaluation services to be provided, an estimated schedule, and proposed terms and conditions. Scope of Work The City of Georgetown’s road network is comprised of approximately 384 test miles of roadway, primarily paved, 2-lane undivided roadways. This cost estimate is based on a thorough review of the City’s street shape file by Fugro and City personnel. The city has requested Fugro to perform an automated condition survey on the 384-test miles of the city’s roadway network as well as provide pavement condition scores and initial maintenance and rehabilitation strategies to KPA and the City of Georgetown. Based upon our knowledge of the project and the scope of work described above, we propose the following phases: Phase I – Project Management Phase II – Data Collection Phase III – Data Processing, QA/QC, and Upload Phase IV – Develop Initial Strategies Phase V – Final Report Phase VI – Database Delivery and Installation Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 2 of 13 Phase I – Project Management This phase consists of management for this project. This phase will involve coordination with the City of Georgetown throughout the project as well as information gathering and project setup prior to data collection. It is our goal to provide monthly updates to the City regarding the progress of the project as well as meetings with our project manager as requested by the City of Georgetown. Task 1 – Project Management Five meetings with City personnel over the duration of this project are anticipated. The issues that will be discussed will include a confirmation of the condition data that is to be collected for the PMS and the format in which it will be delivered. In addition, existing sources of inventory data and access to that data will be discussed. Proposed tasks will be reviewed with the City staff to confirm compliance with the goals of the project. Any gaps that are identified in the proposed project approach will be resolved during this task. It is Fugro’s intent, in this review, to confirm the types of data that will be collected as part of the PMS condition data survey. It is also essential to discuss the format in which the final data will be delivered to the City. It is important to have full participation from the different personnel affected by the data collection, processing and use of the PMS and GIS information. The Six meetings with City personnel will include the following: 1) Kickoff meeting 2) Meeting with Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, prior to presenting PCI scores to other City personnel 3) Field Audit to Review PCI Scores 4) Meeting to Review Preliminary Work plan and Draft Report 5) Close-out meeting and Final Report Task 2 – Review Inventory This task comprises of reviewing the existing inventory and addressing and discrepancies in the inventory, GIS, and PMS Databases From the review of existing inventory, GIS, and databases, an official inventory of the roads to be surveyed for condition and physical attributes will be developed. Additional inventory data identified as being required for the proposed PMS or found to be missing or inaccurate will have to be located or collected. The review of inventory data will be conducted in consultation with the City of Georgetown staff. Fugro will assist the City to identify and resolve discrepancies between data sets of their inventory. These data sets include any existing databases and GIS data files provided by the County. Prior identification of discrepancies reduces difficulties in identifying roadways and their section limits during the data collection effort and reduces the amount of time post-processing the data collected. Fugro has developed a standard set of quality control checks for reviewing GIS Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 3 of 13 and PMS databases. These checks are conducted by identifying corresponding data fields in each database then comparing them for consistency. If data fields are missing in one database, but not the other, the missing data field is populated from the existing data for a more complete data set. Phase II – Data Collection Phase II entails the collection, QC, and upload of distress data and profile data on the City’s network. Automated Distress data will be collected on the City’s road network. Digital images will be collected of the pavement surface and cracking distresses extracted from the images. Rutting and ride are recorded with laser systems that scan the transverse and longitudinal road profiles. The distress data will then be uploaded to the pavement management system as part of calculating a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score for each road segment surveyed. Additionally, ride index values are developed from the International Roughness Index values recorded in the field. Distress data will be collected on approximately 303 centerline miles of roadway in the city’s road network. One pass along each road segment shape file is anticipated for this project. Task 1 – Data Collection A routing process is also performed based on a final road listing developed during the inventory review task. This information is required for network definition and navigation. The routing process defines a data collection order and direction for each roadway in the City’s network, as well as sets up a unique raw file name necessary for processing of distress, and right- of-way data. Once this has been performed for the initial round of data collection, this task on any potential subsequent data collection rounds to be performed by Fugro or the City will require significantly less time. Before any field data collection begins, equipment checks and calibrations are performed to ensure the quality of the data. Additionally, the data collection database us uploaded and tested on the field computers. This ensures that the equipment, sensors, and subsystems are consistent and accurate to deliver high quality data. Data collection of distress, profile data, and right-of-way images will be performed on approximately 303 centerline miles of roadway in the city’s road network. Digital images will be stored and transferred to the City on portable Universal Serial Bus (USB) Drive(s). The images can be used for subsequent evaluations and comparisons as deemed appropriate by the City. The purpose of the distress data collection is to determine the general distress characteristics of each of the roadway segments in this project. The automated distress data collection will be performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E-1656 (Standard Guide for Classification of Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment). Transverse Profile data is collected using a point cloud laser system to locate the presence of ruts or other irregularities in the cross slope of the city roads or area scan lasers that obtain a full cross-sectional profile. The purpose of the transverse profile testing is to determine the rutting characteristics of each of the roadway segments profiled. The transverse profile data collection will be performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E-1656 (Standard Guide for Classification of Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 4 of 13 Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment and ASTM Test Standard E950 (Standard Test Method for Measuring Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Surfaces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference). Longitudinal Profile data is collected simultaneously with the Transverse Profile of the network at 0.5-foot intervals throughout the length of each section selected in each direction and summarized at 0.01 to 0.1-mile intervals to provide International Roughness Indices (IRI) throughout the network. The collected IRI values will be reported as an average IRI value for each roadway segment. The purpose of the longitudinal profile-testing program is to determine the general ride characteristics of each of the roadway segments profiled. The longitudinal profile- testing program will be performed in accordance with ASTM Test Standard E950 (Standard Test Method for Measuring Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Surfaces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference). Please note that it is not always possible to report an IRI value for every roadway within a network for the following reasons: 1) A minimum collection speed of 12 mph is required to have valid data to report an IRI value. This speed must be maintained with sufficient lead-in and lead-out distance for data to be valid for a section. 2) Data is also filtered for anomalies in the data such as peaks in IRI due to speed bumps or other non-representative features in the roadway that cause spikes in the IRI data. 3) Sections that are very short such as cul-de-sacs often to not allow for safe collection above the minimum collection speed and IRI data is often invalidated on these segments. 4) Stops and starts along segments that may not necessarily be very short can also result in data being filtered out due to minimum collections speeds. Standard procedure is to make reasonable effort in the field to maximize collection of valid IRI data. Recollection will not be performed for roadways with invalidated IRI data for any of the reasons listed above. Fugro conducts quality control measures in the field, which have been beneficial to meet project objectives. These procedures are standard practice for our data collection services. The automated procedure is repeatable and consistent. It also provides images that can be used for quality assurance and archival purposes. Fugro has the capability to reprocess the images at any time. The capability of reprocessing the images allows the City great flexibility to obtain distress data from the images using different distress protocols, should the City ever wish to switch pavement management systems or severity definitions now or in the future. Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 5 of 13 Phase III – Data Processing, QA/QC, and Upload This phase of the project will encompass office tasks that involve processing, analysis, update, and upload of the distress condition data as well as configuration of the Cartegraph software and database for use. Task 1 – Distress and Profile Rating and Analysis Distress Rating and Analysis. The following PCC distresses that will be extracted from the images are: 1.) Cracked Slabs, 2.) Shattered Slabs, 3.) Corner Breaks, and 4.) Faulting (from profile). For the AC surfaced roadways, the following distresses will be extracted from the images: 1.) Alligator Cracking, 2.) Longitudinal Cracking, 3.) Transverse Cracking, and 4.) Block Cracking. Standard definitions for these distresses are included in ASTM E 1778 – Standard Terminology Relating to Pavement Distress. In addition, Rutting will be extracted from the Profile information. The images are processed using a combination of automated crack detection software and semi- automated manual analysis. Additionally, the International Roughness Index for each roadway will be reported. This provides an assessment of how “bumpy” the roadways are. This is another index that can be used to help prioritize and select maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for the City. This value is then converted to a Ride Condition Index (RCI) so that it can be reported on a 0 to 100 scale. Task 2 – Create 1:1 Match between Cartegraph Database and GIS Centerline File A 1:1 match will be made between the Cartegraph database and the current City of Georgetown GIS centerline file. This task will require provision current GIS Centerline and current Cartegraph database by the City to Fugro. Based on an initial review of the Cartegraph database and the City’s GIS shape file, the following observations on the differences are summarized below. Cartegraph Shape File Roads All roads in city limits City owned only Number of Records 6,724 3,702 Mismatched records from other dataset 3,412 366 to 578 There are two options for reconciling the datasets to deal with roads not owned by the City: 1) Remove all non-city roadways from Cartegraph database and consider the City’s network to only include the 3,702 records in the shape file. 2) Keep all 6,724 segments in Cartegraph. This would require having a shape file that contains the non-City and City owned roadways in one place. Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 6 of 13 Fugro will only make changes to the Cartegraph database. The shape file that the City provides will be considered the baseline shape file for the project. Any adjustments to the shape file will only be made by City personnel. Fugro will identify apparent discrepancies for the City to address. Task 3 – Embed X,Y Coordinates in Cartegraph Database Based on the existing shape file, Fugro will extract a breadcrumb trail of GPS coordinates along each shape. Each individual breadcrumb extracted will be associated to a unique segment within the Cartegraph database. These coordinates will then be uploaded into the Cartegraph database into the Nodes table within the PavementView module. This task does not involve Fugro making corrections, adding, updating, or deleting information to the roadway geometry in the shape file. Task 4 – Create Consistent Functional Class in Cartegraph Database The functional class of each roadway will be updated in accordance with the City of Georgetown thoroughfare plan. To accomplish this task, the following steps will be taken. 1) Listing of all City roadways will be exported with current functional class designation. 2) This listing will be provided to KPA to confirm and update functional classification as necessary. 3) Fugro will then update the Cartegraph database with the correct functional classification information. This task does not involve Fugro determining the correct functional classification for each roadway. This determination will be performed by KPA, City of Georgetown personnel, or both. Fugro will only be updating the information in the Cartegraph database. Task 5 – Update Previous CIP and Maintenance to the Cartegraph Database Fugro will upload CIP and maintenance activities into the Cartegraph database. To perform this task, the following steps will be taken: 1) City personnel will provide to Fugro a listing of completed projects since the last database update in 2011. The listing of completed projects will include the following information: a. Unique SegmentID from Cartegraph for each individual segment (required) i. Provide Road Name ii. Provide Start Street iii. Provide Finish Street iv. Provision of street name with from/to limits for either single or multiple segments without SegmentID will not be sufficient b. Maintenance activity or CIP activity performed (required) Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 7 of 13 i. These activities are to correspond to activities within the Cartegraph database ii. If an activity is not already in the Cartegraph database (new activity not previously created); City and Fugro will define what the new activity is to be called c. Date completed of maintenance or CIP activity (required) i. Month, day, year is preferable ii. If a specific date is not known, this should be noted and a date selected that is easily identified as an approximate date ( d. Date started of maintenance or CIP activity (optional) e. Total cost of maintenance or CIP activity (optional) f. Performed by information of maintenance or CIP activity (optional) i. e.g. contractor name, City personnel / crew name, etc. Task 6 – Confirm Formulas within Cartegraph Database Utilize Current Data This task will involve Fugro reviewing formulas currently programmed into the Cartegraph database and revising as needed. Fugro will confirm that formulas within the system refer to the current inspection information. Please note that for certain types of data, such as the Ride Condition Index, which is derived from the International Roughness Index, may not have valid information due to limitations with the technology as noted in the data collection section of this proposal. Formulas will be revised as appropriate to ensure proper functionality of the PavementView Plus analysis module using current data. Task 7 – Deliver Condition Scores in Excel and KML/KMZ (Google Earth) Formats This task includes delivery of the pavement condition scores in both Excel and KML/KMZ formats. The condition score results for each segment will be exported from the Cartegraph pavement management module and transferred to Excel format. Additionally, this data will be associated to a GIS position based on the shape file provided by the City. The shape file will be used to generate a KML/KMZ file that can be viewed on Google Earth. Task 8 – Update City to Current Version of Cartegraph Some database platform updates will be required for continued use of the Cartegraph software. Additionally, Fugro recommends keeping a full inventory of all roadways within the City limits within the Cartegraph database to address issues and questions the City may receive that can potentially be addressed based on ownership of the roadways. • Convert Cartegraph database to current Cartegraph version in use by the City of Georgetown. This will be SQL/SQL Express database Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 8 of 13 It appears that the latest database provided to the City is already in SQL Express format. Fugro will ensure that this database is upgraded (if necessary) to be compatible with the Cartegraph version in use by the City. Task 9 – Data Upload to Cartegraph This task covers the upload of the pavement inspection and asset inventory into the pavement management software. It is Fugro’s understanding that the City of Georgetown is planning on updating their Cartegraph pavement management database for this project. The upload will include the distress inspection and asset inventory information to the Cartegraph software. In addition, photographs taken in the field, by the downward pavement camera and the forward right-of-way camera will be provided to the City on a USB hard drive. This will allow for future review of the images by City staff at any time. Upload of any data for distress or ride will be an update to the existing system. Upload of the right-of-way and/or pavement images taken during data collection will be attached to the asset records in both the PavementView (all ROW/Pavement Images) module. Task 10 – PCI Calculation & QA/QC Fugro will calculate a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each pavement section using industry standard software. This PCI uses a scale from zero (0) for a failed pavement to 100 for a pavement in perfect condition. The index is based on the type, severity, and extent of surface distress and it is compliant with ASTM D6433-11 (Army Corps of Engineers PAVER distress rating system). The PCC distresses that will be extracted from the images are: 1.) Cracked Slabs, 2.) Shattered Slabs, 3.) Corner Breaks, and 4.) Faulting (from profile). For the AC surfaced roadways, the distresses that will be extracted are: 1.) Alligator Cracking, 2.) Longitudinal Cracking, 3.) Transverse Cracking, and 4.) Block Cracking. Standard definitions for these distresses are included in ASTM E 1778 – Standard Terminology Relating to Pavement Distress. The images are processed using a combination of automated crack detection software and semi-automated manual analysis. In addition, Rutting will be extracted from the transverse profile information. Additionally, the International Roughness Index for each roadway will be reported. This provides an assessment of the roadway’s ride characteristics, i.e. how rough or “bumpy” the roadway is. This is another index that can be used to help prioritize and select maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for the City. This value is then converted to a Ride Condition Index (RCI) so that it can be reported on a 0 to 100 scale. Task 11 – iVision Upload Pavement images, inspection data, and PCI scores will be uploaded to Fugro’s iVision web- viewing software. The Cartegraph database will connect to the iVision software through hyperlinks that will be stored in the Attachments table within the PavementView module. Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 9 of 13 Phase IV – Develop Initial Strategies (5-Year Work Plan, M&R Strategies, Budget Analysis) Phase III involves developing work plan recommendations using the results of the condition survey to prioritize and select maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations for the City’s network. During this phase existing strategies are reviewed and updated. Updates other pavement management system settings are also performed. Preliminary and final work plans are develop in conjunction with City staff. In implementing the pavement management program, Fugro will perform a network-level 5- year work plan based on the results of the condition survey. A budget analysis of this type allows for allocation of funds to where they are used the most effectively based on the agency’s maintenance policies. The steps taken during the development of a five-year work plan are as follows: • Update Decision Trees (with City) • Evaluate Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies (with City) • Update Unit Costs (with City) • Update Pavement Performance Models based on results of condition survey • Develop 5-year maintenance work plan (with City) • Develop recommendations listing for Capital Improvements Projects • Target PCI Analyses (optional) – determine target funding levels to reach target PCI. Three analyses (target PCIs) are included as optional items in the cost estimate. It is crucial to have the City’s involvement in this task. The goal of this task is to produce a tool that allows the City to make more informed maintenance and rehabilitation decisions. Including information from the City is essential to implementing the pavement management program effectively. Review and approval of the work plan will require one additional mobilization. Mr. Trae Sutton, P.E. February 14, 2014 Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP Page 10 of 13 Phase V – Final Report Phase IV involves preparing a final report that will document all fieldwork, ride statistics, distress information, and the maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations. This report will include the following: • Summary of fieldwork • Summary of network condition • Summary of network-level 5-year work plan and recommendations and listing of candidate roads for Capital Improvement Projects • GIS maps summarizing roadway condition scores A draft of the report will be prepared and provided to the City of Georgetown for review. Upon inclusion of City comments and acceptance of the report by the City, Fugro will finalize the report. The purpose of this report will be to serve as initial strategies in support of Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates’ development of a 5-year CIP plan. Should project level plans need to be created, additional fees may be applicable and will be addressed with the City at that time. Phase VI – Database Delivery and Installation This phase will involve delivery and installation of the Cartegraph database as well as a follow-up meeting after the Cartegraph database has been delivered to the City to ensure functionality. Task 1 – Set-up and Installation of Cartegraph Database Fugro will perform on-site installation of the Cartegraph database. This set-up will take approximately one-half day on-site. The database will be delivered as a SQL bak file and restored to the City’s server. Fugro will then configure the database settings to run on the City’s server. This will be performed immediately after the project close-out meeting (meeting number five). Task 2 – Cartegraph Functionality Follow-up On-Site Meeting A meeting will be scheduled with City personnel approximately two weeks after delivery of the Cartegraph database. This meeting will be to confirm that the Cartegraph database is functioning properly on the City’s system. This meeting will be an all-day on-site meeting to review all settings and functionality with City personnel. Time is included in this task for any preparation work required for the meeting as well as follow-up work to address any required or requested changes to the Cartegraph database that may be identified during this meeting. Significant changes that may be requested by the City that are in addition to the outlined scope of work within this proposal may require a change order to address. It is not anticipated that significant changes will be requested by the City at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: YTD Spent/Enc Agenda Item Engineering 238,550 Right of Way 60,000 Construction 1,159,755 Other Costs testing/inspection Current Budget Available Budget BUDGET BALANCE Variance TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78% General Ledger Account Number COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE FINANCIAL IMPACT: YTD Spent/Enc Agenda Item Engineering 238,550 Right of Way 60,000 Construction 1,220,000 Other Costs testing/inspection Current Budget Available Budget BUDGET BALANCE Variance TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24% General Ledger Account Number COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE Example Project Project 2 Example DATE: PROJECT NAME:3/3/2014 Division/Department:GTAB/Streets & Drainage Director Approval Prepared By:Wesley Wright, P.E.Finance Approval La'Ke3/3/14 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 2,014,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting 352,566.09 346,394.00 698,960.09 35% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 128,068.64 128,068.64 6% Other Costs 360,424.45 360,424.45 18% Total Current Year Costs 841,059.18 1,187,453.18 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget Billable Amount 203-9-0880-90-076 (Chip Seal)321,000.00 86,598.50 203-9-0880-90-072 (Rejuvenator) 279,000.00 86,598.50 203-9-0880-90-075 (HIP/Cutler) 539,000.00 86,598.50 100-5-0846-52-806 (Rehab) 875,000.00 86,598.50 Total Budget 2,014,000.00 346,394.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 2,014,000.00 (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 698,960.09 698,960.09 35% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 128,068.64 128,068.64 6% Other Costs 360,424.45 360,424.45 18% Total Project Costs 0.00 1,187,453.18 1,187,453.18 Comments: To KPA-14-006 for PCI Study CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: SEC 551.071 Consultation with Attorney Discussion of legal issues concerning the Georgetown Municipal Airport. - Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Hamilton Rial, Airport Counsel ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: