HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_09.10.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown
September 10, 2015 at 10:00 AM
at 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown, TX 78628
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.
SPECIAL MEETING
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. – Russ Volk, C.M.,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Legislative Regular Agenda
F Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on August 14, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
G Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the current contract with Avfuel
Corporation to supply aviation fuel (Jet-A and 100LL/Avgas) and services to the Georgetown
Municipal Airport, City of Georgetown, in the estimated annual amount of $2,600,000.00 – Russ
Volk, C.M., Airport Manager, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
H Consideration and possible recommendation to approve application for Texas Aviation Partners to
operate as a General Fixed Base Operator (GFBO) at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. – Russ
Page 1 of 115
Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
I Consideration and possible recommendation on a Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
Flood Protection Planning Contract -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Ed
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
J Consideration and possible recommendation on Task Order CPE-15-002 for professional
engineering services with Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $685,000 for
flood protection planning -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Ed Polasek,
AICP, Transportation Services Director
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Page 2 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
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
2nd Street (Austin Avenue to College Street)
Austin Avenue Bridge Evaluation and Repairs
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements
- MLK/3rd St (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.)
- University Ave. (I 35 to Hart St.)
FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue
FM 1460 Improvements Project
Southwest Bypass Project (Leander Road to I 35)
Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance
GTEC Projects
Project Status Report
2015 Road Bond Program
Overview
- Southwest Bypass (Leander Dr./RM 2243 to Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension) and Wolf Ranch
Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Rd.)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GTAB Projects Exhibit
GTEC Project Status Report Exhibit
2015 Road Bond Projects Exhibit
Page 3 of 115
2nd Street
Austin Avenue to College Street
Project No. 1BU TIP None
September 2015
Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening and reconstruction of 2nd Street from Austin Avenue to College Street.
Purpose To provide a safer roadway between Austin Avenue and College Street serving the
citizens of the north portion of “Old Town” and VFW baseball fields. The proposed
project provides improved sidewalk for pedestrian activities along the roadway.
Project Manager Mark Miller and Joel Weaver
Engineer KPA, LP
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations Atmos relocations are on‐going and nearing completion.
As part of the construction contract, electric installations are complete; water and
wastewater improvements are on‐going.
Construction Contractor working on utility relocations
Other Issues
Page 4 of 115
Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations
(North and South San Gabriel Rivers)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
September 2015
Unchanged
Project
Description
Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue
bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several
phases – I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and
evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project
budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents,
estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration.
Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long‐term vehicular capacity
and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP
Element Status / Issues
Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic
paths to consider: Do Nothing. Short Term Temporary Fix. Medium Term Fix. Replace
Structure.
Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed
reconstruction of the bridge.
Surveying TBD
Environmental TBD during Phase II
Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street.
Utility Relocations TBD (future)
Construction TBD
Other Issues Project submitted for CAMPO funding;
Project eligible for TxDOT Off‐System Bridge Replacement Program.
Meeting schedules July 6th to discuss Project Scope and Planning.
Page 5 of 115
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project
MLK/3rd Street (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.)
Project No. None TIP No. None
September 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for sidewalk
improvements along MLK/ and 3rd streets from Scenic Drive to Austin Avenue.
Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer has submitted 30% preliminary alignment and plans for review.
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD
Rights of Way N/A
Utility Relocations N/A
Construction TBD
Other Issues None.
Page 6 of 115
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project
University Avenue (SH 29) (I 35 to Hart St.)
Project No. None TIP No. None
September 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for sidewalk
improvements along University Avenue (SH 29) from I 35 to Hart Street.
Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Baker‐Aicklen
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer had submitted the 99% plans (couple of minor corrections) and the
Contract Documents for staff review.
Staff is completing the Contract Documents in‐house.
Environmental/
Archeological
N/A
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Bid opening TBD; contingent upon completion of the MUA with TxDOT.
Other Issues Project has been submitted to TxDOT for coordination.
Project has been submitted for T.A.S./TDLR compliance review.
The original design firm has closed its doors. Staff will complete the Contract
Documents in‐house and will bid the project.
City is completing a Multiple Use Agreement with TxDOT to install new
sidewalk within TxDOT ROW; process will require approximately 2½ months
for TxDOT to complete.
Page 7 of 115
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Realignment Intersection Improvements
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. AG
September 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening
and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street.
Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest
Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side of I 35 to
Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel Park and a more direct route to
SH 130.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Preliminary Engineering complete;
Engineer working on 60% design submittal
Environmental/
Archeological
10/2015
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction 10/2016
Other Issues Staff has submitted the paperwork to TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding
Agreement for plans review and construction administration.
Page 8 of 115
FM 1460
Quail Valley Drive to University Drive
Project No. 5RB TIP No. BO & CD
September 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and
reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update to existing Schematic,
Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and completion of the PS&E for the
remaining existing roadway.
Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW, effect
utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT letting not later
than August 2013, pending available construction funding.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and
Use Agreements or have closings planned for all the
remaining FM 1460 parcels.
Acquired: 34
Pending: 0
Condemnation: 2
Total: 36
Utility Relocations Ongoing
Construction Bid opened August 2014
Contractor has asked TxDOT for an early November 2015 NTP.
Other Issues Two task order amendments were approved by Council April 28th.
Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.
Page 9 of 115
Jim Hogg Drive/Road at Williams Drive
Intersection and Signalization Improvements
Project No. 1DE TIP No. None
September 2015
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening of Jim Hogg at the intersection of Williams Drive, inclusive of installation
of a traffic signal.
Purpose To provide a widened 3‐lane section with signal at the intersection of Jim Hogg and
Williams Drive. The proposed improvements will provide improved access for the
residents and the employees of the new City Service Center to Williams Drive.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Preliminary Engineering complete.
Engineer working on final design and preliminary contract documents.
Environmental/
Archeological
Engineer working on the Geologic Assessment and WPAP for submittal to
TCEQ.
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations Included with construction project
Construction First quarter 2016
Other Issues None at this time
Page 10 of 115
Southwest Bypass Project
(RM 2243 to IH 35)
Project No. 1CA Project No. BK
September 2015
Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH
35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane roadway from Leander Road
(RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. The portion
from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from
the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC.
Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM
2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.
Project Manager Williamson County
City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Williamson County
Project Status
(from WilCo’s status
report)
Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) – Driveway permits for driveways at IH 35
SB frontage road and RM 2243 were submitted to the City of Georgetown on 6/9/15
and resubmitted on 7/6/15. A project status meeting was held on 6/1/15. A QA/QC
plan submittal was received on 5/27/15 and reviewed.
Rights of Way Special Commissioners have awarded the value for one of the two remaining
parcels; funding has been posted with the Court.
PUA has been obtained for the final parcel of property; condemnation hearing have
been scheduled for the end of September 2015.
Other Issues None.
Page 11 of 115
Transportation Services Operations
CIP Maintenance
September, 2015
Project Description 2014‐2015 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays,
Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects.
Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of
85%.
Project Manager Mark Miller
Engineer/Engineers KPA
Task Status / Issues
Chip Seal 2015 Start date August 17. – As of August 28th, all chip seal, in‐house /
Contractor was scheduled to be complete by end of day September 31st, with
pavement striping to be in place by September 4th.
Fog Seal 2015 – Fog sealing in‐house suspended until cooler temperatures in the fall.
HIPR/overlay 2015 – Cutler began its work on Monday, August 10th. As of August 28th,
completion of project was scheduled to be completed the first week of
September.
Page 12 of 115
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete.
Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB
Wood Road)
#14A 5QW Project Complete.
Complete 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350
Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Project Complete.
Complete 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320
Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer is coordinating design with the design for
Rivery Boulevard in moving towards construction
PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work
between these two projects.
Construction tentatively scheduled to begin early
FY 2019.
In-process
Unchanged
1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590
NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel
at both the local Area Office and District
Environmental Division.
In-process
Unchanged
613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0
ROW - 1460 #EEa
#EEb
#EEc
5RB TxDOT and the Contractor (OHL USA, Inc.) have
signed the Construction Contract. OHL has
requested “that a Pre‐con be held on October 20th
2015, with an anticipated start date of November
2nd 2015.”
Utility relocations - ongoing.
As of October 16th, the City has obtained PUAs or
have closings completed or planned for all the
remaining FM 1460 parcels.
In-process 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643
TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete.
Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0
FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete.
Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0
Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete.
Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer is coordinating design with the design for
Northwest Boulevard in
moving towards construction PS&E for both
projects to minimize overlap work
between these two projects.
Property appraisals are being submitted for
City review; once all the appraisals
are in then offers will be extended to the
property owners.
Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid FY
2018
On Schedule
Snead Drive 5QZ Construction on‐going for the installation of
the sewer line.
Agreement has been reached for the property
need to install a water quality pond; paperwork
pending.
On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
Mays Street Extension 5RI GTEC and Council have approved the Task Order
with CP&Y for Final PS&E.
In Process 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
August 2015
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-08.xlsx Page 1 of 2 9/1/2015Page 13 of 115
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
August 2015
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
Current Economic Development Projects Project
Type
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Budget
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo
Project
5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 0
Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives
and preliminary cost estimates.
On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 0 0
Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500
16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-08.xlsx Page 2 of 2 9/1/2015Page 14 of 115
2015 Road Bond Program
Program
Overview
In May 2015, voters approved the 2015 Road Bond Program (“the Program”) in the amount of
$105M. Staff has prioritized the projects schedule based on various existing and pending
commitments into which the City has entered through industrial agreements and/or development
agreements, projected bond funding cash flow and travel demand needs of the citizens.
The proposed schedule was developed over the entire 10‐year life of the Program and presented
to GTAB with the caveat that the schedule was firmly established for only the first two years of
project implementation. Future scheduling will be responsive to funding availability, changes in
development patterns and demands, future coordination of our projects with TxDOT and
Williamson County. Further, the Program projects will be included with the annual CIP projects
list.
At its June 2015 meeting, GTAB unanimously adopted the schedule and caveat and unanimously
recommended is adoption by Council. Given that priorities and needs are dynamic and subject to
change, the schedule will be reviewed annually as part of the CIP to assure it continues to meet
the goals and objectives of the City and maintains the terms of the “Contract with the Voters” of
not having greater than 2¢ per year increase to the City’s tax rate not more than 10¢ total increase
in the tax rate over the life of the Program.
Project
Managers
Ed Polasek, AICP
Transportation Services Director
Bill Dryden, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
Wes Wright, P.E.
Systems Engineering Director
Page 15 of 115
2015 Road Bond Program
Southwest Bypass (Leander Rd. to Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension)
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Rd.)
Project No. 1DI OTP Project No. AD & AZ1
September 2015
Unchanged
Project
Description
Construction of Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to Wolf Ranch
Parkway Extension and Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension from Southwest Bypass to
DB Wood Road.
Purpose To complete a connection from Leander Road (RM 2243) to University Avenue
(SH 29)
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Final design PS&E Task Order approved by Council July 28, 2015, meeting.
Surveying Complete
Environmental TBD
Rights of Way ROW through the Weir Trust property is still pending.
Utility
Relocations
TBD
Construction NTP tentatively scheduled for first quarter 2016.
Other Issues Weir ROW still outstanding.
Page 16 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, C.M.,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Airport Projects:
FAA Tower Report
Fuel Sales Report
Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update
2015 Accomplishments and Projects
2016 RAMP Grant
Airport Monthly Financial Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Tower Report Backup Material
Fuel Sales Backup Material
Hangar Report Backup Material
Airport Accomplishments Backup Material
2016 RAMP Grant Backup Material
Financials Backup Material
Page 17 of 115
Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update
Sep 2015
Project Description Georgetown Tower Update
Purpose Tower Monthly Report
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Operating Statistics
Performance/volumetric
indicators
For the Month of:
Jul 2015
Jul
2014
Y-T-D
Jul
2015
Y-T-D
Variance
Take Offs and
Landings Day*
Night*
VFR 6,978
532 54,562 55,108
546 1%
IFR 499
18 4,981 5,337
356 7%
Total Take
Offs/Landings 7,477
550 59,543 60,445
902 1.5%
Total for Month 8,027
* This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure
control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.).
Page 18 of 115
Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update
Sep 2015
Project Description Georgetown Fuel Sales Update
Purpose Fuel Sales Monthly Report
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Operating Statistics
Performance/volumetric
indicators
Gallons For the Month of:
Jul
Jul 2014
Y-T-D
Jul 2015
Y-T-D
Variance
Type of Fuel 2014 2015
AVGAS 19,338
23,443 170,612 189,617 19,005 11%
JET A 40,033
28,868
362,073 330,205
<31,868> <9>%
Total Gallons Sold 59,371
52,311
532,685 519,822
<12,863> <3>%
Page 19 of 115
Airport Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update
Sep 2015
Project Description Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Agreements
Purpose Occupancy Rates
Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager
Unit Stats
Total Hangars – 114
• 100 Percent Occupied
Total Storage Units – 7
• 6 Occupied
• 1 Vacant
Total Tie-Downs – 39 Monthly, 14 for Overnight/Transient Parking
• Monthly Tie-Downs 100 Percent Occupied
Page 20 of 115
GTU Airport
In-Work Projects
Replacing worn door seals on Hangars E and F.
Updating Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Exploring pavement preservation options for Runway 18-36.
Update to Airport Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards.
Determining a software solution for the Airport Business Operations area.
Adding additional part-time Airport Maintenance staff.
Obtaining Pesticide Application License to allow for airport staff to spray weed killer.
Developing lease agreement for storage locations.
Planned Projects
Develop Hangar Routine Maintenance Program.
Develop Airport Preventative Maintenance Program.
After arrival of equipment, implement an airport Foreign Object Debris removal program.
Evaluate possible software solutions for a technology based Pavement Management Program.
Evaluate possible software solutions for a technology based Airport Self Inspection Program.
Replace existing Tower voice recording system. Old system is no longer supported.
Install aviation radios in Polaris and Airport Maintenance Truck.
Replace door seals on Hangars E, F, and G.
Upgrade electrical service to Hangars H, I, and J.
Replace bottom door seals on Hangars H, I, and J.
Page 21 of 115
Replace mercury vapor lights with amber LED on outside of Hangars H, I, and J.
Replace gate rollers on both the north and south electronic gates.
Repairs to terminal ramp to reduce FOD issues.
Upgrade to bi-fold doors drive motors on Hangars BB and CC.
Accomplishments 2015
Installed vehicle mounted aviation radio in airport truck and tractor to improve communication with
tower while out on airfield.
Implemented new lease rates and agreements with existing tenants in city owned T-Hangars.
Implemented new lease rates and agreements with existing tenants in city owned Tie-Downs.
Accomplished CPI adjustments for Land Leases on the airport, generating additional revenue for the
airport fund.
Performed CPI adjustments for both fuel flowage fee and commercial wholesale fuel margin.
As part of the city budget process, conducted an airport financial review of 15 months of expenses and
revenues. Identified potential cost savings. Prepared and submitted airport budget to better breakdown
and track airport expenses for future and continual evaluation.
Airfield lighting upgrade project for Runway 11/29 and 18/36.
Draft Environmental Assessment for new Fuel Storage Facility. Assisted in edits and responses to
public comments.
Repairs to Tower communication consoles.
Asphalt temporary repair to taxilane between hangars B & C.
Review of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Expanded daily airport self-inspection program. Implemented inspection checklist to track inspection
results.
Filled Airport Business Coordinator position with permanent employee.
Page 22 of 115
Accomplished personnel training, annual testing and certification for Underground Storage Tank (UST)
program.
Reviewed Foreign Object Debris program. Currently the airport does not have any equipment to assist
with FOD removal. Identified two possible pieces of equipment which would allow for removal of FOD
from airport surfaces. Submitted request in budget to purchase equipment.
Reviewed Weed Abatement program. Previously, airport contracted with private contractor for twice a
year weed spraying. Airport now has equipment to accomplish weed spraying using airport personnel
and equipment.
Established Pavement Management Program to include required monthly inspections. Inspection results
are used for evaluation of when and what type of pavement maintenance should be programmed.
Established electronic gate preventative maintenance program which involves quarterly gate inspections,
lubrication, testing and adjustments.
Established a vehicle care program for airport operated courtesy cars and truck. Program involves
routine cleaning, inspection, and fuel servicing.
Developed training outline for Airport Fuel Attendant position.
Conducted airport terminal and control tower site survey with city IT personnel to review current and
future equipment requirements for both facilities.
Conducted airport terminal and control tower site survey with city Facilities personnel to review current
condition of facilities and program for future maintenance items.
Accomplished asbestos survey on two old concrete structures near the airport terminal.
Participated in four meetings with citizen groups. Groups included members of the ACC, R-C Modelers
Club of Sun City, Experimental Aircraft Association, and Georgetown Aero Modelers Association.
Added a second On-Call Airport Fuel Attendant.
Painted Storage Location doors on Hangars.
Conducting quarterly inspections for FBO operated fuel trucks.
Reviewed the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures program to ensure all methods and
equipment are in place to deal with aviation fuel spills.
Demolition of old CAP facility just east of Tower.
Conducted based airplane inventory and updated FAA database.
Page 23 of 115
Developed training program for performing fuel truck inspections.
Accomplished adjustments to fuel margins.
Page 24 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 1 of 12
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GRANT FOR ROUTINE AIRPORT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
(State Assisted Airport Routine Maintenance)
TxDOT CSJ No.: M1614GEOR
Part I - Identification of the Project
TO: The City of Georgetown, Texas
FROM: The State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Transportation
This Grant is made between the Texas Department of Transportation, (hereinafter
referred to as the "State"), on behalf of the State of Texas, and the City of Georgetown, Texas,
(hereinafter referred to as the "Sponsor").
This Grant Agreement is entered into between the State and Sponsor shown above, under
the authority granted and in compliance with the provisions of the Transportation Code Chapter 21.
The project is for airport maintenance at the Georgetown Municipal Airport.
Part II - Offer of Financial Assistance
1. For the purposes of this Grant, the annual routine maintenance project cost, Amount A, is
estimated as found on Attachment A, Scope of Services, attached hereto and made a part
of this grant agreement.
State financial assistance granted will be used solely and exclusively for airport
maintenance and other incidental items as approved by the State. Actual work to be
performed under this agreement is found on Attachment A, Scope of Services. State
financial assistance, Amount B, will be for fifty percent (50%) of the eligible project
costs for this project or $50,000.00, whichever is less, per fiscal year and subject to
availability of state appropriations.
Scope of Services, Attachment A, of this Grant, may be amended, subject to availability
of state funds, to include additional approved airport maintenance work. Scope
amendments require submittal of an Amended Scope of Services, Attachment A.
Services will not be accomplished by the State until receipt of Sponsor's share of project
costs.
Page 25 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 2 of 12
Only work items as described in Attachment A, Scope of Services of this Grant are
reimbursable under this grant.
Work shall be accomplished by August 31, 2016, unless otherwise approved by the State.
2. The State shall determine fair and eligible project costs for work scope. Sponsor's share
of estimated project costs, Amount C, shall be as found on Attachment A and any
amendments.
It is mutually understood and agreed that if, during the term of this agreement, the State
determines that there is an overrun in the estimated annual routine maintenance costs, the
State may increase the grant to cover the amount of the overrun within the above stated
percentages and subject to the maximum amount of state funding.
The State will not authorize expenditures in excess of the dollar amounts identified in this
Agreement and any amendments, without the consent of the Sponsor.
3. Sponsor, by accepting this Grant certifies and, upon request, shall furnish proof to the
State that it has sufficient funds to meet its share of the costs. The Sponsor grants to the
State the right to audit any books and records of the Sponsor to verify expended funds.
Upon execution of this Agreement and written demand by the State, the Sponsor's
financial obligation (Amount C) shall be due in cash and payable in full to the State.
State may request the Sponsor's financial obligation in partial payments. Should the
Sponsor fail to pay their obligation, either in whole or in part, within 30 days of written
demand, the State may exercise its rights under Paragraph V-3. Likewise, should the
State be unwilling or unable to pay its obligation in a timely manner, the failure to pay
shall be considered a breach and the Sponsor may exercise any rights and remedies it has
at law or equity.
The State shall reimburse or credit the Sponsor, at the financial closure of the project, any
excess funds provided by the Sponsor which exceed Sponsor's share (Amount C).
4. The Sponsor specifically agrees that it shall pay any project costs which exceed the
amount of financial participation agreed to by the State. It is further agreed that the
Sponsor will reimburse the State for any payment or payments made by the State which
are in excess of the percentage of financial assistance (Amount B) as stated in Paragraph
II-1.
5. Scope of Services may be accomplished by State contracts or through local contracts of
the Sponsor as determined appropriate by the State. All locally contracted work must be
approved by the State for scope and reasonable cost. Reimbursement requests for locally
contracted work shall be submitted on forms provided by the State and shall include
copies of the invoices for materials or services. Payment shall be made for no more than
50% of allowable charges.
Page 26 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 3 of 12
The State will not participate in funding for force account work conducted by the
Sponsor.
6. This Grant shall terminate upon completion of the scope of services.
Part III - Sponsor Responsibilities
1. In accepting this Grant, if applicable, the Sponsor guarantees that:
a. it will, in the operation of the facility, comply with all applicable state and federal
laws, rules, regulations, procedures, covenants and assurances required by the
State in connection with this Grant; and
b. the Airport or navigational facility which is the subject of this Grant shall be
controlled by the Sponsor for a period of at least 20 years; and
c. consistent with safety and security requirements, it shall make the airport or air
navigational facility available to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical use
without discrimination between such types, kinds and classes and shall provide
adequate public access during the period of this Grant; and
d. it shall not grant or permit anyone to exercise an exclusive right for the conduct of
aeronautical activity on or about an airport landing area. Aeronautical activities
include, but are not limited to scheduled airline flights, charter flights, flight
instruction, aircraft sales, rental and repair, sale of aviation petroleum products
and aerial applications. The landing area consists of runways or landing strips,
taxiways, parking aprons, roads, airport lighting and navigational aids; and
e. it shall not enter into any agreement nor permit any aircraft to gain direct ground
access to the sponsor's airport from private property adjacent to or in the
immediate area of the airport. Further, Sponsor shall not allow aircraft direct
ground access to private property. Sponsor shall be subject to this prohibition,
commonly known as a "through-the-fence operation," unless an exception is
granted in writing by the State due to extreme circumstances; and
f. it shall not permit non-aeronautical use of airport facilities without prior approval
of the State; and
g. the Sponsor shall submit to the State annual statements of airport revenues and
expenses when requested; and
h. all fees collected for the use of the airport shall be reasonable and
nondiscriminatory. The proceeds from such fees shall be used solely for the
development, operation and maintenance of the airport or navigational facility;
and
i. an Airport Fund shall be established by resolution, order or ordinance in the
Page 27 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 4 of 12
treasury of the Sponsor, or evidence of the prior creation of an existing airport
fund or a properly executed copy of the resolution, order, or ordinance creating
such a fund, shall be submitted to the State. The fund may be an account as part of
another fund, but must be accounted for in such a manner that all revenues,
expenses, retained earnings, and balances in the account are discernible from
other types of moneys identified in the fund as a whole. All fees, charges, rents,
and money from any source derived from airport operations must be deposited in
the Airport Fund and shall not be diverted to the general revenue fund or any
other revenue fund of the Sponsor. All expenditures from the Airport Fund shall
be solely for airport purposes. Sponsor shall be ineligible for a subsequent grant
or loan by the State unless, prior to such subsequent approval of a grant or loan,
Sponsor has complied with the requirements of this subparagraph; and
j. the Sponsor shall operate runway lighting at least at low intensity from sunset to
sunrise; and
k. insofar as it is reasonable and within its power, Sponsor shall adopt and enforce
zoning regulations to restrict the height of structures and use of land adjacent to or
in the immediate vicinity of the airport to heights and activities compatible with
normal airport operations as provided in Tex. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. Sections
241.001 et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Sponsor shall also acquire and retain
aviation easements or other property interests in or rights to use of land or
airspace, unless sponsor can show that acquisition and retention of such interest
will be impractical or will result in undue hardship to Sponsor. Sponsor shall be
ineligible for a subsequent grant or loan by the State unless Sponsor has, prior to
subsequent approval of a grant or loan, adopted and passed an airport hazard
zoning ordinance or order approved by the State.
l. mowing services will not be eligible for state financial assistance. Sponsor will
be responsible for 100% of any mowing services.
2. The Sponsor, to the extent of its legal authority to do so, shall save harmless the State, the
State's agents, employees or contractors from all claims and liability due to activities of
the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees performed under this agreement. The
Sponsor, to the extent of its legal authority to do so, shall also save harmless the State, the
State's agents, employees or contractors from any and all expenses, including attorney
fees which might be incurred by the State in litigation or otherwise resisting claim or
liabilities which might be imposed on the State as the result of those activities by the
Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees.
3. The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of this Grant shall be
evidenced by execution of this Grant by the Sponsor. The Grant shall comprise a
contract, constituting the obligations and rights of the State of Texas and the Sponsor
with respect to the accomplishment of the project and the operation and maintenance of
the airport.
Page 28 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 5 of 12
If it becomes unreasonable or impractical to complete the project, the State may void this
agreement and release the Sponsor from any further obligation of project costs.
4. Upon entering into this Grant, Sponsor agrees to name an individual, as the Sponsor's
Authorized Representative, who shall be the State's contact with regard to this project.
The Representative shall receive all correspondence and documents associated with this
grant and shall make or shall acquire approvals and disapprovals for this grant as required
on behalf of the Sponsor, and coordinate schedule for work items as required.
5. By the acceptance of grant funds for the maintenance of eligible airport buildings, the
Sponsor certifies that the buildings are owned by the Sponsor. The buildings may be
leased but if the lease agreement specifies that the lessee is responsible for the upkeep
and repairs of the building no state funds shall be used for that purpose.
6. Sponsor shall request reimbursement of eligible project costs on forms provided by the
State. All reimbursement requests are required to include a copy of the invoices for the
materials or services. The reimbursement request will be submitted no more than once a
month.
7. The Sponsor's acceptance of this Agreement shall comprise a Grant Agreement, as
provided by the Transportation Code, Chapter 21, constituting the contractual obligations
and rights of the State of Texas and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of
the airport maintenance and compliance with the assurances and conditions as provided.
Such Grant Agreement shall become effective upon the State's written Notice to Proceed
issued following execution of this agreement.
PART IV - Nomination of the Agent
1. The Sponsor designates the State as the party to receive and disburse all funds used, or to
be used, in payment of the costs of the project, or in reimbursement to either of the
parties for costs incurred.
2. The State shall, for all purposes in connection with the project identified above, be the
Agent of the Sponsor. The Sponsor grants the State a power of attorney to act as its agent
to perform the following services:
a. accept, receive, and deposit with the State any and all project funds granted,
allowed, and paid or made available by the Sponsor, the State of Texas, or any
other entity;
b. enter into contracts as necessary for execution of scope of services;
c. if State enters into a contract as Agent: exercise supervision and direction of the
project work as the State reasonably finds appropriate. Where there is an
Page 29 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 6 of 12
irreconcilable conflict or difference of opinion, judgment, order or direction
between the State and the Sponsor or any service provider, the State shall issue a
written order which shall prevail and be controlling;
d. receive, review, approve and pay invoices and payment requests for services and
materials supplied in accordance with the State approved contracts;
e. obtain an audit as may be required by state regulations; the State Auditor may
conduct an audit or investigation of any entity receiving funds from TxDOT
directly under this contract or indirectly through a subcontract under this contract.
Acceptance of funds directly under this contract or indirectly through a
subcontract under this contract acts as acceptance of the authority of the State
Auditor, under the direction of the legislative audit committee, to conduct an audit
or investigation in connection with those funds. An entity that is the subject of an
audit or investigation must provide the state auditor with access to any
information the state auditor considers relevant to the investigation or audit.
f. reimburse sponsor for approved contract maintenance costs no more than once a
month.
PART V - Recitals
1. This Grant is executed for the sole benefit of the contracting parties and is not intended or
executed for the direct or incidental benefit of any third party.
2. It is the intent of this grant to not supplant local funds normally utilized for airport
maintenance, and that any state financial assistance offered under this grant be in addition
to those local funds normally dedicated for airport maintenance.
3. This Grant is subject to the applicable provisions of the Transportation Code, Chapters 21
and 22, and the Airport Zoning Act, Tex. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. Sections 241.001 et seq.
(Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Failure to comply with the terms of this Grant or with the
rules and statutes shall be considered a breach of this contract and will allow the State to
pursue the remedies for breach as stated below.
a. Of primary importance to the State is compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Grant. If, however, after all reasonable attempts to require compliance have
failed, the State finds that the Sponsor is unwilling and/or unable to comply with
any of the terms of this Grant, the State, may pursue any of the following
remedies: (1) require a refund of any financial assistance money expended
pursuant to this Grant, (2) deny Sponsor's future requests for aid, (3) request the
Attorney General to bring suit seeking reimbursement of any financial assistance
money expended on the project pursuant to this Grant, provided however, these
remedies shall not limit the State's authority to enforce its rules, regulations or
Page 30 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 7 of 12
orders as otherwise provided by law, (4) declare this Grant null and void, or (5)
any other remedy available at law or in equity.
b. Venue for resolution by a court of competent jurisdiction of any dispute arising
under the terms of this Grant, or for enforcement of any of the provisions of this
Grant, is specifically set by Grant of the parties in Travis County, Texas.
4. The State reserves the right to amend or withdraw this Grant at any time prior to
acceptance by the Sponsor. The acceptance period cannot be greater than 30 days after
issuance unless extended by the State.
5. This Grant constitutes the full and total understanding of the parties concerning their
rights and responsibilities in regard to this project and shall not be modified, amended,
rescinded or revoked unless such modification, amendment, rescission or revocation is
agreed to by both parties in writing and executed by both parties.
6. All commitments by the Sponsor and the State are subject to constitutional and statutory
limitations and restrictions binding upon the Sponsor and the State (including Sections 5
and 7 of Article 11 of the Texas Constitution, if applicable) and to the availability of
funds which lawfully may be applied.
Page 31 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 8 of 12
Part VI - Acceptances
Sponsor
The City of Georgetown, Texas, does ratify and adopt all statements, representations,
warranties, covenants, agreements, and all terms and conditions of this Grant.
Executed this day of , 20___.
The City of Georgetown, Texas
Sponsor
Witness Signature Sponsor Signature
Witness Title Sponsor Title
Certificate of Attorney
I, , acting as attorney for the City of Georgetown, Texas,
do certify that I have fully examined the Grant and the proceedings taken by the Sponsor relating
to the acceptance of the Grant, and find that the manner of acceptance and execution of the Grant
by the Sponsor, is in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.
Dated at , Texas, this day of , 20___.
Witness Signature Attorney's Signature
Witness Title
Page 32 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 9 of 12
Acceptance of the State
Executed by and approved for the Texas Transportation Commission for the purpose and effect
of activating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programs and grants
heretofore approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission.
STATE OF TEXAS
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Date:
Page 33 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 10 of 12
Attachment A
Scope of Services
TxDOT CSJ No.:M1614GEOR
Eligible Scope Item:Estimated Costs
Amount A
State Share
Amount B
Sponsor Share
Amount C
GENERAL MAINTENANCE $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Special Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Special Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Special Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Special Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Special Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTAL $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Accepted by: The City of Georgetown, Texas
Signature
Title:
Date:
GENERAL MAINTENANCE: As needed, Sponsor may contract for services/purchase
materials for routine maintenance/improvement of airport pavements, signage, drainage, AWOS
systems, approach aids, lighting systems, utility infrastructure, fencing, herbicide/application,
sponsor owned and operated fuel systems, hangars, terminal buildings and security systems;
professional services for environmental compliance, approved project design. Special projects to
be determined and added by amendment.
Only work items as described in Attachment A, Scope of Services of this Grant are
reimbursable under this grant.
Page 34 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORT FUND
TxDOT CSJ No.: M1614GEOR
The City of Georgetown does certify that an Airport Fund has been established for the Sponsor,
and that all fees, charges, rents, and money from any source derived from airport operations will
be deposited for the benefit of the Airport Fund and will not be diverted for other general
revenue fund expenditures or any other special fund of the Sponsor and that all expenditures
from the Fund will be solely for airport purposes. The fund may be an account as part of another
fund, but must be accounted for in such a manner that all revenues, expenses, retained earnings,
and balances in the account are discernible from other types of moneys identified in the fund as a
whole.
The City of Georgetown, Texas
(Sponsor)
By:
Title:
Date:
Certification of State Single Audit Requirements
I, ___________________________, do certify that the City of Georgetown will comply with all
(Designated Representative)
requirements of the State of Texas Single Audit Act if the City of Georgetown spends or receives
more than the threshold amount in any grant funding sources during the most recently audited
fiscal year. And in following those requirements, the City of Georgetown will submit the report
to the audit division of the Texas Department of Transportation. If your entity did not meet the
threshold in grant receivables or expenditures, please submit a letter indicating that your entity is
not required to have a State Single Audit performed for the most recent audited fiscal year.
____________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Title
____________________________________
Date
Page 35 of 115
09/01/2015 Page 12 of 12
DESIGNATION OF SPONSOR'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
TxDOT CSJ Number: M1614GEOR
The City of Georgetown designates,
(Name, Title)
as the Sponsor’s authorized representative, who shall receive all correspondence and documents
associated with this grant and who shall make or shall acquire approvals and disapprovals for
this grant as required on behalf of the Sponsor.
The City of Georgetown, Texas
(Sponsor)
By:
Title:
Date:
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE
Mailing Address:
Overnight Mailing Address:
Telephone/Fax Number:
Email address: _______
Page 36 of 115
Prepared by: LKemp
9/1/2015
Georgetown Municipal Airport
As of July 31, 2015
Statement of Operations A - B = C B - D = E
A B C D E
2014/2015 7/31/2014
Budget $ YTD Actuals $%
Beginning Fund Balance 21,612 82,210 82,210 - 363,339 (281,129) -77%
Operating Revenues:
Fuel Sales 2,469,900 2,122,405 1,633,431 488,974 2,069,487 (436,056) -21%
Fuel Expense (2,272,600) (1,775,000) (1,395,135) (379,865) (1,872,773) 477,638 -26%
Net Fuel Revenues 197,300 347,405 238,296 109,109 196,714 41,582 21%
(A)Leases & Rentals 641,200 623,950 514,142 109,808 482,444 31,699 7%
(B)Bankruptcy - Georgetown Jet Center - - - - 98,801 (98,801) -100%
Interest 4,000 15 14 1 188 (173) -92%
(C)Other Revenues 39,150 39,995 29,711 10,284 2,407 27,304 1134%
Grant - 16,186 25,235 (9,049) - 25,235 100%
Total Operating Revenues 881,650 1,027,551 807,399 220,152 780,554 26,845 3%
Operating Expenses:
Personnel (350,253) (345,561) (270,717) (74,844) (224,416) (46,301) 21%
Operations (608,072) (692,565) (592,415) (100,150) (604,043) 11,628 -2%
Furniture & Equipment - - - - (561) 561 -100%
Total Operating Expenses (958,325) (1,038,126) (863,132) (174,994) (829,020) (34,112) 4%
Total - Net Operating Revenues (Expenses)(76,675) (10,575) (55,733) 45,158 (48,466) (7,267) 15%
Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses):
Bond Proceeds 870,000 870,000 865,000 5,000 - 865,000 0%
Debt - Principal & Interest (178,612) (178,612) (24,952) (153,660) (11,472) (13,481) 118%
Capital Improvement Program
Settlement Revenue - AJS Drainage - - - 110,000 (110,000) -100%
Transfer from General Fund - Capital Projects - - - 98,250 (98,250) -100%
Improvements, Taxiway - (2,481) - (2,481) (10,667) 10,667 -100%
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights - - - - (87,501) 87,501 -100%
AJS Draining Improvements - (310) (59) (251) (103,235) 103,176 -100%
Runway 1836 Lights (770,000) (12,065) (12,065) - (163,200) 151,135 -93%
Fuel Farm (100,000) - - - - - 0%
Net Capital Improvement Program (870,000) (14,856) (12,124) (2,732) (156,353) 144,229 -92%
Total - Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)(178,612) 676,532 827,924 (151,392) (167,825) 995,749 -593%
Net Revenues/(Expenses)(255,287) 665,957 772,191 (106,234) (216,291) 988,482 128%
Ending Fund Balance (D)(233,675) 748,167 854,401 147,048
Reservation:
Restricted Bond Proceeds (855,144) (852,876) -
Available Fund Balance (106,977) 1,525 147,048
NOTES:
(A)Leases and rentals include T-Hangars, ground leases, and tie downs.
(B)The City does not expect to receive any more bankruptcy revenue as the lease is now owned by the bank.
(C)Other revenues include ad valorem tax, special events and discounts. Most are received at fiscal year end.
(D)The Electric Fund is covering the contingency requirements for Airport to meet City-wide contingency reserves per policy.
Reserve decreased to 45 days effective October 1, 2014.
*The City operates on a consolidated cash basis. Due to timing of individual fund receivables and payables,
cash and investment fund balances may fluctuate.
2014/2015
Preliminary
Projections
7/31/2015
YTD Actuals
Variance
Year to Date
Variance
Projections
Balance Sheet Highlights Current Actuals
7/31/2015 6/30/2015 5/31/2015 9/30/2014
Assets:
Cash & Investments 877,719 - - -
Accounts Receivable - Leases & Fuel 56,958 72,182 41,113 201,293
Liabilities:
*Due to Consolidated Cash - 36,386 61,261 -
Bond Debt Outstanding 1,473,319 603,847 603,847 741,938
Page 37 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on August 14, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on
August 14, 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Minutes Backup Material
Page 38 of 115
Notice of Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
August 14, 2015
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Truman Hunt – Chair, John Pettitt – Vice Chair, Ray Armour - Secretary, Rachel
Jonrowe, Chris H’Luz - Arrived at 10:05 AM, Donna Courtney, John Hesser arrived at 10:26 AM
Board Members Absent: Scott Rankin, Steve Johnston
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Ed Polasek, Jana Kern, Mark Miller, Bill Dryden, Russ Volk, Bridget Chapman ,
Mike Babin, Paul Diaz
Others Present: Tom Crawford, - GTEC Board Member, Ron Bindas, John Milford, Carl Norris, Dennis
Hegebarth, A. O’Connell, Lori Ford, Terry Reed, Robert Melsh – ACC, Ryan Blair – HDR, KENT
BALLENTINO – CITIZEN, KEN MABE – GTU JET TEXAS AVIATION PARTNERS
Regular Session
A. Call to Order: Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board to order on Friday,
August 14, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular
Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member,
The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council
Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas
Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that
follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: CAMPO has put out a short call for non-road
projects for fy17-19. We put in for sidewalk projects for about $2M.
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines – Bill Dryden, P. E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Russ Volk,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Persons signed up to speak on this item: Hugh Norris – See presentation at the end of these
minutes.
Page 39 of 115
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following
items:
F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board
meeting held on July 10, 2015 – Jana Kern
Mr. Pettitt stated that he was at the July meeting and would like the minutes to reflect
that. Minutes have been corrected.
Motion by Jonrowe second by Pettitt to approve minutes as amended. Approved
Unanimous 6-3 (Rankin, Johnston, & Hesser absent)
The Board decided to discuss items G, H, & I together then make a motion for each item.
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to adjust Airport Fuel Flowage Fee and to
adjust the "Fee" every two years thereafter according to the Dallas, Fort Worth, TX CPI-
W number. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Pettitt to keep the current fuel flowage rate of 0.1542 per
gallon and to ensure that this rate is looked at a minimum of every two years. Approved
Unanimous 7-2 (Rankin & Johnston absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to adjust Avgas (100LL) Fuel Margin and
to adjust the "Margin" every two years thereafter according to the Dallas, Fort Worth, TX
CPI-W number. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director.
Motion by Jonrowe second by Pettitt to adopt a rate of $ 0.5208 for Avgas and to ensure
that this rate is looked at a minimum of every two years. Approved 5-2-2 (Hesser &
H’Luz opposed, Rankin & Johnston absent)
I. Consideration and possible recommendation to adjust Commercial Wholesale Jet-A Fuel
Margin and to adjust the "Margin" every two years thereafter according to the Dallas,
Fort Worth, TX CPI-W number. – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Volk informed the Board that a Public Meeting was held at the Airport. There about 40
people along with several staff. Volk stated that a power point presentation was given to
the group. Lengthy discussion concerning all of the fuel margins
Motion by Jonrowe second by Hesser to adopt a new rate of $0.50 for Jet-A and to
ensure that this rate is looked at a minimum of every two years. Approved Unanimous 7-2
(Rankin & Johnston absent)
Page 40 of 115
J. EXECUTIVE SESSION – NOT NEEDED
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s
Texas Code, Annotated; the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and
are subject to action in the regular session.
Sec 551-071 – Consultation with Attorney
- Implementation of Aviation Fuel Charge including Fuel Flowage Charges. – Bridget
Chapman, City Attorney
K. Action from Executive Session – No action needed
L. Discussion and possible action on moving the September 11, 2015 Board meeting to
another day. – Jana Kern, Board Liaison
Kern informed the Board that there is a Purple Heart event on Sept 11, 2015 and was
asked to check with the Board to see if they would consider moving the meeting to
another day. Motion by Pettitt second by Hesser to move the September GTAB meeting
to September 10, 2015 at 10:00 AM. Approved Unanimous 7-2 (Rankin & Johnston
absent)
Adjournment
Motion by Hesser second by Jonrowe to adjourn meeting. Meeting adjourned at
11:29 AM
Approved: Attested:
_______________________ ______________________
Truman Hunt - Chair Ray Armour – Secretary
_________________________________
Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
Page 41 of 115
GTAB STATEMENT
AUGUST 14, 2015
AGENDA ITEM “E”
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. For
the record, my name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My wife and I reside at 4400 Luna Trail. I am a
member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC).
This is the 46 th presentation by members of ACC to the city council and/or the GTAB since
January 14, 2014. These presentations have been in pursuit of the public participation rights
of our citizens regarding use of our federal tax funds for the Georgetown Municipal Airport
(GTU) as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The GTAB is charged to advise and assist the City Council on transportation issues including
the GTU. Such responsibility includes being the information ga teway between the city
government and the general public on GTU issues for council recommendations.
Nineteen months ago the ACC began its request for a hold on all federal funds for GTU
improvements pending provision of public participation as would be provided by
compliance of the city, TxDOT and FAA with the NEPA. As GTAB is aware, the GTU is a well
documented source of citizen complaints and opposition extending back in time to the
extension of Runway 18-36 and relocation of Lakeway Drive during the period of 1987 to
1991 up to the current time The principle core of citizen opposition to GTU “improvements”
in the past and present is the issue of expansion of aviation operations.
The GTAB and its staff have repeatedly over time sent to City Council GTU aviation operations
and land expansion recommendations on the basis of “safety” and “compliance with FAA or
TxDOT directives”. None of these recommendations has been submitted with
documentation of a single FAA safety inspection report or written d irective mandating a
single one of these recommendations. They have all been city plans and desires to market
the GTU for expansion of aviation operations. In addition, none of the federal grants
provided for GTU demonstrate NEPA compliance.
On issues regarding the GTU throughout the period from 1987 to the present time our city
leaders and staff have repeated their mantra in various forms to the citizenry and the press of
“we're not expanding anything”, “we're not extending runways”, and “all we're do ing is
some safety and maintenance for the boys”. It is past time for the city to drop the facade of
its GTU improvements and open GTAB meetings to full public vetting of its council GTU
recommendations
This most recent city request to TxDOT for 90% federal grants for “safety” improvements for
repairs to the two runways 11/29 and 18/36 in amount of $3,475,000 is a classic use of facade
and misleading of the public. All airport runways need routine maintenance. Repairing
surface cracks in both runways is a legitimate concern. Use of federal funds for such purpose
when in compliance with NEPA is justifiable. But repair costs on basis of staff's estimate for
repairing, marking and grooving of these surfaces to maintain their mutual design load
Page 42 of 115
carrying capabilities can be done for about 25% of the requested funding. The other near
75% of the requested cost is specifically for upgrading Runway 18/36 to accommodate a
whole new group of heavier and noisier aircraft waiting in the wings to be added to GTU's
expanded air fleet.
The GTAB and staff are well aware of the engineering characteristics of both runways as
described by the Airport Master Plan and the most recent FAA general aviation information
to owners and pilots. The general aviation users of G TU have adapted to these design
limitations of 30,000 pound single-wheel loads for Runway 18/36 and 12,500 pound single-
wheel loads for Runway 11/29. Most aircraft over 20,000 pounds gross weights use dual
wheels on each strut which spread their total wei ght over more pavement area and allow
heavier aircraft weights. The result of implementing the proposed upgrade to Runway 18/36
would enable a new group of dual wheel aircraft of weights up to 150,000 pounds to be
accommodated. Due to lack of full and complete public vetting of the background and
rationale for this most recent GTAB council recommendation, the public is unaware of the
expansion of aviation operations this proposed upgrade of Runway 18/36 would produce and
its detrimental impacts on existing homes, schools, churches, and business around and near
the GTU.
During the consideration of this recommendation by City Council at its June 23, 2015 meeting
no discussion of the added cost or adverse impacts of this requested upgrade of Runway
18/36 was provided by council members or staff other than statements by Mr. Polasek of
“nothing will be lengthening the runway or allowing bigger aircraft” and “this will just be
improving the pavement and runway quality”.
Mr. Chairman, in order to assure the general public that our city leaders stand by and warrant
their statements of no expansion of GTU aviation operations, it is requested that the GTAB
require staff to place an item on GTAB's September meeting agenda recommending to City
Council an ordinance permanently prohibiting any respective accommodations on Runways
18/36 and 11/29 of any aircraft of more than 30,000 and 12,500 pound single wheel loading
and any aviation operations in excess of 6,000 per month.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome any questions or comments.
Page 43 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the current contract with Avfuel
Corporation to supply aviation fuel (Jet-A and 100LL/Avgas) and services to the Georgetown
Municipal Airport, City of Georgetown, in the estimated annual amount of $2,600,000.00 – Russ
Volk, C.M., Airport Manager, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
In March of 2011 the City of Georgetown conducted a Request for Bids to furnish aviation fuel
products to the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). After an evaluation of submitted bids, Av
Fuel Corp.was selected to provide aviation fuel products to GTU.
The subsequent contract with Av Fuel allows for an initial 2 year contract with 3 additional option
years. Beginning 1 Oct 2015 is the last available option year on the current contract. Av Fuel
Corp.has expressed a desire to exercise this last option year of the contract. City staff also supports
with request.
If request for exercising option year is approved, city staff will establish a new purchase order for
upcoming fiscal year fuel purchases.
Airport staff is working in conjunction with city purchasing staff to prepare for the next round of
fuel bid requests. The plan is to advertise this request in March 2016 time frame.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$2,600,000
SUBMITTED BY:
Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
Page 44 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve application for Texas Aviation Partners to
operate as a General Fixed Base Operator (GFBO) at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. – Russ
Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
ITEM SUMMARY:
Texas Aviation Partners (TAP) has been hired for management of all hangars and office space
associated with airport ground leases of General Aviation American Bank of Texas (GAABT
Aviation Inc.). GAABT has two ground leases on the Georgetown Municipal Airport. Each of the
leases has a provision allowing for the sale of aviation fuel products.
GAABT and TAP have expressed the desire to establish an operation as a General Fixed Based
Operator (GFBO) at the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). Section 2 of the Airport Minimum
Standards identify the requirements to become a city approved GFBO at the airport.
TAP has submitted documentation explaining how they will comply with the Section 2
requirements of the Minimum Standards. This documentation is provided as an attachment to this
agenda item.
Section 2, paragraph C0-3 (10) requires that a GFBO lease at least four tie-down spaces for
itinerant aircraft. The airport has a limitation regarding available tie-down spaces available for
lease. Due to this limitation, TAP is unable to lease from the airport sufficient tie-down spaces as
required in this Section.
Section 2, paragraph CO-3 (5) requires that a pay or free telephone for use of the pilots be in full
view of the apron side of the terminal building. TAP is requesting that due to the prevalent use of
private cell phones, they not be required to install a land line based phone.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
TAP GFBO Application Ltrs Backup Material
Page 45 of 115
Page 46 of 115
Page 47 of 115
Page 48 of 115
Page 49 of 115
Page 50 of 115
Page 51 of 115
Page 52 of 115
Page 53 of 115
Page 54 of 115
Page 55 of 115
Page 56 of 115
Page 57 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation on a Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Flood
Protection Planning Contract -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Ed Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
In August 2014, Council was awarded a 50/50 cost sharing Flood Protection Planning grant by the TWDB
to study all of the major drainage basins within the city. That study is underway and results are expected in
late 2015/early 2016. Due to the large drainage area of the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River,
those basins were excluded from the 2014 study.
In 2015, the City applied for a second Flood Protection Planning Grant to include the North and South
Forks of the San Gabriel River. This application was in conjunction with pledged financial support from
Williamson County, Liberty Hill, and Leander since the planned study area includes much of their
regulatory areas.
The City's grant application was approved by the TWDB this summer. Their contract includes grant
reimbursement terms is being presented for Council consideration. As with the prior grant, this is
essentially a 50/50 reimbursement and the city will have to contract with an engineering firm to complete
the required drainage study.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total cost of the drainage study is estimated to be $700,000.
The TWDB will reimburse up to 50% or $332,500, whichever is less, of the total study costs. The $332,500
cap is slightly less than 50% reimbursement (actually 47.5), but still very generous. The reason for the
slight reduction from 50% by the TWDB was so that they could award additional grants to other entities
and stretch their available dollars.
In the next month or two, staff will negotiate interlocal agreements with the other participating entities for
contributions equal to their proportional share of the basin areas: Williamson County ($105,000), Leander
($40,000), and Liberty Hill ($7,500).
The city's maximum net out of pocket cost is expected to be $215,000.
The city has budgeted $550,000 in next years Drainage Capital Improvement Plan to fund our share of the
costs.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
TWDB Grant Contracts Backup Material
TWDB - San Gabriel Drainage Exhibit
Page 58 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section I, Page 1 of 2
STATE OF TEXAS TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
COUNTY OF TRAVIS Research and Planning Fund
Flood Protection Planning
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
THIS Contract, (hereinafter "CONTRACT"), between the Texas Water Development Board
(hereinafter "TWDB") and the CONTRACTOR (hereinafter "CONTRACTOR"), is composed of
two parts, SECTION I - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE STANDARD
AGREEMENT and SECTION II - STANDARD AGREEMENT.
SECTION I - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO
STANDARD AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this CONTRACT, the following terms or phrases shall have the meaning
ascribed therewith:
1. TWDB - The Texas Water Development Board, or its designated representative
2. CONTRACTOR – City of Georgetown
3. EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR - The Executive Administrator of the TWDB or a
designated representative
4. PARTICIPANT(S) – Cities of Georgetown, Leander and Liberty Hill, and Williamson
County
5. REQUIRED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT(S) – N/A
6. TWDB APPROVAL DATE –July 2, 2015
7. PLANNING AREA – Flood Protection Planning The project area is more specifically
defined in Exhibit A (the original grant application).
8. DEADLINE FOR CONTRACT EXECUTION – October 14, 2015
9. CONTRACT INITIATION DATE –July 2, 2015
10. STUDY COMPLETION DATE – December 31, 2017
11. EXPIRATION DATE– May 31, 2018
Page 59 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section I, Page 2 of 2
12. TOTAL STUDY COSTS – $700,000.00
13. TWDB SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS- the lesser of $332,500.00 or 50
percent of the total study costs.
14. LOCAL SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS - $367,500.00 in cash and/or in-kind
contributions or 50 percent of the total study costs.
15. PAYMENT REQUEST SCHEDULE –Quarterly
16. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO STANDARD
AGREEMENT OF THIS CONTRACT – N/A
Page 60 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 1 of 14
SECTION II - STANDARD AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I RECITALS
Whereas, the CONTRACTOR applied to the TWDB, Austin, Texas for a planning grant to
develop a flood protection plan;
Whereas, the CONTRACTOR and PARTICIPANT will commit cash and/or in-kind services to
pay for the LOCAL SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS of this planning project;
Whereas, the CONTRACTOR is the entity who will act as administrator of the TWDB's
planning grant and will be responsible for the execution of this CONTRACT;
Whereas, on the TWDB APPROVAL DATE, the Texas Water Development Board approved the
CONTRACTOR’s application for financial assistance;
Now, therefore, the TWDB and the CONTRACTOR, agree as follows:
ARTICLE II PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
1. The TWDB enters into this CONTRACT pursuant to Water Code §15.405, Subchapter
A; EXHIBIT A, ORIGINAL GRANT APPLICATION; EXHIBIT B, SCOPE OF
WORK; EXHIBIT C, TASK AND EXPENSE BUDGETS; EXHIBIT D,
GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS SUBMITTING CONTRACT REPORTS TO THE
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, and EXHIBIT E, TWDB GUIDELINES
FOR A PROGRESS REPORT which are incorporated herein and made a permanent part
of this CONTRACT; and this CONTRACT.
2. The CONTRACTOR will prepare a flood protection plan for the PLANNING AREA, as
delineated and described in EXHIBIT A, according to the Scope of Work contained in
EXHIBIT B.
3. The CONTRACTOR shall establish formal, direct, and continuous liaisons with all cities,
counties, councils of governments, river authorities, and all applicable state agencies,
districts, federal agencies, including the appropriate project directors of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and other governmental entities having flood protection
responsibility within the PLANNING AREA, and community leaders in the PLANNING
AREA for the purpose of coordinating the scope of work and flood protection plan with
all existing studies, plans, or activities for the purpose of providing information and
obtaining available data for the development of the flood protection plan. The planning
will be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program and all relevant flooding and drainage protection studies and
activities, which will also be reviewed as information for the development of this flood
protection plan. It will also be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR to solicit
comments from the general public as to the content of this flood protection planning
Page 61 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 2 of 14
project.
4. The CONTRACTOR will coordinate the flood protection plan with the existing plans and
policies of the entities listed above, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), and any other affected entities.
5. The CONTRACTOR will hold public meetings with the PARTICIPANTS, consultants,
local entities, the TWDB, and any interested parties, to describe the planning study and to
solicit input and comments from the affected public. The public meetings shall be
conducted in accordance with the Texas Open Meeting Act and held as determined by the
CONTRACTOR and TWDB; but at a minimum, at the commencement of the study, near
the mid-point of the study, and upon completion of the draft final report. Input and
comments received from the public shall be considered for incorporation into the final
report.
ARTICLE III CONTRACT TERM, SCHEDULE, REPORTS, AND OTHER
PRODUCTS
1. The CONTRACTOR has until the DEADLINE FOR CONTRACT EXECUTION to
execute this CONTRACT and to provide acceptable evidence of any REQUIRED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS and the CONTRACTOR’s ability to provide the
LOCAL SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS, if applicable, to the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR for approval or the TWDB's SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY
COSTS will be rescinded.
2. The term of this CONTRACT shall begin and the CONTRACTOR shall begin
performing its obligations hereunder on the CONTRACT INITIATION DATE and shall
expire on the EXPIRATION DATE. Delivery of an acceptable final report prior to the
EXPIRATION DATE shall constitute completion of the terms of this CONTRACT.
3. A progress report, including results to date, will be provided to the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR according to the PAYMENT REQUEST SCHEDULE throughout
the project. Special interim reports on special topics and/or results will be provided as
appropriate. Instructions for the progress report are shown in EXHIBIT E, TWDB
GUIDELINES FOR A PROGRESS REPORT.
4. The CONTRACTOR will complete the SCOPE OF WORK (EXHIBIT B) and will
deliver four (4) double-sided copies of a draft final report, two (2) electronic copies of the
entire draft final report (one in Portable Document Format (PDF) and one in Microsoft
Word format) to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR no later than the STUDY
COMPLETION DATE. The draft final report will include the Scope of Work; a
description of the research performed; the methodology and materials used; any diagrams
or graphics used to explain the procedures related to the study; any data collected; an
electronic copy of any computer programs, maps, or models along with an operations
manual and any sample data set(s) developed under the terms of this CONTRACT;
Page 62 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 3 of 14
analysis of the research results; conclusions and recommendations; a List of References, a
Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, an Executive Summary, and any other
pertinent information. All final reports should be prepared according to EXHIBIT D,
GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS SUBMITTING CONTRACT REPORTS TO THE
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. After a 45-day review period, the
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR will return review comments to the CONTRACTOR.
5. The CONTRACTOR will consider incorporating comments from the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR and other commentors on the draft final report into a final report.
The CONTRACTOR will include a copy of the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR’s
comments in the final report. The CONTRACTOR will submit one (1) electronic copy of
the entire FINAL REPORT in Portable Document Format (PDF) and seven (7) bound
double-sided copies of the final report to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR no later
than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the STUDY COMPLETION DATE. The
CONTRACTOR will submit one (1) electronic copy of any computer programs or models
and an operations manual developed under the terms of this CONTRACT. In compliance
with Texas Administrative Code, Title 1, Part 10, Chapters 206 and 213 (related to
Accessibility and Usability of State Web Sites), the digital copy of the final report will
comply with the requirements and standards specified in statute. After a 30-day review
period, the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR will either accept or reject the final report.
If the final report is rejected, the rejection letter sent to the CONTRACTOR shall state the
reasons for rejection and the steps the CONTRACTOR need to take to have the final
report accepted and the retainage released. An extension of the CONTRACT will be
prepared if necessary to allow time for the CONTRACTOR to resubmit the FINAL
REPORT.
6. The EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR can extend the STUDY COMPLETION DATE
and the EXPIRATION DATE upon written approval. The CONTRACTOR should notify
the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR in writing within ten (10) working days prior to
the COMPLETION DATE or thirty (30) days prior to the EXPIRATION DATE that the
CONTRACTOR is requesting an extension to the respective dates.
ARTICLE IV COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT AND REPAYMENT
1. The TWDB agrees to compensate and reimburse the CONTRACTOR in a total amount
not to exceed the TWDB's SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS for costs incurred
and paid by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to performance of this CONTRACT. The
CONTRACTOR will contribute local matching funds, if applicable, in sources and
amounts defined as the LOCAL SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS. The TWDB
shall reimburse the CONTRACTOR for ninety percent (90%) of the TWDB's share of
each invoice pending the CONTRACTOR’s performance, completion of a Final Report,
and written acceptance of said Final Report
Page 63 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 4 of 14
by the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, at which time the TWDB shall pay the
retained ten percent (10%) to the CONTRACTOR.
2. The CONTRACTOR shall submit payment requests and documentation for
reimbursement billing according to the PAYMENT REQUEST SCHEDULE and in
accordance with the approved task and expense budgets contained in EXHIBIT C of this
CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR has budget flexibility within task and expense
budget categories to the extent that the resulting change in amount in any one task or
expense category does not exceed 35% of the total amount for the task or category as
authorized by this CONTRACT. Larger deviations shall require approval by the
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR or designee which will be documented through an
Approved Budget Memorandum to the TWDB contract file. The CONTRACTOR will
be required to provide written explanation for the overage and reallocation of the task and
expense amounts.
For all reimbursement requests, including any subcontractor's expenses, the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR must have determined that the REQUIRED INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT(S) and contracts or agreements between the CONTRACTOR and the
subcontractors are consistent with the terms of this CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR
is fully responsible for paying all charges by subcontractors prior to reimbursement by the
TWDB.
3. The CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall maintain satisfactory financial
accounting documents and records, including copies of invoices and receipts, and shall
make them available for examination and audit by the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR. Accounting by the CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall be
in a manner consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
4. By executing this CONTRACT, the CONTRACTOR accepts the authority of the State
Auditor's Office, under direction of the legislative audit committee, to conduct audits and
investigations in connection with any and all state funds received pursuant to this
CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with and cooperate in any such
investigation or audit. The CONTRACTOR agrees to provide the State Auditor with
access to any information the State Auditor considers relevant to the investigation or
audit. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to include a provision in any subcontracts related
to this contract that requires the subcontractors to submit to audits and investigation by
the State Auditor's Office in connection with any and all state funds received pursuant to
the subcontracts.
5. The CONTRACTOR shall provide to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR written
documentation of the TOTAL STUDY COSTS for the reporting period for
reimbursement by the TWDB to the CONTRACTOR for the TWDB's SHARE OF THE
TOTAL STUDY COSTS (Written documentation shall be submitted even if the TOTAL
STUDY COSTS for the period is ZERO). The CONTRACTOR shall submit the
following:
Page 64 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 5 of 14
a. Completed and Signed Payment Request Checklist which includes the following:
i. TWDB CONTRACT Number;
ii. Billing period; beginning (date) to ending (date);
iii. Total Expenses for this period;
iv. Total In-kind services;
v. Less Local Share of the total study costs for the billing period;
vi. Total TWDB's share of the total study costs for the billing period;
vii. Amount of retainage to be withheld for the billing period;
viii. Total costs to be reimbursed by the TWDB for the billing period; and
ix. Certification, signed by the CONTRACTOR’s authorized representative,
that the expenses submitted for the billing period are a true and correct
representation of amounts paid for work performed directly related to this
CONTRACT.
b. For direct expenses incurred by the CONTRACTOR other than subcontracted
work:
i. A spreadsheet showing the tasks that were performed; the percent and cost
of each task completed; a total cost figure for each direct expense category
including labor, fringe, overhead, travel, and other expenses; and
ii. Copies of detailed, itemized invoices/receipts for other expenses (credit
card summary receipts or statements are not acceptable)
c. For direct expenses incurred by the CONTRACTOR for subcontracted work:
i. Copies of invoices from the subcontractors to the CONTRACTOR and
proof of payment;
ii. A spreadsheet showing the tasks that were performed; the percent and cost
of each task completed; a total cost figure for each direct expense category
including labor, fringe, overhead, travel, and other expenses; and
iii. Copies of detailed, itemized invoices/receipts for other expenses (credit
card summary receipts or statements are not acceptable)
d. For travel expenses for the CONTRACTOR and/or subcontractors –
i. Names, dates, work locations, time periods at work locations, itemization
of subsistence expenses of each employee, limited, however, to travel
expenses authorized for state employees by the General Appropriations
Act, Tex. Leg. Regular Session, 2013, Article IX, Part 5, as amended or
superceded. Receipts required for lodging;
ii. Copies of invoices or receipts for transportation costs or, if mileage costs,
names, dates, and points of travel of individuals; and
iii. All other reimbursable travel expenses -- invoices or purchase vouchers
showing reason for expense with receipts to evidence the amount incurred.
e. A progress report as described in Article III, Paragraph 3.
6. Reimbursement Requests that lack required documentation will be denied or short paid if
deficiencies are not resolved within ten (10) business days. Denied Reimbursement
Requests or eligible expenses that were short paid must be resubmitted by the
CONTRACTOR with the required documentation to be reconsidered for reimbursement.
Page 65 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 6 of 14
7. If for some reason the reimbursement request cannot be processed due to the need for an
amendment to the CONTRACT, the CONTRACTOR will be required to resubmit the
Payment Request Checklist dated after the execution of the amendment.
8. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for any food or entertainment expenses incurred by
its own organization or that of its subcontractors, outside that of eligible travel expenses
authorized and approved by the State of Texas under this CONTRACT.
9. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for submitting any final payment request and
documentation for reimbursement, along with a request to release any retained funds, no
later than 120 days following the EXPIRATION DATE. Failure to submit a timely final
payment request may result in the release of the retained funds to the CONTRACTOR
and a lapse and closure of any other remaining funding under this CONTRACT.
ARTICLE V INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: OWNERSHIP, PUBLICATION,
AND ACKNOWLEGEMENT
1. “For purposes of this Article, “CONTRACTOR Works” are work products developed by
the CONTRACTOR and subcontractors using funds provided under this CONTRACT or
otherwise rendered in or related to the performance in whole or part of this CONTRACT,
including but not limited to reports, drafts of reports, or other material, data, drawings,
studies, analyses, notes, plans, computer programs and codes, or other work products,
whether final or intermediate.
a. It is agreed that all CONTRACTOR Works shall be the joint property of the
TWDB and the CONTRACTOR.
b. The parties hereby agree that, if recognized as such by applicable law, the
CONTRACTOR Works are intended to and shall be works-made-for-hire with
joint ownership between the TWDB and the CONTRACTOR as such works are
created in whole or part.
c. If the CONTRACTOR Works do not qualify as works-made-for-hire under
applicable law, the CONTRACTOR hereby conveys co-ownership of such works
to the TWDB as they are created in whole or part. If present conveyance is
ineffective under applicable law, the CONTRACTOR agree to convey a co-
ownership interest of the CONTRACTOR Works to the TWDB after creation in
whole or part of such works, and to provide written documentation of such
conveyance upon request by the TWDB.
d. The TWDB and the CONTRACTOR acknowledge that the copyright in and to a
copyrightable CONTRACTOR Works subsists upon creation of the
CONTRACTOR Works and its fixing in any tangible medium. The
CONTRACTOR or the TWDB may register the copyrights to such Works jointly
in the names of the CONTRACTOR and the TWDB.
e. The TWDB and the CONTRACTOR each shall have full and unrestricted rights
to use a CONTRACTOR Works with No Compensation Obligation.
Page 66 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 7 of 14
2. For purposes of this Article, “Subcontractor Works” include all work product developed
in whole or part by or on behalf of subcontractors engaged by the CONTRACTOR to
perform work for or on behalf of any CONTRACTOR under this CONTRACT (or by the
subcontractor’s subcontractors hereunder, and so on). The CONTRACTOR shall secure
in writing from any subcontractor so engaged:
a. Unlimited, unrestricted, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free rights of the TWDB
and, if desired, of the CONTRACTOR to access and receive, and to use, any and
all technical or other data or information developed in or resulting from the
performance of services under such engagement, with No Compensation
Obligation; and either
b. Assignment by the subcontractors to the TWDB and, if desired by them, jointly to
the CONTRACTOR of ownership (or joint ownership with the subcontractors) of
all Subcontractor Works, with No Compensation Obligation; or
c. Subcontractors must grant a non-exclusive, unrestricted, unlimited, perpetual,
irrevocable, world-wide, royalty-free license to the TWDB and, if desired by
them, the CONTRACTOR may use any and all Subcontractor Works, including
the right to sublicense use to third parties, with No Compensation Obligation.
3. “Use” of a work product, whether a CONTRACTOR Works, a Subcontractor Works or
otherwise, shall mean and include, without limitation hereby, any lawful use, copying or
dissemination of the work product, or any lawful development, use, copying or
dissemination of derivative works of the work product, in any media or forms, whether
now known or later existing.
4. “No Compensation Obligation” shall mean there is no obligation on the part of one co-
owner or licensee of a work, whether a CONTRACTOR Works, a Subcontractor Works
or otherwise, to compensate other co-owners, licensees or licensors of the work for any
use of the work by the using co-owner or licensee, including but not limited to
compensation for or in the form of: royalties; co-owner or licensee accounting; sharing of
revenues or profits among co-owners, licensees or licensors; or any other form of
compensation to the other co-owners, licensees or licensors on account of any use of the
work.
5. “Dissemination” shall include, without limitation hereby, any and all manner of: physical
distribution; publication; broadcast; electronic transmission; internet streaming; posting
on the Internet or World Wide Web; or any other form of communication, transmission,
distribution, sending or providing, in any forms or formats, and in or using any media,
whether now known or later existing.
6. The TWDB shall have an unlimited, unrestricted, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive
royalty-free right to access and receive in usable form and format, and to use all technical
or other data or information developed by the CONTRACTOR and subcontractors in, or
otherwise resulting from, the performance of services under this CONTRACT.
Page 67 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 8 of 14
7. No unauthorized patents. The CONTRACTOR Works and Subcontractor Works or other
work product developed or created in the performance of this CONTRACT or otherwise
using funds provided hereunder shall not be patented by the CONTRACTOR or their
subcontractors unless the Executive Administrator consents in writing to submission of
an application for patent on such works; and provided that, unless otherwise agreed in
writing:
a. Any application made for patent shall include and name the TWDB and, as
applicable and desired by them, the CONTRACTOR as co-owners of the patented
work;
b. No patent granted shall in any way limit, or be used by the CONTRACTOR or
subcontractors to limit or bar the TWDB’s rights hereunder to access and receive
in useable form and format, and right to use, any and all technical or other data or
information developed in or resulting from performance pursuant to this
CONTRACT or the use of funds provided hereunder; and
c. The TWDB and, if applicable, the CONTRACTOR shall have no compensation
obligation to any other co-owners or licensees of any such patented work, unless
otherwise expressly agreed in writing.
8. The CONTRACTOR shall include terms and conditions in all contracts or other
engagement agreements with any subcontractors as are necessary to secure these rights
and protections for the TWDB; and shall require that their subcontractors include similar
such terms and conditions in any contracts or other engagements with their
subcontractors. For the purposes of this section, “subcontractors” includes independent
contractors (including consultants) and employees working outside the course and scope
of employment.
9. Any work products subject to a TWDB copyright or joint copyright and produced or
developed by the CONTRACTOR or their subcontractors pursuant to this CONTRACT
or using any funding provided by the TWDB may be reproduced in any media, forms or
formats by the TWDB or the CONTRACTOR at their own cost, and be disseminated in
any medium, format or form by any party at its sole cost and in its sole discretion. The
CONTRACTOR may utilize such work products as they may deem appropriate, including
dissemination of such work products or parts thereof under their own name, provided that
any TWDB copyright is noted on the materials.
10. The CONTRACTOR agrees to acknowledge the TWDB in any news releases or other
publications relating to the work performed under this CONTRACT.
ARTICLE VI AMENDMENT, TERMINATION, AND STOP ORDERS
1. This CONTRACT may be altered or amended by mutual written consent or terminated by
the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR at any time by written notice to the
CONTRACTOR. Upon receipt of such termination notice, the CONTRACTOR shall,
unless the notice directs otherwise, immediately discontinue all work in connection with
the performance of this CONTRACT and shall proceed to cancel promptly all existing
Page 68 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 9 of 14
orders insofar as such orders are chargeable to this CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR
shall submit a statement showing in detail the work performed under this CONTRACT to
the date of termination. The TWDB shall then pay the CONTRACTOR promptly that
proportion of the prescribed fee, which applies to the work, actually performed under this
CONTRACT, less all payments that have been previously made. Thereupon, copies of all
work accomplished under this CONTRACT shall be delivered to the TWDB.
2. The EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR may issue a Stop Work Order to the
CONTRACTOR at any time. Upon receipt of such order, the CONTRACTOR shall
discontinue all work under this CONTRACT and cancel all orders pursuant to this
CONTRACT, unless the order directs otherwise. If the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR does not issue a Restart Order within 60 days after receipt by the
CONTRACTOR of the Stop Work Order, the CONTRACTOR shall regard this
CONTRACT terminated in accordance with the foregoing provisions.
ARTICLE VII SUBCONTRACTS
Each subcontract entered into to perform required work under this CONTRACT shall contain the
following provisions:
1. a detailed budget estimate with specific cost details for each task or specific item of work
to be performed by the subcontractor and for each category of reimbursable expenses;
2. a clause stating that the subcontract is subject to audit by the Texas State Auditor’s Office
and requiring the subcontractor to cooperate with any request for information from the
Texas State Auditor, as further described in Article X, Section 1, Paragraph d hereof;
3. a clause stating that payments under the subcontract are contingent upon the appropriation
of funds by the Texas Legislature, as further described in Article X, Section 1,
Paragraph a hereof;
4. a clause stating that ownership of data, materials and work papers, in any media, that is
gathered, compiled, adapted for use, or generated by the subcontractor or the
CONTRACTOR shall become data, materials and work owned by the TWDB and that
subcontractor shall have no proprietary rights in such data, materials and work papers,
except as further described in Article V hereof;
5. a clause stating that subcontractor shall keep timely and accurate books and records of
accounts according to generally acceptable accounting principles as further described in
Article X, Section 2, Paragraph g;
6. a clause stating that subcontractor is solely responsible for securing all required licenses
and permits from local, state and federal governmental entities and that subcontractor is
Page 69 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 10 of 14
solely responsible for obtaining sufficient insurance in accordance with the general
standards and practices of the industry or governmental entity; and
7. a clause stating that subcontractor is an independent contractor and that the TWDB shall
have no liability resulting from any failure of subcontractor that results in breach of
CONTRACT, property damage, personal injury or death.
ARTICLE VIII LICENSES, PERMIT, AND INSURANCE
1. For the purpose of this CONTRACT, the CONTRACTOR will be considered an
independent contractor and therefore solely responsible for liability resulting from
negligent acts or omissions. The CONTRACTOR shall obtain all necessary insurance,
in the judgment of the CONTRACTOR, to protect themselves, the TWDB, and
employees and officials of the TWDB from liability arising out of this CONTRACT.
2. The CONTRACTOR shall be solely and entirely responsible for procuring all appropriate
licenses and permits, which may be required by any competent authority for the
CONTRACTOR to perform the subject work.
3. Indemnification. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold the TWDB and the State
of Texas harmless, to the extent the CONTRACTOR may do so in accordance with state
law, from any and all losses, damages, liability, or claims therefore, on account of
personal injury, death, or property damage of any nature whatsoever caused by the
CONTRACTOR, arising out of the activities and work conducted pursuant to this
CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR is solely responsible for liability arising out of its
negligent acts or omissions during the performance of this CONTRACT. This agreement
does not create any third party cause of action and the CONTRACTOR does not waive
any immunity available under state law.
ARTICLE IX SEVERABILITY
Should any one or more provisions of this CONTRACT be held to be null, void, voidable, or for
any reason whatsoever, of no force and effect, such provision(s) shall be construed as severable
from the remainder of this CONTRACT and shall not affect the validity of all other provisions of
this CONTRACT which shall remain of full force and effect.
ARTICLE X GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL TERMS
a. No Debt Against the State. This CONTRACT does not create any debt by or on
behalf of the State of Texas and the TWDB. The TWDB’s obligations under this
CONTRACT are contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds and the
continued legal authority of the TWDB to enter into this CONTRACT.
Page 70 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 11 of 14
b. Independent Contractor. Both parties hereto, in the performance of this
CONTRACT, shall act in an individual capacity and not as agents, employees,
partners, joint ventures or associates of one another. The employees or agents of
one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees or agents of the
other party for any purposes whatsoever.
c. Procurement Laws. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with applicable State of
Texas procurement laws, rules and policies, including but not limited to
competitive bidding and the Professional Services Procurement Act, Government
Code, Chapter 2254, relating to contracting with persons whose services are
within the scope of practice of: accountants, architects, landscape architects, land
surveyors, medical doctors, optometrists, professional engineers, real estate
appraisers, professional nurses, and certified public accountants.
d. Right to Audit. The CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall maintain all
financial accounting documents and records, including copies of all invoices and
receipts for expenditures, relating to the work under this CONTRACT. The
CONTRACTOR shall make such documents and records available for
examination and audit by the Executive Administrator or any other authorized
entity of the State of Texas. The CONTRACTOR’s financial accounting
documents and records shall be kept and maintained in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. By executing this CONTRACT, the
CONTRACTOR accepts the authority of the Texas State Auditor's Office to
conduct audits and investigations in connection with all state funds received
pursuant to this CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with directives
from the Texas State Auditor and shall cooperate in any such investigation or
audit. The CONTRACTOR agrees to provide the Texas State Auditor with access
to any information the Texas State Auditor considers relevant to the investigation
or audit. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to include a provision in any
subcontract related to this CONTRACT that requires the subcontractor to submit
to audits and investigation by the State Auditor's Office in connection with all
state funds received pursuant to the subcontract.
e. Force Majeure. Unless otherwise provided, neither the CONTRACTOR nor the
TWDB nor any agency of the State of Texas, shall be liable to the other for any
delay in, or failure of performance, of a requirement contained in this
CONTRACT caused by force majeure. The existence of such causes of delay or
failure shall extend the period of performance until after the causes of delay or
failure have been removed provided the non-performing party exercises all
reasonable due diligence to perform. Force majeure is defined as acts of God,
war, strike, fires, explosions, or other causes that are beyond the reasonable
control of either party and that by exercise of due foresight such party could not
reasonably have been expected to avoid, and which, by the exercise of all
reasonable due diligence, such party is unable to overcome. Each party must
Page 71 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 12 of 14
inform the other in writing with proof of receipt within five (5) business days of
the existence of such force majeure or otherwise waive this right as a defense.
d. E-verify. The parties understand and agree that the CONTRACTOR shall be
required to utilize the United States Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify
system to determine the eligibility of all persons employed during the contract
term to perform duties within the State of Texas, as well as all persons (including
any subcontractors) assigned by the CONTRACTOR to perform work pursuant to
this Agreement.
2. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
a. Personnel. The CONTRACTOR shall assign only qualified personnel to perform
the services required under this CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR shall be
responsible for ensuring that any subcontractor utilized shall also assign only
qualified personnel. Qualified personnel are persons who are properly licensed to
perform the work and who have sufficient knowledge, skills and ability to perform
the tasks and services required herein according to the standards of performance
and care for their trade or profession.
b. Professional Standards. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the services and
deliverables in accordance with applicable professional standards. The
CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that he is authorized to acquire
subcontractors with the requisite qualifications, experience, personnel and other
resources to perform in the manner required by this CONTRACT.
c. Antitrust. The CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that neither the
CONTRACTOR nor any firm, corporation, partnership, or institution represented
by the CONTRACTOR, or anyone acting for such firm, corporation, partnership,
or institution has (1) violated the antitrust laws of the State of Texas under the
Texas Business & Commerce Code, Chapter 15, of the federal antitrust laws; or
(2) communicated directly or indirectly the proposal resulting in this CONTRACT
to any competitor or other person engaged in such line of business during the
procurement process for this CONTRACT.
d. Conflict of Interest. The CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that
CONTRACTOR has no actual or potential conflicts of interest in providing the
deliverables required by this CONTRACT to the State of Texas and the TWDB.
The CONTRACTOR represents that the provision of services under this
CONTRACT will not create an appearance of impropriety. The CONTRACTOR
also represents and warrants that, during the term of this CONTRACT, the
CONTRACTOR will immediately notify the TWDB, in writing, of any potential
conflict of interest that could adversely affect the TWDB by creating the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
Page 72 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 13 of 14
The CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that neither the CONTRACTOR
nor any person or entity that will participate financially in this CONTRACT has
received compensation from the TWDB or any agency of the State of Texas for
participation in the preparation of specifications for this CONTRACT. The
CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that he has not given, offered to give,
and does not intend to give at any time hereafter, any economic opportunity,
future employment, gift, loan, gratuity, special discount, trip, favor or service to
any public servant in connection with this CONTRACT.
e. Proprietary and Confidential Information. The CONTRACTOR warrants and
represents that any information that is proprietary or confidential, and is received
by the CONTRACTOR from the TWDB or any governmental entity, shall not be
disclosed to third parties without the written consent of the TWDB or applicable
governmental entity, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
f. Public Information Act. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that all
documents, in any media, generated in the performance of work conducted under
this CONTRACT are subject to public disclosure under the Public Information
Act, Government Code, Chapter 552. The CONTRACTOR shall produce all
documents upon request of the TWDB within two (2) business days when the
documents are required to comply with a request for information under the Public
Information Act.
g. Accurate and Timely Record Keeping. The CONTRACTOR warrants and
represents that CONTRACTOR will keep timely, accurate and honest books and
records relating to the work performed and the payments received under this
CONTRACT according to generally accepted accounting standards. Further, the
CONTRACTOR agrees that the CONTRACTOR will create such books and
records at or about the time the transaction reflected in the books and records
occurs.
h. Dispute Resolution. The CONTRACTOR and the TWDB agree to make a good
faith effort to resolve any dispute relating to the work required under this
CONTRACT through negotiation and mediation as provided by Texas
Government Code, Chapter 2260 relating to resolution of certain contract claims
against the state. The CONTRACTOR and the TWDB further agree that they
shall attempt to use any method of alternative dispute resolution mutually agreed
upon to resolve any dispute arising under this CONTRACT if this CONTRACT is
not subject to Chapter 2260.
i. Contract Administration. The TWDB shall designate a project manager for this
CONTRACT. The project manager will serve as the point of contact between the
TWDB and the CONTRACTOR. The TWDB’s project manager shall supervise
the TWDB’s review of the CONTRACTOR’s technical work, deliverables, draft
reports, the final report, payment requests, schedules, financial and budget
Page 73 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Section II, Page 14 of 14
administration, and similar matters. The project manager does not have any
express or implied authority to vary the terms of the CONTRACT, amend the
CONTRACT in any way or waive strict performance of the terms or conditions of
the CONTRACT.
ARTICLE XI CORRESPONDENCE
All correspondence between the parties shall be made to the following addresses:
For the TWDB:
Contract Issues:
Texas Water Development Board
Attention: Contract Administration
P.O. Box 13231
Austin, Texas 78711-3231
Email: contracts@twdb.texas.gov
Payment Request Submission:
Texas Water Development Board
Attention: Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 13231
Austin, Texas 78711-3231
Email: invoice@twdb.texas.gov
Physical Address:
Stephen F. Austin State Office Building
1700 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
For the CONTRACTOR:
Contract Issues:
Wesley Wright, P.E
Systems Engineering Director
300-1 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Email:Wesley.wright@georgetown.org
Payment Request Submission:
La’Mar Kemp
Finance Representative
113 E. 8th St.
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Email:la’mar.kemp@georgetown.org
Physical Address:
Georgetown Utility Systems
300-1 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, Texas 78627
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this CONTRACT to be duly executed in
multiple originals.
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Kevin Patteson
Executive Administrator
Date: ___________________________
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Dale Ross
Mayor
Date: ___________________________
Page 74 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 90
EXHIBIT A
ORIGINAL GRANT APPLICATION
Page 75 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT B
SCOPE OF WORK
Page 76 of 115
Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant
Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of
North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River
City of Georgetown
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 2 of 7
A detailed scope of work for proposed planning.
Through this grant application, the City of Georgetown (COG) and the participating communities
desire to complete a study of the main North Fork & South Fork San Gabriel River and the San
Gabriel River from the confluence of the North & South Forks to the COG ETJ boundary line to
identify existing and future flood prone areas and develop a watershed storm water management
plan to mitigate the flood problems. The objective of the proposed planning effort is to provide
the participating communities with accurate assessment of the hydrologic and hydraulic
conditions of the subject watersheds and streams, and a practical storm water management plan
to address the critical flooding problems, as well as provide the participating entities an important
tool to manage growth and development.
A detailed description of the proposed planning study scope of work is presented as follows:
a) Collection and Review of Baseline Information
COG, the participating communities and its designated consultant will collect and review
previous drainage studies, the previous Master Drainage Plan, FEMA Flood Insurance Study
(FIS) and maps, FEMA LOMRs, master plan development (e.g. Sun City and MUDs) drainage
studies and reports, citizen drainage complaint reports, Tropical Storm Hermine damage
reports, Thunderstorm 6/27/2007 reports and other available drainage reports of the
proposed planning area.
COG and the participating communities will conduct a kick-off meeting with its designated
consultant, TWDB project manager and the representatives from the participating entities.
The kick-off meeting will cover the following topics:
Project communication & reporting responsibilities – establish the frequency and method
of COG’s designated consultant interface with TWDB project manager, COG project
manager and the representatives from the participating entities;
Project milestone and schedule; and
Project deliverables at each milestone.
b) Development of a Base Map
COG and its designated consultant will develop a base map using the following information:
Current FEMA FIS and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Digital GIS data of parcels, zoning maps, current and future land use maps and soils maps;
As-builts drawings for channel and bridge/culvert improvements;
Most current LiDAR topography; and
Approved LOMRs since the 2008 FIRM update.
c) Assessment of Environmental Constraints
Page 77 of 115
Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant
Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of
North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River
City of Georgetown
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 3 of 7
A majority of the proposed planning area is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone
and its Transition Zone. This project will include a record review and data research of Critical
Environmental Features (CEF) previously identified by the City of Georgetown and the
participating communities. CEF is generally defined as springs, bluffs, canyon rimrocks, caves,
sinkholes & recharge features and wetlands.
This task will not include detailed field survey, investigation and determination of CEFs, but
rather will establish the framework for the requirements of environmental assessment during
the implementation and final design phase of the flood mitigation measures.
d) Initial Identification of Flood Problem Areas
Based on the previous Master Drainage Plan, flooding complaint list, Tropical Storm Hermine
Damage Reports, Thunderstorm 6/27/2007 Reports and other available flooding reports, the
flooding problem areas will be identified. COG and the participating communities will
conduct public meetings to solicit input on the drainage problem areas including the specifics
and nature of the flooding. COG and participating communities will prepare a brief
preliminary finding report on the Tasks a) through d) findings.
e) Perform Field Survey
COG will utilize the LiDAR data to be flown in the “leaf off” conditions in 2015 for the portion
of the proposed planning area within the COG city and ETJ limits. For the area outside of the
COG city and ETJ limits, the most recent LiDAR data will be used. COG’s consultant will
perform field reconnaissance to verify this data. In addition, this grant application has
included field survey budget (approximately $65,000) to pick up on-the-ground survey data for
critical regional detention facilities, bridge/culvert crossings, cross sections and finished floor
elevations.
f) Develop Hydrologic Model
COG’s consultant will develop GIS geo-referenced hydrologic models using the Corps of
Engineers HEC-HMS computer program, along with the preprocessor HEC-GeoHMS. COG and
its consultant will develop the Existing Condition and Ultimate Condition hydrologic runoff
models. The Ultimate Condition will be based on the adopted COG 2030 Plan land use and
zoning designations, Williamson County future development plan and projected development
plans from the participating communities. The following information will be incorporated into
the HEC-HMS models:
Regional detention facilities;
FEMA LOMR hydrologic models; and
Other large scale storm water impoundment facilities (more than 20 acres in surface
area) such as Lake Georgetown, SCS Dam or retention/stock ponds.
Page 78 of 115
Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant
Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of
North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River
City of Georgetown
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 4 of 7
The hydrologic model input parameters will be developed based on the following approach;
Rainfall data – The latest USGS 24-hour design storm with Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Type III distribution will be used. The 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-
and 500-year frequency storm events will be modeled.
Drainage Area – To insure consistency in the peak time computation within the HEC-
HMS model, the subarea size for rural area will be divided to close to 5 square miles but
will not exceed 8 square miles. The subarea size for urban area will be divided to close
to 0.5 square mile but will not be less than 0.25 square mile.
Time of Concentration – The TR-55 equations for estimating the time of concentration
for sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel/storm drain flow will be used.
For rural area, sheet flow length will not exceed 200 feet. For urban area, sheet flow
length shall not exceed 100 feet.
Runoff Curve Number – The Runoff Curve Number (CN) for each sub-basin will be
computed based on procedures outlined in the NRCS TR-55 publication. Two sets of CN
values will be developed for each sub-basin, the existing condition and the ultimate
development condition. The existing condition CN will be computed based on latest
existing land-use condition data. The ultimate development condition CN will be
computed based on the 2030 COG Comprehensive Plan land-use condition data and the
available participating communities future development plans. The latest NRCS Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Williamson County and Burnet County shall
be used for soil type determination. For rural and sparsely populated sub-basins, the
COG consultant will use the best engineering judgment to determine the ultimate land
use condition CN values.
The hydrologic model will be calibrated to peak discharges recorded during historic storm
events prior to computing peak flows for hypothetical storm events. In particular, COG and
Williamson County have extensive rainfall, runoff and high water marks data during the
Tropical Storm Hermine event and USGS has similar data for the 6/27/2007 thunderstorm
event. This data will be used to calibrate the HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS models.
g) Develop Hydraulic Model
COG’s consultant will develop GIS geo-referenced hydraulic models using the Corps of
Engineers HEC-RAS computer program, along with the preprocessor HEC-GeoRAS. Similar to
the hydrologic models, the Existing Condition and the Ultimate Condition HEC-RAS models will
be developed. The HEC RAS hydraulic models will cover all the stream miles mentioned in
Section 2 Planning Information.
The hydraulic model input parameters and modeling procedures are presented as follows:
Peak discharges from the HEC-HMS junctions will be specified at the appropriate cross
sections. For channel or creek between two HEC-HMS junctions, the downstream
junction peak flow will be used two-third distance upstream along the creek and the
peak flow from the upstream junction will be used one-third distance downstream along
Page 79 of 115
Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant
Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of
North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River
City of Georgetown
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 5 of 7
the creek.
Manning’s roughness coefficients (“n”) will be established based on field
reconnaissance, aerial photos and standard engineering reference tables or
publications.
Field survey will be performed for major detention facilities and roadway crossings.
Field survey will also be acquired for channel cross section at an interval of
approximately one cross section per stream mile.
Other HEC-RAS parameters, such as “ineffective flow area”, “expansion/contraction
coefficients” and “bridge/culvert energy loss coefficients” will be used as appropriate.
The HEC-RAS model will be calibrated based on available historical storm events, such as
Tropical Storm Hermine and Thunderstorm event on 6/27/2007, prior to applying the
hypothetical storm events.
h) Final Identification of Flood Problem Areas, Establishment of Flood Protection Criteria and
Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Based on the information from Item d) above and results of the hydraulic models, the flood
problem areas will be identified. In general, COG and the participating communities have
established the following flood protection criteria:
For roadway crossings, it must fully convey (through the opening of the crossing) the 25-
year storm ultimate development peak discharges with less than 12” over the top of the
residential (local) roadway or with less than 6” over the top of the road for the collector
or arterial roadway for the 100-year storm ultimate development peak discharges.
For improved channel, it must fully convey the 25-year storm ultimate development
peak discharges with provisions to contain the 100-year storm ultimate development
peak discharges within the drainage easement or right-of-way.
For structure located adjacent to a 100-year floodplain, the finished floor elevation must
be at least 1’ above the 100-year storm ultimate development peak discharges.
For each of the identified flood problem areas, a flood problem severity index will be
developed. The elements of this index will include, but not be limited to, depth of flooding (in
inches or feet), number of structure affected, value of the affected structure, the ability to
evacuate its inhabitants, the environmental impacts, and the frequency of the flooding. The
flood problem severity index will assist in the selection and prioritization of the proposed
improvement projects.
The storm water management and flood mitigation plan will include consideration of the
following:
Structural Approach:
Detention/Retention Facility;
Channel Improvements, particularly using the Natural Channel Method;
Roadway Bridge/Culvert Improvements;
Page 80 of 115
Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant
Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of
North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River
City of Georgetown
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 6 of 7
Levees/Berms/Floodwalls; and
Combination of any of two or more of the above.
Non-Structural Approach:
Update the COG and participating communities Drainage Criteria Manual (if
applicable) and existing land development ordinance if necessary;
Buy-outs of the flooded properties;
Installation of Early Flood Warning systems;
Installation of flood warning signs and barricades at frequent inundated roadway
crossings; and
Develop pubic information publications describing flood risks and flood insurance.
i) Perform Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Hydrologic/hydraulic analyses of flood mitigation alternatives will be performed using HEC-
HMS and HEC-RAS models for the various hypothetical flood events. Preliminary flood control
measures will be developed and delineated on plan, profile and cross section sheets as well as
the resulting 100-year flood plain limit maps (indicating the amount of property removed from
the 100-year floodplains).
Flood mitigation alternatives will be evaluated not only at the problem area (to reduce the
levels of flooding) but also the potential of causing adverse hydrologic/hydraulic impacts at
other locations in the watershed. For example, a channel improvement project would likely
reduce the time of concentration through the project area, thereby potentially increase the
peak discharges at the downstream discharge point of the project area. COG consultant will
insure that flood mitigation measures will not cause adverse flooding impacts elsewhere in
the proposed flood improvement areas.
A public meeting will be conducted to present the flood mitigation alternatives and to solicit
input from the property owners and stakeholders. To the extent possible, citizen and
stakeholder concerns will be incorporated.
j) Develop Benefit/Cost Analysis of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
The flood mitigation alternative benefits will be developed. Specifically, these benefits will
include reduction in damages for structures (residences, commercial and public facilities),
reduction in damages for roadway crossings, and reduction in economic loss (business
interruptions and temporary job losses). Each alternative of flood mitigation benefits will be
compared to the cost of the proposed improvements, which will include administration,
management, engineering and construction costs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Flood Damage Reduction Analysis (HEC-FDA) software, or
other compatible widely accepted software, will be used in the Benefit/Cost analysis. This
effort will result in a ranking of proposed mitigation alternatives based on cost effectiveness
and technical merits. A public meeting will be conducted to obtain citizen and stakeholder
input on the flood mitigation alternatives and the results of the benefit/cost analysis.
Page 81 of 115
Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant
Comprehensive Flood Protection Planning Study of
North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River
City of Georgetown
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit B, Page 7 of 7
k) Prepare Implementation and Phasing Plan
Based on input from the public meeting, a project implementation and phasing plan will be
developed. The implementation and phasing plan will consider items such as funding sources,
project duration, easement requirements, environmental impact of the proposed
improvements, and benefit/cost ratio. In addition, consideration of the City’s adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan will be important to ensure that the implemented flood improvement
projects are compatible with the Plan’s goals including economic development and quality of
life.
l) Prepare Final Report
COG consultant will develop a draft final report summarizing the results of the
hydrologic/hydraulic investigations, flood mitigation alternatives, benefit/cost analysis and
stakeholder input. The draft report will include technical description of hydrologic/hydraulic
analyses, methodologies, assumptions and modeling notes as well as improvement alternative
costs, easement requirements (if applicable), phasing and implementation plan, floodplain
maps and other applicable exhibits.
A final public meeting will be conducted to present the draft final report. Following the public
meeting and incorporation of public input, the draft final report will be submitted to TWDB for
review. Upon addressing TWDB review comments, the final report will be submitted to
TWDB.
Page 82 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit C, Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT C
TASK AND EXPENSE BUDGETS
TASK BUDGET
TASK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 Collection and Review of Baseline Information $12,000.00
2 Development of a Base Map $20,000.00
3 Assessment of Environmental Constraints $25,000.00
4 Initial Identification of Flood Problem Areas $11,000.00
5 Field Surveys $67,000.00
6 Develop Hydrologic Model $244,000.00
7 Develop Hydraulic Model $216,000.00
8 Final Identification of Flood Problem Areas,
Establishment of Flood Protections Criteria and
Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
$10,000.00
9 Perform Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses of Flood
Mitigation Alternatives
$40,000.00
10 Develop Benefit/Cost Analysis of Flood Mitigation
Alternatives
$25,000.00
11 Prepare Implementation and Phasing Plan $10,000.00
12 Prepare Final Report $20,000.00
TOTAL $700,000.00
Page 83 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit C, Page 2 of 2
EXPENSE BUDGET
CATEGORY CONTRACTOR
Salaries & Wages1 $7,000.00
Fringe2 $4,000.00
Travel3 $500.00
Subcontract Services $672,000.00
Other Expenses4 $0.00
Overhead5 $4,000.00
Communication $500.00
Reproduction 12,000.00
TOTAL $700,000.00
1 Salaries and Wages is defined as the cost of salaries of engineers, draftsmen, stenographers, surveymen, clerks, laborers, etc., for time directly
chargeable to this CONTRACT.
2 Fringe is defined as the cost of social security contributions, unemployment, excise, and payroll taxes, workers’ compensation insurance,
retirement benefits, medical and insurance benefits, sick leave, vacation, and holiday pay applicable thereto.
3 Travel is limited to the maximum amounts authorized for state employees by the General Appropriations Act, Tex. Leg. Regular Session, 2013,
Article IX, Part 5, as amended or superseded
4 Other Expenses is defined to include expendable supplies, communications, reproduction, postage, and costs of public meetings directly
chargeable to this CONTRACT.
5 Overhead is defined as the costs incurred in maintaining a place of business and performing professional services similar to those specified in this
CONTRACT.
Page 84 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT D
GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS SUBMITTING CONTRACT REPORTS
TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe the required format of contract reports submitted to the Texas
Water Development Board (TWDB). Our reason for standardizing the format of contract reports is to
provide our customers a consistent, and therefore familiar, format for contract reports (which we post
online for public access). Another reason for standardizing the format is so that we can more easily turn a
contract report into a TWDB numbered report if we so choose. Remember that your report will not only
be seen by TWDB staff, but also by any person interested in the results of your study. A professional and
high quality report will reflect well on you, your employer, and the TWDB.
Available upon request, we will provide a Microsoft Word template (used to write these instructions) that
gives the fonts, spacing, and other specifications for the headings and text of the report. Please follow this
template as closely as possible.
2.0 Formatting your report
The TWDB format is designed for simplicity. For example, we use Times New Roman for all text. We
use 12 point, single-spaced text, left justification for paragraph text, 18 point bold for first-level headings,
and 14 point bold for second-level headings. Page numbers are centered at the bottom of the page. Other
than page numbers, please refrain from adding content to the document header or footer. Page setup
should use one-inch margins on all four sides.
2.1 Text
The best way to format your document is to use the styles described and embedded in the template
document (Authors_Template.dot) that is available on request from the TWDB. To use the
Authors_Template.dot file, open it in Word (make sure *.dot is listed under Files of type) and save it as a
.doc file. Advanced users can add the .dot file to their computers as a template.
Make sure the formatting bar is on the desktop (to open, go to ViewToolbarsFormatting) or, to view
all of the formatting at once, go to FormatStyles and Formatting and select Available Styles from the
dropdown box at the bottom of the window. The formatting in the template document provides styles
(such as font type, spacing, and indents) for each piece of your report. Each style is named to describe
what it should be used for (for example, style names include Chapter Title, Body Text, Heading 1,
References, and Figure or Table Caption). As you add to your report, use the dropdown list on the
Formatting Toolbar or the list in the Styles and Formatting window to adjust the text to the correct style.
The Authors_Template.dot file shows and lists the specifications for each style.
2.1.1 Title
Give your report a title that gives the reader an idea of the topic of your report but is not terribly long. In
addition to the general subject (for example, “Droughts”), you may include a few additional words to
describe a place, methodology, or other detail focused on throughout the paper (for example, “Droughts in
Page 85 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 2 of 8
the High Plains of Texas” or “Evaluating the effects of drought using groundwater flow modeling”).
Please capitalize only the first letter of each word except ‘minor’ words such as ‘and’ and ‘of’. Never use
all caps. Use headings to help the reader follow you through the main sections of your report and to make
it easier for readers to skim through your report to find sections that might be the most interesting or
useful to them. The text of the report should include an executive summary and sections outlined in 4.4 of
Attachment 1. Headings for up to five levels of subdivision are provided in the template; however, we
suggest not using more than three or four levels of subdivision except where absolutely necessary. Please
avoid stacked headings (for example, a Heading 1 followed immediately by a Heading 2), and capitalize
only the first letter of headings or words where appropriate—never use all caps.
2.2 Figures and photographs
To publish professional-looking graphics, we need all originals to be saved at 300 dots-per-inch (dpi)
and in grayscale, if possible, or in the CMYK color format if color is necessary. Excessive use of color,
especially color graphics that do not also work in grayscale, will prevent us from publishing your report
as a TWDB numbered report (color reproduction costs can be prohibitive). Preferred file formats for your
original graphics are Adobe Illustrator (.ai), Photoshop (.psd), EPS with .tiff preview, .jpg, .png, or .tiff
files. Refrain from using low resolution .jpg or .gif files. Internet images at 72 dpi are unacceptable for
use in reports. All graphics shall be submitted in two forms:
1. Inserted into the Microsoft Word document before you submit your report. Ideally, inserted
graphics should be centered on the page. Format the picture to downsize to 6 inches wide if
necessary. Please do not upsize a graphic in Word.
2. Saved in one of the formats listed above.
2.2.1 Other graphics specifications
It is easiest to design your figures separately and add them in after the text of your report is more or less
complete. Graphics should remain within the 1-inch page margins of the template (6.5 inches maximum
graphic width). Be sure that the graphics (as well as tables) are numbered in the same order that they are
mentioned in the text. Figures should appear embedded in the report after being called out in the text.
Also, remember to include a caption for each graphic in Word, not as part of the graphic. We are not able
to edit or format figure captions that are part of the figure. For figures and photographs, the caption
should appear below the graphic. For tables, the caption should appear above.
2.2.2 Creating publication-quality graphics
When designing a graphic, make sure that the graphic (1) emphasizes the important information and does
not show unnecessary data, lines, or labels; (2) includes the needed support material for the reader to
understand what you are showing; and (3) is readable (see Figures 1 and 2 for examples). Edward R.
Tufte’s books on presenting information (Tufte, 1983; 1990; 1997) are great references on good graphic
design. Figures 1 through 3 are examples of properly formatted, easy to understand graphics. Do not
include fonts that are less than 6 points.
For good-looking graphics, the resolution needs to be high enough to provide a clear image at the size you
make them within the report. In general, 300 dpi will make a clear image—200 dpi is a minimum. Try to
create your figures at the same size they will be in the report, as resizing them in Word greatly reduces
image quality. Photographs taken with at least a two-megapixel camera (if using digital) and with good
Page 86 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 3 of 8
contrast will make the best images. Save the original, and then adjust color levels and size in a renamed
image copy. Print a draft copy of your report to double-check that your figures and photographs have clear
lines and show all the features that you want them to have.
Figures and photographs should be in grayscale. Color greatly adds to the cost of printing, so we are
trying to keep it to a minimum. Also remember that your report may be photocopied, scanned, or
downloaded and printed in black and white. For this reason, you should use symbols or patterns, or make
sure that colors print as different shades in black and white. All interval or ratio data (data measuring
continuous phenomena, with each color representing an equal interval) need to be displayed in a graded
scale of a single color (Figure 3). This way your figures will be useful even as a photocopy.
If you need help with your graphics or have questions, please contact the TWDB graphics department at
(512)936-0129.
2.2.3 Using other people’s graphics
Figures and photographs (and tables) need to be your own unless you have written permission from the
publisher that allows us to reprint them (we will need a copy of this permission for our records). Avoid
using any figures or photographs taken off the Internet or from newspapers or magazines—these sources
are difficult to cite, and it is often time-consuming and expensive to gain permission to reproduce them.
2.3 Tables
Tables should be created in Microsoft Word (see Table 1). Tables should include a minimal amount of
outlining or bold font to emphasize headings, totals, or other important points. Tables should be
numbered separately from figures, and captions should appear above the text of the table.
Table 1: A sample table. Note caption above table.
Table text heading*
Table text 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 %GW
Table text 15 441 340 926 196 522 83 97.4
Table text 64 944 626 173 356 171 516 99.9
Total 79 1385 966 1099 552 693 599
* A footnote should look like this using 10 point Times New Roman.
%GW = percent groundwater
Be sure to describe any abbreviations or symbols, and, unlike in this table, be sure to note the units!
3.0 Units
Measurements should be in English units. Metric units may be included in parentheses after the English
units. All units of geologic time should conform to the most recent geologic timescale (Gradstein and
others, 2004). A summary of this timescale is available from the International Commission on
Stratigraphy’s website at http://stratigraphy.org/chus.pdf.
4.0 Citations and references
It is important to give credit where credit is due. Therefore, be sure to use the appropriate citations and
include references in your paper.
Page 87 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 4 of 8
4.1 In-text citations
Each piece of information you use in your report that comes from an outside source must be cited within
the text using the author’s last name and the year of publication. If there are two authors, list the last name
of each followed by the year, and if there are more than two authors, list the last name of the first author
followed by “and others” and the year. For example: the end of the Jurassic Period occurred
approximately 145.5 million years ago (Gradstein and others, 2004).
4.2 References
All sources that are cited within the report should be listed at the end of the paper under the heading
References. The references should follow the guidelines in “Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the
United States Geological Survey” (Hansen, 1991). These are available online at
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/lib/lib_sta.html (a link to the chapter “Preparing references for Survey
reports,” p. 234-241, is found here). Several examples of complete reference citations are listed at the end
of these guidelines. Be sure that any citations that appear in tables or figures are included in the reference
list. Also, before submitting the report, please check that all the citations in the report are included in the
reference list and all references in the reference list are cited in the report. If at all possible, avoid web-
based citations. These materials are often transient and therefore useless to future readers.
5.0 Submitting your report
Before you submit your report, proofread it. Look for spelling and grammatical errors. Also, check to see
that you have structured the headings, paragraphs, and sentences in your paper so that it is easy to follow
and understand (imagine you are a reader who does not already know the information you are
presenting!).
6.0 Conclusions
Following the instructions above and providing accurate and readable text, tables, figures, and citations
will help to make your report useful to readers. Scientists may read your report, as well as water planners,
utility providers, and interested citizens. If your report successfully conveys accurate scientific
information and explanations to these readers, we can help to create more informed decisions about the
use, development, and management of water in the state.
7.0 Acknowledgments
Be sure to acknowledge the people and entities that assisted you in your study and report. For example:
We would like to thank the Keck Geology Consortium, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
Texas Bar CLE for providing examples to use in developing these guidelines. In addition, we appreciate
Mike Parcher for providing information on how to create publication-quality graphics, Shirley Wade for
creating the data used in sample Figure 1, and Ian Jones for providing sample Figure 3.
8.0 References
Gradstein, F.M., J.G. Ogg, and A.G. Smith, eds., 2005, A geologic time scale 2004: Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 610 p.
Hansen, W.R., ed., 1991, Suggestions to authors of the reports of the United States Geological Survey
(7th ed.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 289 p.
Tufte, E. R., 1983, The visual display of quantitative information: Cheshire, C.T., Graphics Press, 197 p.
Tufte, E. R., 1990, Envisioning information: Cheshire, C.T., Graphics Press, 126 p.
Page 88 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 5 of 8
Tufte, E. R., 1997, Visual explanations: Cheshire, C.T., Graphics Press, 156 p.
9.0 Examples of references
Arroyo, J. A., and Mullican, III, W. F., 2004, Desalination: in Mace, R. E., Angle, E. S., and Mullican, W.
F., III, editors, Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau: Texas Water Development Board Report 360, p. 293-
302.
Bates, R. L., and Jackson, J. A., 1984, Dictionary of geological terms: Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden
City, New York, 571 p.
Blandford, T. N., Blazer, D. J., Calhoun, K. C., Dutton, A. R., Naing, T., Reedy, R. C., and Scanlon, B.
R., 2003, Groundwater availability of the southern Ogallala aquifer in Texas and New Mexico–
Numerical simulations through 2050: contract report by Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, Inc., and
the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin to the Texas Water
Development Board, variably paginated.
Fenneman, N. M., 1931, Physiography of Western United States (1st edition): New York, McGraw-Hill,
534 p.
Hubert, M., 1999, Senate Bill 1–The first big bold step toward meeting Texas's future water needs: Texas
Tech Law Review, v. 30, no. 1, p. 53-70.
Kunianski, E. L., 1989, Precipitation, streamflow, and baseflow in West-Central Texas, December 1974
through March 1977: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4208, 2
sheets.
Mace, R. E., Chowdhury, A. H., Anaya, R., and Way, S.-C., 2000, A numerical groundwater flow model
of the Upper and Middle Trinity aquifer, Hill Country area: Texas Water Development Board Open
File Report 00-02, 62 p.
Maclay, R. W., and Land, L. F., 1988, Simulation of flow in the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio Region,
Texas, and refinements of storage and flow concepts: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2336, 48 p.
For more examples of references, see p. 239-241 of “Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United
States Geological Survey” at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/lib/lib_sta.html.
Page 89 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 6 of 8
Figure 1. A sample figure showing only the information needed to help the reader understand
the data. Font size for figure callouts or labels should never be less than 6 point.
Page 90 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 7 of 8
Figure 2. A sample subject area map, giving the reader enough information to understand the
location being discussed in this conference. For map figures, be sure to include a
north arrow to orient the reader, a scale, and, if needed, a submap that places the
figure in greater geographic context. Be sure that text is readable and that any
citations listed on the figure or in the figure caption are included in the reference list.
Font size should never be less than 6 pt.
Page 91 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit D, Page 8 of 8
Figure 3. Initial hydraulic heads used in model simulations for layer 1. Note the use of
grayscale shading to show differences.
Page 92 of 115
TWDB Contract No. 1548321877
Exhibit E, Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT E
TWDB GUIDELINES FOR A PROGRESS REPORT
Texas Water Development Board Contractors are required by their contracts to provide Progress
Reports according to the “Payment Request Schedule”.
The progress report should contain the following standard elements:
Date: Date the memo is sent
To: Name and position of the reader
From: Name and position of the writer
Subject: TWDB Contract Number and the period that this report covers (i.e. Progress
Report 09/01/11 – 11/30/11)
Work Completed: (The next section of a progress report explains what work has been done during
the reporting period by Scope of Work task. Specify the dates of the reporting period and use active
voice verbs to report progress made)
For Example:
Task 1: Completed 3 draft chapters and all appendices. Met with sub consultants on their chapters
Task 2: Completed sample collection throughout river reach.
Task 3: No work completed in reporting period.
Problems:
If the reader is likely to be interested in the glitches you have encountered along the way, mention
the problems you have encountered and explain how you have solved them. If there are problems
you have not yet been able to solve, explain your strategy for solving them and give tell the reader
when you think you will have them solved.
Page 93 of 115
£¤183£¤281
£¤281
£¤183
£¤183
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
UV71
UV191
UV4
UV29
UV29
UV29 CITY OF BURNET
CITY OF LIBERTY HILL
CITY OF BERTRAM
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
ST195
ST29
ST95
ST29
ST29 ST130
ST45
ST183A
ST45
ST130
ST130
£¤79
£¤183
£¤79
£¤79
LAKE GEORGETOWN
CITY OF HUTTO
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF ROUND ROCK
CITY OF LEANDER
CITY OF CEDAR PARK
N:
\
R
F
Q
\
R
C
&
A
P
r
i
m
e
\
0
8
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
\
T
W
D
B
F
l
o
o
d
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
n
t
\
A
r
c
v
i
e
w
\
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
U
D
Y
A
R
E
A
M
A
P
.
Ch
a
n
&
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
L
L
C
43
1
9
J
a
m
e
s
C
a
s
e
y
#
3
0
0
Au
s
t
i
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
7
4
5
(5
1
2
)
4
8
0
-
8
1
5
5
ww
w
.
c
h
a
n
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
.
c
o
m
TB
P
E
#
F
-
1
3
0
1
3
ATTACHMENT
1
1 inch = 3.9 miles
08164 Miles
Legend
Proposed San Gabriel Study Streams
COUNTIES
Proposed San Gabriel Basins Study Area (404 sq.mi.)
Lake Georgetown
Georgetown City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Leander City Limits and ETJ
Liberty Hill City Limits and ETJ
BURNET COUNTY
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BELL COUNTY
TRAVIS COUNTY
Page 94 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
September 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation on Task Order CPE-15-002 for professional engineering
services with Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $685,000 for flood protection
planning -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The terms of a recently awarded grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for flood
protection planning on the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River require the city to complete a
detailed drainage study.
Chan and Partners was instrumental in completing a successful grant application with the TWDB and has
completed multiple drainage studies for multiple governmental entities over the past decade. Additionally,
they are currently working on a similar grant from last year for the City of Georgetown.
The drainage study will include the hydrologic (water cycle) and hydraulic (water movement) analysis of
the entire North and South Fork basins of the San Gabriel River. The results of the study will include a
more accurate calculated floodplain boundary. Depending on the results, future consideration may be given
to updating the official FEMA Floodplain Maps. Also, the study will provide recommended improvements
for inclusion in the city's drainage capital improvement plan to reduce potential future flooding.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The grant from the TWDB will provide reimbursement for up to 50% or $332,500, whichever is greater, of
study costs.
In the coming months, staff expects to bring forward inter-local agreements with other participating entities
for their proportional share of costs: Williamson County ($105,000), Liberty Hill ($40,000), and Leander
($7,500).
Additionally, approximately $15,000 of in-kind contributions will be from city staff, primarily through the
Engineering Support/GIS Department.
After factoring in reimbursable expenses, in-kind contributions, and financial participation from outside
entities, the total cost to the city is expect to be approximately $215,000.
The city has budgeted $550,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan budget for Fiscal Year 2016.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Chan Partners Proposal Backup Material
Study Area Backup Material
Page 95 of 115
Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC
4319 James Casey Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78745 Phone (512) 480-8155 Fax (512) 480-8811
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-13013
www.chanpartners.com
July 31, 2015
Mr. Wesley Wright, P.E.
Systems Engineering Director
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
RE: ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSAL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN – TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLOOD PROTECTION GRANT
NORTH FORK SAN GABRIEL RIVER, SOUTH FORK SAN GABRIEL RIVER AND SAN GABRIEL RIVER
Dear Mr. Wright:
Pursuant to your request, Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC (CPE) is submitting this engineering services
proposal to assist City of Georgetown (COG) in performing a flood protection planning study (FPPS) for
the above‐referenced rivers. Specifically, COG has successfully obtained a grant from the Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB) to perform the hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, floodplain modeling and a
flood protection planning study for the rivers within the COG full purposes and its Extra‐Territorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) limits. CPE, formerly Raymond Chan & Associates, Inc. developed the COG Master
Drainage Plan in 2002, assisted COG in the TWDB grant application, and is well qualified to perform this
flood protection planning study.
The proposed study area is presented as follows:
PLANNING AREA SUMMARY
Geographic Area
North Fork
San Gabriel
River
South Fork
San Gabriel
River
San Gabriel
River at COG
ETJ Limit 1
Total
Drainage Area (Sq. Miles) 251 134 19 404
Study Stream Miles (along main river only, excluding tributaries)
Within Georgetown City & ETJ 14.4 11.1 11.7 37.2
Within Williamson County
outside of City Limits and ETJ 13.5 3.6 0.0 17.1
Within Liberty Hill City & ETJ 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.7
Within Bertram City & ETJ2 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9
Within Burnet County2 18.8 8.7 0.0 27.5
Within Leander City & ETJ 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1
Total 46.7 37.0 11.7 95.4
1 Excluding Berry Creek, Pecan Branch, Smith Branch, Middle Fork of San Gabriel River and Mankins
Branch drainage areas which are the creeks studied in the 2014 TWDB FPPS with City of Georgetown.
2 Assumes Limited Detail Study in Burnet County and City of Bertram.
Page 96 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 2 of 9
Based on the COG TWDB FPPS application, the grant fund participation is presented as follows:
Community Grant Fund Participation
City of Georgetown $215,000 (including $15,000 of in‐kind contribution)
Williamson County $105,000
City of Leander $ 40,000
City of Liberty Hill $ 7,500
TWDB $332,500
Total $700,000
The objective of the proposed planning effort is to provide the City and grant funding participants with
an updated assessment of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the subject watersheds and main
river channels, and a practical storm water management plan to address the critical flooding problems,
as well as provide the City and grant funding participants with an important tool to manage growth and
development.
A detailed description of the proposed planning study scope of work is presented as follows:
1) Collection and Review of Baseline Information
CPE project team will collect and review previous drainage studies, the previous Master Drainage
Plan, FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and maps, FEMA LOMRs, master plan development drainage
studies and reports, citizen drainage complaint reports, Tropical Storm Hermine damage reports and
other available drainage reports of the proposed planning area.
CPE will attend a kick‐off meeting with COG project manager, TWDB project manager and the
representatives from the participating entities, as applicable. The kick‐off meeting will cover the
following topics:
Project communication & reporting responsibilities – establish the frequency and method of
COG’s designated consultant interface with TWDB project manager, COG project manager
and the representatives from the participating entities;
Project milestone and schedule; and
Project deliverables at each milestone
2) Development of a Base Map
CPE, with the support from the COG GIS division (in‐kind contribution as specified in the grant
application), Williamson County, City of Leander, and City of Liberty Hill, will develop a base map
using the following information:
Most current LiDAR topography;
Current FEMA FIS and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM);
Digital GIS data of parcels, zoning maps, current and future land use maps and soils maps;
As‐builts drawings for channel and bridge/culvert improvements; and
Approved LOMRs since the 2008 FIRM update.
Page 97 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 3 of 9
3) Assessment of Environmental Constraints
A portion of the proposed planning area is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and
its Transition Zone. This project will include a record review and data research of Critical
Environmental Features (CEF) previously identified by the City of Georgetown and other entities.
CEF is generally defined as springs, bluffs, canyon rimrocks, caves, sinkholes & recharge features and
wetlands.
This task will not include detailed field survey, investigation and determination of CEFs, but rather
will establish the framework for the requirements of environmental assessment during the
implementation and final design phase of the flood mitigation measures.
CPE’s subconsultant Halff & Associates will perform this task.
4) Initial Identification of Flood Problem Areas
Based on the previous Master Drainage Plan, flooding complaint list from COG and other entities,
Tropical Storm Hermine Damage Report, June 26 and 27, 2007 storm event, and other available
flooding reports, the flooding problem areas will be identified. COG will conduct a public meeting
to solicit input on the drainage problem areas including the specifics and nature of the flooding.
5) Perform Field Survey
CPE will utilize the most current LiDAR data flown in the proposed planning area. CPE will perform
field reconnaissance at all culvert/bridge crossings to verify this data. CPE has allocated field survey
time to pick up critical regional detention facilities, bridge/culvert crossings, cross sections, finished
floor elevations and channel cross section at an interval of approximately one cross section per
stream mile.
6) Develop Hydrologic Model
CPE will develop GIS geo‐referenced hydrologic models using the Corps of Engineers HEC‐HMS
computer program, along with the preprocessor HEC‐GeoHMS. CPE will develop the Existing
Condition and Ultimate Condition hydrologic runoff models. The Ultimate Condition will be based
on the adopted COG 2030 Plan land use as well as other future land use plans adopted by
Williamson County, Burnet County, City of Leander, and City of Liberty Hill. The following
information will be incorporated into the HEC‐HMS models:
Regional detention facilities;
FEMA LOMR hydrologic models; and
Other large scale storm water impoundment facilities (more than 10 acres in surface area)
such as SCS Dam or retention/stock ponds.
COG GIS Division (in kind contribution as specified in the grant application) will assist CPE in the
runoff curve number development in the area of impervious cover calculations within the sub‐basins
for the existing and the ultimate land use conditions.
The hydrologic model input parameters will be developed based on the following approach;
Page 98 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 4 of 9
Rainfall data – The latest USGS 24‐hour design storm with National Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Type III distribution will be used. The 5‐, 10‐, 25‐, 50‐, 100‐ and 500‐year
frequency storm events will be modeled.
Drainage Area – To insure consistency in the peak time computation within the HEC‐HMS
model, the subarea size for rural area (in the headwater area) will be divided to close to 5
square miles but will not exceed 8 square miles. The subarea size for urban area (in the
downtown and fully developed areas) will be divided to close to 0.5 square mile but will not
be less than 0.25 square mile.
Time of Concentration – The TR‐55 equations for estimating the time of concentration for
sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel/storm drain flow will be used. For rural
area, sheet flow length will not exceed 200 feet. For urban area, sheet flow length shall not
exceed 100 feet.
Runoff Curve Number – The Runoff Curve Number (CN) for each sub‐basin will be computed
based on procedures outlined in the NRCS TR‐55 publication. Two sets of CN values will be
developed for each sub‐basin, the existing condition and the ultimate development
condition. The existing condition CN will be computed based on latest existing land‐use
condition data. The ultimate development condition CN will be computed based on the
COG 2030 Comprehensive Plan land‐use condition data and other future land use data
provided by Williamson County, Burnet County, City of Leander, and City of Liberty Hill. The
latest NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Williamson County and Burnet
County shall be used for soil type determination. For rural and sparsely populated sub‐
basins, CPE will use sound engineering judgment to determine the ultimate land use
condition CN values. For urban area and area within the COG full purpose limits, CPE will
develop the existing condition and the ultimate development condition CNs using GIS or
other land use information provided by COG and the participating communities.
The hydrologic model will be calibrated to peak discharges recorded during historic storm events
prior to computing peak flows for hypothetical storm events. In particular, COG and the
participating communities have rainfall, runoff and high water marks data during the Tropical Storm
Hermine and the June 26 and 27, 2007 storm events. This data will be used to calibrate the HEC‐
HMS and HEC‐RAS models.
7) Develop Hydraulic Model
CPE will develop GIS geo‐referenced hydraulic models using the Corps of Engineers HEC‐RAS
computer program, along with the preprocessor HEC‐GeoRAS. Similar to the hydrologic models, the
Existing Condition and the Ultimate Condition HEC‐RAS models will be developed. The HEC RAS
hydraulic models will cover all the stream miles mentioned in the beginning of this proposal. Please
note that only the main river channels of North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel and
San Gabriel River from the confluence to the COG ETJ Limit will be studied.
The hydraulic model input parameters and modeling procedures are presented as follows:
Peak discharges from the HEC‐HMS junctions will be specified at the appropriate cross
sections. For channel or river between two HEC‐HMS junctions, the downstream junction
peak flow will be used two‐third distance upstream along the creek and the peak flow from
the upstream junction will be used one‐third distance downstream along the creek.
Page 99 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 5 of 9
Manning’s roughness coefficients (“n”) will be established based on field reconnaissance,
aerial photos and standard engineering reference tables or publications.
Field reconnaissance will be performed for all the bridge/culvert crossings. Field surveying
will be performed for most of the bridge/culvert crossings, except the Interstate bridges,
which CPE will obtain as‐built drawings and incorporate these bridges into the HEC‐RAS
models.
Field survey will also be acquired for channel cross section at an interval of approximately
one cross section per stream mile.
Other HEC‐RAS parameters, such as “ineffective flow area”, “expansion/contraction
coefficients” and “bridge/culvert energy loss coefficients” will be used as appropriate and
their derivations will be documented.
The HEC‐RAS model will be calibrated based on available historical storm events, such as Tropical
Storm Hermine and June 26 and 27, 2007 storm events, prior to applying the hypothetical storm
events.
8) Final Identification of Flood Problem Areas, Establishment of Flood Protection Criteria and
Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Based on the information from Item 4) above and results of the hydraulic models, the flood problem
areas will be identified. COG has established the following flood protection criteria in its Drainage
Criteria Manual:
For roadway crossings, it must fully convey (through the opening of the crossing) the 25‐
year storm ultimate development peak discharges with less than 12” over the top of the
residential (local) roadway or with less than 6” over the top of the road for the collector or
arterial roadway for the 100‐year storm ultimate development peak discharges.
For improved channel, it must fully convey the 25‐year storm ultimate development peak
discharges with provisions to contain the 100‐year storm ultimate development peak
discharges within the drainage easement or right‐of‐way.
For structure located adjacent to a 100‐year floodplain, the finished floor elevation must be
at least 1’ above the 100‐year storm ultimate development peak discharges.
Williamson County established the following flood protection criteria in its Subdivision Regulations:
For roadway crossings, it shall be designed to convey the 25‐year storm without overtopping
the facility for arterial and collector roads, and shall be designed to convey the 10‐year
storm without overtopping the facility for local roads.
All longitudinal drainage structures shall be designed to convey the 10‐year storm.
The minimum lowest finished floor elevation shall be one foot higher than the highest spot
elevation that is located within five feet outside the perimeter of the building, or one foot
above the BFE (base flood elevation, or the 100‐year storm event water surface elevation),
whichever is higher.
City of Leander uses City of Austin Drainage Criteria and consists of the following general
requirements:
Page 100 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 6 of 9
For bridges and culverts in residential streets, runoff from the 100‐year peak flow shall not
produce a headwater elevation at the roadway greater than 12” above the roadway crown
elevation or top of upstream curb elevation, whichever is lower.
For bridges and culverts in streets other than a residential street, runoff from the 100‐year
peak flow shall not produce a headwater elevation at the roadway greater than 6” above
the roadway crown elevation or top of upstream curb elevation, whichever is lower.
Improved channels should be designed for the 25‐ year storm ultimate development peak
discharges with provisions for the 100‐year storm within dedicated easement or right of
way.
City of Liberty Hill uses the City of Round Rock Design & Construction Standards and consists of the
following general requirements for major creeks and floodplains:
All bridge and culvert structures shall be designed to carry and/or store the upstream
runoff from a 25‐year storm. Runoff from the 100‐year storm may, however, may overtop
the road surface at bridge or culvert crossings a maximum of 6 inches for a major or
collector street crossing, or a maximum of 12 inches on a minor or residential street
crossing.
The final plat shall establish specific minimum floor slab elevations for construction of any
structures on a lot adjacent to or within and adjacent to any 100‐year floodplain area to
assure future structures are constructed a minimum of one foot above the 100‐year storm
levels.
For each of identified flood problem areas, a flood problem severity index will be developed. The
elements of this index will include, but not be limited to, depth of flooding (in inches or feet),
number of structure affected, value of the affected structure, the ability to evacuate its inhabitants,
the environmental impacts, and the frequency of the flooding. The flood problem severity index will
assist in the selection and prioritization of the proposed improvement projects.
The storm water management and flood mitigation plan will include consideration of the following
strategies:
Structural Approach:
Detention/Retention Facility;
Channel Improvements, particularly using the Natural Channel Method;
Roadway Bridge/Culvert Improvements;
Levees/Berms/Floodwalls; and
Combination of any of two or more of the above.
Non‐Structural Approach:
Update the COG Drainage Criteria Manual and existing land development ordinance as well
as the other participating communities flood protection regulations, if necessary;
Buy‐outs of the flooded properties;
Installation of Early Flood Warning systems;
Installation of flood warning signs and barricades at frequent inundated roadway crossings;
and
Develop pubic information publications describing flood risks and flood insurance.
Page 101 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 7 of 9
9) Perform Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Hydrologic/hydraulic analyses of flood mitigation alternatives will be performed using HEC‐HMS and
HEC‐RAS models for the various hypothetical flood events. Preliminary flood control measures will
be developed and delineated on plan, profile and cross section sheets, as applicable as well as the
resulting 100‐year flood plain limit maps (indicating the amount of property removed from the 100‐
year floodplains).
Flood mitigation alternatives will be evaluated not only at the problem area (to reduce the levels of
flooding) but also the potential of causing adverse hydrologic/hydraulic impacts at other locations in
the watershed. For example, a channel improvement project would likely reduce the time of
concentration through the project area, thereby potentially increase the peak discharges at the
downstream discharge point of the project area. CPE will insure that flood mitigation measures will
not cause adverse flooding impacts elsewhere in the proposed flood improvement areas.
A public meeting will be conducted to present the flood mitigation alternatives and to solicit input
from the property owners and stakeholders. To the extent possible, citizen and stakeholder
concerns will be incorporated.
10) Develop Benefit/Cost Analysis of Flood Mitigation Alternatives
The flood mitigation alternatives benefits will be developed. Specifically, these benefits will include
reduction in damages for structures (residences, commercials and public facilities), reduction in
damages for roadway crossings, and reduction in economic loss (business interruptions and
temporary job lost). Each alternative of flood mitigation benefits will be compared to the cost of the
proposed improvements, which will include administration, management, engineering and
construction costs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Flood Damage
Reduction Analysis (HEC‐FDA) software, or other compatible widely accepted software, will be used
in the Benefit/Cost analysis. This effort will result in a ranking of proposed mitigation alternatives
based on cost effectiveness and technical merits. A public meeting will be conducted to obtain
citizens and stakeholders input on the flood mitigation alternatives and the results of the
benefit/cost analysis.
11) Prepare Implementation and Phasing Plan
Based on input from the public meeting, CPE will develop a project implementation and phasing
plan. The implementation and phasing plan will consider items such as funding sources, project
duration, easement requirements, environmental impact of the proposed improvements, and
benefit/cost ratio. In addition, consideration of the City’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
other participating communities’ master plans will be important to ensure that the implemented
flood improvement projects are compatible with the Plan’s goals including economic development
and quality of life.
12) Prepare Final Report
CPE will develop a draft final report summarizing the results of the hydrologic/hydraulic
investigations, flood mitigation alternatives, benefit/cost analysis and stakeholder input. The draft
report will include technical description of hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, methodologies,
Page 102 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 8 of 9
assumptions and modeling notes as well as improvement alternative costs, easement requirements
(if applicable), phasing and implementation plan, floodplain maps and other applicable exhibits.
A final public meeting will be conducted to present the draft final report. Following the public
meeting and incorporation of public input, the draft final report will be submitted to TWDB for
review. Upon addressing TWDB review comments, the final report will be submitted to TWDB.
BASIS OF COMPENSATION
The above services will be compensated based on cost plus fixed fee with a not to exceed amount of
$685,000.00. CPE invoices will include personnel worked on the project, number of hours worked, rate
for each person worked, and fringe/overhead/profit calculations as well as non‐labor expenses such as
printings and reproductions (receipts will be submitted with invoices). All expenses and subconsultants’
fees are included in the not to exceed fee of $685,000.00. The subconsultants’ scope of services are
presented as follows:
Scheibe Consulting, LLC – Hydrologic / hydraulic analyses and modeling, flood problem area
identifications and mitigation measures development, cost benefit analysis, engineering report
preparation, and quality control/quality assurance for South Fork San Gabriel (CPE will be
responsible for North Fork San Gabriel River and San Gabriel River).
Halff Associates, Inc. – Environmental Constraint Assessment.
Flugel Land Surveying / Wuest Group – Bridge/culvert crossings and cross section survey.
Attachment 1 presents the project budget and task description for CPE and its subconsultants. Please
note that Attachment 1 is part of the Budget Spreadsheet Workbook developed and provided by TWDB
for the FPPS projects.
In addition to the above mentioned subconsultants, it is our understanding that COG has committed to
TWDB to contribute in‐kind services of $15,000.00. The in‐kind services are presented as follows:
Item
Task Description
Estimated
Hours
Estimated
Cost
a. Collection and review of baseline information (including consultant
selection and contract execution)
20 $ 2,000
b. Development of a base map (project management and
coordination)
10 $ 1,000
c. Initial identification of flood problem areas (record research and
data base reviews)
20 $ 2,000
d. Develop hydrologic model (land use data and future development
trend)
40 $ 4,000
e. Develop hydraulic model (project management and coordination) 10 $ 1,000
f. Final flood problem area identifications and mitigation measures
evaluations (local knowledge input and mitigation measures
reviews)
20 $ 2,000
g. Implementation and phasing plan (project management and
coordination)
10 $ 1,000
h. Final report (quality assurance/quality control) 20 $ 2,000
TOTAL 150 $ 15,000
Page 103 of 115
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\flood protection grant prop 073115.docx Page 9 of 9
Attachment 2 presents TWDB Subcontracting Guidelines for use by Contractor, which CPE will comply.
TIME SCHEDULE
A project schedule is transmitted herewith (Attachment 3). Specifically, CPE anticipates completing the
project within twenty‐four (24) months, excluding COG and TWDB review time.
KEY PERSONNEL
CPE’s key personnel who will be performing work on this project are as follows:
Raymond Chan, P.E. Project Principal, QA/QC reviews.
John R. King, P.E. Project Manager/Engineer, day‐to‐day contact
Alexis Woffenden, P.E. Assistant Project Manager/Engineer and Technical Lead.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Letter of Map Revisions and flood mitigation
construction drawings are not part of the scope of services. If needed, a separate amendment will
be prepared and submitted to COG prior to in initiation of work.
2. Should the City request changes to the above defined SCOPE OF SERVICES or if additional services
are requested, all incurred costs shall be billed on a time and materials basis. An estimate of
additional costs will be provided and approved prior to proceeding with the project.
3. Jurisdictional fees for review and permitting if needed are the responsibility of the City.
CPE appreciates the opportunity to provide our engineering consulting services to the City of
Georgetown. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC
Raymond M. Chan, P.E.
President
Page 104 of 115
Attachment 1
Contract No.
Contractor - City of Georgetown
CONTRACT TOTALS
TASK Budget Total
Budget
Task 1-Collect and Review Baseline Information 12,000.00$
Task 2-Develop basemap & information 20,000.00$
Task 3-Assess environmental constraints 25,000.00$
Task 4-Identify flood problem areas 11,000.00$
Task 5-Perform field survey 67,000.00$
Task 6-Develop hydrologic models 244,000.00$
Task 7-Develop hydraulic models 216,000.00$
Task 8-Evaluate flood mitigation alternatives 10,000.00$
Task 9-Perform H/H for flood mitigation alternatives 40,000.00$
Task 10-Develop benefit/cost analysis 25,000.00$
Task 11-Prepare implementation plan 10,000.00$
Task 12-Prepare final report 20,000.00$
Total 700,000.00$
CONTRACT TOTALS
EXPENSE Budget Total
Budget
Salaries & Wages $ -
Fringe $ -
Travel $ -
Other Expenses $ -
Subcontractor Services $ 685,000.00
Overhead $ -
Profit $ -
Total 700,000.00$
City of Georgetown\TWDB Flood Protection Grant\budget spreadsheet workbook 073115.xlsx Page 1 of 6
Page 105 of 115
Attachment 1
Contract No.
Contractor - City of Georgetown
City of Georgetown In-Kind
TASK Budget Total
Budget
Task 1-Collect and Review Baseline Information 2,000.00$
Task 2-Develop basemap & information 1,000.00$
Task 3-Assess environmental constraints -$
Task 4-Identify flood problem areas 2,000.00$
Task 5-Perform field survey -$
Task 6-Develop hydrologic models 4,000.00$
Task 7-Develop hydraulic models 1,000.00$
Task 8-Evaluate flood mitigation alternatives 2,000.00$
Task 9-Perform H/H for flood mitigation alternatives -$
Task 10-Develop benefit/cost analysis -$
Task 11-Prepare implementation plan 1,000.00$
Task 12-Prepare final report 2,000.00$
Total 15,000.00$
EXPENSE Budget Total
Budget
Salaries & Wages -$
Fringe $ -
Travel -$
Other Expenses -$
Subcontractor Services $ -
Overhead -$
Profit -$
Total 15,000.00$
City of Georgetown\TWDB Flood Protection Grant\budget spreadsheet workbook 073115.xlsx Page 2 of 6
Page 106 of 115
Attachment 1
Contract No.
Contractor - City of Georgetown
SUBCONTRACTOR SERVICES
Chan & Partners Engineering (incl. subs)
TASK Budget Total
Budget
Task 1-Field Recon & Review Baseline Information 10,000.00$
Task 2-Develop basemap & information 19,000.00$
Task 3-Assess environmental constraints 25,000.00$
Task 4-Identify flood problem areas 9,000.00$
Task 5-Perform field survey 67,000.00$
Task 6-Develop hydrologic models 240,000.00$
Task 7-Develop hydraulic models 215,000.00$
Task 8-Evaluate flood mitigation alternatives 8,000.00$
Task 9-Perform H/H for flood mitigation alternatives 40,000.00$
Task 10-Develop benefit/cost analysis 25,000.00$
Task 11-Prepare implementation plan 9,000.00$
Task 12-Prepare final report 18,000.00$
Total 685,000.00$
EXPENSE Budget Total
Budget
Salaries & Wages (CPE only) $ 130,371.80
Fringe (CPE only) $ 66,619.99
Travel $ -
Other Expenses $ 5,000.00
Subcontractor Services (Scheibe, Halff & Flugel) 275,000.00$
Overhead (CPE only) $ 158,271.37
Profit (CPE only) $ 49,736.84
Total 685,000.00$
City of Georgetown\TWDB Flood Protection Grant\budget spreadsheet workbook 073115.xlsx Page 3 of 6
Page 107 of 115
Attachment 1
Contract No.
Contractor - City of Georgetown
Scheibe Consulting (CPE sub)
TASK Budget Total
Budget
Task 1-Collect and Review Baseline Information -$
Task 2-Develop basemap & information -$
Task 3-Assess environmental constraints -$
Task 4-Identify flood problem areas -$
Task 5-Perform field survey -$
Task 6-Develop hydrologic models 80,000.00$
Task 7-Develop hydraulic models 73,665.00$
Task 8-Evaluate flood mitigation alternatives 2,667.00$
Task 9-Perform H/H for flood mitigation alternatives 13,334.00$
Task 10-Develop benefit/cost analysis 8,334.00$
Task 11-Prepare implementation plan 3,000.00$
Task 12-Prepare final report 6,000.00$
Total 187,000.00$
EXPENSE Budget Total
Budget
Salaries & Wages 151,470.00$
Fringe $ 14,960.00
Travel $ -
Other Expenses $ -
Subcontractor Services -$
Overhead 11,220.00$
Profit 9,350.00$
Total 187,000.00$
City of Georgetown\TWDB Flood Protection Grant\budget spreadsheet workbook 073115.xlsx Page 4 of 6
Page 108 of 115
Attachment 1
Contract No.
Contractor - City of Georgetown
Halff Associates (CPE sub)
TASK Budget Total
Budget
Task 1-Collect and Review Baseline Information -$
Task 2-Develop basemap & information -$
Task 3-Assess environmental constraints 23,000.00$
Task 4-Identify flood problem areas -$
Task 5-Perform field survey -$
Task 6-Develop hydrologic models -$
Task 7-Develop hydraulic models -$
Task 8-Evaluate flood mitigation alternatives -$
Task 9-Perform H/H for flood mitigation alternatives -$
Task 10-Develop benefit/cost analysis -$
Task 11-Prepare implementation plan -$
Task 12-Prepare final report -$
Total 23,000.00$
EXPENSE Budget Total
Budget
Salaries & Wages 6,877.20$
Fringe $ 4,154.51
Travel 500.00$
Other Expenses 300.00$
Subcontractor Services $ -
Overhead 9,150.11$
Profit 2,018.18$
Total 23,000.00$
City of Georgetown\TWDB Flood Protection Grant\budget spreadsheet workbook 073115.xlsx Page 5 of 6
Page 109 of 115
Attachment 1
Contract No.
Contractor - City of Georgetown
Flugel Land Surveying/Wuest Group
(CPE Sub)
TASK Budget Total
Budget
Task 1-Collect and Review Baseline Information -$
Task 2-Develop basemap & information -$
Task 3-Assess environmental constraints -$
Task 4-Identify flood problem areas -$
Task 5-Perform field survey 65,000.00$
Task 6-Develop hydrologic models -$
Task 7-Develop hydraulic models -$
Task 8-Evaluate flood mitigation alternatives -$
Task 9-Perform H/H for flood mitigation alternatives -$
Task 10-Develop benefit/cost analysis -$
Task 11-Prepare implementation plan -$
Task 12-Prepare final report -$
Total 65,000.00$
EXPENSE Budget (Purchased Services) Total
Budget
Salaries & Wages -$
Fringe $ -
Travel -$
Other Expenses 65,000.00$
Subcontractor Services $ -
Overhead -$
Profit -$
Total 65,000.00$
City of Georgetown\TWDB Flood Protection Grant\budget spreadsheet workbook 073115.xlsx Page 6 of 6
Page 110 of 115
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 111 of 115
Page 112 of 115
Page 113 of 115
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 City of Georgetown issues Notice to
Proceed to Consultant
1 day Mon 1/4/16 Mon 1/4/16
2 Collection and review of project
information. Perform field
reconnaissance on culvert crossing
inventory
40 days Tue 1/5/16 Mon 2/29/16
3 Development of a base map 45 days Tue 3/1/16 Mon 5/2/16
4 Assessment of Environmental
Constraints
40 days Tue 5/3/16 Mon 6/27/16
5 Initial identificaiton of flood
problem areas
25 days Tue 5/3/16 Mon 6/6/16
6 First Public Meeting 5 days Tue 6/7/16 Mon 6/13/16
7 Perform field survey 65 days Tue 3/1/16 Mon 5/30/16
8 Develop hydrologic models 130 days Tue 5/3/16 Mon 10/31/16
9 Develop hydraulic models 180 days Tue 5/31/16 Mon 2/6/17
10 Final identification of flood problem
areas, establishment of flood
protection criteria and evaluation of
flood mitigation alternatives
25 days Tue 2/7/17 Mon 3/13/17
11 Perform hydrologic/hydraulic
analyses of flood mitigation
alternatives
70 days Tue 3/14/17 Mon 6/19/17
12 Develop benefit/cost analysis of
flood mitigation alternatives
40 days Tue 6/20/17 Mon 8/14/17
13 Second Public Meeting 5 days Tue 8/15/17 Mon 8/21/17
14 Prepare implementation and
phasing plan
15 days Tue 8/22/17 Mon 9/11/17
15 Prepare draft final report 40 days Tue 9/12/17 Mon 11/6/17
16 Third and Final Public Meeting 5 days Tue 11/7/17 Mon 11/13/17
17 Prepare final report 22 days Tue 11/14/17 Wed 12/13/17
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Deadline
Progress
Attachment 3
City of Georgetown
TWDB Flood Protection Planning Study (FPPS)
San Gabriel River FPPS Time Schedule
City of Georgetown\San Gabriel River\san gabriel river flood study schedule 073115.mpp Attachment 3 - San Gabriel FPPS Time Schedule
San Gabriel River Flood Study
Date: Fri 7/31/15
Page 114 of 115
£¤183£¤281
£¤281
£¤183
£¤183
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
UV71
UV191
UV4
UV29
UV29
UV29 CITY OF BURNET
CITY OF LIBERTY HILL
CITY OF BERTRAM
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
ST195
ST29
ST95
ST29
ST29 ST130
ST45
ST183A
ST45
ST130
ST130
£¤79
£¤183
£¤79
£¤79
LAKE GEORGETOWN
CITY OF HUTTO
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF ROUND ROCK
CITY OF LEANDER
CITY OF CEDAR PARK
N:
\
R
F
Q
\
R
C
&
A
P
r
i
m
e
\
0
8
-
C
i
t
y
o
f
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
\
T
W
D
B
F
l
o
o
d
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
n
t
\
A
r
c
v
i
e
w
\
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
U
D
Y
A
R
E
A
M
A
P
.
Ch
a
n
&
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
L
L
C
43
1
9
J
a
m
e
s
C
a
s
e
y
#
3
0
0
Au
s
t
i
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
7
4
5
(5
1
2
)
4
8
0
-
8
1
5
5
ww
w
.
c
h
a
n
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
.
c
o
m
TB
P
E
#
F
-
1
3
0
1
3
ATTACHMENT
1
1 inch = 3.9 miles
08164 Miles
Legend
Proposed San Gabriel Study Streams
COUNTIES
Proposed San Gabriel Basins Study Area (404 sq.mi.)
Lake Georgetown
Georgetown City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Leander City Limits and ETJ
Liberty Hill City Limits and ETJ
BURNET COUNTY
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BELL COUNTY
TRAVIS COUNTY
Page 115 of 115