HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 10.11.2016 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
O ctober 11 , 20 16
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on October 11, 2016 at 3:30 PM at Co uncil Chambers, 101 E.
7th St., Geo rgeto wn, Texas
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Prese ntation of the 2016 Citizen Survey co nducted by Texas State Unive rsity -- Paul Diaz, Budget
Manager and Dr. Thomas Longoria, Te xas State University
B Midterm review and discussion of the Austin Avenue Improvement P roje ct -- Nat Waggoner,
PMP, AICP, Transportation Analyst
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
C Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
- Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
- 3 83 4 Partners, Ltd—Settlement Agreement in Lieu of Condemnatio n
Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
Se c . 55 1.0 86 : Competi ti ve Matters
- Buc ktho rn Update
Se c . 55 1.0 87 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Eco nomi c Devel opment
- Pro ject Hop
- Pro ject Cat
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2016, at
Page 1 of 68
__________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the
s cheduled time of s aid meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley No wling, City S ecretary
Page 2 of 68
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
P resentation o f the 20 16 Citize n Survey co nducted by Texas State University -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manage r and Dr.
Thomas Longo ria, Te xas State University
ITEM SUMMARY:
In the spring of 20 16 , the City of Ge orgetown partnered with Texas State University’s Center for Research, P ublic Po lic y,
and Training to co nduct a Citizen Survey.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
P aul Diaz, Budget Manager - SP
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Citizen Survey P res entation
Page 3 of 68
2016 Georgetown
Community Survey
Thomas Longoria and Jayce Farmer
Center for Research, Public Policy, and Training
Texas State University
Page 4 of 68
Project Background
City staff reviewed past surveys and selected common
survey questions and added questions of interest to city
staff and the researchers.
City Council reviewed the survey instrument
The project is a collaboration between the City of
Georgetown and Texas State faculty and students for
educational and research purposes.
31 questions
Some with prompts organized by categories
Other questions open-ended responses
A total of 113 items included in the survey
1
Page 5 of 68
Survey Methodology
Survey based on a random sample of 2500 housing units
from 4500 utility accounts.
Online and Spanish language surveys were made
available to attempt to increase response rate
The response rate is 20%, and 506 surveys were
completed and is in line with typical mail surveys
2
Page 6 of 68
Understanding the Results
Margin of Error
The Survey Contains a Margin of Error of +/-5.5%
Common Benchmarks
80% or higher benchmark for high quality
60% or lower benchmark for needs improvement
The interpretation takes into the margin of error
75% or higher for high quality (shaded in green)
65% or lower for needs improvement (shaded in red)
Items that fall between that range are shaded in
yellow
3
Page 7 of 68
Representativeness of the
Sample
Because the sample is drawn from utility accounts, the
characteristics of the respondents should be compared
to household, not individual, data
The US Census collects data for households defined as
“an occupied unit”and the person who fills out the
survey is defined as the “householder.”
The characteristics of the respondents closely match
the US Census household data in several areas:
6.3% of households in Georgetown have a Hispanic
householder, compared to 6.4% of the sample
The median household income in Georgetown is $62,219,
and the household income of the sample falls between
$50,000 and $75,000
25% of householders are a person living alone according to
the US Census compared to 28% of the sample
4
Page 8 of 68
Hispanic Origin
21
6.3 6.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent Hispanic
Population
Percent Hispanic
Households
Percent Hispanic
Respondents
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Percent Hispanic Household and Population
Comparison
5
Page 9 of 68
Income
16.6
22.5
20.3
14.5
17
9.1
7.4
23.1
21
22.5
15.1
10.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
Less than 25K 25 to 50K 50 to 75K 75 to 100K 100 to 150K More than
150K
Household Income Comparison
US Census Respondents
6
Page 10 of 68
Renters
28
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Renters (US Census)Renters (Respondents)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Percent Renters Comparison
7
Page 11 of 68
Age of Householder Comparison
3.9
23.4
31.6
41.6
1.2
7.5
26.5
64.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 +
Age of Householder Comparison
US Census Respondents
8
Page 12 of 68
Efforts to improve response
rate among renters
Some renters do not receive the utility bills
Phone calls and emails were sent to the property
managers of large complexes.
A link to an online survey was also sent.
Additional efforts (door-to-door, more reminders, etc.)
might introduce more bias
Efforts to reach college students will be made in a
future project due to challenges with university
approvals and buy-in
9
Page 13 of 68
Value of City Services
Value of city services for the city taxes paid
(78%) generally value from the city as either good or
excellent (55% good and 23% excellent)
Only 3% rate the value of city services as poor.
18.6
78.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Value of City Services
Value of City Services for Taxes
Paid
Good or Excellent
Fair
Poor
10
Page 14 of 68
Living in Georgetown
Good or
Excellent
Total
Responses
Overall quality of
life
97.6 506
Place to live 97.8 502
Your neighborhood 95.7 488
Place to raise
children
94.9 276
Place to work 74.3 276
Place to retire 94.7 474
The downtown
square
92.1 496
11
Page 15 of 68
Living in Georgetown
19.2
7.1
97.6 97.8 95.7 94.9
74.3
97.6 92.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall
quality of life
Place to live Your
neighborhood
Place to raise
children
Place to work Place to
retire
The
downtown
square
Living in Georgetown
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
12
Page 16 of 68
Quality of Life Services
Good or
Excellent
Total
Responses
City beautification 84.4 474
Downtown events 91.6 464
City parks 94.6 462
Public library 95.9 434
Senior services 87.6 389
Recreation
programs
91.4 359
Youth services 83.7 269
13
Page 17 of 68
Quality of Life Services
13.1
7.3 5.2
9.3 7.5
14.4
84.4 91.6 94.6 95.9
87.6 91.4 83.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
City
beautification
Downtown
events
City parks Public library Senior
services
Recreation
programs
Youth services
Quality of Life Services
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
14
Page 18 of 68
Businesses, Employment, and
Housing
Good or
Excellent
Total
Responses
Overall quality of
businesses
83.5 489
Availability of
businesses
70.9 484
Quality of new
development
81.8 471
Retail options 66.5 465
Employment
opportunities
53.2 261
Housing
availability
70.0 406
15
Page 19 of 68
Businesses, Employment, and
Housing
13.8 5.4
14.1
25.4
15.3
29
33
24.6
83.5
70.9
81.8
66.5
53.2
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall
quality of
businesses
Availability of
businesses
Quality of
new
development
Retail options Employment
opportunities
Housing
availability
Business, Employment, and Housing
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
16
Page 20 of 68
Mobility
Good or
Excellent
Total Responses
Car travel 68.0 505
Traffic flow 40.9 504
Public parking 45.5 492
Paths and trails 77.4 460
Walking 62.1 444
Biking 37.9 280
17
Page 21 of 68
Mobility
5.9
18 13 5.2
14.9
25
26.1
41.1
41.5
17.4
23
37.1
68
40.9 45.5
77.4
62.1
37.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Car travel Traffic flow Public
parking
Paths and
trails
Walking Biking
Mobility
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
18
Page 22 of 68
Protective Services
Good or
Excellent
Total
Responses
Police 95.1 420
Fire 98.3 406
EMS 97.3 388
Emergency preparedness 86.5 333
Crime prevention 92.0 397
Fire prevention 90.7 361
19
Page 23 of 68
Protective Services
11.1 6.9 8.6
95.1 98.3 97.2 86.5 92 90.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Police Fire EMS Emergency
preparedness
Crime
prevention
Fire
prevention
Protective Services
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
20
Page 24 of 68
Code and Traffic Enforcement
Good or
Excellent
Total Responses
Code enforcement 76.7 309
Animal control 82.6 340
Traffic Enforcement 76.7 386
Municipal courts 89.8 243
21
Page 25 of 68
Code and Traffic Enforcement
6.2
17.1 13.5 18.9
8.4
76.7 82.6 76.7 89.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Code enforcement Animal control Traffic
enforcement
Municipal courts
Code and Traffic Enforcement
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
22
Page 26 of 68
Streets and Traffic
Good
or Excellent
Total
Responses
Street repair 61.0 425
Street lighting 68.6 425
Street cleaning 72.6 414
Sidewalks and trails 73.9 389
Traffic signals 52.0 430
23
Page 27 of 68
Streets and Traffic
11.6 7.9 6.6 15.6
27.4
23.5 23.1 19.5
32.4
61 68.6 72.6 73.9
52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Street repair Street lighting Street cleaning Sidewalks and
trails
Traffic signals
Streets and Traffic
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
24
Page 28 of 68
Waste Services
Good
or Excellent
Total Responses
Garbage collection 91.8 433
Recycling 91.0 417
Sewer 89.4 384
Storm drainage 80.7 391
Yard waste pickup 76.5 390
25
Page 29 of 68
Waste Services
6.4 6 8.8
15 15.5
91.8 91 89.4 80.7 76.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Garbage
collection
Recycling Sewer Storm drainage Yard waste
pickup
Waste Services
Poor Fair Good or Excellent
26
Page 30 of 68
Citizen contact with city
employees
Contact with a city employee: 64.2%
Most frequent contacts
Utilities (20%)
Police (11%)
Water services (16%)
Other (63%)
91% rate the overall impression of city employee as
good or excellent
27
Page 31 of 68
Citizens’ experience at city
events
Attended a city-sponsored events: 51.2%
Most common events
Red poppy festival (35%)
Christmas stroll (6%)
Other events (59%)
95% rate the overall impression of the event as good or
excellent
28
Page 32 of 68
Items without clear
benchmarks
Pace of growth
Service use
Support for tax increases
Perceptions of safety
29
Page 33 of 68
Pace of Growth
Percent about
right
Total responses
Business growth 52.9 408
Retail growth 48.1 426
Job growth 41.0 288
Population growth 25.3 439
30
Page 34 of 68
Pace of Growth
12.8 6.8
25
23.5
18.925.3
41
48.1
52.9
33.9
9.7 16.9 19.6
39.9
11.5 4.7 5.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Population growth Job growth Retail growth Business growth
Pace of Growth
Much too slow Slow About right Fast Much too fast
31
Page 35 of 68
Service Use Over the Last Year
More than 12
times
Total Responses
Downtown square 44.2 491
Visited a city park 26.1 488
City library 21.4 491
Recreation centers 15.1 485
Recreation programs 9.9 486
Youth services 9.8 481
32
Page 36 of 68
Service Use Over the Last Year
14.8
26.5
46.6
60.5
73.6
10.4
26.1
24.4
22.3
18.1
8.9
42.3
33
27.7
16
11.5 7.7
28.9
15.2 11.6 5.6
15.3 10.9 9.8 9.5 5.6 7.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Downtown
square
Visited a city
park
City library Recreation
centers
Recreation
programs
Youth services
Service Use Over the Last Year
Never 1-2 times 3-12 times 13-26 times More than 26 times
33
Page 37 of 68
Sources for Local News
34
13.2
52.2
39.5
80.6
12.8
17.2
22.7
10.3
9.5
5.5
5.9
2.4
59.7
20.6 29.2
5.54.8 4.5 2.7 1.2
CITY REPORTER CITY SOCIAL MEDIA GEORGETOWN.ORG GTV
SOURCES OF CITY NEWS
More than 26 Times
3-12 Times
13-26 Times
1-2 Times
Never
Page 38 of 68
Support for Dedicated Tax
Increases
Mean
Support
Percent support
or strongly
support
Total
Responses
Street
maintenance
3.0 81.3 429
Public safety 3.0 80.3 421
Parks and rec
programs
2.9 75.6 406
Youth programs 2.8 72.4 377
Downtown
improvement
2.8 68.7 405
Senior services 2.8 67.9 402
Transit services 2.7 63.8 400
Library services 2.6 60.3 393
35
Page 39 of 68
Support for Dedicated Tax
Increases
6.2 6.7 8.9 10.1 8.1 11.3 12.8 13.9
12.8 13.7 15.2 18.4 24.2 21.9 23.9 26.5
52.2 50.3
53.5 51.5 48.5 48 42.9
49
28.8 29.3 22.4 20 19.2 18.8 20.4
10.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Street
maintenance
Public safety Parks and
rec programs
Youth
programs
Downtown
improvement
Senior
services
Transit
services
Library
services
Support for Dedicated Tax Increases
Strongly oppose Oppose Support Strongly Support
36
Page 40 of 68
Perceptions of Safety
Mean Percent very
safe or
somewhat
safe
Total
responses
Neighborhood
(day)
3.9 98.9 442
Neighborhood
(night)
3.6 93.6 441
Downtown 3.5 94.5 405
Shopping centers 3.4 92.9 410
Recreational
waters
3.3 86.4 286
Drinking water 3.3 84.4 425
City parks 3.2 83.4 338
37
Page 41 of 68
Perceptions of Safety
6
11.3 10 13.611.8
26
36
40.6
44.7
32
49.1
87.1
68
59 52.7
42.2
53.4
35.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Neighborhood
(day)
Neighborhood
(night)
Downtown Shopping
centers
Recreational
waters
Drinking
water
City parks
Perceptions of Safety
Not safe at al Somewhat unsafe Somewhat safe Very safe
38
Page 42 of 68
Overview of the Findings:
High Quality Areas
Quality of New Development
Quality of New Businesses
All Protective Services
All Quality of Life Services
All Dimensions of Customer Services for Citizen-initiated
Contacts
Overall Value Based on Taxes Paid
39
Page 43 of 68
Overview of the Findings:
Areas for Improvement
Employment opportunities
Bike Travel
Walking
Traffic Flow
Traffic Signals
Parking
Street Repair
40
Page 44 of 68
Considerations for Next
Survey
Reduce number of questions to increase response rate
Cases when multiple items can be captured with a single
“overall” question.
Online survey of students in collaboration with
Southwestern
Identify ways to increase renter response rate
Continue to build capacity of the CRPT and provide pro
bono services to the city
MS4 Permit Survey currently underway
41
Page 45 of 68
Aligning Survey Results:
Transportation
$105 Million Road Bond Passed in FY2015
Largest Capital Improvement Bond in the history of the
City
Southwest Bypass
$10 Million in Sidewalk Improvements
Public Works Reorganization in FY2017
Hiring process for Public Work Director underway
Williams Drive Corridor Study underway
Laying the foundation for a Bike Plan Analysis
42
Page 46 of 68
Aligning Survey Results:
Economic Development
Funded in FY2017 were dollars for a Retail Study and
Recruitment Strategy
Business Retention Program
Targeted Industry Sector Recruitment
Workforce Analysis
43
Page 47 of 68
Aligning Survey Results:
Quality Development
Updating the MUD Policy
FY2107 Budget featured funds for a Cost to Serve Study
Helps understand the fiscal impacts of new development
and annexation.
Planning is currently working on the 2030 Comp Plan
Review and updates to the Unified Development Code
44
Page 48 of 68
For more information
For more information please contact Thomas Longoria
tl28@txsstate.edu
45
Page 49 of 68
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Midterm review and discussion of the Austin Avenue Impro vement Project -- Nat Waggo ner, PMP, AICP, Transportation
Analyst
ITEM SUMMARY:
In December 2 01 3, TxDOT conducted a detailed fie ld investigation of the Austin Ave nue North and South San Gabriel
River Bridges as part o f its biennial Off-System Bridge Invento ry, Inspection and Appraisal Pro gram (BRINSAP). The
Report recommended “A Lo ad Posting with Gross Weight Limit = 48,000 lbs (Tande m Axle Weight Limit of 21,000
lbs).” The repo rt also stated, “Those structures inc luded in the list should be repaired as soo n as maintenance funds are
available within the County’s normal maintenance pro gram.”
In March 2014 , the City engaged Aguirre & Fields, LP (A&F), to conduct an assessme nt o f bridge superstructure and
substructure, we aring surface/joints and approaches and deliver a Condition Assessment Repo rt documenting condition o f
bridge elements and pro vide short, immediate, and long-term repair/maintenance/replacement alternatives for
consideration.
In August 2014 , the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization awarded the c ity of Geo rgetown $1.3M in Surface
Transportation Me tro politan Mobility (STP-MM) mo nies for construction.
In October 2015 , the City hired Aguirre & Fields, LP (A&F), to manage forensic te sting o f the bridge structures. Work
completed by WJE Engineering, sub-consultants to A&F, included historic docume nt review, field investigation,
destructive testing, lab testing and summary reporting.
In December 2 01 5, TxDOT conducted a BRINSAP which reinforced the findings of the 20 13 BRINSAP.
On December 10 , 20 15 . The Georgetown Transportatio n Advisory Board (GTAB) unanimo usly recommended award o f a
Task Order and on January 12 , 2016 City Council appro ved a Task order with Aguirre & Fields, LP, of Austin, Texas, for
professional services to provide engineering and support services required to develop preliminary design alternative s,
conduct public invo lvement, initiate environmental services and the prepare 30% plans, specifications and estimates
(P S&E) package fo r replacing the Austin Avenue bridges and ro adway improvements fro m Morrow Street to 3rd Stre e t in
the amount of $66 2,5 46 .00 .
This workshop will provide City Council an update on pro ject activities since Task Order approval in January 2016,
including public meetings, required environmental pro cesses, results of forensic testing and the upcoming project
milestones.
STAF F RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reco mmends scheduling a legislative regular agenda item for the next City Council meeting on October 25 , 2016 to
consider possible Task Order Amendment #1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial impac t may be co nsidered as part of a regular legislative agenda item during the October 25, 2016 City Council
meeting.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P res entation Slides
Page 50 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –update
October 11
Agenda
•Purpose and Need
•Accomplishments to Date
•Environmental Processes
•Steel Testing Results
•Mid Term Project Scope and Fee Review
•Next Steps
Page 51 of 68
Why NEPA?
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required for any project with a federal funding component. This project
will follow the NEPA process in order to remain eligible for additional funding from state and federal sources.
Project Need and Purpose
Need:
This project is needed because the segment of Austin Avenue from
Morrow Street to 3rd Street, including the two bridges crossing the San
Gabriel River is (a) load restricted and fails to meet current design
standards on both bridges, and (b) has deteriorated resulting in falling
debris on and below the bridges, which presents safety hazards to traffic
and trail users.
Purpose:
The purpose of this project is to improve mobility on Austin Avenue and
ensure the safety of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic along Austin
Avenue between Morrow Street and 3 rd Street and on the multi-use trails
below the two bridge crossings. This project offers opportunities to
expand the accessibility and mobility of Austin Avenue for all modes of
travel while preserving a gateway into historic Georgetown.
Page 52 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –accomplishments
to date
Public Involvement
•19 separate stakeholder engagements
•Private
•Public
•2 Public Meetings, Section 106 Consulting Parties
Introduction
•Direct mailings, media releases, active website
and Email Campaign (9 issues to over 594 recipients)
Page 53 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –accomplishments
to date
Technical Study
•2 Forensic Studies involving 4 separate
engineering firms and TxDOT
•Multiple Engagements with TxDOT Bridge re:
Load Postings, BRINSAP
•Surveying, Alternatives Development
Page 54 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –accomplishments
to date
Environmental Analysis
•Draft Technical Reports
•Draft Alternatives Analysis
•Multiple Engagements with TxDOT Environmental
Page 55 of 68
Environmental Process
•National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
•Overarching environmental regulation
•Evaluation of a range of alternatives
•Requires coordination with multiple
Federal and State agencies
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –environmental
process
Page 56 of 68
Environmental Process
•Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
•Bridges are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places
•Consultative law that requires project sponsors
to consider potential impacts to bridges and
other historic resources comply with Section 106
of the NHPA
•Currently have 12 consulting parties registered
with TxDOT
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –environmental process
Page 57 of 68
Environmental Process
•Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act
•Protects publicly owned and accessible parks,
recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl
refuges and historic sites, regardless of
ownership and accessibility.
•Process includes an alternatives analysis to
determine if there is a prudent and feasible
alternative to the use of Section 4(f) property.
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –environmental process
Page 58 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –steel testing
Purpose
1.Determine actual yield strength of steel in order to
improve load bearing calculations used in BRINSAPs.
Method
1.Six (6) steel samples were taken from existing steel girder
webs.
2.Samples were tested in accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for
tensile and hardness properties.
3.Consultant reanalyzed the load rating of the controlling
span using the yield strength value derived from Lewis’s
material testing.
Page 59 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –steel testing
Results
1.Average yield strength of the samples was 38.5ksi, higher than the default 33ksi
used in 2013, 2105 BRINSAPs.
2.Consultant reanalyzed the load rating of the controlling span using the new
yield strength and recommends determined in accordance with TxDOT
procedures, should be as follows:
•Axle 20,000 lbs (legal limit)
•Tandem axle 34,000 lbs (legal limit)
•Single Gross vehicle 69,000 lbs (legal limit)
•Combination vehicle 79,000 lbs (legal limit is 80,000)
3.TxDOT is reviewing report, guidance is expected by the end of the year.
4.New yield strength will be incorporated into Alternative Analysis.
Page 60 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –Mid term scope review
DESCRIPTION % Billed
ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 72.33%
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 73.70%
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPPING 65.65%
DESIGN SURVEYS AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS 96.96%
ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS 0.00%
DRAINAGE 0.00%
SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNALIZATION 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS (ROADWAY)4.37%
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 58.75%
BRIDGE DESIGN 23.41%
OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES (FC 163)83.78%
TOTAL 50%
Based on enhanced public involvement and heightened environmental analysis, we
anticipate needing additional funding to complete this project.
Page 61 of 68
Due to:
•Heightened environmental review, Federal and State coordination
•Independent analysis reports and forensics testing
•Additional alternatives needed due to the project publicity and historic nature
•Additional stakeholder outreach, webpage support, coordination/meetings and press
releases
•Additional coordination with TxDOT on AFA, independent reports, load posting,
unscheduled BRINSAP inspection
•Schedule has lengthened by an additional 12 months
•50% complete with original tasks
•75% of the original schedule timeframe
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –additional effort
Page 62 of 68
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –phase II environmental
Needed to:
•Solidify the documentation of 10 alternative and identify the most feasible
alternatives.
•Present complete and documented information at Public Meeting 3 as to how we
ended up at the most feasible and prudent solutions.
•Meeting and exhibit support, completion of technical fieldwork and reports,
archeological studies, and complete the section 4f process.
•Advise and coordinate with TXDOT for the ENV process and recommended
mitigation if needed.
Page 63 of 68
Additional Services:
ENV and Public Involvement Lump Sum $140,000.00
Miscellaneous Roadway Lump Sum $30,000.00
Project Management and Administration Lump Sum $15,000.00
Other Direct Expenses Lump Sum $7,000.00
Added Forensics $88,000.00
Total Compensation (not to exceed):$280,000.00
Recommended funding source is the Streets Arterial Reserve Account
Budget Amendment in January will reflect transfer
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –Amendment #2
Page 64 of 68
•Between Now and March 2017
•GTAB (14 OCT 2016)
•Council Consideration of Task Order Amendment (25 Oct 2016)
•Agency Coordination, Section 106 Consultation led by TxDOT (Mar 2017)
•Consider Public Meeting #3 (Mar 2017)
•Workshop with Council on Alternatives Analysis (June 2017)
•Submit Environmental Assessment to TxDOT (June/July 2017)
•Environmental Assessment review period (Aug 2017)
•Public Hearing (Oct 2017)
•Decision to progress alternative from 30% -100% design (Mar 2018)
Austin Avenue Bridges Project –Next steps
Page 65 of 68
questions
Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP
Transportation Services Analyst
(W) 512.930.8171
nathaniel.waggoner@georgetown.org
https://www.hightail.com/u/NatWaggoner
www.georgetown.org
Page 66 of 68
Share your Photos and Stories!
Do you have any photos or stories of the Austin Avenue
Bridges? We would like to catalog these as a part of this
project!
Send your photos to the team or use these hashtags to
submit on social media:
#georgetowntxbridges
#austinavebridges
#austinavegeorgetown
#georgetowntx
Share Your Input on the Austin Avenue Bridges
Share Input on the Project
Take a survey here or access it from home via the project website: http://AustinAve.Georgetown.org
Share the survey link with those that might be interested.
Share general comments on a comment card or send them to us via email at: AustinAve@georgetown.org
Leave your comments on the project maps.
“Bridges for Williamson Built Recently,” Williamson County Sun, February 16, 1940. Accessed March 7, 2016. www.newspaperarchive.com
Page 67 of 68
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending o r co ntemplated litigation and other matters o n which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
- 3834 Partners, Ltd—Settlement Agreement in Lieu o f Co ndemnation
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Sec re tary and Municipal Judge: Consideratio n of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.086: Competi ti ve Matters
- Buckthorn Update
Sec. 551.087: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment
- P roject Hop
- P roject Cat
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 68 of 68