Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 04.14.2015
Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas April 14, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on April 14, 2015 at 6:00 PM at City Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas 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 Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Presentation of Proclamation in honor of National Bookmobile Day - Garey Park City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Red Poppy Festival April 24th to April 26th - Elections for City Council seat for District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - Road Bond Election - Georgetown Green Energy Promotional Video Action from Executive Session Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary C Consideration and possible action to appoint members of the Georgetown City Council as alternates for Mayor Dale Ross on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Transportation Policy Board -- Mayor Dale Ross D Consideration and possible action to authorize the application to FEMA for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant for the amount of $33,720. The goal of these grants is to improve firefighter health and safety through Fire Prevention activities -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief E Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase from Zeno Imaging in the amount of $58,205.71 for Printer Maintenance and Supplies Services -- James Davis, IT Operations Manager and Mike Peters, Information Technology Director Legislative Regular Agenda F Consideration and possible action to approve the additional purchase of two Dodge 4500- Diesel transitional response vehicles (TRV's) from Dallas Dodge Chrysler Jeep through a Buy -Board contract purchase price not to exceed $340,000 for both units -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief G Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order BGE-15-001 with Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, TX, for professional engineering services related design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and 135 Southbound Frontage Road improvements in the amount of $485,700.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney H Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): First Reading of an Ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2015/16 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) I First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to increased operation and capital costs, including the addition of six (6) new positon for the Emergency Response Program -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) J Consideration and possible direction to staff regarding changes to the City Council's compensation -- Patty Eason, Councilmember District 1 and Jerry Hammerlun, Councilmember District 5, Co -Chairs of the Council Compensation Committee K Consideration and possible action to temporarily restrict vehicular traffic at the intersection of West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane in the Sun City Subdivision -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager, Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director and Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Project Updates L Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property; Overall Transportation Plan, 2015/16 Annual Budget Update; 2015 Bond Issue Update; West Texas Wind Farm Project Update; EMS Transition Update; Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. M - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. N Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - EMS Contract Discussion Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Inner Peace Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - Interim City Manager Compensation Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2015, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Presentation of Proclamation in honor of National Bookmobile Day - Garey Park City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Red Poppy Festival April 24th to April 26th - Elections for City Council seat for District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - Road Bond Election - Georgetown Green Energy Promotional Video Action from Executive Session ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: Please see attached for the draft minutes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: March 24, 2015 DRAFT Workshop Minutes March 24, 2015 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Notice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, March 24, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7" St., Georgetown, Texas 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 Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8" Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A Presentation and discussion on Garey Park design and operations/maintenance plan — Brian Binkowski, PLA, ASLA, Director of Planning for Baker-Aicklen and Associates, Inc. and Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Mayor called the meeting to order at 3:OOPM. Garret introduced the item and the people involved in this project. She said this is a project eleven years in the making. She said Mr. Garey has said he will be willing to pledge additional money for this project if needed. She reviewed the calendar for this project and introduced the lead landscape architect, Brian Bukowski, who presented the schematic design to the Council. He reviewed the design in full detail and summarized the opinion of probable construction costs to implement these ideas. Garrett provided the Council with the estimated revenue and expense summary. Eason asked and Garrett said it is possible to charge more for out of city visitors. Garrett spoke about the various options available for entry fees and other costs. She said the revenue and expenses are very flexible. She spoke about the capital costs for initial purchases to be made to get going. Hammerlun asked and Rundell spoke about the debt service for this project. Hammerlun said he understands the commitment to the equestrian component but said that part of the project does not seem to result in the same kind of return from a dollar standpoint. He asked if that could be phased in later in the project. Garrett said this plan includes doing everything immediately and not necessarily a phasing plan. Garrett said the house looks like it will generate the most amount of revenue for the city. She said a phased plan could be possible. Hammerlun thanked Mr. Garey for his generous commitment to the city. He said it is Council's responsibility to be good stewards of this great asset. He said, given the fact that an MOU exists, how much further do we intend to go. Garrett said the city can go through construction documents and continue to have dialogue with the regulatory agencies in order to keep the documents alive. Gonzalez said this is going to be such a large park and financial commitment that it is important to look at it as a destination. He said it should be the goal for the city to make the park closer to operating at net neutral to where the bonds could be the difference. He said he is sure the powers that be can come up with different ideas because there is much potential. He said the cost differential from a Georgetown resident to a non- resident should be a noticeable difference since the citizens will be bearing the cost. Eason said it is important for the City to be mindful of the original agreement that was made with Mr. Garey. She said it is imperative for Mr. Garey to be involved in this project and communicate his vision for what this will be. She said the quality of the park will justify why it may be more expensive to go there. She thanked Mr. Garey for gifting the city such an incredible property. Jonrowe said she is humbled by the amount of responsibility Mr. Garey has bestowed on the City. She asked about the maintenance at the park and why some areas have more intense maintenance than others. Rogers spoke about how the heaviest maintenance will occur around the house where the events will be held. Mayor said he thinks any design needs to be consistent with the Garey Family's vision for the property. He thanked the Gareys and said this will be a gift that keeps on giving for the next 200-300 years. B Discussion on the proposed amendment to the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standard, rules and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner and Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator With a Powerpoint Presentation, Synatschk thanked all of the staff members who assisted with this project. He provided a background of this process. He said since the last Council meeting, two additional workshops were conducted to receive feedback on the changes the city is proposing. He said unofficial meetings were held by the telephone and the web as well. He spoke about the public workshops and said they were structured into four major areas of discussion. He described those subject areas for the Council. He said there were 40 new comments. He summarized the proposed amendments and the comments that were received during the public meetings. Davila -Quintero spoke about the proposed amendment about the review authority and how it was the area that received the most comments. She summarized the comments received about that amendment. She reviewed some of the minor changes to add and clarify language on particular requirements as well. She summarized the next steps in the process. Fought said the review has been expansive and, in his opinion, the city should press ahead with the schedule as shown. Brainard asked if the city has a list of structures that are of historic nature. Davila -Quintero confirmed they have a list and the city will be going through the process of updating that list since it was last done in 2007. Eason said she is still concerned with this process. She noted she hopes the colleagues on Council will remember that those living downtown do not have a Homeowner's Association and these types of changes will affect the residents directly. She said she feels there is still too many things going directly to staff instead of handled in a public process. She said it is a problem that there is no distinction between a commercial development and a single family residence when it comes to this issue. She continued to describe some of her concerns. Hesser thanked staff for the hard work and said he has been to most of the meetings. He asked about the cost of the survey. Synatschk said the estimate is about $50,000 and added the city will need to phase that in. Hesser asked and Synatschk said staff will not have a full cost until they start to receive RFPs. Hesser asked and Synatschk described the city's notification process. There was much discussion about this. Jonrowe said it seems Council does not have a clear goal in mind. She said she wishes Council should have given staff some clear direction on where to move on these amendments. Jonrowe asked about HARC's purpose and mission and whether or not that will be changed. Davila -Quintero said they recognize the importance of HARC and she reviewed the current purpose of HARC for the Council. Jonrowe said the definition seems long and said the city should consider creating a mission statement for the Commission. There was much discussion about the proposed amendments. Davila -Quintero said the majority of these amendments are about the review process and not necessarily about the purpose and guidelines. Jonrowe spoke about the importance of reviewing the guidelines for possible changes since they could be open to interpretation. C Update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center -- Codi Newsom, Senior Project Manager and Wayne Nero, Chief of Police With a Powerpoint Presentation, Newsom provided Council with a cost overview and the current status of contingency accounts. She provided Council with the anticipated future costs for the project. She said the city is still looking good at $121,044. Gonzalez asked about the punch list that was given to Council on the walk through. Newsom reviewed what is left on the punch list and said it was very small. Mayor asked and Newsom said they will be providing the Council with final numbers very soon. Hammerlun said Newsom and Nero have done a great job. Hammerlun said he has volunteered to participate in helping to expedite the final close out of this project. D Georgetown Fire Department Paramedic and TRV Program -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief With a Powerpoint Presentation, Sullivan provided Council with an overview of this program. He spoke about the objectives of the program. He spoke about how much Georgetown is growing and how the fire department not only services the city but the ETJ. He said last fiscal year, the city responded to 6,300 emergencies. He said 75% are medical and the city made $0 on the medical calls. He summarized the fiscal aspect of the paramedic and TRV program for the Council. Diaz said he was asked to go in and look at a business analysis. He reviewed the three options for this program. He provided Council with an overview of each of the options and the costs for each as well as the benefits and risks associated with each option. There was much discussion. Brainard asked and Diaz explained what he means by the billing rate being above market. Diaz spoke about the debt service for the acquisition of the TRVs. Gonzalez asked and Diaz spoke about the replacement cost of a TRV. Sullivan described where the TRVs would be housed currently as well as when a new fire station opens. There was discussion of costs as the new stations open. Mayor said, once the city builds fire stations six and seven, there would be efficiencies in this model. Diaz confirmed that is correct. Brainard asked and Sullivan confirmed, under this model, the city would not have to send out the bid red fire truck to every call depending on the call type. Diaz continued to speak about the initial Operations and Maintenance start-up costs for the options. Sullivan spoke about the EMS franchise agreement and how it is an opportunity for additional revenue throughout the city. He said this is an area of growth, which will mean growth in activity and growth in revenue from calls. He noted the city is trying to adapt to the demands placed on them. He said they are trying to be safe, efficient and respond to the needs of the citizens. Fought spoke about how a smaller committee was formed to meet about this program and they had the opportunity to work with Gattis and Covey at Williamson County. He said the city looked to combine programs but will inevitably do what is best for the County. He said he favors the third option because it is an integrated, single source, response system for Georgetown. He noted it provides quicker response and it is a single source the Council can hold accountable for service. He said it offers good financial reimbursement as well. He noted it also sets the stage for expansion to other fire stations. He thanked the County for their cooperation in this process. Hesser said he does not know what else he can add and said the presentation speaks for itself. He said he is looking at the total financial picture and may not necessarily be committed to one particular option. He said he is not so committed to option three and said it is his personal opinion that option two is the weakest. Briggs reiterated that the city has had a good working relationship with the County on this. He summarized some of the discussions that were held with the County. He said all three options have risks and rewards and it is important to closely consider all options. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071 and 551.074 of the Local Government Code — 5:05PM Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items EMS Contract Discussion Meet and Confer Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Review and discussion of City Manager position Interim City Manager Compensation Adjournment — Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned at 6:OOPM Notice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, March 24, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 71h St., Georgetown, Texas 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 Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order— Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:07PM Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Elections for City Council seats for District 1 and District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - Road Bond Election - Last Day to register to vote will be April 9, 2015 - Cities and Counties Warrant Roundup - Budget Presentation Award Action from Executive Session Motion by Jonrowe, second by Gonzalez to approve an Employment Agreement with David Morgan as City Manager, and to approve a related Relocation Agreement and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreements on behalf of the city. Approved 7-0 Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary C Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve an Agreement to Terminate Lease with the Apollo Composite Squadron, Texas Wing, Civil Air Patrol -- Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director D Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve the dedication of 29 acres of parkland in the deed in lieu of parkland fees for the Sun City Queens PUD and Somerset PUD -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks Director and Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Motion by Eason, second by Jonrowe to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda E Consideration and possible action regarding the Georgetown Fire Department Paramedic and TRV Program — John Sullivan, Fire Chief Sullivan described the item and said this is an action item as a follow up to the workshop discussion held earlier in the day. He said he is available to answer any questions Council may have. Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to move forward with Option 3 for the TRV program. Approved 7-0 F Consideration and possible action to approve the revised Site Plan for the Sheraton Georgetown Hotel and Conference Center -- Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner Kreger described the item and showed the Council the revised site plan for the Sheraton Hotel and Conference Center. She described the revisions in their entirety. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve the revised Site Plan. Approved 7-0 G Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing proceeding with the issuance of obligations for the City's capital improvement programs and further directing the publication of Notice of Intention to Issue City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Utility System Limited Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2015; and other matters related thereto -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Rundell described the item and read the caption of the Resolution. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve the Resolution. Approved 7-0 H Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order KPA-15-003 with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas, for professional services related to the Shell Road Waterline Improvements in the amount of $534,998.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Michael Hallmark, Project Manager Wright described the item and the projects that are included in the task order. Motion by Hammerlun, second by Hesser to approve the Task Order. Approved 7-0 Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to award the contract for Electric System Substation Maintenance to M&S Power Systems of Spring Branch, Texas, with a five year contract total of $93,239.00 -- Jimmy Sikes, T&D Services Supervisor and Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director Sikes described the item for Council. Motion by Brainard, second by Eason to approve the contract. Approved 7-0 J Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to the consolidation of Water Services in the Western District that had not been finalized when the budget was originally adopted -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Rundell described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on Second Reading. Approved 7-0 K Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Georgetown, Texas amending Chapter 6.20 of the Code of Ordinances relating to Taxicabs, Buses and Other Vehicles for Hire; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; providing for inclusion in the code; providing for a severability clause; providing for a penalty; and establishing an effective date -- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Wayne Nero, Police Chief (action required) Chapman described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve the Ordinance. Approved 7-0 L Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.36.030 "City Commissions, Committees and Boards" regarding appointment, terms and organization; repealing conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions; Providing a Severability Clause; and establishing an effective date -- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Jessica Brettle, City Secretary (action required) Chapman described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve the Ordinance. Approved 7-0 M Second Reading of an Ordinance adding Chapter 12.03 entitled "Sidewalk Use Regulations" to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required) Synatschk described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Eason, second by Brainard to approve the Ordinance. Approved 7-0 N Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.05 of the Code of Ordinances Relating to "The Intentional Feeding of Deer," Creating an Offense, Providing a Penalty Clause, Repealing Conflicting Ordinances, Providing a Severability Clause and Establishing an Effective Date -- Keith Brainard, District 2 Councilmember, and Shirley J. Rinn, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Brainard introduced the item and said he has already been approached by residents in the ETJ to see if this law could apply to their area. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to approve the Ordinance. Approved 7-0 Project Updates O Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property; Overall Transportation Plan, West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane; 2015/16 Annual Budget Update; 2015 Bond Issue Update; Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. P - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. Q Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - EMS Contract Discussion - Meet and Confer Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - Review and discussion of City Manager position - Interim City Manager Compensation 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 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary MEETING ADJOURNED — 6:33PM City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to appoint members of the Georgetown City Council as alternates for Mayor Dale Ross on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Transportation Policy Board -- Mayor Dale Ross ITEM SUMMARY: Mayor Dale Ross currently serves as the City's representative and voting member on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Transportation Policy Board. Mayor Ross would like to appoint all members of the Georgetown City Council as alternates to the Board, who would be able to serve as voting members. If approved, Mayor Ross would be able to designate a member of Council to attend a meeting and vote in his absence Section III of the CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures (attached) states: SECTION III — TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD 1. Voting Alternate. A member of the Transportation Policy Board may designate an alternate to exercise some or all of that member's authority as a member of the Transportation Policy Board pursuant to the applicable subsection (a) or (b) of this subparagraph (13)(1). The alternate designated by a member will count toward a quorum and may vote on any matter authorized by the member designating the alternate. A person designated as a voting alternate may vote as an alternate on behalf of only one designating member. A member who designates an alternate shall give written notice of the alternate's name and voting authority to the Chairperson prior to the first meeting for which the alternate is designated. The authority of an alternate designated under this subparagraph (13)(1) shall continue until it is rescinded or changed by written notice from the designating member to the Chairperson. a. An elected official may designate as an alternate a person appointed as an alternate by the body who appointed that member. b. A member who is not an elected official may designate as an alternate a person employed by or who serves on the Board of the organization represented by that member. Please see attached for a copy of the Transportation Policy Board Alternate Designation Form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ATTACHMENTS: CAMPO Alternate Designation Form CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures QAPG.-I Transportation Policy Board — Alternate Designation (May 2010) CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BYLAWS AND OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROGRAM IN THE AUSTIN METROPOLITAN AREA. SECTION III — TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD Voting Alternate. A member of the Transportation Policy Board may designate an alter- nate to exercise some or all of that member's authority as a member of the Transportation Policy Board pursuant to the applicable subsection (a) or (b) of this subparagraph (B)(1 ). The alternate designated by a member will count toward a quorum and may vote on any matter authorized by the member designating the alternate. A person designated as a voting alternate may vote as an alternate on behalf of only one designating member. A member who designates an alternate shall give written notice of the alternate's name and voting authority to the Chairperson prior to the first meeting for which the alternate is des- ignated. The authority of an alternate designated under this subparagraph (B)(1) shall continue until it is rescinded or changed by written notice from the designating member to the Chairperson. a. An elected official may designate as an alternate a person appointed as an alternate by the body who appointed that member. b. A member who is not an elected official may designate as an alternate a person em- ployed by or who serves on the Board of the organization represented by that mem- ber. Transportation Policy Board Member Designated Alternate Extent of Voting Privileges TPB Member's Signature Date 505 Barton Springs Road • Suite 700 • P.O. Box 1088 • Austin, Texas 78767-1088 512.974.2275 (Voice) • 512.974.6385 (Fax) • campo@campotexas.org Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BYLAWS AND OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROGRAM IN THE AUSTIN METROPOLITAN AREA SECTION I DEFINITIONS For the purposes of these bylaws, the following definitions apply A. Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), designated as Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), in cooperation with the State and with operators of publicly owned transit services, shall be responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process in accordance with Section 134, Title 23, United States Code (23 USC 134) and applicable federal and state regulations. CAMPO shall have a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and supports metropolitan community development and social goals. These plans and programs shall lead to the development and operation of an integrated, intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods. The metropolitan transportation planning process includes the development of a transportation plan, transportation improvement program (TIP) and a unified planning work program (UPWP) that will encourage the achievement of community goals by evaluating the environmental, energy, economic, and social costs of transportation plans and systems, projecting future travel demands, determining viable transportation alternatives, and evaluating these alternatives to determine the optimum combination of all modes of travel to best serve the citizens of the Austin metropolitan area. B. Public Involvement Program. The metropolitan transportation planning process includes the development of a Public Involvement Program and staff procedures. The CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 1 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 Program is intended to include all Austin metropolitan area citizens, groups, agencies, and transportation providers in a transportation effort that is proactive and provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing plans and programs including the Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. The Public Involvement Program shall integrate the concerns of a wide variety of involved parties and encourage and provide for the greatest level of education of transportation issues. The program will provide opportunities for citizens to contribute ideas and voice opinions early and often, both during and after preparation of draft plans and programs. Public participation in CAMPO Transportation Policy Board meetings is governed by Section III. E. of this document. C. Transportation Plan. The metropolitan planning process includes the development of a transportation plan addressing at least a twenty-year planning horizon. The plan shall include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods. The transportation plan shall be reviewed and updated at least every five years to confirm its validity and its consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the forecast period. The transportation plan must be approved (adopted) by the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board. D. Transportation Improvement Program. The Transportation Improvement Program specifies how federal transportation funds are spent in the Austin metropolitan area for a minimum three-year period. The TIP will be prepared at least every other year and will include a financial plan that demonstrates how the Transportation Improvement Program can be implemented. CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 2 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 E. Unified Planning Work Program. The Unified Planning Work Program is a document setting forth, by work element tasks, the planning priorities facing the metropolitan area and documenting the planning activities to be performed with funds available to CAMPO. The estimated expenditures and funding sources for carrying out the work shall be identified. F. Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is that organization designated by the Governor as being responsible, together with the state, for carrying out the provisions of 23 USC 134 (The Urban Transportation Planning Process) and 49 USC 5303, as amended. The MPO is the forum for cooperative decision making by principal elected officials of general purpose local and state government and a representative from the Texas Department of Transportation and the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. SECTION II ORGANIZATION The structure of the Metropolitan Planning Organization consists of the Transportation Policy Board, the Executive Committee, the CAMPO Office and other Committees, all as described in subsequent paragraphs of these bylaws and operating procedures. A. Transportation Policy Board. The Transportation Policy Board, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as the TPB, furnishes policy guidance and direction for the continuing transportation study. Ultimate responsibility for the total transportation process including, but not limited to, review and approval of the recommended transportation plan and transportation improvement program rests with the Transportation Policy Board. B. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee are members of the Transportation Policy Board who make recommendations on transportation planning issues, projects and the process as directed by the Transportation Policy Board. CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 3 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 C. CAMPO Office. The development of detailed transportation studies, maintenance of accurate data, preparation of reports, and performance of other activities requested by the Transportation Policy Board is the responsibility of the CAMPO Office. The Director of the CAMPO Office is responsible solely to the Transportation Policy Board. D. Other Committees. The Chairperson, with the advice and consent of the Executive Committee, may establish other committees as needed. SECTION III TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD The following rules shall govern the operations of the Transportation Policy Board. A. Membership. Membership on the Transportation Policy Board is established by the Joint Powers Agreement. B. Voting Representation. Voting Alternate. A member of the Transportation Policy Board may designate an alternate to exercise some or all of that member's authority as a member of the Transportation Policy Board pursuant to the applicable subsection (a) and (b) of this subparagraph (B)(1). The alternate designated by a member will count toward a quorum and may vote on any matter authorized by the member designating the alternate. A person designated as a voting alternate may vote as an alternate on behalf of only one designating member. A member who designates an alternate shall give written notice of the alternate's name and voting authority to the Chairperson prior to the first meeting for which the alternate is designated. The authority of an alternate designated under this subparagraph (B)(1) shall continue until it is rescinded or changed by written notice from the designating member to the Chairperson. CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 4 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 a. An elected official may designate as an alternate a person appointed as an alternate by the body who appointed that member. b. A member who is not an elected official may designate as an alternate a person employed by or who serves on the Board of the organization represented by that member. 2. Non -Voting Proxy. A member of the Transportation Policy Board may appoint a proxy to attend a meeting in the member's stead. The proxy appointed by a member does not count toward a quorum and may not vote. C. Quorum. Fifty percent (50%) of the total members encompassed in paragraph A or their alternate shall constitute a quorum of the members for transaction of business at all meetings. D. Officers. The Transportation Policy Board elects a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson for a term of two years. It is the preference that the Vice Chair succeeds to the Chair position. However, the Executive Committee shall reserve the right to recommend that the Vice Chair not succeed to the Chair's position at the end of the two-year term. The Chair and the Vice Chair must come from different counties. Elections are to be held at the first meeting of each even year. If the Chairperson resigns or is no longer eligible to be a member of the Transportation Policy Board, the Vice Chairperson will serve as Chairperson until an election is held. E. Meetings. The Chairperson, with the advice and consent of the Executive Committee, shall establish the dates and times of meetings, and the Chairperson designates in the written notice of the meetings the location and business to be transacted or considered. Any Board member may submit a matter for consideration on a future agenda. If the Chairperson does not include that item on the agenda, the member may CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 5 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 petition the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee may require the item to be placed on a future agenda. Written notice of the meeting, the agenda, and all supporting documents shall be mailed to each member of the Board at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. All meetings are to be held as open meetings as defined in Chapter 551, Government Code, and the CAMPO Director shall insure that the written notice of the meeting is posted in the appropriate governmental offices at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting, and shall insure that at least two copies of the agenda and such supporting documentation as is available to the members of the Transportation Policy Board are made available for public inspection in the CAMPO Office at the same time they are made available to Board members. In the absence of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from a meeting of the Transportation Policy Board at which a quorum is present, the Executive Director will convene the meeting and the remaining members of the board present shall elect a presiding officer who shall serve until the conclusion of that meeting or until the arrival of the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson. Public participation in meetings shall be as follows. Internal reports from CAMPO employees and committees not posted for action by the board are not eligible for public comment. If action is required on an item which has already been the subject of a public hearing, no public comment will be taken. Otherwise, persons wishing to comment on a specific agenda item must fill out the card provided by the CAMPO staff. The card will be presented to the Chairperson before the board begins consideration of the item. The card must specify the item on which they will comment and include the speaker's name and whom they represent. Speakers are limited to three minutes and a speaker's time may not be assigned to another speaker. CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 6 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 Persons wishing to address the board about issues not on the agenda should offer their comments during the "Citizens Communication" agenda item. Persons wishing to speak during "Citizens Communication" must contact the CAMPO staff via phone, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or in person between 9:00 a.m. on the 6th day before the meeting at which they wish to speak and 4:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting at which they wish to speak. Such persons must give their name and specify the topic on which they wish to address the board. Topics are limited to those that directly or indirectly affect transportation in the CAMPO geographic area. No more than ten persons will address the board during Citizens Communication at any given meeting. Speakers are limited to three minutes and a speaker's time may not be assigned to another speaker. Speakers are requested to not directly address individual members of the board or the CAMPO staff. The Chairperson will enforce decorum. F. Functions. The functions of the Transportation Policy Board shall be as delineated in the Joint Powers Agreement. G. Attendance. If a member of the Transportation Policy Board misses more than half of the Board meetings scheduled during a calendar year, the Chairperson may contact the member's appointing body to request a replacement appointee to the Transportation Policy Board. SECTION IV EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE A. Membership. The Executive Committee will consist of the Transportation Policy Board Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson and members of the Transportation Policy Board that are, at a minimum, representative of the jurisdictions that are signatory of the Joint Powers Agreement. The members of the Executive Committee shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the Transportation Policy Board at the first meeting CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 7 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 each year. The jurisdictional representatives of the Joint Powers Agreement are indicated below: Texas Department of Transportation 1 City of Austin 1 County of Travis 1 County of Williamson 1 County of Hays 1 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 B. Function. The functions of the Executive Committee shall be as follows-- 1. Meet at the direction of the Chairperson. 2. Take actions on items delegated by the Transportation Policy Board and/or make recommendations on items to the Transportation Policy Board. 3. The Executive Committee will have no distinctive powers on their own unless given by the Transportation Policy Board or established by these bylaws and operating procedures. SECTION V CAMPO OFFICE The following rules govern the operations of the CAMPO Office: A. Direction. The CAMPO Director will be selected by the Transportation Policy Board. The CAMPO Director will hire staff, supervise, and prepare contracts as necessary to perform the work outlined in the Unified Planning Work Program. B. Funding. The budget of the CAMPO Office must be consistent with the Unified Planning Work Program. C. Functions. The functions of the CAMPO Director and CAMPO Office are established in the Joint Powers Agreement. CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 8 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 SECTION VI OTHER COMMITTEES The following rules govern the operations of other committees. A. Other Committees. The committee will perform tasks and functions as requested by the Chairperson, with the advice and consent of the Executive Committee. B. Membership. Members of other committees are appointed by the Chairperson with the advice and consent of the Executive Committee. Membership of each committee may include persons who are not board members with expertise of a nature that would be beneficial to the planning process. C. Officers. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the committee shall be designated by the Chairperson of the Transportation Policy Board. D. Meetings. Meetings of a committee are held as necessary to perform the tasks and functions of the committee. The Chairperson of the committee calls such meetings as necessary and shall notify all committee members of the time, date, and place of the meeting. E. Technical Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee's purpose is to advise the Transportation Policy Board in its development of 1. The long-range metropolitan transportation plan; 2. The Transportation Improvement Program, including review of and recommendations on candidate projects for the TIP; 3. The Unified Planning Work Program; and 4. Other transportation planning activities, as directed by the Transportation Policy Board or CAMPO's Executive Director. CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 9 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 SECTION VII ETHICS POLICY A. A member of the Transportation Policy Board or employee of CAMPO shall not: Accept or solicit any gift, favor, or service that might reasonably tend to influence the member or employee in the discharge of official duties or that the member or employee knows or should know is being offered with the intent to influence the member's or employee's official conduct; 2. Accept other employment or engage in a business or professional activity that the member or employee might reasonably expect would require or induce the member or employee to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of the official position; 3. Accept other employment or compensation that could reasonably be expected to impair the member's or employee's independence of judgment in the performance of the member's or employee's official duties; 4. Make personal investments that could reasonably be expected to create a substantial conflict between the member's or employee's private interest and the public interest; or 5. Intentionally or knowingly solicit, accept, or agree to accept any benefit for having exercised the member's or employee's official powers or performed the member's or employee's official duties in favor of another. B. An employee of CAMPO who violates Subsection (a) is subject to termination of the employee's employment or another employment -related sanction. Notwithstanding this subsection, a policy board member or employee who violates Subsection (a) is subject to CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 10 of 11 Adopted June 10, 1996 Amended February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, August 11, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010 and February 13, 2012 January 13, 2014 any applicable civil or criminal penalty if the violation also constitutes a violation of another statute or rule. SECTION VIII ADOPTION These bylaws and operating procedures shall be in full force and effect at such time as they have been approved by a majority vote of the Transportation Policy Board at a meeting at which a quorum, as defined herein, is present. SECTION IX REVISIONS These bylaws and operating procedures may be revised by approval of the Transportation Policy Board at a meeting at which a quorum, as defined herein, is present. Adopted unanimously by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Board on June 10, 1996; revised by resolution on February 8, 1999, April 14, 2003, February 13, 2006, January 22, 2007, November 9, 2009, January 20, 2010, May 10, 2010, September 13, 2010, February 13, 2012 and January 13, 2014. ATTEST: Maureen McCoy Director CAMPO Bylaws and Operating Procedures Page 11 of 11 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to authorize the application to FEMA for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant for the amount of $33,720. The goal of these grants is to improve firefighter health and safety through Fire Prevention activities -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief ITEM SUMMARY: The purpose of the AFG is to improve Firefighter safety, fire prevention, and emergency response. Each year, Congress authorizes money for this grant program. The first item we will pursue training for 10 employees to become Fire Investigation Technicians and Evidence Collection Technicians through the International Association of Arson Investigators. This grant will fund the training course, all fees, books, overtime to attend, and minimal travel costs. The second item is a tabletop Hazard House fire safety prevention simulator. This will allow us to teach how to turn a hazardous home into a risk -free environment. Featuring a larger scale and realistic special effects, the Hazard House fire prevention simulator is designed for interactive presentations to large groups of 50 to 75 people. Whether in a classroom, office or at an outdoor event, simply roll it around, set it up and help people learn how to prevent accidents! Thousands of agencies will apply and there is no guarantee we will be awarded a grant. FINANCIAL IMPACT: 10% matching for cities over 50,000 populations. Our matching portion is $3,372.00 to be funded with department budget. SUBMITTED BY: John Sullivan, Fire Chief City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase from Zeno Imaging in the amount of $58,205.71 for Printer Maintenance and Supplies Services -- James Davis, IT Operations Manager and Mike Peters, Information Technology Director ITEM SUMMARY: This item is for a Managed Print Services (MPS) contract to handle all maintenance and toner supplies for the City's networked printers and multi -function printer fleet. This item was sent out as an RFP which two companies responded to. All requirements were specified in the RFP and any questions by potential bidders were promptly answered. Staff evaluated the two respondents based on best value, services offered, and reference checks. Zeno Imaging was picked as the preferred vendor based on this process. The bid tab totals in the attachment are based on a per print, referred to as per click, count for each printer per month. Pricing per "click" can vary by each printer manufacturer and model. Click counts are calculated monthly with a true up handled quarterly. The listed amount includes a $4,000 annual ($1,000/quarter) allowance for print volume charges in excess of the budgeted per month click counts. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This item was budgeted during the FY 2015 budget process. Expenses will be recorded in account 570-5- 0641-51-341 (Contracts). SUBMITTED BY: James Davis, IT Operations Manager and Mike Peters, Information Technology Director ATTACHMENTS: 2015 MPS Bid Tab Bid Invitation No.: Division: Bid Opening Date: 201520 Printer Maintenance Finance - IT 02127/2015, 2PM Vendor: Zeno Imaging Zeno Imaging - second tab (BW & Color separated) TLC Office Systems Alternate TLC Office Systems Machine Name AIRPORT-HP4250 iotai iviontmy. SuppliesMaintenance, Toner $12.36 Maintenance, .. Toner $148.32 . . . aintenance, Maintenance, .. .. Toner Toner $12.36 $148.32 . . Maintenance, .. & Toner $9.85 . Maintenance, .. Toner $118.20 . . Maintenance, ..Supplies & Toner $26.59 otal Annual Maintenance, Toner $319.07 AIRPORT-MFP-300i $6.76 $81.12 $6.76 $81.12 $11.32 $135.84 $11.32 $135.84 AN I MAL-COLOR-M FP-2126 $127.46 $1,529.52 $127.46 $1,529.52 $139.52 $1,674.24 $139.52 $1,674.24 ANIMAL-P2135dn $1.87 $22.44 $1.87 $22.44 $6.95 $83.40 $6.95 $83.40 BLDG3-HP2015 $1.52 $18.24 $1.52 $18.24 $2.79 $33.48 $6.57 $78.84 CH-CITYSEC-MFP-4550 $184.09 $2,209.08 $184.09 $2,209.08 $114.25 $1,371.00 $114.25 $1,371.00 CH-FINANCE-CHECK-HP4250 $36.60 $439.20 $36.60 $439.20 $29.18 $350.16 $78.77 $945.24 CH-FINANCE-COLOR-HP4650 $23.78 $285.36 $23.78 $285.36 $37.48 $449.76 $37.48 $449.76 CH-FINANCE-COLOR-MFP-400 $294.33 $3,531.96 $294.33 $3,531.96 $144.97 $1,739.64 $144.97 $1,739.64 CH-FINANCE-HP4200 $17.39 $208.68 $17.39 $208.68 $19.55 $234.60 $42.98 $515.76 CH-FINANCE-HP8150 $50.07 $600.84 $50.07 $600.84 $35.42 $425.04 $106.03 $1,272.36 CH-HR-MFP-3051ci $53.39 $640.68 $89.74 $1,076.88 $113.70 $1,364.40 $113.70 $1,364.40 CH-HR-P3015 $3.95 $47.40 $3.95 $47.40 $6.33 $75.96 $11.84 $142.08 CH-MS-COLOR-MFP-5551ci $70.84 $850.08 $70.84 $850.08 $32.14 $385.68 $32.14 $385.68 CH-MS-MFP-3140 $9.05 $108.60 $9.05 $108.60 $17.60 $211.20 $17.60 $211.20 COB-COLOR-MFP-4550ci $3.90 $46.80 $222.92 $2,675.04 $85.42 $1,025.04 $85.42 $1,025.04 COURT-HP8150 $15.80 $189.60 $15.80 $189.60 $11.18 $134.16 $33.46 $401.52 COURT-JUDGE-HP1320 $0.79 $9.48 $0.79 $9.48 $2.08 $24.96 $4.55 $54.60 COURT-KM-MFP-KM2560 $6.04 $72.48 $6.04 $72.48 $10.55 $126.60 $10.55 $126.60 COURT-MFP-KM5050 $41.08 $492.96 $41.08 $492.96 $69.34 $832.08 $69.34 $832.08 FACI LITI ES-COLOR-525ODN $8.06 $96.72 $8.06 $96.72 $7.19 $86.28 $7.19 $86.28 FACILITIES-MFP-6525 $3.47 $41.64 $3.47 $41.64 $7.15 $85.80 $7.15 $85.80 FIRE1-MFP-HP4345 $13.74 $164.88 $13.74 $164.88 $12.18 $146.16 $29.91 $358.92 FIRE2-BC-MFP-255 $6.46 $77.52 $6.46 $77.52 $18.96 $227.52 $18.96 $227.52 FIRE2-HP3015 $5.051 $60.60 $5.05 $60.601 $8.09 $97.08 $15.131 $181.56 FIRE2-RIPRUN-2100DN $1.161 $13.92 $1.16 $13.92 $2.38 $28.56 $2.38 $28.56 FIRE3-MFP-KM2560 $5.23 $62.76 $5.23 $62.761 $9.131 $109.56 $9.13 $109.56 FIRE4-HP-P3015 $3.40 $40.80 $3.40 $40.80 $5.44 $65.28 $10.18 $122.16 FIRE5-MFP-255 $6.90 $82.80 $6.90 $82.80 $20.25 $243.00 $20.25 $243.00 FIRE5-RIPRUN-2100DN $1.19 $14.28 $1.19 $14.28 $2.43 $29.16 $2.43 $29.16 FIRE-AD MIN-COLOR-5250DN $81.88 $982.56 $81.88 $982.56 $69.58 $834.96 $69.58 $834.96 FIRE-AD MIN-ED-COLOR-HP5550 $25.40 $304.80 $25.40 $304.80 $38.94 $467.28 $38.94 $467.28 FIRE-AD MIN-ED-MFP-HP4345 $35.55 $426.60 $35.55 $426.60 $31.51 $378.12 $77.39 $928.68 FIRE-ADMIN-MFP-520i $58.47 $701.64 $58.47 $701.64 $78.26 $939.12 $78.26 $939.12 GCAT-FIREDISPATCH-FS3900DN $3.22 $38.64 $3.22 $38.64 $4.34 $52.08 $4.34 $52.08 GCAT-IT-COLOR-C602DN-A $23.99 $287.88 $23.98 $287.76 $14.13 $169.56 $14.13 $169.56 GCAT-IT-MFP-305 $5.02 $60.24 $5.02 $60.24 $11.25 $135.00 $11.25 $135.00 GCAT-IT-T640 $1.11 $13.32 $1.11 $13.32 $3.22 $38.64 $3.22 $38.64 GCAT-LEGAL-FS1320D $1.45 $17.40 $1.45 $17.40 $3.90 $46.80 $3.90 $46.80 GCAT-LEGAL-HP3015 $5.63 $67.56 $5.63 $67.56 $9.03 $108.36 $16.88 $202.56 GCAT-LEGAL-MFP-520i $20.79 $249.48 $20.79 $249.48 $27.83 $333.96 $27.83 $333.96 GCAT- PDDISPATCH -FS3900DN $11.64 $139.68 $11.64 $139.68 $15.71 $188.52 $15.71 $188.52 GMC-AMR-HP4250 $0.79 $9.48 $0.79 $9.48 $0.63 $7.56 $1.70 $20.40 GMC-EAM-MFP-6525 $14.01 $168.12 $14.01 $168.12 $28.86 $346.32 $28.86 $346.32 GMC-ELECTRIC-COLOR-MFP-4550ci $140.89 $1,690.68 $140.89 $1,690.68 $70.31 $843.72 $70.31 $843.72 GMC-GUSADMIN-ADMIN-HP4250 $1.24 $14.88 $1.24 $14.88 $1.39 $16.68 $3.07 $36.84 GMC-GUSADMIN-COLOR-MFP-6550ci $660.41 $7,924.92 $660.41 $7,924.92 $379.16 $4,549.92 $379.16 $4,549.92 GMC-GUSADMIN-FS3900DN $0.87 $10.44 $0.87 $10.44 $1.17 $14.04 $1.17 $14.04 GMC-GUSADMIN-HP4250 $8.09 $97.08 $8.09 $97.08 $6.45 $77.40 $17.41 $208.92 GMC-GUSDISP-HP4200 $7.20 $86.40 $7.20 $86.40 $8.09 $97.08 $17.79 $213.48 GMC-INSP-COLOR-HP4650 $26.81 $321.72 $26.81 $321.72 $42.91 $514.92 $42.91 $514.92 GMC-INSP-MFP-4500i $15.82 $189.84 $15.82 $189.84 $21.27 $255.24 $21.27 $255.24 GMC-PLDS-ADMIN-HP4250 $5.68 $68.16 $5.68 $68.16 $4.53 $54.36 $12.22 $146.64 GMC-PLDS-COLOR-M750 $206.47 $2,477.64 $206.47 $2,477.64 $255.40 $3,064.80 $255.40 $3,064.80 GMC-PLDS-HP2015 $1.19 $14.28 $1.19 $14.28 $2.16 $25.92 $5.11 $61.32 GMC-PLDS-HP4200 $1.58 $18.96 $1.58 $18.96 $1.78 $21.36 $3.91 $46.92 GMC-PLDS-MFP 520i $30.75 $369.00 $30.75 $369.00 $41.16 $493.92 $41.16 $493.92 GMC-PLDS-TEAM-HP3015 $1.09 $13.08 $1.09 $13.08 $1.75 $21.00 $3.27 $39.24 GMC-PLDS-TECH-HP3015 $3.57 $42.84 $0.00 $0.00 $5.72 $68.64 $10.70 $128.40 GMC-PURCHASING-CHECK-HP4250 $16.86 $202.32 $16.86 $202.32 $13.44 $161.28 $36.28 $435.36 GMC-PURCHASING-HP4250 $10.85 $130.20 $10.85 $130.20 $8.65 $103.80 $23.34 $280.08 GMC-PURCHASING-MFP-520i $23.23 $278.76 $23.23 $278.76 $31.09 $373.08 $31.09 $373.08 GMC-STREETS-HP4250 $3.38 $40.56 $3.38 $40.561 $2.701 $32.401 $7.281 $87.36 GMC-SYSENG-COLOR-HP5550 1 $51.761 $621.121 $51.76 $621.121 $81.911 $982.921 $81.91 $982.92 GMC-SYSENG-HP5200 $1.75 $21.00 $1.75 $21.00 $2.65 $31.80 $4.75 $57.00 GMC-UBILL-BILLING-HP4200 $10.31 $123.72 $10.31 $123.72 $11.59 $139.08 $25.48 $305.76 GMC-UBILL-CALL-MFP-HP4345 $276.89 $3,322.68 $276.89 $3,322.68 $245.39 $2,944.68 $602.76 $7,233.12 GMC-UBILL-CONF-HP3015 $15.00 $180.00 $15.00 $180.00 $24.04 $288.48 $44.96 $539.52 GMC-UBILL-COUNTER-HP4200 $13.08 $156.96 $13.08 $156.96 $14.71 $176.52 $32.34 $388.08 GMC-UBILL-MFP-3550ci $112.98 $1,355.76 $112.98 $1,355.76 $81.62 $979.44 $81.62 $979.44 GMC-VEHSHOP-COLOR-HP4600 $21.13 $253.56 $21.13 $253.56 $39.61 $475.32 $39.61 $475.32 GMC-VEHSHOP-MFP-6525 $8.17 $98.04 $8.17 $98.04 $16.83 $201.96 $16.83 $201.96 GMC-WAREHOUSE-HP4250 $3.30 $39.60 $3.30 $39.60 $2.63 $31.56 $7.11 $85.32 LIB-ADMIN-COLOR-HP4600 $188.80 $2,265.60 $188.80 $2,265.60 $307.52 $3,690.24 $307.52 $3,690.24 LIB-ADMIN-FS390ODN $37.68 $452.16 $37.68 $452.16 $50.84 $610.08 $50.84 $610.08 LIB-ADMIN-MFP-4500i $55.99 $671.88 $55.99 $671.88 $75.30 $903.60 $75.30 $903.60 LIB-CATALOG-HP4200 $4.80 $57.60 $4.80 $57.60 $5.39 $64.68 $11.85 $142.20 LIB-CIRC-HP4250 $3.45 $41.40 $3.45 $41.40 $2.75 $33.00 $7.43 $89.16 LIB-DIRECTOR-FS3900DN $0.55 $6.60 $0.55 $6.60 $0.74 $8.88 $0.74 $8.88 Library Public #1 $23.04 $276.48 $23.04 $276.48 $997.51 $11,970.12 $997.51 $11,970.12 Library Public #2 $3.08 $36.96 $3.08 $36.96 $8.31 $99.72 $8.31 $99.72 LIB -REF COLOR-HP3000 $25.13 $301.56 $25.13 $301.56 $58.83 $705.96 $58.83 $705.96 LIB-TECH-FS3920 $5.55 $66.60 $5.55 $66.60 $6.21 $74.52 $6.21 $74.52 PARK-ADMIN-COLOR-FS5200DN $0.09 $1.08 $0.09 $1.08 $11.77 $141.24 $11.77 $141.24 PARK-ADMIN-COUNTER-HP4200 $15.18 $182.16 $15.18 $182.16 $17.07 $204.84 $37.53 $450.36 PARK-ADMIN-HP4250 $3.73 $44.76 $3.73 $44.76 $2.97 $35.64 $8.02 $96.24 PARK-ADMIN-MFP-520 $46.12 $553.44 $46.12 $553.44 $61.74 $740.88 $61.74 $740.88 PARK-MAINT-HP4250 $0.20 $2.40 $0.20 $2.40 $0.16 $1.92 $0.43 $5.16 PD-ADMIN-COLOR-MFP-400ci $142.93 $1,715.16 $142.93 $1,715.16 $78.37 $940.44 $78.37 $940.44 PD-ADMIN-FS3900DN $1.58 $18.96 $1.58 $18.96 $2.13 $25.56 $2.13 $25.56 PD-CID-COLOR-MFP-3051C1 $29.90 $358.80 $29.90 $358.80 $125.42 $1,505.04 $125.42 $1,505.04 PD-CODE-COLOR-MFP-3051C1 $60.06 $720.72 $60.06 $720.72 $84.43 $1,013.16 $84.43 $1,013.16 PD-CRIME-FS390ODN $19.02 $228.24 $19.02 $228.24 $25.66 $307.92 $25.66 $307.92 PD-CRIME-PHOTO-HP8750 $0.20 $2.40 $0.20 $2.40 $1.32 $15.84 $1.32 $15.84 PD-ECO-COLOR-HP4650 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PD-INSPECTIONS-HP4250 $28.03 $336.36 $28.03 $336.36 $22.35 $268.20 $60.32 $723.84 PD-PATROL-COLOR-HP500 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PD-PROP-EVID-HP4200 $33.16 $397.92 $33.16 $397.92 $37.29 $447.48 $81.98 $983.76 PD-RECORDS-HP3015 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PD-SOD-COLOR-HP4600 1 $59.021 $708.24 $59.02 $708.24 $101.55 $1,218.60 $101.55 $1,218.60 PD-TRAFFIC-HP3015 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001 $0.00 $0.00 PD-VICTIMSVC-HP3015 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PD-VIPS-HP3015 $5.59 $67.08 $5.59 $67.08 $13.40 $160.80 $32.38 $388.56 RECCTR-ADMIN-COLOR-FS520ODN $0.24 $2.88 $26.84 $322.08 $24.67 $296.04 $24.67 $296.04 RECCTR-ADMIN-MFP-420i $63.95 $767.40 $63.95 $767.40 $83.23 $998.76 $83.23 $998.76 RECCTR-COUNTER-HP4250 $32.98 $395.76 $32.98 $395.76 $26.29 $315.48 $70.98 $851.76 RECCTR-TEEN-FS3920DN $10.35 $124.20 $10.35 $124.20 $13.96 $167.52 $13.96 $167.52 TENNISCENTER-HP4250 $5.85 $70.20 $5.85 $70.20 $4.66 $55.92 $12.58 $150.96 Totals $3,891.281 $46,695.361 $4,169.671 $50,036.04t $5,001.961 $60,023.52t $5,971.961 $71,663.52 ADDITIONAL REQUESTED PRICING Expedited Delivery Fee $7.95 $0.00 $0.00 Price for Black and White " Per Click" Overages $0.0079 $0.01085 $0.01545 Price for Color Overages "Per Click" $0.0780 $0.06420 $0.06420 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the additional purchase of two Dodge 4500-Diesel transitional response vehicles (TRV's) from Dallas Dodge Chrysler Jeep through a Buy -Board contract purchase price not to exceed $340,000 for both units -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief ITEM SUMMARY: To assist with improving our EMS and transport capabilities, staff is respectfully requesting approval to purchase two (2) additional Transitional Response Vehicles (TRV's). Staff recommends that we acquire two (2) used TRV's from San Antonio Fire Department and have them refurbished and remounted on a brand new chassis. This process is commonly known as a "remount" and can save us nearly $40,000 per unit. Dallas Dodge Chrysler Jeep is the authorized dealer for the manufacturer, Frazer, LTD. We have been given priority within the build/assembly timeline and anticipate that we will take delivery in August 2015. A Quote from Frazer is attached and staff is available to answer questions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Per the proposed FYI budget amendment, funding has been allocated. SUBMITTED BY: John Sullivan, Fire Chief ATTACHMENTS: Frazer Quote City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order BGE-15-001 with Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, TX, for professional engineering services related design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and 135 Southbound Frontage Road improvements in the amount of $485,700.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: In September 2014, the City received a request for GTEC funding to support on -site and off -site transportation related improvements for the proposed Pecan Center Commercial development project that will be located North of Lakeway Drive between Airport Road and 135. The proposed 160 acre development will be developed between 2015 and 2019, and will support retail and employment center type development based on existing zoning of the site. In October 2014, GTEC found that the development of Pecan Center Commercial project was eligible for GTEC funding. Pecan Center Commercial Project — Phase 1 (as currently planned) Affronts IH35 at eastern edge of overall site and includes 250,000 sq. ft. retail development: o 50,000 sq. ft. home repair "big box" type outlet o 25,000 sq. ft. "junior" anchor type outlet o Remaining sq. ft. for support retail and out -parcel services such as restaurant Financial analysis determines: o Project is financially viable with revenues that support the proposed incentives and capital investment in infrastructure necessary to service the project o GTEC investment funded through revenues generated at the site Offsite Transportation o Intersection at Lakeway & Airport Road * Improvement funded by GTEC * Developer to provide ROW including for future expansion of Airport Road o Airport Road Improvements * Required for future Phase 2 * Actual amount of ROW needed will be determined in the future o IH35 South Frontage Road * City agrees to coordinate with TxDOT and Developer to build the excel/deceleration lands on the frontage road directly in front of Phase 1 once the Phase 1 of the project has been built or is substantially complete * Future anticipated GTEC funding (estimated $500,000) * Developer will provide ROW/easements as needed Onsite Transportation - All internal roads/driveways within Phase 1 are funded by Developer No GTEC Performance Agreement with Developer necessary o Lakeway/Airport Road improvements provide economic benefit to adjacent properties and improve economic development opportunities within that quadrant — not project specific o Frontage Road improvements will not be constructed until the project is underway and substantially completed thus guaranteeing ROI on investment In order to accelerate the development of this area and to ensure the quality and type of development the City desires, the City plans to move forward with proactively building the necessary off -site infrastructure improvements, thus encouraging capital investment and creation of new jobs. As part of that project, improvements are required for Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and 135 southbound frontage road improvements. In its amended budget for FY 2014-2015, GTEC has allocated funding to complete the construction plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the project. The City has selected the firm of Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc., (the "Engineer") for professional engineering services related design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the project. The Engineer has proposed to complete the services for this work in an amount not to exceed $485,700.00. Staff has reviewed the proposal recommends the proposed Task Order BGE-15-001 based upon an acceptable scope of services for the project. GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTEC Board for Council approval at the March 18,2015 GTEC Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Task Order BGE-15-001 with Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, TX, for professional engineering services related design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and 135 southbound frontage road improvements in the amount of $485,700.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for the Project is available in the adopted FY 2014-2015 GTEC budget as amended. The financial worksheet is attached. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Financial Analysis Worksheet Task Order BGE-15-001 CDBG - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet DRAFT PROJECT No. DATE: PROJECT NAME: Airport Rd (Pecan Center Commercial) 5RN 2/9/2014 Widening and Intersection Impv'ts Division/Department: Transportation Services Director Approval Prepared By: Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Finance Approval La'Ke2/10/14 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 6,850,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting (BGE-15-001) 485,700.00 485,700.00 7% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 485,700.00 485,700.00 Approved ULNLKAL LLUULK AGGUUN I NUMtStK L;r tsuaget 400-9-0980-90-063 Pecan Center Commercial 6,850,000.00 Total Budget 1 6,850,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 6,850,000.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 0.00 485,700.00 485,700.00 7% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 0.00 1 485,700.00 1 485,700.00 Comments: Budget amendment approved by City Council January 13, 2015. Bonds to be issued at a later date (2016) and project construction will be in 2016-17. TASK ORDER Task Order Task Order No. BGE-15-001, consisting of 29 pages. In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition, dated September 1, 2011, ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. 2. 3. H Specific Project Data A. Title: Airport Road Design B. Description: Design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and IH-35 southbound frontage road (SBFR) improvements. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: 5RN D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 400-9-0980-90-063 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2011-715-MSA Services of Engineer Engineer shall provide the following services to the Owner: As shown in the attached Exhibit "B"— Scope of Services. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: Provide timely review comments to plan reviews and project scope changes. The City shall be responsible for permitting and third -party review fees. As further shown in the attached Exhibit "C" — Schedule of Owner's Responsibilities. Times for Rendering Services As shown in Exhibit "E" — Project Schedule All times are from the date of Approval, or the previous phase, as appropriate. Phase Completion Date Preliminary Engineering -Intersection May 15, 2015 Design of 30% Plan Set - Intersection June 30, 2015 Design of 100% Plan Set - Intersection September 1, 2015 Final Plan Submittal - Intersection October 31, 2015 Preliminary Engineering Schematic -Airport Rd July 15, 2015 Final Engineering Schematic -Airport Rd December 15, 2015 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 — Task Order Form Paee t of 4 TASK ORDER 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Basic Services (Preliminary Engineering, Development of 30% Plans and Development of 100% Plans) A. Lump Sum (See Attached Fee Schedule) TOTAL FEE Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services $485, 700.00 $485, 700.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: Prime consultant is Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. Qualified subconsultants selected to assist with the development of this project are CP&Y, Inc. and HVJ Associates, Inc. 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: A. Exhibit "A" — Location Map B. Exhibit "B" — Scope of Services C. Exhibit "C" — Schedule of Owner's Responsibilities D. Exhibit "D" — Estimated Fee Schedule E. Exhibit "E" — Project Schedule 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective September 1, 2011. Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 TASK ORDER Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is OWNER: City of Georgetown Name: Dale Ross Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown 2015. ENGINEER: Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. By: Name: Wesle E. Ja ek, P.E. Title: Director, Transportation Systems Engineer License or Finn's Certificate No. F-1046 State of: Texas Date: Date: 0Z tot /Zol!r ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator STATE OF TEXAS § CORPORATE COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this day of �Ei�`t�oLY` , 2015, Wesley E. Jasek personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this document in my presence. [SEAL] otary Public LAURA K BALLIS My Commission Expires: My Commission Expires September 26, 2016 sqR or �e*a° Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Page 3 of 4 TASK ORDER Owner: Designated Representative For Task Order: Name: Bill Dryden Title: Transportation Engineer Address: P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 E-Mail: Bill.Drydenggeorgetown.org Phone: (512) 930-8096 Fax: (512) 930-3559 Engineer: Designated Representative For Task Order: Name: Erin N. Gonzales, P.E. Title: Project Manager Address: 7000 North MoPac, Suite 330 Austin, TX 78731 E-Mail: egonzales@browngay.com Phone: (512) 879-0425 Fax: (512) 879-0499 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 IMA 8. 11 1.11 a 1.1 Scope of Services The work to be performed by the Engineer under this contract consists of providing engineering services required for the design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and IH-35 southbound frontage road (SBFR) improvements. This project shall involve: Engineering analyses, designs and associated details necessary to produce an approximately 30% complete Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) package for the intersection improvements, the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road and the IH- 35 SBFR improvements, Engineering analyses, designs and associated details necessary to produce a 100% complete PS&E package for the intersection improvements. The Engineer shall perform all work and prepare all deliverables in accordance with the latest version of the City of Georgetown's specifications, standards and manuals. Whenever possible, City of Georgetown standard drawings. The Engineer shall perform quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) on all deliverables associated with this project. The Engineer shall provide traffic control in accordance with Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) when performing onsite activities associated with this contract. ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES (Function Code 110) A. Data Collection - Obtain and review existing data from the City and TxDOT as detailed in Exhibit A. Perform field reconnaissance of project site. Coordinate to obtain project specific files for adjacent project. B. Design Concept Conference (DCC) - Schedule and attend a Design Concept Conference with the City of Georgetown. Submit to the City a completed Design Summary Report (DSR) along with preliminary typical sections and construction cost estimate at least two weeks prior to the meeting. The Engineer shall provide someone to take notes during the meeting. Revise the DSR per DCC meeting comments and submit to the City. C. Geotechnical Investigations - Provide recommended pavement designs. Drill four (4) soil borings for pavement to depths of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Total drilling footage is 60 feet. 2. The soil borings will be properly backfilled with bentonite chips and a single lift of cold patch asphalt where applicable. The soil samples will be obtained using Shelby tubes and/or split -spoon samplers. Field-testing of soil samples will include pocket penetrometer in the cohesive soils and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in the cohesionless soils. Sheet 1 of 17 3. All the field sampling and laboratory tests will be performed according to typical geotechnical standards, where applicable, or with other well established procedures. HVJ will perform appropriate laboratory tests on soil samples recovered from the borings. Laboratory testing will include moisture content, liquid limit, plastic limit and percent passing the #200 analysis tests. 4. Pavement Design Scope - Design two flexible pavement section alternatives (HMAC surface over FLEX base and HMAC surface over HMAC base) to achieve a 20 year design life. Collect non-destructive testing (NDT) using the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) to characterize the in -situ strengths of the existing pavement and subgrade soils. Use NDT on existing roadways to quickly evaluate the in -situ strengths of the existing HMAC, base, and subgrade soil layers. These tests provide good data along the existing project alignment and can be used to: a. identify existing conditions and changes in the underlying subgrade; b. locate and select geotechnical boring locations; and C. determine the structural quality for both the existing pavement layers and the underlying subgrade. These data when analyzed can be used to determine the efficacy of recycling the in - situ materials as a design alternative, which can save time and money for the final construction. The pavement design will include consideration of traffic loads, lab test results, and borings. The AASHTO pavement design procedure will be followed, using the DARWin analysis program. The traffic data will be developed by HVJ for pavement design, based on current traffic count data to be collected as part of HVJ's scope. Traffic data required includes current and projected AADT traffic counts, growth rates, truck percentages, and truck load factors. It is understood that future traffic on Airport Road is subject to change due to growth on the City of Georgetown and the importance of the Georgetown Airport industry. 5. Engineering Report Deliverables - Preliminary and final geotechnical and pavement design report will be prepared. a. The following items will be included in the report: Site Vicinity map, Geology map, Plan of borings, Boring logs, Laboratory test results summary, Groundwater conditions, Generalized subsurface conditions, Pavement thickness design, Subgrade stabilization, if determined necessary, and General earthwork recommendations. ENVIRONMENTAL (Function Code 120) A. Environmental Documentation - Environmental services will include studies and documentation required to comply with the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and Texas Antiquities Code for the various regulating authorities, including the Texas Sheet 2 of 17 Historical Commission (THC), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF) and the City of Georgetown. Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment — A hazardous materials initial site assessment shall be completed based on a regulatory records review, assessment of current and past land uses and field reconnaissance. This assessment will identify potential hazardous material sites that may be impacted by the proposed project. The results of this assessment will be documented in a Hazardous Materials Technical Report. Waters of the U.S. Determination — Wetlands, waterbodies, regulated special aquatic sites and other waters of the U.S. will be investigated in the project area. Wetland and waterbody boundaries will be mapped using a Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver that is accurate to within one meter. Delineations will be conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual along with the 2010 Regional Supplement for the Great Plains Region. For each wetland, a wetland delineation data form will be prepared and representative photographs will be taken. Maps will be provided of all pertinent information collected during the desktop review and field visit. B. The results of this assessment will be documented in a Waters of the U.S. Technical Report. Note: Preparation of a Section 404 permit and coordination with the USACE would be done, if necessary, under a supplemental agreement. C. Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment — A habitat assessment and preliminary survey for federal threatened and endangered species will be performed in the project area. Specific tasks include the following: 1. Perform a review of data from the USFWS, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Natural Diversity Database, geologic maps, topographic maps, soil data, project aerials and other additional resources that may indicate the presence of potentially suitable threatened and endangered species habitat. 2. Perform a field investigation to identify potentially suitable threatened and endangered species habitat within the project area. Site conditions will be documented with regards to vegetation, soils, geology and any observations of species or evidence of species in the vicinity of the project. The results of this assessment will be documented in a Threatened and Endangered Species Technical Report. Note: If it is determined that adverse impacts to species or their habitat cannot be avoided, preparation of a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation and Section 10 consultation with USFWS would be required; however, this consultation is not included in this scope and would be completed under a supplemental agreement. Sheet 3 of 17 D. Historic Resources Assessment - A historic resources assessment will be conducted in the project area to satisfy requirements of the Texas Administrative Code. Specific tasks include the following: 1. A field survey of each historic -age resource (defined in accordance with 36 CFR 60 as a building, structure, object, historic district or non -archeological site at least 45 years old at the time of letting) will be conducted in the project's APE. Photographic documentation along with identifying information for each identified historic -age resource will be provided, including resource address (or UTM coordinates), direction of the photograph, style and type of resource, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria eligibility and resource integrity issues. In addition a location map identifying each historic -age resource within the APE will be provided. 2. A THC Request for SHPO Consultation form will be completed summarizing the findings of the field survey and a cover letter to THC to be used during agency consultation. Furthermore, this documentation will contain sufficient detail and clarity to provide the THC with a basis for making determinations of NRHP eligibility without requiring submission of additional documentation. The results of this assessment will be documented in a Historic Resources Technical Report. Note: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (for projects with federal funding or involvement) is not included in this work authorization. If necessary, these services will be provided under a supplemental agreement. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The following services are not included in this work authorization, but can be performed, if needed, under a supplemental work authorization. • Meetings with Affected Property Owners, Public Meeting or Public Hearing • USACE Section 404 Permit Preconstruction Notification or Individual Permit • Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment to American Society for Testing and Materials Standards • Cultural Resource Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • Documentation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act RIGHT OF WAY DATA (Function Code 130) A. Review and Update Current Right of Way Map 1. Coordinate regarding updates to boundary surveys and ownership information. B. Utility Coordination Efforts to ensure utility relocations and adjustments required to accommodate the proposed project development shall include Subsurface Utility Engineering, Field Surveys, Utility Adjustment Coordination and Utility Engineering Services. Sheet 4 of 17 1. A list of the utility owners contact information shall be developed from the preliminary survey and maintained throughout project development. 2. Initial notifications of the project details and expected timelines for project development shall be mailed to all utility owners existing within the project limits. 3. A recommended test hole location map shall be developed based the potential utility conflict areas determined from the review of the existing utilities and proposed designs. 4. As required to more accurately define the location of existing utilities and the limits of potential conflicts, Level C Subsurface Utility Engineering shall be performed. Proper coordination with the utility owners as well as appropriate traffic handling measures shall be implemented. 5. Upon determination of required relocation and/or adjustments, intense coordination with impacted utility owners shall be initiated. Utility agreements in accordance with City and TxDOT guidelines shall be prepared and executed with each impacted utility owner. A utility conflict list and tracking report shall be developed and maintained throughout the duration of the relocation effort. Periodic reviews of utility adjustment designs shall be performed and guidance on project timelines for relocation budgeting shall be provided. 6. Based on relocation and adjustment designs, the MicroStation V8 file shall be updated to indicate new locations as well as delineate the limits of existing utilities to remain and to be abandoned. 7. Coordination meetings, public and individual, shall be held as necessary to facilitate utility conflict identification and resolution. It is estimated that 2 public and 12 individual meetings will be required. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Function Code 145) A. Meetings 1. Attend and document Kickoff Meeting at the City of Georgetown Office. 2. Attend and document Progress Meetings at the City Office. Assume eight meetings shall be required. 3. Attend and document Utility Coordination Meetings at the City Office. Assume three meetings shall be required. Sheet 5 of 17 B. General Contract Administration 1. Develop monthly invoices and progress reports. 2. Design coordination with the City. FIELD SURVEYING (Function Code 150) A. General 1. Surveys provided shall be in accordance with the Texas State Board of Land Surveying and the applicable sections of the TxDOT Generalized Scope of Services. 2. Survey field notes shall be submitted as requested by the City. 3. Unless previously obtained, the Engineer shall obtain right -of -entry (ROE) agreements with property owners for the required field surveys (short of litigation) using forms approved by or provided by the City. 4. Verify and compare previously located utility data with current ground conditions. Contact the One -Call System in advance of performing field surveys so that data collection includes ties to location of marked utilities. Reasonable attempts to coordinate with utility owners shall be made to achieve efficiency in data collection. B. Topographic Surveys for Engineering Design and Hydraulic Analysis 1. Reasonable attempts shall be made to recover existing horizontal control points. Additional control shall be established to adequately position horizontal control points as needed for project design activities and plan notations thereof. Control points shall be established with significant conformance to current specifications for primary control. Control points shall be set to provide a reasonable assurance of survival during and after construction activities. Where possible, reference ties to permanent features shall be provided for each established horizontal control point. Data for the horizontal control shall be based on Texas State Plane, Central Zone, NAD 83 (93) derived from the Online Positioning User Services (OPUS) solutions and verified by other measurement technologies. 2. Reasonable attempts at recovering and verifying existing vertical control shall be made. Additional benchmarks, if needed, shall be established via differential level loops from recovered known project controls. A vertical benchmark system shall be perpetuated at approximate 1,000 foot intervals for future reference on the plans and maintained to construction, if necessary. 3. Survey files with previously obtained project data shall be compared to and merged with survey files generated through this proposal. In areas of uncertainty, changes in previous existing conditions, and/or limited topographic information, additional data shall be collected as directed by the Project Engineer. 4. Data collection shall consist of spot elevations for improvements, edge of roadway, driveways, visible or marked utilities, drainage features, centerline of roadway and grade breaks. Individual roadway cross sections shall be taken at intervals not to Sheet 6 of 17 exceed 100 feet or as required to properly define the surface of the project and generate accurate Digital Terrain Models (DTMs). 5. The survey shall include topographic features within approximately 1,500 feet from each end of certain drainage features along the roadway or a sufficient distance to ensure and/or verify hydraulic cross sections can be developed to adequately accommodate the 100-year rainfall event. Within these limits, the survey shall extend approximately 100 feet left and right of the existing roadway centerline, provided ROE allows such access. 6. Channel cross sections shall be provided from the face of the existing drainage structures (4 sections each) to approximately 200 feet upstream and downstream. The sections shall indicate any ground breaks, top of banks, toe of slopes, water surface elevations, normal high water surface elevations (if discernible), etc., that define the actual contour of the section and the overbank area, provided ROE allows such access. 7. A stream alignment and profile extending the entire limits of the channel cross sections described above shall be developed from the channel cross section information. 8. A profile of the feature's deck (the uppermost surface) and the low chord shall be provided. 9. Topographic information shall include the limits of the existing concrete riprap upstream, beneath and downstream of the existing drainage features. 10. Profiles of previously uncollected intersecting driveways within the project limits shall extend a sufficient distance beyond the existing ROW to ensure adequate data is available to determine tie-ins with proposed vertical alignment changes, provided ROE allows such access. 11. Field surveys shall provide the locations of all small signs, mailboxes and other visible surface features. Sign text, color, dimensions and standard sign design shall be provided in accordance with City of Georgetown sign standards. 12. Survey shots shall be assigned a unique point number which provides a positive identification of the point. Each point shall be assigned a feature number or feature name using the TxDOT's standard feature table. An ASCII points file and a copy of the print out shall be provided. Each line of the output data shall contain in this order: the point number, northing, easting, elevation and the descriptive feature code. 13. Surveyed data shall be provided in a Microstation (.dgn V8) compatible two dimensional base map format. The survey shot point attributes shall appear on separate levels. 14. A DTM shall be provided in a Microstation (.dgn V8) GEOPAK compatible three- dimensional format. Sheet 7 of 17 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS (Function Code 160) A. 30% Complete Plan Set 1. Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive a. Geometric Design - Create horizontal and vertical alignments, typical sections and resultant design cross sections to ensure compliance with current design criteria. Delineate and discuss potential deficiencies with City staff. Review constructability of preliminary design prior to final plan preparation. b. Typical Sections - Develop existing and proposed roadway typical sections for Airport Road and Lakeway Drive. C. Alignment Data Sheets - Prepare horizontal and vertical alignment data sheets with the Geopak baseline descriptions. d. Plan & Profile Drawings - Prepare plan & profile sheets (1"=100' Horizontal, 1"=10' Vertical, 11" x 17" original sheets) for Airport Road and Lakeway Drive. The sheets shall include the following: i. Critical Basemap data in plan and profile (i.e. existing topography, utilities, etc.). ii. Control and benchmark data. iii. Proposed roadway improvements including horizontal and vertical roadway geometry, pavement edge geometry, drainage, grading and miscellaneous related improvements. e. Intersection Layouts - Develop intersection layouts that define all horizontal and vertical geometry for the following intersections: i. Airport Road and Lakeway Drive. f. GEOPAK Roadway Model - Update the GEOPAK Roadway model provided by TxDOT to accurately show the proposed roadway improvements for utilization in design, analysis of construction sequencing, quantity calculations and plan production. g. Roadway Cross -Sections - Prepare design cross -sections (1"=30' Horizontal, 1"=15' Vertical, 11"x17" sheets) at intervals not to exceed 50 feet along the proposed roadway improvement length to a sufficient level of detail to support design decisions. Cross sections shall be prepared for Airport Road and Lakeway Drive as needed. 2. Airport Road (Widening and Reconstruction to Aviation Dr)/IH-35 SBFR a. Geometric Design - Create horizontal and vertical alignments, typical sections and resultant design cross sections to ensure compliance with current design criteria. Delineate and discuss potential deficiencies with City staff. Review constructability of preliminary design prior to final plan preparation. Sheet 8 of 17 B. b. Typical Sections - Develop existing and proposed roadway typical sections for Airport Road. C. Alignment Data Sheets - Prepare horizontal and vertical alignment data sheets with the Geopak baseline descriptions. d. Preliminary Schematic - Prepare schematic sheets for Airport Road. The sheets shall include the following: i. Critical Basemap data in plan and profile (i.e. existing topography, utilities, etc.). ii. Control and benchmark data. iii. Proposed roadway improvements including horizontal and vertical roadway geometry, pavement edge geometry, drainage, grading and miscellaneous related improvements. iv. ROW needs determination e. Driveway/Acceleration/Deceleration Details - Develop details and layouts that define all of the horizontal and vertical geometry for the widening of the IH-35 Southbound frontage road and driveways. f. GEOPAK Roadway Model - Update the GEOPAK Roadway model provided by TxDOT to accurately show the proposed roadway improvements for utilization in design, analysis of construction sequencing, quantity calculations and plan production. g. Roadway Cross -Sections - Prepare design cross -sections (1"=30' Horizontal, 1"=15' Vertical, 11"x17' sheets) at intervals not to exceed 50 feet along the proposed roadway improvement length to a sufficient level of detail to support design decisions. Cross sections shall be prepared for Airport Road as needed. 100% Complete Plan Set The following items shall be prepared for the intersection improvements at Airport Road and Lakeway Drive: 1. Typical Sections - Finalize typical sections prepared during the 30% completion phase. 2. Plan & Profile Drawings - Finalize plan & profile drawings prepared during the 30% completion phase. 3. Intersection Layouts - Finalize intersection layouts prepared during the 30% completion phase. The following list of intersections reflects the current configuration. Layouts for intersections that are constructed during the plan development phase will be prepared accordingly. a. Airport Road and Lakeway Drive 4. Driveway Details - Develop typical driveway designs and summarize driveway (approximately 4, to be field verified) features including material type and geometric Sheet 9 of 17 design. Driveways shall be constructed with HMAC or concrete, conforming with existing. 5. Miscellaneous Roadway Details - Develop various details, as required, for pavement, curb, riprap, etc. 6. Removal Layouts - Prepare removal layout sheets (1"=100') showing all features that are to be removed including pavement, structures, signing, etc. 7. Roadway Cross Sections - Finalize roadway cross sections (1"=30' Horizontal; 1"=15' Vertical, 11"x17" sheets) prepared during the 30% completion phase. Cross sections shall be prepared for Airport Road and Lakeway Drive. DRAINAGE (Function Code 161) A. 30% Complete Plan Set (Submitted separately for each of the follow packages) 1. Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive a. Incorporate all design surveys into computer aided drafting and develop topographies and surfaces. These data shall be utilized to develop drainage areas, hydrology and hydraulics. This shall include topographic working drawings to prepare the preliminary drainage design. b. Develop storm water hydrology for the ultimate roadway section throughout the limits of the project. The hydrology shall be modeled utilizing HEC-HMS with TxDOT drainage criteria. The model shall incorporate the 10%, 4% and 1% annual chance storm (10-year, 25-year and 100-year) events. Modeling shall develop storm water flows to all cross culverts and roadway conveyances. Based on the data developed, drainage infrastructure shall be designed in a preliminary format for the project area. The level of detail shall be sufficient to establish cost estimates and required easements and possession and use agreements for the construction of the proposed drainage structures and channel improvements. C. Develop preliminary hydraulics to all cross culvert conveyances and the roadway system. d. Develop preliminary designs for all cross drainage structures throughout the project limits. The cross drainage shall be modeled with HEC-RAS. e. Develop preliminary designs for proposed storm water collection systems for the proposed curb -and -gutter portion of the project area. Storm sewer designs shall be developed using Geopak Drainage. f. Establish the preliminary water quality requirements for the ultimate roadway section. Designs shall be based on the new impervious cover that shall be established with the ultimate build out of the project and current Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requirements for construction within the EARZ. Design efforts shall prioritize combining conveyance Sheet 10 of 17 infrastructure with water quality and providing alternatives to detention basins in an effort to minimize project costs. Options shall be preliminarily designed and presented to the City and TxDOT for review. The preferred option shall be included in the preliminary design. g. Develop preliminary drainage easement requirements for the project area. h. Coordinate the preliminary design with the City of Georgetown. Comments and direction shall be incorporated into final designs. 2. Airport Blvd (Widening and Reconstruction to Aviation Dr)/IH-35 SBFR a. Establish the preliminary water quality requirements for the ultimate roadway section. Designs shall be based on the new impervious cover that shall be established with the ultimate build out of the project and current Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requirements for construction within the EARZ. Design efforts shall prioritize combining conveyance infrastructure with water quality and providing alternatives to detention basins in an effort to minimize project costs. Options shall be preliminarily designed and presented to the City and TxDOT for review. The preferred option shall be included in the preliminary design. b. Develop preliminary drainage easement requirements for the project area. C. Coordinate the preliminary design with the City of Georgetown. Comments and direction shall be incorporated into final designs. B. 100% Complete Plan Set 1. Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive a. Develop final designs for all cross drainage structures within the project limits. The cross drainage shall be modeled with HEC-RAS. All cross drainage structures shall be illustrated in plan profile sheets as well as detail sheets in the 100% plans. Grading to existing ground elevations shall be detailed as well as elevations for flow lines and headwalls. Hydraulic grade lines for the 4% and 1% annual chance storm (25-year and 100-year) events shall be illustrated in the profile views. Designs for conveyance to reduce erosion shall be completed and detailed in the plans. b. Develop final designs for the storm water collection systems for the curb -and - gutter portion of the project limits. Storm sewer systems shall be analyzed and designed using Geopak Drainage. This shall be accomplished in conjunction with elements for water quality for new impervious cover within the EARL The design shall consider curb and gutter systems, roadside channels, extended detention basins, etc. in order to develop the most applicable and cost effective system for the project. Flow lines shall be detailed as well as hydraulic grade lines for the 20% and 1% annual chance storm (5-year and 100- Sheet 11 of 17 year) events. All drainage infrastructure shall be designed and presented in the plans in plan and profile. C. Design storm water conveyance to existing streams and channel ways. Design shall include conveyance for positive drainage and shall check current water surface elevations to proposed water surface elevations after project completion. d. Establish the final detention requirements resulting from the additional impervious cover constructed with this project. Coordinate with the Developer's engineer to incorporate roadway detention requirements into a single detention facility designed by the Developer for all site detention. e. Establish the final requirements for water quality for the ultimate roadway section. Designs shall be based on the new impervious cover that shall be established with the ultimate build out of the project and current TCEQ requirements for construction within the EARZ. Design efforts shall prioritize combining conveyance infrastructure with water quality and providing alternatives to detention basins in an effort to minimize project costs. Options shall be designed and presented to the City for review. The preferred option shall be included in the final design and submitted to the TCEQ for review and acceptance. f. Existing utility locations shall be illustrated in the drainage plan profile sheets. g. Develop final design for the cross culverts. Develop options for reducing the footprint of the associated floodplain upstream and downstream of the proposed Lakeway Drive crossings. The final design shall include grading plans, proposed flow lines, channel cross sections, connection to existing channel sections and hydraulic grade lines for the 4% and 1% chance storm (25- year and 100-year) events. h. Develop final drainage easement requirements for the project area. Limits of permanent drainage easements shall be kept to a minimum. Layouts for drainage easements shall be prepared for review with the City. Details will be provided for the production of metes and bounds for acquisition. i. Prepare a global Drainage Area Map for the entire project. j. Prepare Hydraulic Data Sheets as appropriate reflecting the results of the hydraulic analyses and designs for proposed cross road culverts. k. Prepare a Hydraulic Report, documenting the results of the hydrologic studies, hydraulic analysis and designs. Include the preliminary Hydraulic Data and Drainage Area Map sheets and the Bridge Layout sheet in the report. 1. Develop summary of final quantities for all drainage infrastructure and prepare cost estimates based on current bid data. Sheet 12 of 17 In. Coordinate with the City of Georgetown to review the final drainage design, phasing for the project, utility conflicts and relocations, water quality options, etc. All comments and direction shall be incorporated into final designs. n. Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) - Prepare a WPAP that shall serve as the Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan for the project. The WPAP shall contain a geologic assessment and the temporary and permanent best management practices (BMPs) proposed for the project. For the preparation of the WPAP, the TCEQ Complying with Edwards Aquifers Rules - Technical Guidance shall be used for the selection of the proposed BMPs. Obtain approval of the WPAP by TCEQ prior the start of any activity that could cause runoff contamination. o. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SW3P) - Develop SW3P, on separate sheets (1"=100' scale) from (but in conformance with) the Traffic Control Plan (TCP), to minimize potential impact to receiving waterways. The SW3P shall include text describing the plan, quantities, type and locations of erosion control devices and any required permanent erosion control measures. The SW3P shall be prepared according to the Edwards Aquifer Rules. SIGNING, MARKINGS AND SIGNALIZATION (Function Code 162) A. Traffic Study (Intersection of Airport Rd and Lakeway Drive) 1. Data Collection The Engineer shall conduct a site inspection at the study location. The field work shall include the following: a. Conduct a field investigation, obtain photographs and prepare an existing condition diagram for the study locations. Record traffic characteristics observed while in the field. b. Obtain crash records at the study locations from the City and State for the most recent thirty-six (36) month period. C. Manually record turning movement counts at the intersection for 12 hours during a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) for the following period: 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. 2. Crash Analysis The Engineer shall analyze crash records provided by the City and State and prepare a summary of the crashes in a collision diagram for the study locations. 3. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis The Engineer shall perform a traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection following the guidelines published in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition. Sheet 13 of 17 4. Deliverables The Engineer shall prepare and submit two (2) copies of a traffic study report for the location to the City, which summarizes the findings of the traffic counts, warrant analysis, and field investigation. The report shall include an existing condition diagram, field photographs, traffic count data, a collision diagram, and any recommended improvements (if appropriate). Revisions to the report shall be made based on comments received from the City. B. 30% Complete Plan Set Preliminary traffic signal design plans shall be developed for the intersection with Airport Road and Lakeway Drive because signal design and operation shall impact the geometric design of the intersection. The following items shall be prepared: 1. Preliminary Traffic Signal Layouts - The preliminary layouts shall show the proposed configuration of major signal items such as signal poles, controller and electrical service. Pedestrian signal poles shall be laid out as a function of the crosswalk and ramp locations to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) design requirements. The proposed signal indications and phasing sequence shall be identified for early review by the City of Georgetown Transportation Engineer. The proposed approach roadway configuration shall be designed for optimum signal operation. C. 100% Complete Plan Set The following items shall be prepared the intersection improvements at Airport Road and Lakeway Drive: 1. Signing and Markings Layouts - Prepare signing and pavement markings layouts (1"=100' scale) for Airport Road and Lakeway Drive. The layouts shall include roadway layout, centerline with stationing, culverts and other structures, existing signs to remain, to be removed or to be relocated, proposed signs (illustrated and numbered) and proposed permanent markings (illustrated and labeled) including pavement markings, object markers and delineation. Prepare details in accordance with TMUTCD, TxDOT Sign Crew Field Book, and the applicable City of Georgetown standards. 2. Summary of Small Signs Tabulation - Prepare and complete standard summary of small signs sheet. 3. Sign Details - Prepare details for signs not included in the State's standard details sheets. 4. Traffic Signal Plans - Prepare detailed traffic signal installation plans for the intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive accommodating the ultimate roadway configuration to the extent practicable. The following plans sheets shall be prepared: Sheet 14 of 17 a. Traffic Signal Quantity Summary Sheet b. General Notes for Traffic Signal Installation C. Proposed Traffic Signal Layouts, showing the proposed signal poles, controller, vehicle and pedestrian signals, vehicle detection devices, intersection illumination, signal communications, conduit, ground boxes, electrical service and signal pole type chart. d. Signal Phasing and Wiring Diagrams, showing the conduits and cables chart, cable termination chart, electrical service specifications, phasing diagram orientation diagram, miscellaneous cable charts and street name sign designs. e. Traffic Signal Elevations Sheets, showing elevation drawings for each signal pole with the location of signal heads, signs and detection devices. f. Traffic Signal Striping Sheets, showing the proposed crosswalk and stop line locations in relation to the ramps. g. Traffic Signal Installation Details, showing miscellaneous installation details for vehicle detection, signal communications, pedestrian signals and pushbuttons. h. Traffic Signal pole standards, showing the types and sizes of the proposed poles, mast arms and illumination arms. i. Signal Pole Foundations Standards, showing the size, type and depth of the foundation for each signal pole and pedestrian pole. MISCELLANEOUS (ROADWAY) (Function Code 163) A. 30% Complete Plan Set 1. Traffic Control Plans (TCP), Detours and Sequence of Construction - A conceptual TCP shall be developed including sequence of construction and the existing and proposed traffic control devices (including signs, barricades, pavement markings, etc.). The TCP shall also include the evaluation of temporary drainage throughout the construction process to ensure positive flow during construction. TCP shall based on the TMUTCD and the latest City of Georgetown Standards. Plan sheets shall include: a. Sequence of construction narrative. b. Traffic control typical sections for each phase of construction C. Advance Warning Signs. d. TCP layouts showing work zones, number of lanes open, advance warning signs, typical sections and any necessary detour geometry. e. Intersection phasing layouts. Sheet 15 of 17 2. Miscellaneous Drawings - Prepare the following miscellaneous drawings: a. Title Sheet b. Index of Sheets 3. Cost Estimates - Prepare a construction cost estimate for the 30% design. B. 100% Complete Plan Set 1. Traffic Control Plans (TCP), Detours and Sequence of Construction - A detailed TCP shall be developed including sequence of construction and the existing and proposed traffic control devices (including signs, barricades, pavement markings, etc.). The TCP shall also include the design of temporary drainage throughout the construction process to ensure positive flow during construction. TCP shall based on the TMUTCD and the latest City of Georgetown Standards. Plan sheets shall include: a. Sequence of construction narrative. b. Traffic control typical sections for each phase of construction C. Advance Warning Signs. d. TCP layouts showing work zones, number of lanes open, advance warning signs, typical sections and any necessary detour geometry. e. Intersection phasing layouts. f. Any necessary miscellaneous drawings relevant to traffic control g. Traffic Control Standard sheets h. Traffic Control Summary of Quantity Tables 2. Summary of Quantities - Prepare quantity summary sheets for the following quantities: a. Removals b. Roadway (including earthworks) C. Driveways d. Drainage e. Small Signs f. Pavement Markings g. Traffic Signals h. SW3P 3. Cost Estimates - Prepare detailed construction cost estimates. An estimate shall be provided at each submittal (30% and 100% PS&E) Sheet 16 of 17 4. General Notes and Specifications - Using the latest City of Georgetown Master General Notes, identify required general notes. Also, develop project specific general notes for the items required. City of Georgetown requirements shall be incorporated as necessary. 5. Standard Drawings - Select the standard City of Georgetown drawings applicable to the project. 6. Construction Time Estimate - Prepare a construction time estimate in Primavera or other approved software that shows the time required to construct the project. 7. Bid Proposal - Prepare the project bid proposal that shall include the following: a. General Notes b. Standard and Special Specifications C. Special Provisions d. Reference Item list e. Bid Tabulation Sheets f. Applicable Legal Documents 8. Miscellaneous Drawings - Prepare the following miscellaneous drawings: a. Title Sheet / Index of Sheets b. Environmental Permits, Issues and Commitments (EPIC) Sheet C. Project Layout Sheet 17 of 17 EXHIBIT C Schedule of Owner's Responsibilities • Data for the project that the City has available (i.e. environmental documents, preliminary schematic design, correspondence, materials, previously conducted studies regarding proposed improvements, etc.) • Example estimate, general notes master file, sample specification list and related hard copy documentation for the Engineer's use in preparing preliminary estimate, general notes and specifications. • Diskette with files containing templates for the title sheet, plan profile sheet, design cross section sheets, the Austin District storm water pollution prevention plan (SW3P) index sheet and design files of any Austin District standard sheets that may be applicable to the project. • Available existing right-of-way maps for the project. • Available as -built plans from utility companies existing within the project limits. • Assist the Engineer, as necessary, in obtaining any required data and information from local, regional, state and federal agencies. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit D - Estimate Fee Schedule - Airport Rd FC DESCRIPTION BGE HVJ CP&Y TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES $ 5,718.00 $16,770.00 $ 22,488.00 FC 120 ENVIRONMENTAL $ 17,472.00 $ 17,472.00 FC 130 ROW $ 44,864.00 $ 44,864.00 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY $ 29,453.00 $ 29,453.00 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS $ 45,648.00 $ 45,648.00 FC 161 DRAINAGE $ 110,730.00 $ 110,730.00 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION $ 99,298.00 $ 99,298.00 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY $ 50,952.00 $ 50,952.00 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION $ 56,720.00 $ 56,720.00 EXPENSES 1 $ 7,659.37 $415.63 $ 8,075.00 $ 451,042.37 $ 16,770.00 1 $ 17,887.63 $ 485,700.00 Exhibit D -BGE SR.PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH RPLS TECHNICIAN 3-MAN CREW CLERICAL TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 6 8 12 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 38 FC 130 ROW 28 73 79 68 68 0 0 0 0 0 316 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY 0 0 32 0 0 0 44 120 168 8 372 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS 46 136 120 146 212 212 0 0 0 0 872 FC 161 DRAINAGE 14 164 64 366 8 180 0 0 0 0 796 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION 64 28 24 104 32 134 0 0 0 4 390 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY 24 104 64 108 30 94 0 0 0 0 424 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION (12 MONTHS; 53 65 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 12 179 TOTAL HOURS 235 578 395 849 354 620 44 120 168 24 3387 MANHOUR RATES $ 225.00 1 $ 174.00 1 $ 138.00 1 $ 110.00 $ 110.001 $ 98.00 $ 120.00 1 $ 85.00 $ 150.00 $ 69.00 $ 130.91 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS $ 52,875.00 $ 100,572.00 $ 54,510.00 1 $ 93,390.001 $ 38,940.001 $ 60,760.00 1 $ 5,280.00 1 $ 10,200.00 1 $ 25,200.001 $ 1,656.00 $ 443,383.00 EXPENSE COST $ 7,659.37 TOTAL LABOR AND EXPENSE COSTS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL $ 451,042.37 MANHOUR ESTIMATE -BGE FC DESCRIPTION # OF SHTS SR. PROJECT SENIOR MANAGER ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR ENGR 3-MAN EIT TECH TECH RPLS TECHNICIAN CREW CLERICAL TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 1 Data Collection 2 4 8 8 4 26 1 Design Concept Conference 4 4 4 12 SUBTOTALI 0 1 6 8 12 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 38 FC 130 ROW 1 Right of Way Ma N/A 4 8 24 36 2 List of utility owners N/A 2 8 10 3 Utility Notification N/A 4 12 16 4 Test hole location ma N/A 2 6 8 16 5 Level C Subsurface Utility Engineering N/A 4 24 8 36 6 Determine utility conflicts N/A 4 16 4 24 7 Utility Notification N/A 4 8 12 8 Proposed Utility File N/A 4 16 24 44 9 Coordination meetings 14 meetings) N/A 24 49 49 122 SUBTOTAL 0 28 73 79 68 68 0 0 0 0 0 316 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY 1 Design To o Survey with a DTM 1 N/A 24 32 96 168 320 2 Re -alignment ROW Parcel Ma N/A 1 B 1 1 12 24 8 52 SUBTOTALI 0 1 0 1 0 1 32 0 0 0 44 120 168 8 372 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive 1 Geometric Design 4 16 24 24 68 2 Typical Sections 3 4 8 18 24 54 3 Alignment Data Sheets 2 4 4 8 8 24 4 Roadway Plan & Profile Sheets 1"=100'scale 5 4 8 20 48 80 5 Intersection Layouts 1 4 8 12 12 36 6 Driveway Details 1 2 6 6 14 7 Miscellaneous Roadway Details 1 2 6 6 14 8 Removal Layouts 5 4 16 20 40 9 GEOPAK Roadway Model N/A 0 10 Roadway Cross Sections 27 8 16 24 60 108 SUBTOTALI 45 24 68 40 98 84 124 0 0 0 0 438 Airport RoadllH-35 SBFR 1 Geometric Design 4 16 40 40 100 2 Typical Sections 4 4 12 8 24 40 88 3 Alignment Data Sheets 1 4 4 8 16 4 Preliminary Schematic 30% 4 4 8 16 24 52 5 Driveway/Acceleration Details 3 4 8 16 28 6 ROW Needs Determination N/A 2 8 4 8 22 7 GEOPAK Roadway Model N/A 0 8 Roadway Cross Sections 20 8 16 24 80 128 SUBTOTAL 32 22 68 80 48 128 88 0 0 0 0 434 SUBTOTALI 77 46 136 120 146 212 212 0 0 0 0 872 FC 161 DRAINAGE Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive 1 HEC-RAS modelling 2 crossings) N/A 12 24 24 60 2 Storm Sewer modelling N/A 8 24 40 72 3 Determine detention requirements N/A 8 16 24 4 Determine WQ requirements N/A 8 16 24 5 Identify drainage easement requirements N/A 2 6 16 8 32 6 Drainage Area Maps external 2 4 16 16 36 7 Drainage Area Maps internal 5 2 4 24 24 54 8 Hydrology calculations N/A 4 16 20 9 Hydraulic calculations N/A 4 24 28 10 Hydraulic Data Sheets 4 4 16 24 44 11 Hydraulic Report N/A 2 16 16 4 38 12 Cross Culvert Layout 1 1 2 4 8 12 26 13 Storm Sewer P&P 5 4 12 30 40 86 14 Quantities Summary 1 4 16 8 28 15 Address comments from COG N/A 2 8 16 16 42 16 WPAP N/A 24 40 12 76 17 SW3P 3 6 16 20 42 18 Coordinate with TCEQ N/A 1 12 4 16 SUBTOTALI 21 1 14 148 64 338 8 176 0 0 0 0 748 Airport Road/IH-35 SBFR 1 Determine WQ requirements N/A 8 16 24 2 Identify drainage easement requirements N/A 4 8 4 16 3 Address comments from COG N/A 4 4 8 SUBTOTAL 0 1 0 16 0 28 0 4 0 0 0 0 48 SUBTOTAL 21 14 164 64 366 8 180 0 0 0 0 796 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive 1 Traffic Study/Intersection Analysis 12 8 16 24 4 64 2 Data Collection 2 6 4 12 3 Crash Analysis 4 6 10 4 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 12 16 6 4 38 5 Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts 1"=100'scale 3 8 12 8 24 52 6 Summary of Small Signs Tabulation 1 4 8 12 7 Sin Details 1 4 8 12 8 Traffic Signal Plans 0 9 Traffic Signal Quantity Summary 1 1 2 1 6 8 1 1 16 10 General Notes for Traffic Signal Installation 2 2 4 8 14 11 Proposed Traffic Signal layouts 2 4 12 16 32 12 Signal Phasing and Wiring Diagrams 2 4 12 16 32 13 Traffic Signal Elevations Sheet 2 2 8 10 20 14 Traffic Signal Striping Sheets 2 2 8 10 20 15 Traffic Signal Installation Details 2 4 8 12 24 16 1 Traffic Si nPole Standards 2 2 4 6 12 17 Si nal PolealFoundation Sheet 1 4 8 8 20 SUBTOTAL 21 64 28 24 1 104 32 134 0 0 0 4 390 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY Intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive 1 Construction Se uenoe Narrative 1 4 8 4 8 24 2 Advance Warning Signs 1 4 4 8 8 24 3 TCP Typical Sections 2 4 8 16 16 44 4 TCP Layouts 1"=100' scale 5 4 8 16 16 40 84 5 Summary of Quantities 1 4 16 8 28 6 Title Sheettlndex 2 2 8 4 8 8 12 42 7 Cost Estimate N/A 6 24 8 38 8 General Notes N/A 2 16 8 26 9 Specifications N/A 1 2 i 16 1 1 1 8 42 10 Standard Drawings 4 4 2 10 20 11 Construction Days Estimate N/A 2 8 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 SUBTOTALI 12 1 20 1 90 1 64 1 92 1 26 1 94 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 386 Airport Road/IH-35 SBFR 1 Conceptual Construction Sequence Narrative 1 4 8 4 16 2 Cost Estimate I N/A 1 6 1 12 1 4 1 22 SUBTOTALI 1 1 4 1 14 1 0 1 16 1 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 38 SUBTOTALI 13 1 24 1 104 1 64 1 108 1 30 1 94 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 424 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT I COORDINATION 12 MONTHS 1 lKickoff Meeting N/A 4 4 4 12 1 lProgress Meetings 8 N/A 12 24 24 60 2 1 Utilit Coordination Meetings 3 N/A 9 9 9 27 3 Submittal Meeting3 N/A 12 12 12 36 4 lContract Administration N/A 16 16 12 44 SUBTOTAL 0 53 65 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 12 179 EXPENSE ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT RATE QUANT TOTAL Mileage MILE $ 0.565 1800 $ 1,017.00 Delivery EA $ 25.00 10 $ 250.00 Copies 11 x17 EA $ 0.20 2000 $ 400.00 Copies 8.5x11 EA $ 0.10 500 $ 50.00 Meals -Per Diem 3 crewmembers x 12 days) DAY $ 46.00 36 $ 1,656.00 Lodging DAY $ 110.00 33 $ 3,630.00 Traffic Count - Gram Traffic Countin EA $ 600.00 1 $ 600.00 Miscellaneous LS $ 56.37 1 $ 56.37 $ 7,659.37 Exhibit D - HVJ Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive City of Georgetown for Brown & Gay Engineers HVJ Proposal No. AG1511320 Field Investigation - Drilling and Soil Sampling Mobilization/Demobilization - Austin Drilling & Sampling - Soils Drilling & Sampling - Rock Support Truck Plugging of soil borings Field Technician Vehicle Trips Traffic Control Laboratory Testing - Standard Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216) Atterberg Limits (Liquid and Plastic Limits, ASTM D-4318) Unconfined Compression Tests No 200 Sieve (ASTM D-1140) Consolidation Tests Swell Test Sulphates and Chlorides CBR FWD Testing and Traffic Counts No. 1 60 0 1 60 8 2 1 8 8 0 8 0 0 4 1 FOR, Rate Units $400.00 each $16.00 per foot $23.00 per foot $100.00 per day $6.00 per foot $65.00 per hour $50.00 each $1,200.00 each Sub Total $18.00 each $65.00 each $50.00 each $42.00 each $250.00 each $150.00 each $75.00 each $450.00 each Sub Total Mobilization/Demobilization 1 @ $200.00 each FWD Equipment 1 @ $2,600.00 day Traffic Control 1 @ $1,200.00 day Traffic Counts for Pavement Design 2 @ $300.00 day Subtotal Geotechnical Engineering & Reporting Senior Engineer, P.E. 4 @ Project Engineer, P.E. 8 @ Staff Engineer, EIT 8 @ Clerical/Administrative 2 @ Pavement Engineering & Reporting Senior Engineer, P.E. 5 @ Project Engineer, P.E. 19 @ Staff Engineer, EIT 15 @ Clerical/Administrative 0 @ $150.00 hr $125.00 hr $85.00 hr $50.00 hr Sub -Total $150.00 hr $125.00 hr $85.00 hr $50.00 hr Sub -Total $400.00 $960.00 $0.00 $100.00 $360.00 $520.00 $100.00 $1,200.00 $3,640.00 $144.00 $520.00 $0.00 $336.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 $450.00 $1,750.00 $200.00 $2,600.00 $1,200.00 $600.00 $4,600.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $680.00 $100.00 $2,380.00 $750.00 $2,375.00 $1,275.00 $0.00 $4,400.00 Total $16,770.00 Exhibit D - CPY TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Sr. Env. Planner Sr. Env. Specialist Biologist GIS Operator Admin/ Clerical Total Hours Total Labor Cost I. Project Administration and Coordination A. Invoices and Progress Reports 4 4 8 $1,024.00 B. Meetings and Coordination 8 2 10 $1,780.00 II. Environmental Documentation A. Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment 2 16 4 4 26 $3,064.00 B. Waters of the U.S. Determination 2 20 16 8 46 $4,280.00 C. Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment 2 20 16 4 42 $3,992.00 D. Historic Resources Assessment 2 20 2 4 28 $3,332.00 TOTAL HOURS 20 38 46 32 20 4 160 RATE PER HOUR $192.00 $122.00 $110.00 $70.00 $72.00 $64.00 TOTAL LABOR COST $3,840.00 $4,636.00 $5,060.00 $2,240.00 $1,440.00 $256.00 $17,472.00 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $415.63 CPBY TOTAL COST $17,887.63 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES QUANTITY RATE UNIT TOTAL Mileage 125 $0.565 MILE $70.63 Photocopies B/W 8.5" x 11" 100 $0.10 EACH $10.00 Photocopies B/W 11" x 17" 50 $0.20 EACH $10.00 HazMat Database Search 1 $250.00 EACH $250.00 GPS Rental 1 $75.00 EACH $75.00 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $415.63 Exhibit E RM Airport Road Project Schedule 060 Description CONSULTANT TASKS i 2015 i OctDee 2016 Jan Start Date: March 1, 2015 Review Project Data GeotechnicalInvestigation Environmental Documentation Utility Coordination Survey Roadway Design Drainage Analysis Typical Sections Traffic Signal Layouts Signing and Pavement Markings Traffic Control Plans WPAP SW3P Plans Cost Estimates General Note and Specifications Contract Time Determination Bid Proposal DCC Meeting Preliminary Engineering Submittal -Intersection 30% Submittal -Intersection Incorporate Review Comments 100% Submittal -Intersection Incorporate Review Comments Final Submittal -Intersection Letting (November 2015) - Intersection Preliminary Engineering Submittal -Airport Rd Widening Incorporate Review Comments Final Engineering Schematic Submittal -Airport Rd Widening Project Coordination with City TxDOT TASKS / REVIEWS Milestone Reviews Work Authorization Termination Date: January 31, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit E City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): First Reading of an Ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2015/16 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This item is to adopt the proposed changes to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for the upcoming budge. The proposed amendments were discussed and reviewed by the General Government and Finance Advisory Board, and include the following as notated by page number from the red -line draft included with the agenda item. • Page 8 — Codifies the utility standardized "cost of service" methodologies for establishing the City's utility rates, including Water, Wastewater, Electric and Stormwater Drainage. o These methodologies were adopted by the GUS Board as the basis for the current City utility rates. This addition only codifies that action for future rate analysis. • Page 9 — A major portion of the City's General Fund Revenue is internal cost recovery. This amendment clarifies the "Internal Cost Recovery Fees" as a revenue source. o No other changes were made to this section other than adding this title to the paragraph. • Page 10— A new section on "Long-term Liability Reserves" has been added and includes the Cemetery Reserve. o GGAF will continue to review long-term commitments and other under funded liabilities for future additions • Page 13 — Updated the chart that summarizes the procurement approval requirements to mirror state law, and clarified that all purchases must be approved according to preapproved limits within each department and as directed and approved by the City Manager. • Page 28 — A note was added to cross reference the use of excess minimum reserves to "Section IV. L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances". • Page 28— Language regarding aged receivables has been deleted in order to be compliant with "Red Flag Rules" for customer account management. In addition, references to fiscal year 2014/15 have been updated and designated amounts have been left blank. These amounts will be included once they have been determined and will be included in the final document that is included in the 2015/16 adopted budget. As mentioned, this item was reviewed with GGAF in detail at its March 25, 2015 meeting, and will be presented and discussed at the April 14, 2015 Council workshop. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ATTACHMENTS: F&B Policy Ordinance F&B Policy - Exhibit A F&B Draft Redline w-GGAF Recommendations ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TX FORMALY ADOPTING THE FISCAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council developed a Fiscal and Budgetary Policy and was adopted by City Council action in 2001; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy has been reviewed and adopted each year since 2001 by such Council action; and WHEREAS, this Policy is used to guide the City's financial operations; and WHEREAS, the City's Annual Budget is prepared in accordance with this policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and approved the amended Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for 2015/16; and WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed this Policy to be in effect: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance complies with the Vision Statement of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. The City Council approves the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy as illustrated in Exhibit A. SECTION 3. In the event any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, provision sentence or part of this ordinance or the application of same to any person or circumstance shall for any reason be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance which shall be given full force and effect. SECTION 4: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. Ordinance Number: Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Amendment Date Approved: Page 1 of 2 PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 14t" day of April, 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 28t" day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapmen, City Attorney Ordinance Number: Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Amendment Date Approved: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Dale Ross Mayor Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A City of Georgetown Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Approved April 14, 2015 I. PURPOSE The City of Georgetown is committed to financial management through integrity, prudent stewardship, planning, accountability, full disclosure and communication. The broad purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies is to enable the City and its related component units, including the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) to achieve and maintain a long-term stable and positive financial condition, and provide guidelines for the day-to-day planning and operations of the City's financial affairs. Policy scope generally spans areas of accounting and financial reporting, internal controls, both operating and capital budgeting, revenue management, investment and asset management, debt management and forecasting. This is done in order to: A. Demonstrate to the citizens of Georgetown, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that the City is committed to a strong fiscal operation; B. Provide precedents for future policy -makers and financial managers on common financial goals and strategies; C. Fairly present and fully disclose the financial position of the City in conformity to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and D. Demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal and contractual issues in accordance with the Texas Local Government Code and other legal mandates. These policies will be reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget preparation process. II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING The budgeted funds for the City of Georgetown include: Governmental Funds: General Fund which accounts for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund, and include basic governmental services, such as Street Maintenance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire and Parks, as well as, solid waste management. Special Revenue Funds (SRF) account for specific revenues that are legally restricted for specified purposes. The City City of Georgetown Fiscal and Budgetary Policy DRAFT General Government & Finance (GGAF) Recommendations included GGAF Review March 25, 2015 City Council Review April 14, 2015 I. PURPOSE The City of Georgetown is committed to financial management through integrity, prudent stewardship, planning, accountability, full disclosure and communication. The broad purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies is to enable the City and its related component units, including the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) to achieve and maintain a long-term stable and positive financial condition, and provide guidelines for the day-to-day planning and operations of the City's financial affairs. Policy scope generally spans areas of accounting and financial reporting, internal controls, both operating and capital budgeting, revenue management, investment and asset management, debt management and forecasting. This is done in order to: A. Demonstrate to the citizens of Georgetown, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that the City is committed to a strong fiscal operation; B. Provide precedents for future policy -makers and financial managers on common financial goals and strategies; C. Fairly present and fully disclose the financial position of the City in conformity to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and D. Demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal and contractual issues in accordance with the Texas Local Government Code and other legal mandates. These policies will be reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget preparation process. II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING The budgeted funds for the City of Georgetown include: Governmental Funds: General Fund which accounts for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund, and include basic governmental services, such as Street Maintenance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire and Parks, as well as, solid waste management. Special Revenue Funds (SRF) account for specific revenues that are legally restricted for specified purposes. The City currently budgets SRF Funds and includes Tourism, Parkland Dedication, Library Donations, Animal Services Donations, and Street Maintenance Sales Tax. Debt Service Fund is used to account for the payment of general long-term debt principal and interest. Capital Project Funds are used to account for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities other than those financed by enterprise activities. Proprietary Funds: Internal Service Funds account for good or services provided by one internal department to another. The City uses this system to recognize cost for fleet replacement and maintenance, facility maintenance,a-nd computer replacement and maintenance and employee health insurance costs. Enterprise Funds include the City's "business like" activities including all the utility funds and the airport. Basis of Accounting and Basis of Budgeting The City's accounts and budgets for all Governmental Funds using the modified accrual basis of accounting. This basis means that revenue is recognized in the accounting period in which it becomes available and measurable, while expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which they are incurred. Because the appropriated budget is used as the basis for control and comparison of budgeted and actual amounts, the basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting. Exceptions to the modified accrual basis of accounting include: • Encumbrances, which are treated as expenditures in the year they are encumbered, not when expended. • Grants, which are considered revenue when awarded, not received. Principal and interest on long-term debt, which are recognized when paid. General government funds include the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service fund and general capital project funds. Proprietary Funds, which include the enterprise and internal service funds are accounted and budgeted using the full -accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when they are earned and measurable, while expenses are recognized when they are incurred regardless of timing or related cash flows. The basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting except for principal payments on long-term debt and capital outlay which are treated as budgeted expenses. Exceptions include: • Depreciation which is not budgeted Non -budgeted accruals such as compensated absences III. FUND BALANCE POLICIES The City's Fund Balance is the accumulated difference between assets and liabilities within governmental funds, and it allows the City to meet its contractual obligations, fund disaster or emergency costs, provide cash flow for timing purposes and fund non -recurring expenses appropriated by City Council. This policy establishes limitations on the purposes for which Fund Balances can be used in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 54. The City's Fund Balance will report up to five components: A. Non -spendable Fund Balance — includes inherently non -spendable assets that will never convert to cash, as well as, assets that will not convert to cash soon enough to affect the current financial period. Assets included in this category are prepaid items, inventory and non -financial assets held for resale. B. Restricted Fund Balance — represents the portion of fund balance that is subject to legal restrictions, such as grants or hotel/motel tax and bond proceeds. C. Committed Fund Balance — describes the portion of fund balance that is constrained by limitations that the City Council has imposed upon itself, and remains binding unless the City Council removes the limitation. D. Assigned Fund Balance — is that portion of fund balance that reflects the City's intended use of the resource and is established in a less formal method by the City for that designated purpose. E. Unassigned Fund Balance — represents funds that cannot be property classified in one of the other four categories. IV. OPERATING BUDGET Budgeting is an essential element of the financial planning, control and evaluation process of municipal government. The "operating budget" is the City's annual financial operating plan. The annual budget includes all of the operating departments of the general fund, proprietary funds, debt service funds, special revenue funds, and capital improvement funds of the City. A. Comprehensive Plan — The 2030 Plan is written from a perspective of some twenty years into the future. It expresses what we envision and desire our community to be in the year 2030, and it reflects on all that we have accomplished since we launched the revision of our Comprehensive Plan in 2006. The Plan utilizes a Vision Statement to guide the desired outcomes for the community. B. Council Vision — The Council has further defined the City's Comprehensive Plan by defining its vision to become the City of Excellence. This vision is to be accomplished through five (5) focus areas. These focus areas become the City's strategic goals through development and implementation of defined Business Plans for each focus area. 1. Economic Development 2. Signature Destination 3. Public Safety 4. Transportation 5. Utility Services C. Five -Year City of Excellence Business Plan — A "dashboard" plan will be developed that links the 2030 Plan with the City Council's City of Excellence vision and five focus areas (strategic goals) that further the implementation of the Vision. From those strategic goals an implementation plan for each of the 5 focus areas will be created. 1. A Five -Year Financial Forecast will be created and updated annually that will identify potential tax impacts, rate adjustments and other factors that will impede the implementation of the City of Excellence Business Plan. 2. Year -One of this Business Plan is the basis for the Annual Budget. D. Preparation — The Charter (Section 6.02) requires "a proposed budget prepared by the City Manager and submitted to the City Council at least thirty days prior to the end of the fiscal year. The budget shall be adopted not later than the twenty-seventh day of the last month of the fiscal year. No budget will be adopted or appropriations made unless the total estimated revenues, income and funds available shall be equal to or in excess of such budget or appropriations, except otherwise provided". Therefore, the budget will be presented to the City Council no later than the 1 s` day of August to provide the City Council time to adopt the budget in the required time frame. Proposed Budget — A proposed budget shall be prepared by the City Manager with participation of all of the City's Division Directors within the provision of the Charter and the 2030 Plan and the City of Excellence Vision. a. The budget shall include four basic segments for review and evaluation: • Revenues • Personnel Costs • Operations and Maintenance • Capital and other non -project costs b. The budget review process will include City Council participation in the development of each segment and allow for citizen participation in the process, and will allow for sufficient time to address policy and fiscal issues by the City Council. c. A copy of the proposed budget will be filed with the City Secretary when it is submitted to the City Council. A copy will also be available at the Georgetown Public Library for citizen review. 2. Adoption — Upon finalization of the budget appropriations, the City Council will hold a public hearing, and subsequently adopt by Ordinance the final budget as amended. The budget will be effective for the fiscal year beginning October 1 t The Annual Budget document will be submitted annually to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. E. Balanced Budget — The goal of the City is to adopt and maintain a balanced operating budget using sustainable funding sources that are expected to continue to be available in subsequent fiscal years. Excess balances in operating funds from previous fiscal years shall remain in the fund in which they were appropriated until either such excess balances are proposed and adopted pursuant to Section IV. D. of the th+sthis policy; until they are used to reduce outstanding debt obligations of the City; or both. The Charter (Section 6.04) requires that an operating deficit created in any fiscal year shall be paid off and discharged during the following year. In practice, deficit has been interpreted to mean City funds as a whole. The City Council may choose from time to time to allow individual funds to have a negative balance as long as Operating Reserve requirements for the City as a whole are maintained. F. Planning — The budget process will be coordinated so that major policy issues are identified prior to the budget approval date. This will allow City Council adequate time for consideration of appropriate decisions and analysis of financial impacts. G. Reporting — Summary financial reports will be presented to the City Council quarterly. These reports will be in a format appropriate to enable the City Council to understand the overall budget and financial status. H. Control and Accountability — Each Division Director, appointed by the City Manager, will be responsible for the administration of his/her departmental budget. This includes accomplishing the Goals and Objectives adopted as part of the budget and monitoring each department budget for compliance with spending limitations. Division Directors may transfer funds up to $20,000 within the operations and maintenance or capital line items within a departmental budget category without additional approval. All transfers within the Personnel line items require approval of the Chief Financial Officer and City Manager. All other transfers of appropriation or budget amendments require either City Council or City Manager approval as outlined in Section IV.I and Section V1.B.4. Budget Amendments — The Charter (Section 6.04) provides a method to amend for budget amendments and emergency appropriations. The City Council may authorize with a majority plus one vote, an emergency expenditure as an amendment to the original budget. This may be done in cases of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that was not known at the time the budget was adopted. In practice, this has been interpreted to include revenue -related expenses within the enterprise funds and timing differences on capital improvement projects. The following criteria will be used in evaluation of budget amendments: • Is the request necessary? • Why was the item not budgeted in the normal budget process? • Why can't a transfer be done within the Division to remedy the condition? The Chief Financial Officer must certify availability of revenues or funding sources prior to adoption. V The City will amend the budget at year end, if needed, for revenue based expenditures that exceeded budgeted amounts due to increased revenue and recognize any grant funded expenditures for grants received after the budget was adopted or last amended. The City will also amend the budget if necessary as part of the nnod Year Review pfGGesc for any capital project timing adjustments from prior year, as well as, any other known adjustments needed and approved at that time. J. Contingency Appropriations — The budget may include contingency appropriations within designated operating department budgets. These funds are used to offset expenditures for unexpected maintenance or other unanticipated expenses that might occur during the year. Currently, the City maintains contingency appropriations for insurance deductibles, unexpected legal expenses and equipment repairs. K. Council Discretionary Account — The budget may contain appropriated funds to be used at the discretion of the City Council. Actual expenditure of these funds is specifically approved by the City Council on an item by item basis. The Council Discretionary Account for 2014102015/4s16 is $10,000 included in the General Fund. L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances - Within 90 days after fiscal year end, staff will report the projected general fund balance to Council. In the event that unexpected, unbudgeted amounts are determined to be available in the General Fund after year end, these funds may be used for any of the following purposes, as approved by the City Council: 1. to fund capital projects; 2. to fund equipment purchases in lieu of issuing debt; 3. to reduce outstanding city debt, including bonded indebtedness and unfunded pension liabilities; 4. to fund contingent liabilities such as the benefit payout reserve, cemetery trust fund, and similar obligations of the city; 5. to take other steps to reduce property tax rates or mitigate any future increases; 6. to hold those funds in reserve for future commitments or contingencies that may be pending, and/or 7. to fund an economic uncertainty reserve of up to three (3) percent of annual General Fund operating expenditures. REVENUE MANAGEMENT A. Characteristics — The City will strive for the following optimum characteristics in its revenue system: Simplicity — The City, where possible and without sacrificing accuracy, will strive to keep the revenue system simple in order to reduce compliance costs for the taxpayer or service recipient. 2. Certainty — A knowledge and understanding of revenue sources increases the reliability of the revenue system. The City will understand its revenue sources and enact consistent collection policies to provide assurances that the revenue base will materialize according to budget. 3. Equity — The City shall make every effort to maintain equity in its revenue system; i.e., the City should seek to minimize or eliminate all forms of subsidization between entities, funds, services, utilities, and customer classes, and ensure an on -going return on investment for the City. a. The City will make every effort to recognize the benefit that City tax payers contribute to City programs and services. b. The annual Parks and Recreation residential membership rates are established at 75% of non-residential rates plus or minus 10% at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director in keeping with the targeted market cost recovery. 4. Revenue Adequacy — The City should require there be a balance in the revenue system; i.e., the revenue base will have the characteristics of fairness and neutrality as it applies to cost of service, willingness to pay, and ability to pay. Overall Operational Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation for the Recreation and Tennis Centers is targeted to be between 50 — 60%, with some variance in individual programs. 5. Realistic and Conservative Estimates - Revenues will be estimated realistically, and conservatively, taking into account the volatile nature of various revenue streams. 6. Administration — The benefits of a revenue source should exceed the cost of levying and collecting that revenue. 7. Diversification and Stability — A diversified revenue system with a stable source of income shall be maintained. This will help avoid instabilities in two particular revenue sources due to factors such as fluctuations in the economy and variations in the weather. B. Other Considerations — The following considerations and issues will guide the City in its revenue policies concerning specific sources of funds: 1. Cost/Benefit of Incentives for Economic Development — The City will use due caution in the analysis of any incentives that are used to encourage development. A cost/benefit (fiscal impact) analysis will be performed as part of the evaluation. 2. Non -Recurring Revenues — One-time or non -recurring revenues should not be used to finance current ongoing operations. 3. Sustainable Revenues — "Sustainable" means revenue that is consistently available year after year, and includes revenues realized subsequent to adopted projections. 4. Property Tax Revenues — All real and business personal property located within the City will be valued at 100% of the fair market value for any given year based on the current appraisal supplied by the Williamson Central Appraisal District. Conservative budgeted revenue estimates result in a projected ninety-eight percent (98%) budgeted collection rate for current ad valorem taxes. Two percent (2%) of the current ad valorem taxes will be projected as the budget for delinquent ad valorem tax collection. For budgeting purposes, the City will forecast the proposed property tax rate using the effective maintenance & operations (M&O) rate plus the interest & sinking (I&S) rate needed to fund tax supported debt service. Increases to the M&O rate will be deliberated and determined by the City Council. Proposed tax revenue will be budgeted at a 98% collection rate. 5. Interest Income — Interest earned from investments will be distributed to the funds in accordance with the equity balance of the fund from which the monies were provided to be invested. 6. User -Based Fees and Service Charges — For services associated with a user fee or charge, the direct or indirect costs of that service will be offset by a fee where possible. The City will review fees and charges no less than once every two years to ensure that fees provide adequate coverage for the cost of services. The City Council will determine how much of the cost of a service should be recovered by fees and charges. 7. Enterprise Fund Rates — The City will review and adopt utility rates as needed to generate revenues required to fully cover operating expenses, meet the legal requirements of all applicable bond covenants, and provide for an adequate level of working capital. Utility rates will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. A rate study will be conducted every 3 years to review rate methodology and ensure revenues will meet future needs. All utility rates will be based on standardized "cost of service" methodoloaies. Water Rates will recognize the at least 75% of the "fixed" cost of service, including debt payments and ROI costs, within the monthly "base charge" determined by meter size. "Volumetric charge" will recognize the balance of fixed costs not included in the base rate, plus all variable costs associated with Drocurina and treatina water. Wastewater Rates are "flat and equal" for all residential customers based on the cost of providing services. Commercial customer rates are varied depending on size and specifications of each commercial customer. • Electric Rates include 100% of fixed costs within the base rate, with all variable costs included in the kWh rate. • Stormwater Drainage Fees are based a mathematical calculation based on impervious cover and aDDlied in compliance with State Law. A restricted Power Contract Credit Reserve has been established to provide financial assurances to the City's wholesale power contract providers as fiscal surety against any potential risk on the City's behalf and will be maintained as "restricted" fund balance on the City's financial statements. A Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) Account has been established in the Electric Fund to offset and mitigate potential impacts to customer rates due to increased fuel costs or other external factors that may negatively impact Electric Rates. The Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) may provide funding for: • Deferring or minimizing the rate impact of future cost increases • Costs associated with providing additional power supply • Filling contractual obligations • Balancing of annual power costs RSR funds will be monitored monthly to ensure the electric rate is being managed per the Policy. Increases to RSR are made through the Power Cost Adjustment rate as determined by the fund, at the recommendation of the General Manager for Utilities. 8. Internal Cost Recovery Fees - Additionally, enterprise activity rates will include transfers to and receive credits from other funds as follows: a. General and Administrative Charges — Administrative costs should be charged to all funds for services of general overhead, such as administration, finance, customer billing, legal and other costs as appropriate. These charges will be determined through an indirect cost allocation following accepted practices and procedures and reviewed annually by the City's external auditors. b. Payment for Return on Investment — The intent of this transfer is to provide a benefit to the citizens for the ownership of the various utility operations they own. For all utilities except for Electric: • In -Lieu -of -Franchise -Fee. This transfer, currently 3% of operating revenues generated inside the City, is consistent with the franchise rates charged to investor owned utilities franchised to operate within the City. Return on Investment. The return on investment (ROI) transfer for In - City utility customers is currently calculated at 7% of operating revenues for all utilities. ROI for water and sewer customers outside the City is 10% of operating revenues.. There is no ROI calculated on solid waste revenues. The Franchise and Return on Investment for the Electric Utility is based on kWh sold. For customers inside the City, a $0.0102 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 3% and 7% paid by other utility customers, will be included in the cost per kWh. For customers outside the City, a $0.007253 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 7% ROI paid by utilities, will be included in the cost. 9. Intergovernmental Revenues — All potential grants will be examined for matching requirements and must be approved by the City Council prior to making application of the grant. It must be clearly understood that operational requirements (on -going costs) set up as a result of a grant program could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the program have been completed. 10. Revenue Monitoring — Revenues as they are received will be regularly compared to budgeted revenues and variances will be investigated, and any abnormalities will be included in the quarterly report to the City Council. VI. LONG-TERM LIABILITY RESERVES The City of Georgetown recognizes certain long-term unfunded commitments and contingencies that will require substantial funding at some point in the future. The City is committed to addressing these commitments in a fiscally prudent method by acknowledging their future financial impacts and developing strategies and designated reserve funds to mitiaate those future impacts. 1. Cemetery Reserve will be established for the purpose of funding continued maintenance for City owned cemetery properties VI.VII. EXPENDITURE POLICIES A. Appropriations — The point of budget control is at the department level budget for all funds. The Charter (Section 6.03) provides that any transfer of appropriation between funds must be approved by the City Council and that the City Manager, without City Council approval, is authorized to transfer appropriations among departments, within the same operational division and fund. The City Manager may also authorize transfer of salary adjustment monies between funds that are budgeted in a citywide account. B. Personnel Costs — Costs related to salaries and benefits are budgeted at 100% total costs, assuming open positions are filled throughout the fiscal year. New positions that are added during the budget process may have staggered hire dates with appropriate costs reflected in the budget. Vacancy Factor — General Fund appropriations will include a vacancy factor equal to 1 % of total General Fund salaries and related benefits to offset salary savings within the budget. The vacancy factor will be budgeted as a negative expense within the General Government Department of the General Fund. For 2014/152015/16 the Vacancy Factor equals $ This factor will be reduced throughout the year as vacant positions are recognized within the department budget. 2. Benefit Payout Reserve - The City will establish a benefit payout reserve equal to 15% of the accrued benefit liability for employees who are currently meet eligible to retirement. Only terminating employee benefit expenses may be paid from this reserve. This reserve shall be funded as an offset to the vacancy factor. For ` 014/;5-2015/16$ is budgeted for this reserve. 3. Position Control — The annual budget includes a set number of positions within departments when approved and adopted by City Council. Additional positions 10 cannot be added without approval of the City Council. The City Manager may approve the transfer of authorized positions between departments if funds are available within the department. 4. Use of Excess Salary Savings — Departmental savings generated due to open positions or other salary line item savings cannot be spent by the department unless previously approved by the City Manager and validated by Finance as "excess funds". C. Special Purpose Funding — In order to support community assistance programs, the City designates specific funding for special purposes, including Social Services, Children's Programs, and Public Art. The City reserves the ability to cap this special purpose funding when necessitated by budget contingency or compliance issues, such as revenue shortfalls, or other reasons as determined by City Council. Strategic Partnerships for Community Services. — The City of Georgetown values partnerships with organizations that are committed to addressing our communities greatest public challenges and has identified key priorities in the following areas: • Public Safety • Transportation • Housing • Parks & Recreation • Veteran Services, and • Safety Net The City has targeted funding for these programs to be $5.00 per capita, which may be adjusted to offset the effects of general inflation based upon CPI. If previous funding levels are higher than the targeted amount, and to avoid significant reductions in levels of funding, the City Council shall seek to attain this target chiefly through population growth. These funds will be allocated and paid according to the City Council's guidelines for such programs. The funding level for ''0'�5 2015/16 is $400,049 for these type of initiatives and is the same as in the previous year. 2. Public Art Funding - The City will annually allocate funding for Public Art on a year to year basis depending on the availability of funds in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the City Manager. Funding priority will be given to projects that include a matching donation, including contributions from local organizations and sponsors. Any unspent funds will accumulate and be reallocated in the following budget year. Disbursement of these funds will be determined by the City Council at the recommendation of the City's Arts & Culture Advisory Board. Every effort will be made to include public art funding in future City facilities whose primary purpose is for public use. These projects will include a reasonable allowance for public art that fits the scope and purpose of the building so long that it does not negatively impact the project cost beyond the original budget. In the event there is cost savings in the construction of City Facilities, the City Council may consider utilizing that savings on the purchase of public art for the facility. Is D. Purchasing — The City will maintain and regularly review a written Purchasing Policy. All City purchases of goods or services will be made in accordance with the City's current Purchasing Policy and with State law. 12 The following shows a summary of approval requirements for purchases. Dollar Limits: Procurements: Requirements: Under Under the small purchase No competitive bids and City credit $3,000 limit cards may be used. $3,000 Within informal bid limit A minimum of three informal up to competitive bids required unless $50,000 exempted: HUB requirements apply in accordance with state law. $50,000 In excess of the informal bid Formal solicitations, which includes and above limit public notices, required unless exempted. Advisory board review and recommendation may be required. Council approval required. In addition to the above, all purchases must be approved accordingly to preapproved limits within each department as directed and approved by the City Manager. E. Contracts and Change Orders - Contracts and related change orders must follow the City Purchasing Policies and State Law. In accordance with State Law, change orders are limited to 25% of the total contract amount. Change orders greater than $50,000 require the same advisory board review and Council approvals as the original contracts. F. Prompt Payment — All invoices approved for payment by the proper City authorities shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of goods or services or invoice date, whichever is later in accordance with State law. The City will take advantage of all purchase discounts, when possible. G. Risk Management — The City will pursue every opportunity to provide for the Public's and City employees' safety and to manage its risks. The goal shall be to minimize the risk of loss of resources through liability claims with an emphasis on safety programs. 13 H. Retirement Benefits — Proposals to revise benefits administered and provided by the Texas Municipal Retirement System shall include a written description, and, detailed and summary numerical assessments of the changes that would result from the proposed benefit revision. 1. The numerical assessments shall include the following: a. The estimated change to the TMRS contribution rate that would result from the proposed change in benefits, expressed as a percentage of employee pay and as an annual dollar amount to the General Fund and to each City fund. b. The estimated change to the City's unfunded pension liability, expressed as a dollar amount. c. The estimated change to the City's actuarial funding ratio. 2. The description and numerical assessments must be provided to the City Council at least 72 hours prior to consideration and approval, and must be read aloud to the Council prior to Council consideration. 3. The estimated changes to the City's contribution rate and the unfunded pension liability presented pursuant to the section must be based on information provided by the TMRS actuary or by professional actuary authorized by the TMRS to provide such information. 4. Proposals to revise TMRS benefits must be voted on individually as part of the City Council's legislative agenda. 5. The City has established 80% as the minimum funding goal for the City's unfunded pension liability. The City's funded pension liability is 81.3% as of December 31, 2013, as disclosed by TMRS. The City's ultimate goal is 100%, but will be achieved reasonably over time. 6. The City may elect to make an annual 1-time payment prior to further fund the City's unfunded pension liability. Such payment will be approved and authorized by the City Council prior to December 31 in order to be recognized in the following year's TMRS employer contribution rate calculation. 7. Retirement Cost -of -Living Adjustment a) Within 60 days of when the TMRS annual funding update becomes available each year, staff will review and prepare a summary of costs and options for potential cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) for City of Georgetown retirees. b) Consistent with state statutes governing the Texas Municipal Retirement System, the city may provide an automatic COLA for members of the TMRS who are retired from the City of Georgetown and receiving a monthly retirement benefit from the TMRS. c) The city council may adjust the COLA provided to city retirees based upon the funding level of the city's pension plan, as calculated by the TMRS, as follows: 14 When the funding level of the city's pension plan is The COLA should be Less than 70.0% Zero 70.0% to 79.9% 0.3% of CPI 80.0% to 89.9% 0.5% of CPI 90.0% and greater 0.7% of CPI d) Adjustments made pursuant to subsection b. should reflect the effect of the prospective change in the COLA on the funding level of the city's pension plan. VL.VIII. BUDGET CONTINGENCY PLAN This policy is designed to establish general guidelines for managing revenue shortfalls resulting from local and national economic downturns that adversely affect the City's revenue streams. A. Immediate Action - Once a budgetary shortfall is projected, the City Manager will take the necessary actions to offset any revenue shortfall with a reduction in current expenses. The City Manager may: • Freeze all new hire and vacant positions except those deemed to be a necessity. • Review all planned capital expenditures. • Delay all "non -essential" spending or equipment replacement purchases. The City Manager shall report in a timely manner to the City Council the projected shortfall and the actions taken to resolve it. B. Further Action -. If the actions identified in subsection A are insufficient to offset the projected revenue deficit for the current fiscal year, the City Council may approve the following actions, in the order listed: 1. Apply unspent, unobligated surplus funds from prior fiscal years to fund one-time costs in the current fiscal year budget. 2. Notwithstanding Section XIV.A.2.b. of this policy, authorize a reduction in the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, pursuant to Section XIV.A.2.b. of this policy, from 90 to 75 days. 3. Direct other reductions in services, including workforce reductions. C. Replenish Fund Balance - As soon as practicable, without placing undue strain on city services, the City Council shall increase the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, up to the 90-day amount required in Section XIV.A.2.b. of this policy. 15 VIWIX. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET The City's goal is to maintain City facilities and infrastructure in order to provide excellent services to the customers within the community, meet growth related needs, and comply with all state and federal regulations. A. Preparation — The City annually updates and adopts a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule as part of the operating budget adoption process. The plan is reviewed and adjusted annually as needed, and year one is adopted as the current year capital budget. The capital budget will include all capital projects, capital resources, and estimated operational impacts. • Needed capital improvements are identified through system models, repair and maintenance records and growth demands. • Economic development projects that have capital infrastructure needs must be reviewed and approved for funding by the City no later than March 1 to be included in the annual CIP process. Any economic development project approved for funding after March 1 will be included in the following year CIP process unless otherwise authorized by City Council. • A team approach will be used to prioritize CIP projects, whereby City staff from all operational areas provide input and ideas relating to each project and its effect on operations. • Citizen involvement and participation will be solicited in formulating the capital budget through neighborhood meetings, public hearings and other forums. • Capital infrastructure necessary to meet the requirements of the City's Annexation Plan will be identified separately within the CIP plan, so that funding alternatives can be developed if needed. Prior to Council adoption, the following Advisory Boards will review the Capital Projects budget: Georgetown Georgetown General Government Utility Systems Transportation and Finance Parks Advisory Board Advisory Board Advisory Board Advisory (GUS) (GTAB) (GGAF) Board Electric Streets Facilities Parks and Water Stormwater Drainage Other General Recreation Wastewater Airport Government Capital B. Control — All capital project expenditures must be appropriated in the capital budget. Availability of resources must be identified and then reviewed by the Finance Division before any CIP contract is presented to the City Council for approval. Prior to presentation to Council, the following Advisory Boards will review: In Georgetown Utility Georgetown General Government Systems Transportation and Finance Advisory Board Advisory Board Advisory Board (GUS) (GTAB) (GGAF) All utility contracts and All Transportation, All General Government other utility expenses Stormwater Drainage and non -routine contracts and greater than $50,000 Airport expenditures and expenditures greater than contracts greater than $50,000 $50,000 C. Financing Programs — Where applicable, assessments, impact fees, pro rata charges, or other fees should be used to fund capital projects which have a primary benefit to specific identifiable property owners. Recognizing that long-term debt is usually a more expensive financing method, alternative -financing sources will be explored before debt is issued. When debt is issued, it will be used to acquire major assets with expected lives equal or exceeding the average life of the debt issue. Short-term financing including Capital Leasing and other tax -supported obligations can be used to fund vehicles, computers and other operating equipment provided the impact to the tax rate is minimal. Caution should be used in replacing assets with short-term, tax -supported obligations due to the repetitive nature of the replacements. The total amount of I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate dedicated to fund short-term debt for equipment replacement will not exceed $0.04. DQ . CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT The City recognizes that deferred maintenance increases future capital costs. Therefore, a portion of all individual funds with infrastructure should be budgeted each year to maintain the quality within each system. A. Infrastructure Maintenance - On -going maintenance and major repair costs are included as capital expense within the departmental operating budgets. These costs are generally considered system repairs and are not capitalized for accounting purposes. They include such items as park and recreation facility repairs, street seal coat, water line repairs and other general system maintenance. B. Modified Approach - Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement # 34 provides for an alternative approach to depreciation for measuring the value of infrastructure assets and the related costs incurred to maintain their service life at a locally established minimum standard. The City has elected to implement this modified approach in maintaining their non -enterprise fund infrastructure assets. In order to adopt this alternative method, the City has implemented an asset management system that determines if the minimum standards are being maintained. This measurement system will be updated at least 17 every 3 years. The City has elected to use this alternative method for reporting its street infrastructure assets. The City uses the CarteGraph PavementView Pavement Management Information System to track the condition levels of each of the street sections. The condition of the pavement is based on the following factors: • Type of Distress • Amount of Distress • Severity of Distress • Deduct Values (function of first three) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a measurement scale is based upon a condition index ranging from zero for a failed pavement to 100 for pavement with perfect condition. The condition index is used to classify pavement in the following conditions: PCI Rating 100 — 85 Good 85 — 45 Fair 45 — 0 Poor The City's administrative policy is to achieve an average PCI level of 85. An 85 PCI is considered maintaining the streets in a "good" condition. Staff will prepare a street maintenance budget that meets this target for Council's consideration during the budget process. The PCI level as of 2014 87.30. C. Internal Service Funds Capital Maintenance & Replacement) — The City currently utilizes internal service funds to maintain and replace existing assets. Assessments are made to the using funds for the use of equipment currently in use and to be purchased during the year. In this way, suitable funds are available for the purchase of operational assets without the issuance of debt. A. Fleet Maintenance and Replacement - The City has a major investment in its fleet of cars, trucks, tractors, and other equipment. The City will anticipate replacing existing equipment, as necessary and will establish charges that are assigned to the using departments to account for the cost of that replacement. Vehicle maintenance is also allocated in this manner. B. Technology — It is the policy of the City to plan and fund the maintenance and replacement of its computer network and other technology systems. The City currently uses a four-year replacement cycle for all desktop computers. A reserve will be established within the ISF for replacement of major systems and will be funded over time through excess revenues within the Fund. Funding for major systems assumes that 50% of the replacement cost will be debt funded. C. Facilities Maintenance — The City has established an on -going maintenance program, which includes major repairs, equipment, as well as contracts for maintaining City facilities. The City has anticipated a useful life of such m equipment and established a means of charging those costs to the various departments in order to recognize the City's continuing costs of maintaining its facilities. Determination for facility repairs is based on useful life of the various elements of each facility. A proportional cost for each element is expensed within the budget for capital replacement. An additional unscheduled repair reserve equal to 10% value of annual internal service funding is also budgeted. The estimate reserve for''0�15 2015/16 equals $ D. Departmental Capital Maintenance & Replacement — The City also utilizes department capital maintenance and replacement schedules for specialized assets and equipment necessary to provide services. Parks and Recreation - As part of the City's on -going maintenance program, the City also recognizes the need to regularly maintain and replace grounds, equipment and facilities that are part of the City's Parks and Recreation system. Separate replacement and maintenance schedules will be maintained for these items including, but not limited to, playground equipment, buildings, sport courts, trees and grounds, and restroom facilities. The City's goal is to provide level on- going funding to ensure safe, well -maintained facilities for its citizens. 2. Public Safety Equipment — As part of the City's on -going maintenance program, the City also recognizes the need to regularly maintain and replace specialized equipment in Police and Fire. Separate replacement and maintenance schedules will be maintained for these items including but not limited to for Fire: SCBA's and other firefighting equipment and protective gear; and for Police: bullet proof vests, armaments and other tactical equipment. The City's goal is to provide level on -going funding to ensure proper protection for employees and citizens. E. Surplus Property 1. From time to time it is necessary to dispose of certain vehicles or equipment that have been procured with City funds and used in City services. Individual surplus property items with expected sales value in excess of $10,000 must be approved by the City Council prior to disposition. 2. City staff will maintain reports and records of all surplus property dispositions in accordance with good internal controls. A report of all disposed items in excess of $1,000 will be included with the quarterly financial reports provided to City Council. �XI. ACCOUNTING, AUDITING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING A. Accounting — The City is solely responsible for the recording and reporting of its financial affairs, both internally and externally. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible for establishing the structure for the City's Chart of Accounts and for assuring that procedures are in place to properly record financial transactions and report the City's financial position. B. General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) — The City may establish a subcommittee consisting of (3) City Council members and (2) citizens 19 that may meet monthly to provide additional oversight to the City's Finance operations. This subcommittee will also review general government items that are not reviewed by another City advisory board before being presented to City Council. The City's CFO will be the liaison for this subcommittee. C. Audit of Accounts — In accordance with the Charter, an independent audit of the City accounts will be performed every year. The auditor is retained by and is accountable directly to the City Council. The auditing firm will serve for up to 5 years, at which time, the City will re -bid these services and changing firms if deemed necessary by GGAF and City Council. D. External Reporting — Upon completion and acceptance of the annual audit by the City's auditors, the City shall prepare a written Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which shall be presented to the City Council within 180 calendar days of the City's fiscal year end. The CAFR shall be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and shall be presented annually to the Government Finance Officer Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting. E. Internal Reporting — The Finance Department will prepare internal financial reports, sufficient to plan, monitor and control the City's financial affairs. ASSET MANAGEMENT A. Cash Management and Investments — The City Council has formally approved a separate Investment Policy for the City of Georgetown that meets the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA), Section 2256 of the Texas Local Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the City Council and applies to all financial assets held by the City and applies to all entities (component units) included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and/or managed by the City Statement of Cash Management Philosophy - The City shall maintain a comprehensive cash management program to include the effective collection of all accounts receivable, the prompt deposit of receipts to the City's depository, the payment of obligations, and the prudent investment of idle funds in accordance with this policy. 2. Objectives — The City's investment program will be conducted as to accomplish the following listed in priority order: • Safety of the principal invested • Liquidity and availability of cash to pay obligations when due • Ensure public trust through responsible actions as custodians of public funds. • Maximize earnings (yield) to the greatest extent possible consistent with the City's investment policy. 3. Safekeeping and Custody — Investments may only be purchased through brokers/dealers who meet the criteria detailed in the investment policy, which also addresses internal controls related to investments. 20 4. Standard of Care and Reporting — Investment will be made with judgment and care, always considering the safety of principal to be invested and the probable income to be derived. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the overall management of the City's investment program and ensures all investments are made in compliance with the investment policy. An investment report, providing both summary and detailed information, will be presented to the City Council quarterly. 5. Authorized Investments — The City can currently invest in the following: • Certificates of Deposit • U.S. Treasury and Agency securities • Investment Pools that meet the requirements of the PFIA • No-load Money Market Mutual Funds • Fully collateralized Repurchase Agreements • Obligations of Municipal Issuers in Texas rated not less than A or its equivalent. • Other investments as approved by City Council and not prohibited by law B. Fixed Assets — These assets will be reasonably safeguarded and properly accounted for, and prudently insured. 1. Capitalization Criteria - For purposes of budgeting and accounting classification, the following criteria must be capitalized: • The asset owned by the City. • The expected useful life of the asset must be longer than one year, or extend the life of an identifiable existing asset by more than one year. • The original cost of the asset must be at least $5,000. • The asset must be tangible. • On -going repairs and general maintenance are not capitalized. 2. New Purchases — All costs associated with bringing the asset into working order will be capitalized as part of the asset cost. This will include startup costs, engineering or consultant type fees as part of the asset cost once the decision or commitment to purchase the asset is made. The cost of land acquired should include all related costs associated with its purchase. 3. Improvements and Replacement — Improvements will be capitalized when they extend the original life of an asset or when they make the asset more valuable than it was originally. The replacement of assets components will normally be expensed unless they are a significant nature and meet all the capitalization criteria. 4. Contributed Capital - Infrastructure assets received from developers or as a result of annexation will be recorded as equity contributions when they are received. 5. Distributions Systems - All costs associated with public domain assets, such as streets and utility distribution lines will be capitalized in accordance with the 21 capitalization policy. Costs should include engineering, construction and other related costs including right of way acquisition. 6. Reporting and Inventory — The Finance Division will maintain the permanent records of the City's fixed assets, including description, cost, department of responsibility, date of acquisition, depreciation and expected useful life. Periodically, random sampling at the department level will be performed to inventory fixed assets assigned to that department. Responsibility for safeguarding the City's fixed assets lies with the department supervisor or manager whose department has been assigned the asset. XII. DEBT MANAGEMENT The City of Georgetown recognizes the primary purpose of capital facilities is to provide services to the community. Using debt financing to meet the capital needs of the community must be evaluated according to efficiency and equity. Efficiency must be evaluated to determine the highest rate of return for a given investment of resources. Equity is resolved by determining who should pay for the cost of capital improvements. In meeting demand for additional services, the City will strive to balance the needs between debt financing and "pay as you go" methods. The City realizes that failure to meet the demands of growth may inhibit its continued economic viability, but also realizes that too much debt may have detrimental effects on the City's long-range financial condition. The City will issue debt only for the purpose of acquiring or constructing capital assets for the general benefit of its citizens and to allow it to fulfill its various purposes as a city. A Debt Condition Update report will be provided annually. A. Usage of Debt - Long-term debt financing will be considered for non -continuous capital improvements of which future citizens will be benefited. Alternatives for financing will be explored prior to debt issuance and include, but not limited to: • Grants • Use of Reserve Funds • Use of Current Revenues • Contributions from developers and others • Leases • Impact Fees When the City utilizes long-term financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by conservatively projecting revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt. It will not finance the improvement over a period greater than the useful life of the improvement and it will determine that the cost benefit of the improvement, including interest costs, is positive to the community. The City may utilize the benefits of short-term debt financing to purchasing operating equipment provided the debt doesn't extend past the useful life of the asset and the potential impact to the tax rate is within policy guidelines. The I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate cannot exceed $0.04 for short-term debt (3-10 years). 22 Types of Debt — 1. General Obligation Bonds (GO's) — General obligation bonds must be authorized by a vote of the citizens of Georgetown. They are used only to fund capital assets of the general government and are not to be used to fund operating needs of the City. The City's ad valorem taxing authority backs general obligation bonds. Conditions for issuance of general obligation debt include: When the project will have a significant impact on the tax rate; When the project may be controversial even through it is routine in nature; or When the project falls outside the normal bounds of projects the City has typically done. For debt programs that include multiple projects that will be issued over multiple years at the discretion of the City Council, the City may approve a Contract with the Voters to manage future property tax rate impacts. The Contract with the Voters will be included in educational information for all applicable GO Bond elections, and will include a maximum annual tax rate increase and a cumulative total per bond authorization maximum tax rate increase. The City will include these impacts in its annual Debt Condition report. The City Council will carefully manage the unissued GO Bond authorization through annual review of related projects to ensure full disclosure on future timing of projects included in the bond package. Timing of authorized projects and related bond issuance will be included in the Annual Budget and published on the City's website. Any changes to this schedule require specific Council authorization. 2. Revenue Bonds — Revenue bonds will be issued to provide for the capital needs of any activities where the capital requirements are necessary for the continuation or expansion of a service. The improved activity shall produce a revenue stream to fund the debt service requirements of the necessary improvement to provide service expansion. The average life of the obligation should not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the bond issue, and will generally be limited to no more than twenty (20) years, An exception can be made for plant expansions or related system expansions whose useful life is in excess of 30 years. A cost benefit analysis will be done to fully disclose the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years. 3. Certificates of Obligation, Contract Obligations (CO's) — Certificates of obligation or contract obligations may be used to fund capital requirements that are not otherwise funded by general obligation or revenue bonds. Debt service for CO's may be either from general revenues (tax -supported) or supported by a specific revenue stream(s) or a combination of both. Typically, the City may issue CO's when the following conditions are met: • When the proposed debt will have minimal impact on future effective property tax rates; 23 When the projects to be funded are within the normal bounds of city capital requirements, such as for roads, parks, various infrastructure and City facilities and equipment; and • When the average life of the obligation does not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the issue. Certificates of obligation will be the least preferred method of financing and will be used with prudent care and judgment by the City Council. Every effort will be made to ensure public participation in decisions relating to debt financing. 4. Self-supporting General Obligation Debt — Refers to certificates of obligation issued for a specific purpose and repaid through dedicated revenues other than ad valorem taxes. The annual debt requirements are not included in the property tax calculation. Both the Airport and Stormwater Drainage funds will issue this type of debt, In addition, the Electric and Water Services Funds can utilize this method of funding non -system capital assets. The City also issues debt on behalf of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) whom then pledges 4B sales tax revenue for the repayment of that debt. 5. Internal borrowing between City funds — The City can authorize use of existing long-term reserves as "loans" between funds. The borrowing fund will repay the loan at a rate consistent with current market conditions. The loan will be repaid within ten (10) years. The loan will be considered an investment of working capital reserves by the lending fund. 6. Other Short-term borrowing - The City may authorize the issuance of Public Property Finance Contractual Obligations (PPFCO) which is short-term obligations for the acquisition of personal public property, such as equipment. PPFCOs are payable from either ad valorem taxes or another dedicated revenue stream. Each issuance will be assessed to ensure cost effectiveness and the repayment schedule will not exceed the useful life of the asset. Multiple equipment acquisitions can be grouped in a single PPFCO issue in order to develop economies of scale. B. Method of Sale — The City will use a competitive bidding process in the sale of bonds unless conditions in the bond market or the nature of the issue warrant a negotiated bid. In such situations, the City will publicly present the reasons for the negotiated sale. The City will rely on the recommendation of the financial advisor in the selection of the underwriter or direct purchaser. The financial advisor must meet all licensing requirements and comply with all MSRB regulations. The City's financial advisor will not act as the underwriter on any City bond issue. C. Disclosure — Full disclosure of operating costs along with capital costs will be made to the bond rating agencies and other users of financial information. The City staff, with assistance of the financial advisor and bond counsel, will prepare the necessary materials for presentation to the rating agencies and will aid in the production of the Preliminary Official Statements. The City will take responsibility for the accuracy of all financial information released. D. Federal Requirements — The City will maintain written procedures to follow post issuance compliance rules, arbitrage rebate and other Federal requirements. 24 • Post issuance tax compliance rules will include records retention, arbitrage rebate, use of proceeds, and Continuing disclosure requirements under SEC Rule 15c2-12, MSRB standards, or as may be required by bond covenants or related agreements. E. Debt Structuring — The City will issue bonds with an average life of twenty (20) years or less, not to exceed the useful life of the asset acquired. The structure should approximate level debt service unless operational matters dictate otherwise. Market factors, such as the effects of tax-exempt designations, the cost of early redemption options and the like, will be given consideration during the structuring of long term debt instruments. Exceptions to the 20 year average life include debt issues for major system expansions, such as water, sewer or electric plants, in which case the City may issue debt greater than 20 years since the average life of the asset exceeds 30 years. A cost benefit analysis indicating the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years will be completed. F. Debt Coverage Ratio — Refers to the number of times the current combined debt service requirements or payments would be covered by the current operating revenues net of on -going operating expenses of the City's combined utilities (Electric, Water, and Wastewater). The City will maintain a minimum debt service coverage ratio of 1.5 times for these utilities as a whole. The bond ordinances allow the City to forego a debt reserve fund for its utility debt if the coverage is maintained at 1.35 times or better. Debt coverage for `'0�15 2015/16 is budgeted at times coverage. A coverage ratio of 1.5 times will also be required for all funds issuing self-supporting debt. H. Bond Reimbursement Resolutions — The City may utilize bond reimbursements as a tool to manage its debt issues, due to arbitrage requirements and project timing. In so doing, the City uses its capital reserve "cash" to delay bond issues until such time when issuance is favorable and beneficial to the City. The City Council may authorize a bond reimbursement resolution for General Capital projects that have a direct impact on the City's ad valorem tax rate when the bonds will be issued within the term of the existing City Council. In the event of unexpected circumstances that delay the timing of projects, or market conditions that prohibit financially sound debt issuance, the approved project can be postponed and considered by a future council until circumstantial issues can be resolved. The City Council may also authorize revenue bond reimbursements for approved utility and other self-supporting capital projects within legislative limits. Currently revenue bonds must be issued within 18 months after an eligible bond funded project is begun. The total outstanding bond reimbursements may not exceed the total amount of the City's reserve funds. XIII. OTHER FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: When at all possible, the City will research alternative funding opportunities prior to issuing debt or increasing user -related fees. 25 A. Grants - All potential grants will be examined for any matching requirements and the source of those requirements identified. A grant funding worksheet, reviewed by Finance, that clearly identifies funding sources, outcomes and other relevant information will be presented and approved by the City Council prior to any grant application being submitted. It must be clearly understood that any resulting operation requirements of the grant could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the project have been terminated. The City Council must authorize acceptance of any grant funding. B. Use of Reserve Funds - The City may authorize the use of reserve funds to potentially delay or eliminate a proposed bond issue. This may occur due to higher than anticipated fund balances in prior years, thus eliminating or reducing the need for debt proceeds, or postpone a bond issue until market conditions are more beneficial or timing of the related capital improvements does not correspond with the planned bond issue. Reserve funds used in this manner are replenished upon issuance of the proposed debt. C. Developer Contributions - The City will require developers who negatively impact the City's utility capital plans offset those impacts. These policies are further defined within the City's utility line extension policy and other development regulations. D. Leases - The City may authorize the use of lease financing for certain operating equipment when it is determined that the cost benefit of such an arrangement is advantageous to the City. E. Impact Fees - The City will impose impact fees as allowable under state law for both water and wastewater services. These fees will be calculated in accordance with statute and reviewed at least every three years. All fees collected will fund projects identified within the Fee study and as required by state laws. XIV. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESERVES, AND STABILITY RATIOS The City of Georgetown will maintain budgeted minimum reserves in the ending working capital/fund balances to provide a secure, healthy financial base for the City in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency, allow stability of City operations should revenues fall short of budgeted projections and provide available resources to implement budgeted expenditures without regard to actual timing of cash flows into the City. A. Operational Coverage - The City's goal is to maintain operations coverage of 1.0 (one), such that operating revenues will at least equal or exceed current operating expenditures. Deferrals, short-term loans, or one-time sources will be avoided as budget balancing techniques. Reserves will be used only for emergencies or non- recurring expenditures, except when balances can be reduced because their levels exceed guideline minimums as stated below. Operating Reserves - The City will maintain reserves at a minimum of seventy- five (75) days (20.83%) of net budgeted operating expenditures. Net budgeted operating expenditure is defined as total budgeted expenditures less interfund transfers and charges, general debt service (tax supported), direct cost for purchased power and payments from third party grant monies. Total reserves for 204/15-2015/16 are $ million. The amount of these funds are allocated within the following operating funds and using the following guidelines to maintain 26 the fund balance, working capital and retained earnings (reserves) of the various operating funds at levels sufficient to protect the City's creditworthiness, as well as, its financial position from unforeseeable emergencies. 2. General Fund — The fund balance reserve in the General Fund should equal ninety (90) days or 25% of annual budgeted General Fund operating expenditures. ''^�5 2015/16 reserves are $ million and are allocated as follows: a. Base Level Reserve — will equal sixty (60) days of current year budgeted operating expenditures which will be designated for emergency use only. b. Budget Stabilization Reserve — will equal thirty (30) days of current year budgeted operating expenditures and will be designated to protect the City against short term operating deficits. The funds will be available for the following purposes: i. Defer short term tax increases ii. Cover revenue shortfalls iii. Fund unanticipated expenditures If the Budget Stabilization Reserve is depleted during the fiscal year, the balance must return to the 30 day requirement within the following year's adopted budget. 3. Tourism Fund — A minimum sixty days (60) or 16.67% of operating expenditures will be reserved within the fund balance. These funds are designated to be used to offset any potential revenue shortfall that occurs during the fiscal year and should be replenished in the following fiscal year's budget. 4. Water Services Fund — Working capital reserves in should be 25% or ninety (90) days of operating expenses, net debt service and long-term water contract costs. These reserves are designated to be used to offset potential revenue shortfalls or fund unexpected or emergency expenses that occur during the fiscal year. These reserves should be replenished in the following budget cycle. 5. Stormwater Drainage Fund Othep FURGI — $250,000 for unforeseen emergencies or other potential revenue shortfalls. 6. Electric Fund — The remaining balance to meet the citywide requirement of seventy-five (75) days of reserve funds will be maintained within this fund. It can be used for unforeseen emergencies and expenditures. The Rate Stabilization Account and the Power Contract Credit Reserve are not included in this Contingency Reserve. 27 For all other non -enterprise funds, the fund balance is an indication of the balance of each particular fund at a specific time. The ultimate goal of each such fund is to have expended the fund balance at the conclusion of the activity for which the fund was established. Reserve requirements will be calculated as part of the annual budget process and any additional required funds to be added to the reserve balances will be appropriated within the budget. Funds in excess of the minimum reserves within each fund may be expended for City purposes at the will of the City Council once it has been determined that use of the excess will not endanger reserve requirements in future years. This action requires an amendment to the City's Annual Budget and is outlined in Section !V L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances . B. Liabilities and Receivables - Procedures will be followed to maximize discounts and reduce penalties offered by creditors. Current liabilities will be paid within 30 days of receiving the invoice. Accounts Receivable procedures will target collection for a maximum of 30 days of service. ReGeivables aging past can days will be seRt to a ^^"eGtiGR ---R " The Chief Financial Officer is authorized to write-off non - collectible, non -utility accounts that are delinquent for more than 180 days, and utility accounts delinquent more than 180 days, provided proper delinquency procedures have been followed, and include this information in the annual report to the City Council. C. Capital Project Funds — Every effort will be made for all monies within the Capital Project Funds to be expended in a timely manner preferably within thirty-six (36) months of receipt. The fund balance will be invested and income generated will offset increases in construction costs or other costs associated with the project. Capital project funds are intended to be expended totally, with any unexpected excess to be transferred to the Debt Service fund to service project -related debt service. D. General Debt Service Funds — Revenues within this fund are stable, based on property tax revenues. Balances are maintained to meet contingencies and to make certain that the next year's debt service payments may be met in a timely manner. Fund balance should not fall below 45 days annual debt service requirements, in accordance with IRS guidelines. E. Investment of Reserve Funds — The reserve funds will be invested in accordance with the City's investment policy. Existing non -cash investment would be exempt through retirement of the investment. 28 F. Ratios/Trend Analysis - Ratios and significant balances will be incorporated into both the mid -year and annual reports to the City Council. This information will provide users with meaningful data to identify major trends of the City's financial condition through analytical procedures. The following ratios/balances will be used as key financial indicators: • Fund Balance/Equity: FB/E • Working Capital: CA - CL • Current Ratio: CA/CL • Quick Ratio: Liquid CA/CL • Debt/Assessed AV Taxes D/AV • Debt Ratio: CL +LTL/TA • Enterprise Oper Coverage: OR/OE Assets - liabilities AL (Acceptable level) minimum reserve requirement Current assets less current liabilities AL minimum reserve requirement Current assets divided by current liabilities AL > 1.00 "Liquid" current assets divided by current liabilities AL > 1.00 Debt divided by assessed Ad Valorem value AL<5 Current liabilities plus long-term liabilities divided by total assets AL<1 Operating rev divided by operating expense AL > 1.25 • Times Coverage Ratio: Operating revenue less operating expense divided by annual debt service (OR-OE)/DSV AL > 1.5 The City will be to develop minimum/maximum levels for the above ratios/balances through analyzing of City historical trends and future projections. These ratios will also be compared to other similar or regional municipalities for further analysis. 29 XV. INTERNAL CONTROLS A. Written Procedures — Wherever possible, written procedures will be established and maintained by the Chief Financial Officer for all functions involving cash handling and/or accounting throughout the City. These procedures will embrace the general concepts of fiscal responsibility set forth in this policy statement. B. Internal Audit Program - An internal audit program will be maintained by the Chief Financial Officer to ensure compliance with City policies and procedures and to prevent the potential for fraud. Departmental Audits — departmental processes will be reviewed to ensure dual control of City assets and identify the opportunity for fraud potential, as well as, to ensure that departmental internal procedures are documented and updated as needed. 2. Employees or Transaction Review - P�—pogFams- Programs to be audited include Petty Cash, City Credit Card accounts, time entry, and travel. All discrepancies will be identified, and the employee's Division Director will be notified. The City Manager will also be notified depending on the seriousness of the infraction. 3. Results of all internal audits will be provided to City Council on a quarterly basis. C. Division Directors Responsibility — Each division Director is responsible for ensuring that good internal controls are followed throughout their department, that all Finance Division directives are implemented and that all independent auditor internal control recommendations are addressed. Departments will develop and periodically update written internal control procedures. XVI. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION Realizing the importance and contribution of employee's in achieving and maintaining the City of Excellence, the City's goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees who provide excellent, friendly services to our community in an effective and efficient manner. A. Adequate Staffing — Staffing levels will be adequate for the fiscal functions of the City to operate effectively. Workload allocation alternatives will be explored before adding additional staff. B. Competitive Compensation — In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City is implementing a Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Policy to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of: Cost of Living Adjustment - (COLA) — To protect City employees from the effects of general inflation, every odd numbered year, the City may fund a COLA adjustment for all regular employees not included in a defined pay plan. The COLA will be based on a three-year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Southern cities pertinent to Georgetown's population. 30 2. Pay Scale Review — To ensure the City's pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, every even numbered Year, the City will review its pay plan for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City's pay scale. 3. Pay for Performance — Each year the City will fund pay adjustments to aid in retaining quality employees while recognizing increased job experience and rewarding quality performance. Adjustments are based on the previous year's annual performance evaluation. The percentage adjustments are determined by the employee's position within their pay grade, including merit adjustments for productivity and quality performance during the previous fiscal year. In addition, the City may also choose to fund a one-time on performance that exceeds expectations during the review period. C. Self -Insurance Program — The City is committed to providing quality healthcare insurance that offers the most flexibility in health benefits and options to its employees. In order to provide the most cost effective solution, the City has determined that establishing a self -funded health insurance plan offers the greatest opportunity to mitigate future cost increases while offering quality health care services to its employees. The City has established a mechanism to manage the accounts and payments associated with this program. Per GASB Statement No. 66, such funding should be accounted for as a Special ReveR a an Internal Service Fund (SR-FISF). Employee Health Insurance SRFISF- includes premium contributions from employees and budgeted health insurance contributions included in the City's annual budget process. Self -Insurance Reserve will be included and maintained within the Employee Self -Insurance Internal Service Fund to provide stabilization for employee health insurance premiums. The amount of the reserve will be determined bV the actuarially determined "maximum" amount risk related to the potential claims to the plan in one year. Initially, the reserve is targeted to be $1,000,000 bV fiscal year 2017/18. 2. Employee Premiums — Annual premiums will be recommended to City Council through a collaborative process between the City's Employee Benefit Committee and external consultants using historical data and other analytic analysis. 31 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to increased operation and capital costs, including the addition of six (6) new positon for the Emergency Response Program -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: On March 24, 2015, City Council directed staff to move forward with the full implementation of the new Emergency Response Service (EMS) Program to begin full service in October 2015. This program expansion requires the addition of six (6) new paramedics, as well as, the purchase and equipping of two (2) additional TRVs. All costs associated with this program are accounted for within the Fire Program Special Revenue Fund. This SFR will carry a negative fund balance, funded through internal borrowings, and repaid with program savings over the next 5 years. In addition, the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) recommended offsetting up to 40% this deficit with one-time excess General Funds from YE 2014. This transfer from the General Fund to the Fire SRF will backstop the negative fund balance and will be repaid through the Program over the next 5 years. Also, increased costs associated with the replacement and hiring of a new City Manager also require additional budgetary appropriation within the City Manager's departmental budget, as well as within the Human Resources Budget for recruitment of both the City Manager and 16 new paramedics, at approximately $1,250 each. These costs are funded with unappropriated General Fund revenues related to the Water Services - Western District (Return on Investment (ROI) revenues) that were not previously recognized in the 2014/15 Annual Budget. None of the above items were known at the time the 2014/15 budget was adopted. This budget amendment addresses the legal and financial appropriation needed to accommodate these changes. The detailed distribution of the amendment is included in the attachments to the ordinance as Exhibit A. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Charter requires that a majorityplus one must approve an amendment to the approved budget. The City charter allows for budget amendments in emergency situations and when the issues and needs were unknown at the time the budget was adopted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: In total, this budget amendment increases TOTAL APPROPRIATION by $1,482,000. Funding for this budget amendment is primarily from the General Fund (either Excess YE2014 funds or unallocated and unrecognized ROI revenue related to the acquisition of the Western District). Additionally, the increase in EMS costs will increase the ending SFR deficit. This deficit is in -line with the financial analysis of the EMS Program presented to City Council on March 24, 2015. To further backstop the EMS Program, GGAF recommended allocating up to 40% of the deficit from the previous year excess General Fund. By transferring these funds, the potential financial risk is reduced, with the intent that the General Fund will be repaid once the program is operational. SUBMITTED BY: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ATTACHMENTS: 2015 BA - Ordinance 2015 BA EMS Ordinance Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014/15 ANNUAL BUDGET DUE TO INCREASED OPERATIONAL AND CAPITAL COSTS, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF SIX (6) NEW POSITIONS FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City has expanded its planned Emergency Response Services (EMS) Program; and WHEREAS, such expansion requires adding six additional staff positions necessary to fully implement the program; and WHEREAS, the EMS program expansion necessitates additional capital expenses and other operating costs, including recruitment costs; and WHEREAS, additional costs were incurred to recruit and hire a new City Manager; and WHEREAS, these expenditures will be funded with excess revenues or through internal borrowing, as allowed by the City's Fiscal and Budgetary Policy; and WHEREAS, the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) recommended funding up to 40% of the estimated September 30, 2015 EMS Program Shortfall from unallocated General Funds; and WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal year 2014/15 Annual Budget was approved; and WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Budget by a Council majority plus one in such situations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: �qFrTIONI 1 The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. .qFr..TinN 9 The amendment to the 2014/15 Annual Budget of the revenues of the City of Georgetown and expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and approved as an addition to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses as well as fixed charges against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2014, and ending Ordinance Number: Description: EMS Budget Amendment Date Approved: April 28, 2015 Page 1 of 2 September 30, 2015. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 3. The total of $1,482,000 is hereby appropriated for payments of expenditures and internal transfers between funds as included in Exhibit "A". SECTION 4 All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. This ordinance complies with the vision statement of the Georgetown 2030 Plan. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 14th day of April, 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 28th day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: EMS Budget Amendment Date Approved: April 28, 2015 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Dale Ross Mayor Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A 2014/15 Annual Budget Amendment General Fund Revenues/Sources: Fund Balance (709,000) Expenditures - Transfer Out -|SF-Reon/itpn7entCosts 57.000 TranoferOut-SRF-EMSPnogoa/n 450.000 City Manager 202000 Excess revenue over expenditures Joint Services Fund Revenues/Sources: Transfer In - General Fund $ (57,000) Expenditures Recruitment costs 57000 Excess revenue over expenditures 0 Special Revenue Fund - Fire -Based Paramedic m Revenues/Sources: Transfer|n-Genena|Fumj (450'000) Fund Balance - Due from City-wide Reserves (266,000) Expenoes-onreotbmino Peramedic8e|ahes/Benefits (6 positions -July hire date) 125.000 Equipment and related expense 131'000 Capital (2TRV+Equipment) 460000 Total Budget Amendment - Increase in Appropriation 1,482,000 L:UDivisk»n\fimance\Shara2\AGENDA\2015\BudQet AmendmentsCZO15BACK8QParamedics City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible direction to staff regarding changes to the City Council's compensation -- Patty Eason, Councilmember District 1 and Jerry Hammerlun, Councilmember District 5, Co -Chairs of the Council Compensation Committee ITEM SUMMARY: This is a follow-up action item related to the April 14, 2015 City Council Workshop discussion. Please see attached for the Final Report from the committee. FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined. SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Report from the 2015 Council Compensation Committee Council Compensation Report to the Georgetown Mayor and City Council April 2015 The Council Compensation Committee was appointed by Mayor Ross and charged (Section 2.15 Home Rule Charter) with: 1. Reviewing the salaries of the Mayor and Council members. 2. Making a recommendation regarding those salaries. The committee is composed of Patty Eason and Jerry Hammerlun serving as Co -Chairs and Tom Swift, David Giese, Steve Johnston, Kathy Krause and Ki Browning. The Council Compensation Committee held three meetings (Minutes attached). The focus of those meetings was: • February 23, 2015 — Reviewed the history of compensation for the Mayor and Council in Georgetown in the last ten years with a focus on the Compensation Committee recommendations since April 2010 and examined comparative compensation data for other cities in the area. There was substantial discussion on the reality of the typical commitment needed to serve on the Georgetown City Council and as Mayor. Committee members shared diverse opinions on balancing the reality of the commitment with the concept of public service and the thought that people should serve based on a sense of responsibility to the community. The discussion to end the first meeting focused on the need for Georgetown to continue at attract qualified, committed, passionate people to serve who represent all sectors of our diverse community. • March 2, 2015 — The committee members shared their thoughts and reflections on the information that had been shared at the February 23rd meeting. There was considerable discussion of the "cost" of serving and the various personal expenses incurred in the performance of Mayor/Council duties and the feasibility of utilizing an expense report to document those costs. Consensus of the group was that an expenses report approach would be unwieldy and unnecessary. Committee members were very interested in a compensation approach used in Garland that is a combination of a base rate plus an additional amount for specific meetings attended. The City Secretary and the Committee Co -Chairs agreed to develop a list of meetings that would be considered for reimbursement if Georgetown were to follow a Garland -type approach. • March 23, 2015 — The City Secretary shared a report that included significant data on the topic of a "per -meeting" reimbursement program and the challenges connected with such an approach. (Copy of report attached) The key challenge of this approach was the approval of which meetings/activities would be reimbursed and the administrative reality of the process. After discussion of the challenges connected with such an approach the Committee decided to focus on a lump sum amount approach and the Committee members offered their thoughts on what that amount should be. Amounts suggested by the Committee ranged from nothing ($0.00) to $1,500 for Council members and $2,500 for the Mayor. After much discussion the Committee approved (6-1) recommending compensation of a lump sum amount of $800 for Council members and $1,100 for the Mayor. As Co -Chairs of the Committee we appreciate the thoughtful and thorough work of the Committee members and the City Secretary. Attracting fully committed and passionate people to run for the Georgetown City Council is critical to the future success of this community. The entire Committee appreciated the opportunity to serve the City of Georgetown. Most of all we appreciate the current Mayor and Council members for their commitment to Georgetown. Compensation Committee Co-Charis: Patty Eason Jerry Hammerlun City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to temporarily restrict vehicular traffic at the intersection of West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane in the Sun City Subdivision -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager, Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director and Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner ITEM SUMMARY: On September 23, 2014, Council directed staff to return for future consideration of this item once a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) studying the Woodland Park roadways had been completed. That traffic study is now complete and the information is provided here for Council consideration. Highlights of the report include: The traffic projections will substantially stay the same in the future, irrespective of the Rocky Hollow Trail opening and future population increase within Sun City. The study acknowledges that Rocky Hollow Trail is an alternate for traffic but the model makes the assumption that existing ADT on Majestic Oaks will continue due to the establishment of habit for current drivers within Sun City. Rocky Hollow Trail and Pedernales Falls and other access points to Ronald Reagan will allow for future distribution of vehicular trips but not a projected decrease in traffic through Woodland Park. The Level of Service at the intersections studied is Level of Service A during peak hours, with "A" being the optimum evaluation level for roadway congestion analysis Pulte has indicated that their timeline to complete the Rocky Hollow Trail connection to CR 245 is anticipated to be July of 2015. Staff met with representatives from both the Woodland Park neighborhood and Sun City neighborhood on March 1 Ith to discuss the results of the TIA and to consider some other alternatives to simply closing the road or leaving the road open. Items of discussion at that meeting included traffic calming measures, changing the connection point to a one-way street, temporary street closure, possible toll gates, annexation of Woodland Park (provide street upgrades and sidewalk in annexation service plan), increased enforcement, work with the County to make improvements on County ROW, coordination with GPS services, and others. The conversation focused on the need to try and decrease some of the traffic generated within Sun City through Woodland Park. A proposal that seemed to get the most support from the group was an option to allow Rocky Hollow Trail to be constructed and opened to CR 245 and Williams Drive and then temporary close the Majestic Oaks connection at the city limit boundary to allow the current traffic to be re-routed. This option would allow new driving habits to be formed, fully assess the traffic conditions on Rocky Hollow Trail and CR 245, and also provide relief on Majestic Oaks. Then, at a point of time in the future (60-90 days), re -open the Majestic Oaks connection and re -study the traffic. The objective here would be to allow for multiple travel options for local traffic so that one roadway would not bear the full burden of traffic and Majestic Oaks can return to its intended function as a local street. Method to Implement Temporary Closure: 1. Advance notify street closure with portable signs (may include rental due to paving season use of City signs) 7-14 days in advance of closure, to coincide with Rocky Hollow opening. Notify GPS/Mapping agencies of closure date. 2. Use "A" Frame or Type III Barricades at Apache Mountain Lane (in Sun City) and north of Willow Run (in Woodland Park). With advanced street closure (Dead End) sign before (South of) Willow Run in Woodland Park. 3. Post Street Closure/Sun City Access denied signs at Williams Drive and Four T Ranch Road and Woodland Park entrances. 4. Emergency access can move A Frame of Type III Barricades, Police or Streets Department staff will have to monitor that barricades remain in place throughout closure. 5. Closure to remain in effect 60-90 days. 6. Measure traffic counts on Rocky Hollow during closure. 7. Upon reopening in 60-90 days measure volume of traffic at same locations along W. Majestic Oaks Lane. 8. Upon reopening in 60-90 days measure volume of traffic at same locations along Rocky Hollow. 9. If traffic counts on West Majestic Oak exceed 1,000 trips a day, bring report back to City Council with recommendation to re -instate temporary closure and consider permanent closure to vehicles except emergency access or other trip reduction measures. Cost to implement will include 3 street signs and poles, 2 additional street signs to be mounted on barricades, and 6 ' 10 barricades, with possible rental of portable 3 variable message signs for two weeks prior to closure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate the 60-90 day temporary closure of W. Majestic Oaks Lane following the Method to Implement Temporary Closure once the Rocky Hollow Trail connection to CR 245 is made in Sun City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Three (3) Street signs and poles (probably double poles) $250 each $ 750 Two (2) additional street signs mounted on barricades $100 each $ 200 Message board $900 weekly. Two for Two weeks: $3,600 Labor and maintenance, street department staff -------- TOTAL $4,550 Costs are to be paid through Unscheduled Street Maintenance: Account Number: 100-5-0846-52-911. SUBMITTED BY: Ed Polasek - Transportation Services Director ATTACHMENTS: Woodland Park Access Analysis (Majestic Oak Study) APPENDIX J I Woodland Park Access Analysis Alliance Transportation Group I J Sun City Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4, 2015 TO: Bill Dryden, P.E. City of Georgetown Transportation Engineer FROM: Arthur F. Gamble, P.E. Alliance Transportation Group, Inc. RE: Woodland Park Access Analysis "�5� ALLIANCE TRANSPORTATION GROUP www.aIIiance-transportation.com AUSTIN OFFICE 11500 Metric Blvd. Bldg. M-1, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78758 PHONE 512.821.2081 FAX 512.821.2085 TOLL FREE 866.576.0597 T.B.P. E. Firm Registration No. 812 A recent roadway connection between Sun City and the Woodland Park subdivision has resulted in concerns of cut -through traffic being voiced by the residents of Woodland Park. The new connection is from an extension of Majestic Oak Lane (in Woodland Park) to Apache Mountain Lane (in Sun City). As a component of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) of a proposed expansion of the Sun City residential development, the City of Georgetown requested that the issue of cut -through traffic be evaluated. Currently, the TIA evaluates future site traffic as if the connection were closed. The appearance is that the connection between Sun City and Woodland Park is being utilized by the residents of Sun City to access FM 2338/Williams Drive. r;ut-Through Traffic Impact Daily traffic currently utilizing the connection between Sun City and Woodland Park was collected using ATR tube counts. Traffic entering and exiting the Woodland Park neighborhood via FM 2338 was quantified using turning movement counts (TMCs) at the two Woodland Park access points to FM 2338. In addition, TMCs were collected at three intersections within Woodland Park in order to verify trip distribution inside the neighborhood. rube Counts The volume of cut -through traffic was obtained using pneumatic 24-hour tube counts in October of 2014. The northbound and southbound cut through traffic counts on Majestic Oak Lane just south of Apache Mountain Lane are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The total amount of daily cut -through traffic in the northbound direction is 650 vehicles, and the total amount of daily cut -through traffic in the southbound direction is 733 vehicles. This February 4, 2015 Re: Woodland Park Access Analysis A L L I A N C E TRANSPORTATION GROUP results in a daily total of 1,383 vehicles traveling between the neighborhoods of Sun City and Woodland Park. on Figure 1: Northbound Traffic on Majestic Oak Lane South of Apache Mountain Lane on 00 00 00 00 00 00 � o0 00 00 00 00 �`' (6' TIME Figure 2: Southbound Traffic on Majestic Oak Lane South of Apache Mountain Lane During the AM peak hour of the tube counts (8:00 AM — 9:00 AM) there are 66 vehicles traveling northbound through Woodland Park to Sun City and 33 vehicles traveling southbound from Sun City through Woodland Park. During the PM Peak hour (4:00 PM — 5:00 PM) there are 77 vehicles traveling southbound from Sun City through Woodland Park and 48 vehicles Page 2 of 6 February 4, 2015 Re: Woodland Park Access Analysis ALLIANCE TRANSPORTATION GROUP traveling northbound through Woodland Park to Sun City. These peak hour volumes are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Peak Hour Cut -Through Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) AM Peak PM Peak 1 Northbound (toward Sun City) 66 48 Southbound (away from Sun City) 33 77 Turning Movement Counts Turning Movement counts were collected during the AM and PM peak hours at the following intersections: • FM 2338 and FM 3405/Four T Ranch Road • FM 2338 and Woodland Park • Woodland Park and Majestic Oak Lane (internal to Woodland Park) • Sunset Ridge and Majestic Oaks Lane (internal to Woodland Park) • Four T Ranch Road and Sunset Ridge (internal to Woodland Park) The resulting LOS and delay during existing conditions, with the connection between Sun City and Woodland Park open, are presented in Table 2. Although additional cut -through traffic is observed during mid -day (as seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2), intersections are more likely to experience delays during the peak hours. For this reason, the peak hours were used to analyze the highest potential delay throughout the day. Table 2: Existing (2014) Conditions with the Existing Connection With Existing Intersection MOE Connection AM Peak PM Peak LOS A A Woodland Park and FM 2338 Delay (s) 1.6 1.4 LOS A A FM 3405/Four T Ranch Road and FM 2338 Delay (s) 6.1 5.3 LOS A A Woodland Park and Majestic Oak Lane Delay (s) 5.7 5.2 LOS A A Sunset Ridge and Majestic Oaks Lane Delay (s) 0.5 0.3 LOS A A Four T Ranch Road and Sunset Ridge Delay (s) 4.2 6.2 Based on the Sun City and Woodland Park connection were to remain open, no more than 52 new site trips in the AM peak hour and 54 new site trips in the PM peak hour are expected to use the cut -through to access to Williams Drive by 2023. This is based on the Sun City Page 3 of 6 February 4, 2015 Re: Woodland Park Access Analysis ALLIANCE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Expansion site plan at full build out and proximity of the proposed neighborhoods to the cut - through connection. These volumes are relatively low and are not expected to impact any of the recommendations made in the Sun City Expansion TIA. ITE Trip Generation The peak hour volumes obtained from the TMCs at the intersections were compared to the ITE trip generation rates calculated from an approximate rooftop count of the Woodland Park development. This comparison was made to help ascertain the proportion of the traffic volumes at the access points to Woodland Park associated with the residents of Woodland Park and external traffic (potentially Sun City) utilizing these intersections. These trip generation rates, along with the current entering and exiting traffic volumes at the intersections of FM 2338 with FM 3405/Four T Ranch Road and Woodland Park, are provided in Table 3. Table 3: Entering and Exiting Traffic Volumes and ITE Trip Generation Volumes for Woodland Park AM Peak PM Peak Source Enter Exit Enter Exit ITE Trip Generation 46 139 152 89 Turning Movement Counts 42 156 142 89 As shown in Table 3, current entering and exiting volumes for Woodland Park are relatively consistent with ITE trip generation volumes. This indicates that traffic entering and exiting Woodland Park at FM 2338 is consistent with trips generated by Woodland Park. Cut- I nrougn connection Use Typical primary trip patterns for residential land uses are outbound (exiting) in the AM peak hour and inbound (entering) in the PM peak hour. This logic, along with the directional flow of the peak hour tube counts shown in Table 1, indicates that a portion of the cut -through traffic is likely made up of trips originating in the Woodland Park development and using the Sun City street network to access locations to the north and northeast of Woodland Park via Ronald Reagan Boulevard. In order to validate this, the northbound and southbound traffic volumes from the AM peak hour TMCs and the ATR counts were compared. Residential trips occurring during the AM Peak hour are typically comprised of trips leaving a residence and traveling to work and/or school and are more likely to be the first trip of the day for the driver, thereby minimizing the potential for trips returning to home rather than leaving home. By similar logic, PM peak hour trips are expected to be more diverse with regards to whether the trip is inbound or outbound. Page 4 of 6 February 4, 2015 Re: Woodland Park Access Analysis c ALLIANCE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Therefore, the AM peak hour traffic was used to evaluate the relationship between the TMCs and tube counts. To estimate the maximum possible volume of cut -through trips, a route assignment scenario was performed for the AM peak hour. Using TMCs at the two Woodland Park access points on FM 2338, entering traffic volumes were assigned routes through Woodland Park by applying percentages from the internal TMCs. As a conservative estimate, all northbound traffic entering the Woodland Park development was assumed to be cut -through traffic. At intersections where TMC data was not available, all traffic was assumed to take the route most suitable for a cut - through trip (i.e., no portion of traffic was attributed to return trips generated by Woodland Park). Therefore, the volume of cut -through traffic was only adjusted when a measured TMC percentage routed traffic away from a potential cut -through route. The same process was applied to southbound trips entering Woodland Park at the connection with Sun City to calculate the maximum number of trips that could be cut -through trips. Table 4 and Table 5 show the existing entry/exit volumes from the TMCs at the two Woodland Park access points, the maximum possible cut -through traffic calculated using the TMCs internal to Woodland Park, and the existing cut -through volumes from the tube counts at the cut -through connection. Table 4: Northbound Trips during AM Peak Location Trips Volume Entering Woodland Park from FM 2338 64 Maximum possible NB Cut -Through Volume 44 Volume Exiting Woodland Park at Connection 66 Minimum NB Traffic Exiting Woodland Park at Connection Generated by Woodland Park 22 Table 5: Southbound Trips During the AM Peak Location Trips Volume Entering Woodland Park at Connection 33 Maximum possible SB Cut -Through Volume 33 Volume Exiting Woodland Park at FM 2338 122 Minimum SB Traffic Exiting Woodland Park at FM 2338 Generated by Woodland Park 89 As seen in Table 4, approximately 22 more trips are traveling northbound through the connection from Woodland Park to Sun City than are entering Woodland Park from FM 2338. Therefore, it can be inferred that at least a third of the northbound cut -through traffic is due to residents of Woodland Park cutting through Sun City to travel north or northeast. The volumes Page 5 of 6 February 4, 2015 Re: Woodland Park Access Analysis "ALLIANCE TRANSPORTATION GROUP shown in Table 5 indicate that the 33 southbound trips in the AM peak are most likely originating in Sun City and using Woodland Park to access FM 2338. This, in combination with the AM and PM Peak hour flows through the connection facilitating the cut -through, indicate that residents of both Woodland Park as well as Sun City are currently utilizing the connection. Furthermore, the expansion of Sun City includes a proposed access route directly to CR 245. This connection will provide a comparable alternate route for Sun City Residents if the connection were to be closed; however, Woodland Park residents will not have access to a comparable route toward the north if the connection is closed. Conclusions Traffic currently utilizing the connection between Sun City and Woodland Park has been quantified and the use of the connection has been evaluated. The Sun City Expansion TIA does not currently route any future year site traffic through the cut -through connection. Should the connection remain open, traffic volumes using the connection in the AM and PM peak hours are relatively low and are not expected to impact any future year improvement recommendations made in the Sun City expansion TIA. A greater number of vehicles utilize the connection during mid -day; however, these vehicles are not expected to coincide with higher demand at the adjacent intersections during the peak period and are therefore unlikely to cause issues at the intersections during off-peak hours. Furthermore, the AM and PM peak flows at the connection as well as their comparison to entering and exiting Woodland Park traffic at the two intersections with FM 2338 indicate that the cut -through traffic is not comprised solely of Sun City traffic. Based on the collected data, it appears that a significant portion of traffic utilizing the connection has origins within the Woodland Park development. Subsequently, residents of Woodland Park may be negatively impacted by the closure of this connection. If you have questions or need any additional information related to this matter, please contact us at (512) 821-2081. Sincerely, Alliance Transportation Group, Inc. Arthur (Trey) Gamble, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Page 6 of 6 Road Volumes 9/4/2014 7:00 0 62 2 0 64 4 0 0 0 4 22 34 0 0 56 2 1 46 0 49 173 9/4/2014 7:15 1 72 1 0 74 9 0 1 0 10 18 39 0 0 57 5 1 69 0 75 216 9/4/2014 7:30 0 95 4 0 99 7 2 1 0 10 30 33 1 0 64 1 1 96 0 98 271 9/4/2014 7:45 0 90 5 0 95 8 2 1 0 11 34 50 3 0 87 4 0 113 0 117 310 9/4/2014 8:00 0 79 1 0 80 7 1 0 0 8 40 47 5 0 92 3 0 63 0 66 246 9/4/2014 8:15 0 62 2 0 64 6 2 0 0 8 39 31 1 0 71 2 0 66 0 68 211 9/4/2014 8:30 0 44 3 0 47 3 0 0 0 3 32 51 8 0 91 0 0 44 0 44 185 9/4/2014 8:45 0 52 3 0 55 2 0 0 0 2 25 38 4 0 67 4 0 32 0 36 160 9/4/2014 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9/4/2014 16:00 1 41 6 0 48 4 1 0 0 5 61 72 6 0 139 2 0 44 0 46 238 9/4/2014 16:15 0 46 5 0 51 2 1 0 0 3 71 83 10 0 164 3 0 41 0 44 262 9/4/2014 16:30 2 43 0 0 45 4 0 1 0 5 58 66 5 0 129 1 0 49 0 50 229 9/4/2014 16:45 0 51 2 0 53 1 0 1 0 2 57 64 7 0 128 2 2 45 0 49 232 9/4/2014 17:00 3 56 5 0 64 5 1 1 0 7 66 54 1 0 121 2 0 53 0 55 247 9/4/2014 17:15 1 64 4 0 69 5 1 1 0 7 73 63 8 0 144 5 1 45 0 51 271 9/4/2014 17:30 0 43 2 0 45 2 0 0 0 2 65 70 5 0 140 2 2 47 0 51 238 9/4/2014 17:45 3 38 2 0 43 3 1 0 0 4 56 76 4 0 136 1 3 35 0 39 222 Grand Total 11 938 47 0 996 72 12 7 0 91 747 871 68 0 116861 39 11 888 0 938 1 3711 Southbound 10/7/2014 7:00 20 1 0 Total 21 estbound 3 0 50 Total 53 istbound 1 0 114 Total 115 Grand Total 189 10/7/2014 7:15 20 1 0 21 6 0 63 69 1 0 150 151 241 10/7/2014 7:30 39 2 0 41 3 0 65 68 0 0 210 210 319 10/7/2014 7:45 32 2 0 34 5 0 87 92 1 0 203 204 330 10/7/2014 8:00 20 1 0 21 16 0 79 95 0 0 124 124 240 10/7/2014 8:15 21 2 0 23 10 0 64 74 3 0 126 129 226 10/7/2014 8:30 30 1 0 31 8 0 74 82 2 0 104 106 219 10/7/2014 8:45 22 4 0 26 6 0 68 74 1 0 93 94 194 10/7/2014 16:00 16 3 0 19 1 38 0 160 198 1 0 92 93 310 10/7/2014 16:15 20 3 0 23 32 0 147 179 1 0 86 87 289 10/7/2014 16:30 15 3 0 18 27 0 142 169 2 0 83 85 272 10/7/2014 16:45 16 4 0 20 28 0 127 155 3 0 108 111 286 10/7/2014 17:00 13 2 0 15 27 0 159 186 6 0 105 111 312 10/7/2014 17:15 14 1 0 15 28 0 144 172 3 0 101 104 291 10/7/2014 17:30 19 2 0 21 15 0 148 163 7 0 94 101 285 10/7/2014 17:45 15 2 0 17 35 0 132 167 4 0 82 86 270 Grand Total 332 34 0 366 287 0 1709 1996 36 0 1875 11911 4273 Road Volumes Southbound 1/13/2015 7:00 0 0 8 0 Total 8 estbound. 0 13 1 0 14 bound 1 0 0 0 Total.. 1 5 2 0 0 . 7 . 30 1/13/2015 7:15 0 0 8 0 8 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 8 25 1/13/2015 7:30 0 0 18 0 18 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 34 1/13/2015 7:45 0 0 16 0 16 0 16 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 9 42 1/13/2015 8:00 0 0 15 0 15 0 10 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 0 16 41 1/13/2015 8:15 0 0 12 0 12 1 5 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 6 0 0 12 31 1/13/2015 8:30 0 0 22 0 22 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 10 42 1/13/2015 8:45 0 0 21 0 21 0 6 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 37 1/13/2015 16:00 0 0 12 0 12 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 20 34 1/13/2015 16:15 0 0 10 0 10 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 15 11 1 0 27 41 1/13/2015 16:30 0 0 16 0 16 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 8 0 0 28 49 1/13/201516:45 1 0 8 0 9 0 7 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 21 10 0 0 31 48 1/13/201517:00 0 0 8 0 8 0 6 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 16 15 0 0 31 47 1/13/2015 17:15 1 0 15 0 16 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 7 0 0 27 51 1/13/2015 17:30 0 0 10 0 10 0 5 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 15 1 0 28 45 1/13/2015 17:45 0 0 14 0 14 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 12 0 1 22 39 Grand Total 2 0 213 0 215 1 118 8 1 128 4 1 0 0 5 173 110 4 1 1 288 636 Southbound 1/13/2015 7:00 7 0 0 Total 7 rthbound 7 0 0 Total 7 istbound 0 0 0 Total 0 Grand Total 14 1/13/2015 7:15 8 1 0 9 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 12 1/13/2015 7:30 13 0 0 13 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 17 1/13/2015 7:45 11 2 0 13 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 17 1/13/2015 8:00 11 0 0 11 9 0 0 9 2 0 2 4 24 1/13/2015 8:15 12 0 0 12 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 18 1/13/2015 8:30 22 0 0 22 6 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 29 1/13/2015 8:45 20 0 0 20 6 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 28 1/13/201516:00 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 31 1/13/201516:15 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 18 1 0 0 1 27 1/13/201516:30 12 1 0 13 16 0 0 16 2 0 0 2 31 1/13/201516:45 8 0 0 8 21 0 0 21 1 0 0 1 30 1/13/201517:00 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 27 1/13/201517:15 14 0 0 14 17 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 31 1/13/201517:30 10 0 0 10 8 0 0 8 1 0 0 1 19 1/13/201517:45 11 0 0 11 7 0 0 7 1 0 0 1 19 Grand Total 186 4 0 190 168 0 1 169 12 1 2 15 374 Westbound 1/13/2015 7:00 0 0 0 Total 0 rthbound 0 0 0 Total 0 istbound 0 0 2 Total 2 Grand Total 2 1/13/2015 7:15 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 3 8 1/13/2015 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 1/13/2015 7:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 4 7 1/13/2015 8:00 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 0 0 1 1 6 1/13/2015 8:15 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 7 1/13/2015 8:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 1/13/2015 8:45 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 4 6 1/13/201516:00 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 4 4 7 1/13/201516:15 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 9 0 0 3 3 12 1/13/201516:30 1 0 0 1 7 0 2 9 1 0 2 3 13 1/13/201516:45 1 0 0 1 6 0 0 6 1 0 4 5 12 1/13/201517:00 1 0 0 1 4 0 2 6 0 0 2 2 9 1/13/201517:15 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 13 0 0 4 4 17 1/13/201517:30 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 7 0 0 1 1 8 1/13/201517:45 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 4 4 9 Grand Total 9 0 0 9 58 0 13 71 4 0 46 50 130 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property; Overall Transportation Plan, 2015/16 Annual Budget Update; 2015 Bond Issue Update; West Texas Wind Farm Project Update; EMS Transition Update; Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City Council has requested regular updates regarding the status of projects, as well as the ability to discuss these projects as a collective. The City Council has also indicated that they would like to receive more information and have discussion regarding the following specific items: • American with Disabilities Act (ADA) • Downtown Facilities • Downtown Parking - MLK/8th Street Surface Parking - Street Study and Design for Additional Parking Facility Downtown ? Downtown Parking Study Update • Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property • Update regarding Overall Transportation Plan • 2015 Bond Issue Update • 2015/16 Annual Budget Update • EMS Transition Update (Verbal Report) ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Updates as noted above 2. Council Project Log 3. GEDCO Project Update 4. GTEC Project Report and Status Update 5. GTAB Project Update 6. City of Georgetown Downtown Parking Study Prepared by Carl Walker, Inc. (CWI) FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is a Project Update Report SUBMITTED BY: Shirley Rinn for Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager ATTACHMENTS: ADA Update to Council Downtown Facilities Downtown Parkin Downtown Parking Study pdate Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Overall Transportation Plan Update 2015 Bond Issue 2015-16 budget update Council Project Loy GEDCO Project Log GTEC Project Status GTEC Project Update GTAB Project Updates AGEORG�ETQWN XAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Project Sponsor/Manager: Dave Hall, Building Official Nathaniel Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Date of Report Project Scope Statement: In conformance with the ADA Transition Plan 4-7-15 approved by City Council in March of 2014 and the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan, a feasibility study is being conducted to analyze, evaluate, and prioritize all public access for sidewalks, City programming and facilities. Once the Feasibility Study is completed, it will be presented to the ADA Advisory Board for review and recommendation to Council. City Staff will work with the ADA Advisory Board to develop an ADA Webpage as an effective and meaningful resource for City Residents with Disabilities along with any required City ordinances needed to ensure ADA compliance. Key Accomplishments: • A full facility (buildings) audit has been completed as of November, 2014. • The self -assessment for Parks and Recreation has been completed as of March 10, 2015. • Sidewalk Master Plan findings are complete. The Plan was adopted March 10, 2015. • On February 24, 2015 the Task Force voted to recommend to City Council to adopt a Sidewalk Accessibility Ordinance for downtown. Council adopted the Ordinance March 10, 2015. Upcoming Tasks: • Staff has received preliminary comments on the current Georgetown ADA Transition Plan from Altura Solutions, L.P. Staff and is currently working on revisions to the plan. • Staff has been working on a proposed schedule of implementation and prioritization of the facilities and downtown sidewalks audit from the intent of the Transition Plan. • A full report is expected to be brought to the City Council sometime in May 2015. • The first public meeting of the ADA Advisory Board was held on March 31st. Issues: • Staff will be working on the creation and funding of a budget line item for ADA related programs and services with each division. Downtown Facilities April 14, 2015 Project Scope Redeveloping and relocating downtown city facilities to a central campus (see photos) Purpose To ensure highest and best use of existing city buildings. To leverage and capitalize on proximity and economies of scale as city staff is relocated and centralized. To return some of existing inventory to tax rolls. Staff Contact Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Element Status Redesign GCAT for Key Accomplishment Municipal Court (510 W. . Feasibility studies completed by Winter & Co. and Ron Hobbs Architects 9tn Street) • Short-listed architects who submitted SOQs for project Upcoming Tasks • Final interviews for architect scheduled for April 14 • Presenting Facilities Workshop to Council on April 14 • Developing standard architectural contract for City • Developing scope of work to ensure project satisfies court's needs for foreseeable future • Involving Judge in design Challenges • Determining whether or not court room will be shared space • Secure buy -in for 8,500 square foot expansion to accommodate dais and courtroom • Developing multi -purpose space that can accommodate teen court, as well as A/V for public meetings • Project management Rehabilitate Old Library as Key Accomplishment new City Hall (808 Martin . Secured funding from Council for design and construction Luther King Street) . Securing architect (same as GCAT Redesign) Upcoming Tasks • Developing scope of work to ensure project satisfies City Hall's needs for foreseeable future Challenges • Determining city staff to be relocated • Timing the sale of current City Hall to fund construction 101 E. 7tn Street Key Accomplishment • Approval to move Municipal Court to GCAT Upcoming Tasks • Determining how building will be used once municipal court moves Challenges • Secure definitive Council direction on whether or not City should sell or retain 101 E. 711, Street Festival Area Key Accomplishment • Reviewed concept with City Council • Master Signage Plan in RFQ for GCAT and Old Library o Including Red Poppy Cafe canopy in RFQ for GCAT and Old Library Upcoming Tasks • Secure Council funding for festival area in FY 2015/2016 Challenges • Determine scope, which tentatively includes: o Festival Street o Park and Play Area o Plaza o Amphitheater o Tensile Structures • Secure buy -in from downtown stakeholders to move some special events to festival area • Ensuring continuity of design throughout development • Focused and professional programming of festival area Old Power and Light Key Accomplishment Building (809 Martin • Discussion at GGAF on use of building Luther King Street) • Completed environmental assessment • Police department vacated building Upcoming Tasks • Facilities update to Council on April 14, which includes this building Challenges • Funding for rehabilitation o Potential to sell historic tax credits when building is rehabilitated • Determining use (short-term and long-term) • Fielding requests to sell or lease building 113 E. 81h Street (current Key Accomplishment City Hall) and 103 W. 7eh • Secured preliminary buy -in to sell 113 E. 81h Street to fund phase II of Street (current CVB) downtown west • Installed new flooring in 103 W. Th Street Upcoming Tasks • Formalizing the decision to sell 113 E. 81h Street • Securing definitive Council direction for future use of 103 W. 7th Street (sell or retain) Challenges • Avoiding pitfalls generally seen when municipalities sell buildings • Allowing sufficient time to market building to cash fund improvements. Downtown Parking April 14, 2015 Project Scope Addressing concerns regarding parking in the downtown overlay district. Purpose To ensure sufficient parking downtown to support continued economic vitality in and around the downtown overlay district. Staff Contact Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager AI MST AooltloNlll y �-- AMN : R ° '• 3RDA RDCKST i VISITORS CENTER -, sRawme -- — ---------------- -------- ' n 71N A I� G - F a 6EAUTIFUL _ - TO`NN SQUARE — t r I 1 PP PP _ ®r,��N EREENGI.OT • LOTS 91Nr \' • -RE -- THREE HOUR ZONE _ - O PROPOSED ADDITIONS Element Status Surface Lot at Martin Key Accomplishment Luther King Drive and 81h • Finalized interlocal agreement to use County's property for 10-years Street • Completed demolition of metal structures • Finalized Parking lot design (149 spots) • Secured Bids - $338,836.95 Upcoming Tasks • Coordinate construction around Red Poppy Festival Challenges • Business owner fatigue with public works projects downtown 0 Rolled 10" and 11" Street improvements to 16/17 • Lighting and landscaping budget for new lot • Ensuring enough funds are available to complete lot Downtown Parking Study Key Accomplishment • Completed stakeholder survey, with 561 responses • Completed two site visits with consultant and one public meeting Upcoming Tasks • Third site visit during Red Poppy • Funding to improve existing parking inventory • Update to Council Challenges • Determining timing and need to parking structure • Coordinating parking study with on -going Downtown West discussions, sidewalk master plan, and ADA task force • Highlighting public parking that is currently available and creating awareness of available parking spots (over 1400 downtown) and enforcing 3-hour parking zone Expanding 3-Hour Parking Key Accomplishment • Surveyed affected property owners • Finishing 9th Street improvements between Austin and Rock • Bringing ordinance forward for Council approval on 2/24 Upcoming Tasks • Informing downtown business and property owners. • Posting new signage Challenges • Ensuring sufficient enforcement for 3-hour zone Project Status Report Carl Walker Project: City of Georgetown Downtown Parking Study Location: Georgetown, TX CWI Project #: N1-2014-135 Date: 3/26/2015 Prepared By: Andy Miller, AICP Carl Walker, Inc. (CWI) This Project Status Report provides an update on the progress made to date on the downtown parking study effort and a summary of areas of focus that will continue to be analyzed further based upon our preliminary observations: Initial Holidav Season Field Observation Trip Prior to the "official" start of the project, CWI staff were initially on -site to perform field observations of existing parking inventory and utilization levels on Saturday, December 20, 2014 during the prime holiday shopping and dining season. During this trip parking occupancies were observed and recorded for the primary on -street and off-street parking facilities serving the Town Square area. This inventory and occupancy information will be summarized in table and graphic form and included in the final report presentation and the final written report document. Proiect Kickoff and Initial Field Observation Site Visit Day One Our primary field observation site visit occurred during the first week of February, 2015. During that week, CWI staff conducted a project kickoff meeting with key City staff on Tuesday morning, February 3rd. The balance of day one included meetings with key staff from the following departments and downtown organizations: Planning; Arts and Culture; Inspections and Permitting; Utilities; Transportation and Facilities; Main Street; Convention and Visitors Bureau. Day Two Day two of the initial site visit consisted of field observations to confirm parking inventories and to observe parking turnover on -street in the Town Square area. Parking turnover analyses were performed on -street in the three-hour time zone area surrounding the Town Square. As part of this process, field technicians performed license plate inventories every hour on the hour from 8:00am through 4:00pm to record length of stay and parking space turnover rates. The results of the turnover analysis will be discussed and included in the final report presentation and final report document. Day Three Field observation on day three focused on occupancy count surveys that were conducted every two hours from 8:00am to 4:00pm. Field technicians recorded parking occupancies on -street in the three-hour parking zone surrounding the Square. Occupancy counts were also performed at all off-street parking facilities in the study area to include City public lots, County lots, and private off-street facilities. The results of the parking occupancy and utilization surveys will be included in the final presentation and final report document in the form of "heat maps" that graphically demonstrate parking utilization levels by facility. Ideas for parking. 5136 Lovers Lane, Suite 200, Kalamazoo, MI 49002 SOLUTIONS FOR QEOPLEPTel: 269.381.2222 Fax: 269.349.4656 1 carlwalker.com Georgetown Parking Study Status Report March 26, 2015 Proiect Kickoff and Initial Field Observation Site Visit (Cont.) Ca rl Walker Day Four Our final day on the ground during the initial site visit included a day of "Office Hours" where interested Stakeholders were scheduled for one-on-one meetings with the consultants. (A summary of individual stakeholders interviewed is included below). Day four concluded with CWI field technicians performing an additional round of parking occupancy counts during the evening hours from 5:OOpm to 9:OOpm during the First Friday event on the Square. The results of the First Friday parking occupancy and utilization counts will also be developed into a heat map in the final report to graphically demonstrate the peak parking conditions observed. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder outreach is an important element of all downtown parking studies we perform. With the assistance of City staff setting up individual meetings, we were able to sit down one-on-one with a number of downtown stakeholders to include downtown business and restaurant owners, Williamson County senior staff, prospective developers and area residents. The final report document will include a section summarizing the results of our stakeholder sessions. The detailed list of stakeholders interviewed includes the following individuals/businesses: Francisco Choi - Tamiro Plaza Chris Damon - Gumbo's Restaurant Susan Ditmar -Inspiration Glass Rusty Winkstern - Monument Cafe Larry Olson - Old Town Resident Kay Briggs - Pink Poppy/DGA President John Montgomery - Roberts Printing Online Parking Survey Sam Pfiester - Developer Gary Wilson - County Facilities Director Larry Geddes - County Tax Assessor's Office Erland Schulze - Hummingbird Hollow Justin Bohls - The Union on 8th Len Lester -The Escape/Downtown TIF Board Marissa Austin - Palace Theatre Part of our overall stakeholder outreach efforts included an online parking survey hosted by "Survey Monkey". The online survey was completed by a total of 561 respondents, which is a very high response rate for a downtown the size of Georgetown. Out of the total 561 completed surveys, we were able to "filter" the responses into four separate categories based upon people who identified themselves as "Customers"; "Business Owners"; "Employees"; and "Residents". One of the most interesting (and somewhat alarming) results of the parking survey was that 60% of business owners and 52% of employees indicated that they typically park on -street in prime customer parking areas, instead of parking in off-street public lots. The results of the parking survey were presented in a public workshop held on March 11 th at the Georgetown Public Library. Further analysis of the survey results and summary reports for each of the survey respondent sub -groups will be included in the final report document. Public Workshop Presentation Our second site visit to Georgetown occurred on March 1Oth through March 13th. The primary purpose of this second site visit was to conduct a public workshop to present the findings of the online survey, and to draw out additional public comments regarding downtown parking issues. The workshop meeting was well attended by a cross section of interested downtown stakeholders. Additional public feedback was obtained and ideas generated that will be summarized and included in the final report document. Ideas for parking. Page 2 of 3 SOLUTIONS FOR QEOPLE' Georgetown Parking Study Status Report March 26, 2015 Review of Existing Parking Enforcement Program Carl Walker In addition to the public workshop meeting, our March site visit focused on the downtown parking enforcement program. CWI staff met with the new parking enforcement vendor for a face-to- face meeting to discuss the parking enforcement contract and to discuss details on how the enforcement program is conducted. Effective parking enforcement is a fundamental element of any successful downtown parking management program, particularly in areas where free, time limited parking is offered. Our preliminary findings indicate that the current parking enforcement program is not as robust as it should be. Parking enforcement will be an area of specific focus in our final report and primary recommendations. Review of Existing Public Parking Lots and Proposed New Library Overflow Lot One thing that CWI staff noticed early in the study process relates to the physical design and layout of the City's existing public parking lots. We believe the City lot at 9th & Main and the Municipal Court lot at 6th & Main could both be improved in their physical design to make them function better in terms of public access, ADA compliance and internal traffic flow. We were also able to review the current design concept for the proposed Library Overflow lot at 8th Street and MLK and believe design changes should be made to make that lot function better than currently configured. Our recommendations for physical design improvements are currently being developed and will be included in the final report document. Next Steps Red Poppy Festival Our next site visit is scheduled for April 23rd through the 25th and is specifically intended for CWI staff to observe the Red Poppy Festival special event. We will be on -hand to observe the parking and traffic conditions at the Red Poppy Festival and attempt to develop possible operational improvements based upon what we observe on the ground. Draft Rer)ort We will develop a draft report to present for staff review by mid -May. While the date has not yet been confirmed, we anticipate presenting our final findings and recommendations to City Council at the June 9th meeting. Final Report We expect to submit our final report document within two weeks after our last site visit, which will incorporate any recommendations and feedback we receive from the final public presentation(s). Respectfully submitted, 4L W Aj-1,, CARL WALKER, INC. ANDREW W. MILLER, AICP Ideas for parking. Page 3 of 3 SOLUTIONS FOR QEOPLE ARGGEo ETOVVN t_\AS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Project Sponsor/Manager: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney, Shirley Rinn, Executive Assistant to the City Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Compilation of Lease Agreements and terms April 14, 2015 related to City -Owned Property Key Accomplishments: • Copies of Lease Agreements provided to the City Council. • Summary Report regarding Lease Terms for each Lease Agreement provided to the City Council, including WCAD valuation of land and improvements. • Summary Report of other In -Kind Services provided to non -profits by the City of Georgetown provided to the City Council. Upcoming Tasks: • Complete and update survey with regional and like -sized cities regarding their policies related to leasing city -owned property and social service funding • Determination of Fair Market Leasehold Values • Report to Council Issues: • Long -Term Leases on City -Owned Property, including some on dedicated Parkland. A�GEOR(EWQWN XAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) To Project Sponsor: Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principle Planner Date of Report: Project Scope Statement: April 14, 2015 This updated OTP is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a refined area -wide travel demand model, review of the City's roadway functional classification system, and a revised Thoroughfare Plan. Key Accomplishments: DRAFT OTP has been: • Presented to GTAB at its January 911h meeting. • Presented at Council Workshop on January 131n • Presented to P&Z for review and comments January 20tn • Presented the FINAL DRAFT OTP to GTAB February 131n for Public Hearing • Received a unanimous recommendation to Council for adoption from GTAB. • Presented to Council at its February 24tn meeting in Final DRAFT format; has had its Public Hearing and has had the 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP. • Presented to Council at its March 10tn meeting in Final DRAFT format; had 2nd Reading of Ordinance FINAL OTP: • Was adopted by Council at its March 10tn meeting. • Was published to the City's web site April 2nd Upcoming Tasks: Staff: • None Issues: • None remaining. AGEORG�ETQWN XAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT 2015 BOND ISSUE UPDATE Project Sponsor/Manager: Micki Rundell, CFO Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Issuance of the 2015 City of Georgetown Bond Program April 14, 2015 Key Accomplishments: Specialized Public Finance (SPFI) has begun work on the offering documents CO Notice Resolution presented to Council on March 24 for action Upcoming Tasks: Rating Agency Presentation • Preparation of the "Rating Agency Book" • Determine schedule for on -site meeting with S&P analysts scheduled for May 6 • Sale of bonds scheduled for May 14, 2015 Issues: In order to ensure that the City meets with the primary Rating Analyst for the Revenue Bonds (Ted Chapman), the City had to reschedule the planned ratings presentation until May 6 • S&P will be coming to Georgetown to meet with City officials and review the on -site accomplishments of the City • This will be the first time in over 10 years the analysts have come to Georgetown for a site visit Due to this timing adjustment, the bond sale will be postponed until May 14, which still meets the timing requirements of the City's Fiscal & Budgetary Policy. • The Policy requires that the existing City Council not only approves the projects, but also authorizes the debt. • May 14 is the last meeting of the sitting City Council. GE 0RGETOWN TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT 2015/16 ANNUAL BUDGET UPDATE Project Sponsor/Manager: Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Micki Rundell, CFO Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Presentation and Adoption of the 2015116 Annual April 14, 2015 Budget Key Accomplishments: CIP budgets are underway Internal Service Fund managers meeting with departments during March with ISF Funds completed by April 15 Upcoming Tasks: Base budgets and service level requests will be sent to Department Managers the first week of April Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Review is planned for GGAF on March 25 Other workshop planning is underway Issues: Due to the CTSUD court date, the dates for balancing the budget are being revised. Workbooks will be provided to City Council no later than Friday, July 10 • Awaiting final sales tax and other revenues on July 8 to determine final excess funds from 2014/15 • July 14 Council workshop will introduce the budget issues, new requests and answer questions so that Council can be ready to make budgetary decisions on July 16 & 17. • July 16 and July 17 — Council will "balance" budget with new programs/request and other 1-time funding needs allocating any excess funds • July 28 — Council validates the balanced budget and sets the tax rate for 2015/16 ZO O W W C9 .� m0 Om wa LL J }O U Z U OU > > d v m - ts o 0 U a N C m C o n rn II= C o N N o 0 NN « m C NN C O C y N 3 U O CU O O C U m p Nap o m_ ` E C3 y«J J LLm y7y- Y O O E aa0 - `UmoN O c° 0 a .T, IIOaNp) Co m EYf O U g r n vma) ca Ca O dnC0 vCSad) 0 ov Q aN ~>O N Q N -a U C g N $d 0 LV m ma C O y Q _Ny N f«N R 0 ' �> O E O Q =UO'mV QN«'0 a) m E O cc mNNE Up F o N0- CD QyY DUn y 5 O >,mDOU -Nd cN lma.3 CJ mNJ yNa) aN' aCm 0y iJ OQ3 O N y 0 0« E co -Np .- «N •` -OC a7 LL N N imm mN n O 0 Q3J SOE 6 y 0 Co 0 0« O U i a m n N « U f0 m m O N 41 y T Q 0 Q w Q U Y~ U N On V L C U Q E Y a L N C O I o 3 C n C d 0. O L « O m '�-J 2� a) m« m N U O > O m N a C M O` 3 O Q N C N «O C N 3 « .T. m CM C N C a p .N D a) .O >` a m 00 C V m 0 U N U 5 E w N 5 CU r m Q om a� ' E m `m' 3° F m ~ T N N Q 3 a% n o E° N U 'y d. y = 0- a U o rn y m i L O II r a n 0 •U al .-� m a o OC N, j m ¢ '�' j a a) N O N n W .O C Y J f9 U U n- 3 v1 ::� C N rn m t T N U .T. O o co II Z d V N U in aNi n o ° O c V O m 0> '� E °1 `o L J a o II - d a' 'U o m al N D�V� Ol - O E �r .- U ENN! -'U E.0 C�CUE _ y d « a C N C Y d C 3 U- m am. W, _ E w O C .O �. C. o�.� II 0 J N j .- U C C C o U- C y 9 (Ca h > J D7 D7 N O m .- L cII 0 a O V= d C 0 QL.n 3aU 3 E .N-. 0 m coy '3 c O 2 ao'v'E 0 0 'o y o y n r m -a 2 o n 3 v a m o ur U d J m N m U n C ` O L N a� O- a m- E n.N m T O C O` C 0 a) N 2 m 0 C « o V> o N >. l N E `• C O o c E a m C a N Q C O T C m t6 c y m N p N 6 m m EEm«o maciNQ oE3mmt5c` O o mLLm m our U m V U L U m o .3 0 > E >. ¢ LL al 0 m C C o E m Q 2 0 L c m a 'O (D = L N ... c U o- m. U J uj o a� o, >� �- 0 0 n E rn o v N m C a) o c o= U N a 0 m m LL- J 0 m« m D 3 N m J a L„ o .3 « m 3 ` L c 0 0 0 'y F 3 N C J m d 3 m m o °? �e d (D O R N N t C y m C c m a) a s II .n N m. N c m Ol y a) � Q O V CT, .O S O CO N o a O> m n C Y O> O a) J •- U a C C > O. C m `- ¢ m 0 U N N L N n« J C >i m 0 O a J N Y O y C J� O >+ T m m V Q E 0 0 0) ... C= <a C a) -O m D Z' (p O LL o O U u O 3 a C U C J .L_, O C 0 J O m E a Q m =_ N C a) II y LL. a) C N U C N> O U N la « 0 d O N II �« V C d a] O- _T N N m •O ' 0 > a) a Q E 3 '0 a N N U> «) N .>.' N N U a s L' N� C Y V V O 3 N m N O U m C m C C > w O a 3 NaO> N EOON 2J ..Ta). ZCL a> OO a) m22a N2mm0nm0CL mwn0 UmII ton«m« m m N L U m N N 0 C U a N E m N N my - = m m m a Fa Y ca C U > 0 O N 2i LL C R 2 C a d C m N � C N Q N O a a N N a) m � U o n C N m C O U � O a) N 3caTi y 0 rn« U N a) U n m 0 J O o w E (9 o N d 3 c 01 A)m m o - n V E N E N C C C• JO m CO y o C O U O y U = C J _ C cc :9 '5 C9 = c .�. `a U o L-- lY a w N F f•' N N Z O Z N a w- F Q m C a � a F L. U LL" w O IL O U w 0 d N O U o Z N a) > o Z 0 Z 0 Z a) N C m c ca m m m 0 a) c v (L) � p to 0 NU c ALL ...' 3 pp m� Ec) C m V cc) m�o c E O O N- C W O..0 O O N C C @C� E Eor=O �N O N a N Em Ci C2 L6 7 ap p E O� p E pL ON c� m m Q O E_ U > CO E U U c U M m U 2 m Co U T m Y a) c N m v) > O •O C C U M a) a) C r LL N C LL N c' LL Mn C O a C C E E C >. �p C_ N N 4=. m M 7 T E N a) N p N 4: �Q UU _T lL C O U >-"O }•a >'U >. m N O C m C o ` La LL E N m � O C).0a) C)C CN C M E LL Q 7 T N N O N Q v) LL CL T Z, Z a) a) •O m m @mom 'E C m C mE 'C U 7 LL 3 0 LL N O C a) LL Q LL 7 LL 7 m LL 'O m "O O O T m C Cl m0 M N C mo r N C) N 0 N _ a) U C CO O O C) Cor 00 D 0) � co N > p o O N N M N N CD CL G U N a m a N W N Y c 3 �6 O a) n o °) 5 L ` m N a) ri Q 3 m U> a) >. E x C p m N L C O C a) C C .Y o "p ._ U m C 0 C= C 2 m U m N w 0= C N LO r N m m o Y c «a E g _ U o p m Q o L j a) Z c c��L m E C o_ 2moa)NU C C m Nwc C () 'o>�Oa) a) Q O p C a rT„ a) c .__ m a) �o LL m E v= N N m U L m p 3 p a C N p O) O C ° C. .O � a) a) m -Q N 7 E c � o a) p c c c a) c o 0) w> Q C7 a`) o >_ na m o U ` U C C C p 0 (6 m C O_ C U c l6 °) E m p E E -] O p p o L° 2 C >' C o - N N a) n p Q c) C N m a= C Q COm a O U o m m a) E (6 c m C. EO p c p O d C> o m > m r w E N d C x EO U QY U N LL '+. CO) U O a) O 0 co to E O. m U 00 C:) c) `l7O a) Q fAN mQ a) a) m C•o O a7 o m wo O p U C iD N m Co m •V •o mcw N m N O a) N Op m _ )o `y 0 >. 0.0 L Q C U yN-. Q E 'O d N O C 3 E N m a) p 3 O U O x C m m> d m m 3 C A N a) C c E L.. N m N U U p E J CD 0) 0 ul N� N E O O U'D 0 7 n y H C CO a) m :O >p ui Q G. C "O m O) N N a) 3 O 'O) m O a) = x o o o m o x 50 c �) Q o N m N c of Cl) CUU ffl L 3 �_ } m o l`D N N m LC`a I� LL) 0) C a) O CO = L O m C c E aLmi m C m e >i c U ci o a) S m o m e CA m p Z m N 3 N U p d$ c c o mm E n a)E .0C:) ma) CUN a)�mom�ma)mc 'O O ` "0 mm C? O E@ `t O a) O 0 ym„ _T >` >LD > co L N >p '� 0 9 N fAN U IL Ua 0_ CUQwCi� 0_MLLm O_ �i7 C N� U m p N •O J m c o o m o C) O. = O (0 m o m c m `o_ o a x a) c U C: W Q m � -i N 7 F Q F z o Z N Q W a� I IL D a H d U LL W 3 O w IL V d 0 U z z z z N } V Mn C @ N U N O U r m U U a) U N U C C C, c C C E O n E a E M aN E— n E O av E a U 0 0 o Cl) o 0 Uoo U , U T U UN E m o C N m� C m� C m c c C p a) EL- @) C E +O+ LL L LL N LL N LL -D LL C N E N m N Co N N 7 N 0- }a C }(n a) D @ M O N a) Q C C C O 3 U- 7 LL U O a1) ate) W m CD 'D c c r (i (i (i co d (i N N c1 T O N O N O N O N O N _ U C M N (h N > O 0 a0 W h m r rL U a Q 0 N w O 7@ N N O O N a) w - a) C — a7 N N-0 a) N a) -o m .O d C W C p O a) 7 n 3 J C F- -' W ) W Q - 0 w .0.. C 'D �' o E N O@@> ca a) N N c J @ N � TCis E a) L@ O L a@ L M (� O _ N a) N N cc: a) @ CEQ> Q CJ mj EC@0 0 p 0 E NE>U) CN N J a r 0 E o (- X L a) 0 E C Q. 0CL - Q a) @ p C) 0mS N c o c N o @ W O j a) C F a) d w 'O N C> a) m (� N O X W@ p@ X >. O c -0 C@ c W L Q@ O Q a) O a) a) a) c. Z ` > O. @@ U Q_ c '0 «. O C `O >. in O = 0 a a) a) - 0— -D c Z_ w@ m e -p 'O @ w E U m E m aEi y E O p 0 W 05 rL-• O N E 'O N C 2 O a o@ m@ o O N c 0 -) o c a) c @ c tea)) @ L O m 3 U fn L a) c O a) O@ D7 > C Q@> Q 7 a) O 3@ (7 U O@ p Q O E N T LL > Q W w C 'D 0 E a) C 0 c a7 c O @ ci r oC0 EPc0 o a o o n o >, CJC o c,o c) Urn ra)O a) a)N n ro(D o c c O .T-� o @mn0 0 `) U L c rn i c C w aEi O E@ N @ U o U @ '- o a) @ w O W 0- @ L@ N o gyp--- aEi aJ 7 3 .0 @ N .O @@ D O 7 c (7 @ u oo n m d m U O Q o c T api 2 o 0 o n N O m E H o ..LO-. o a) m U c °) D>" c Q E a d r 'N O 'D 3 0 'Oc O 3 N r- c) N N E a) E.� C 't a) >` O (� @ @ 2 O m N '0 O. a) N C) C ' a) c O LL V LL O@� C (6 N N@ O 6 (� 0= '� > d "O •.�3. O N �_ E Z U O a) 'D 3 N T N a) N O a) @ :E >O , m X .LO. O E @ a) 'D a) m ry a Oi d m U a) Op L "' X 7 C7 O N .L-. C C O — p N@ O U ..@+ @ Co cna) "6 @ c C '. O r O O_ @ N @ X a o X a) C X a) O. a) a) C N N N 0 m E O O W 00 N c -0 O E -0 O @ cL-oc �O @ 4: O m EmU S 0 N O N N 'O 0 o a o N O p .a) o m0EOEpmw E i»E oL@�@ IL c` 0) [O oQ Q C 7 a) N w'ti oUc �E rCE� c 0 IS LL a) N p@ cwp—(`a) Q3 .O .3 C- 4) W@ p o •`p � @� caN(» i N O QnLu—(D @ N 'O N C'n cp N >. .D 7 Q Q Ci L or Ncn c @ rn oC� p c O) Q U �_ d L @L..• m a) N O N N@ @@ C c L c O N >• @ 'D @ -D N 0) M X w N N N a) @ @ N@ c O H c @@ a) a) @ 3 N 7 a) cV 'O a) @ a) C y 'p :L] N D O a) @ O. @ a) > .O c .0 _0 E N Q -0 'D E _N E - Ocli O a) 6 N .� O a) C 7 O N 'O w 3 N N O O N C Q N �= `�@- Z y y (6 C 0 N 0 w U O@ n >O "j5 O L U O N LL .� M 'O LL �(n0 ONQQQ LL'D E @Q d'D �C1bQ @0Q @N a c'LL ina L... (7 c.4 WC, N cu dLL Q) U - y c a) U 0 o 0 '6 L U p ,O Q) N C O o a) — a) U N a a) C o C QI a) U C C L U C Y C U a) C 0 U CO N U O a) C o O a) N y LL N N x - C7 C7 0 O (A 7 F a F 00 Z N Q W a@ a � a LL. U LL. W O w IL a d N O U O Z O Z V) a) } O Z O Z O Z m C U O fl U U U U C C C C r C E n r O d O. N m d N O. O O U N U Ur U('•) ULO EU to UM O r C M C co C C L6 E-C N - C C 'C ii o - c U u- E LL c,) u- E LL I O p Ul N N (a a) N U y T CD N U (A •p lf) O N v C a C) a) a) c N Y LL U (DN 0 co a) 'O a) 'O a) a 69 a N 'a 7 LL N -p 7 LL 7 LL 7 LL 7 LL O Z � LL O Z O Z O Z (2 M_ v M v T d O CD O CD O O _ a U N N O N O N (n N m N (D> > C r r N N r O o N N N I- O aU M a a) c 2 �{ p 2' p N C O _ •V O n C 7 tU `a c_ '(6 C 7 i � U 7 o o O 7 ¢ U J r N E C C 0 0 C LL r a) Z• () a3 C G O (D n O m> N 'U .O Cl CO 7 a) w ..L. a) a .L.. O Z O C 7 0 O N � 2 >+ 2 O ° C° U C r O co a V 0 C N a 7LL a .O a)a a m O O 0 c 0 7 "O a (a o TU V O m o c @ U° m> m o c U c @U E 0p 0 a) O W �� fl. W ° N m N O LO- Q C �% p O n p Q U H cu E a _ C Ow o �� m o a a) w Q U a) C o N w U > N 0 Y O N a) p) N tf O O V 3 M w O Q O p O a) O O C-i 0 0 °' 'p a o Cl a TU a) M o¢ o o L n a) o 0 o CL a o cu x Q) (D @o o oN oQ O �O a) > O O - C Cn J C F- a3 oQ� N a I— O O O N CO N O N O N N E fA O O. T c° FA M M (° w > fA _ O M U> 69 t� 7 N F (A _ O C¢'O .0.. O 00 O u O- 0 0� O� C¢ C V) a) C (6 N N C M O C C6 O C Q1 (L O O) C al > m a) n N V) O CO a) a) (` C "O D) N 8 OO) @ C O aS 0 m a) Cl O N 9 7 O O U v O. f6 0 0 7 a) U v CD E 'o a) ¢ a o U 7 a o E E a) as g 7 0 .> a) U W .> o O p m 7 0 .> `C SZ r .> O a) a) (D Q) C N a) .= a C N m LL d LL E N LL L❑ d E N d o ca Q. E a� o C C U U c O a) U C m C a) O O a w c c `o aca 5 aQ) U O U C — O ` p a O u, U E E (D a3 cl p c ci .a� in — E U w (� a) � as x O w a) a) H J > O (n @ (D m a) O N � N I— F H A GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT March 2015 11 Proiect to Date Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP Project Update On Schedule/ Project Project No. Or Behind Budget Cost tAv;ailableNo. Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,00 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB #14A 5QW Design — 90 % complete; final 10 % On Schedule 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 Wood Road) (construction contract documents and WCCF environmental permitting fees required at time Unchanged of actual construction.) Construction — Pending 2105 Bond funding Other Issues — Fencing has been deleted from project. Staff is completing a task order amendment to pay for that work performed by Engineer prior to it being deleted from project. ROW has been acquired. Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243) #146 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less On Schedule 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual Unchanged construction. Weir Trust property - Condemnation pending. Guy/Knight property —Acquisition complete. Wolf property —Acquisition complete. Other Issues —Several re -design items pending due to ROW negotiations and changes to adjacent development; final task order Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary In -process 1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Unchanged Engineer is developing ROW strip map and NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway) #QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel In -process 613,822 613,822 at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. Unchanged ROW -1460 #EEa 5RB Construction scheduled to begin in Spring On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 #EEb 2015. #EEc Utility relocations - ongoing. As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings completed or planned for all the remaining FM Rivery Boulevard 5RM Survey has begun; Engineer expects have On Schedule documents available to begin appraisals this month. Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is complete; On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 Agreement has been reached for the property Unchanged need to install a water quality pond; paperwork Pending. Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed On Schedule 196,000 196,000 alignment and is working on the 30 % PS&E. Unchanged IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,0000 650,000 Current Economic Development Projects I Project Update On Schedule/ Project to Date Project Bud et Project Cost Available 1,137,500� 1,137,500 000 Current Year Budget 13114 Current Year Current Year Current Year Projected Cost Available 000 283,350 0 283,350 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 571,178 479,588 91,590 382,822 382,822� 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 825,100 87,000 738,100 196,000 196,0000 650,000 0 650,000 Current Year Budget 13114 Current Year Current Year Current Year Budget Cost I Available 1,137,500 0 1,137, 500 000 16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503 L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Reporh2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-03.xlsx Page 1 of 1 3/12/2015 FM 1460 (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive) Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc Rights -of -Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation March 2015 Project Description Acquisition of ROW and relocation of utilities for the FM 1460 Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive). Purpose To have all ROWs cleared and utilities prior to TxDOT letting the project foe construction. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. 0 J F 2 >V) Off 1110 ass Q O O o f %� � r Z ad o L 0-- 00 o ZzQ Z 5 V i C� / 3�/ w w c �`,��* J►a0 m u, y m v v } m w_� b y 2 0 o6W F 8 0Ix- �, oyoQ z rL , 7 O Z O t`g LL r O LJJ a: Ln oc -Z - Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way As of October 16r'', the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings completed or planned for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Section: North South Acquired: 34 8 Pending: 0 - Condemnation: 2 - Total: —367 8 Utility Relocations Ongoing Construction Bid opened August 2014 Construction scheduled to commence Spring 2015. Other Issues AFA amendment pending reallocating authorized funding for [City] relocation work. Two known change orders pending — first is due to items from ROW negotiations; second is due to proposed intersection redesign. Mays Street Extension (Teravista Parkway in Round Rock to Westinghouse Road) Project No. 5RI TIP No. None March 2015 Project Description Extend Mays Street northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road at Rabbit Hill Road. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 miles. Purpose To complete the schematic design, define rights -of -way requirements and complete 30% design. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer CP&Y, Inc. N IH31 NIH3SFWY 'IH35FR SlH3SSB fir/ I _ _ y� f EDP S jH 35 NB JK1vtiR5�s�oPKSHLG BEGIN PROJECT xo` G oA KmOMTOR p0 P R �m p �pRr END PROJECT Q �� PpeeP � F55PLJV ENGADINAP S� ?AIRWAY PATH LDV£PD C - Z M - Fib GREFN VISTA PL vp S ERD p TERAVISTA PKWY E.PD0.* Pax KCEIyTPPLPLVD m� DNP�S O w GLFp94P z 20 0 0.25 0.5 p a 2c r o Ita_I LN alc9_ Miles MAYS STREET Element Status / Issues Design Engineering has submitted the proposed alignment and is working on the 30% PS&E. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way Will match City of Round Rock standard of 100 ft. within RR's City Limits; City of Georgetown standard of 112 ft. within our City Limits. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues None. NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway Drive) Project No. 5QX TIP No. QQ March 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design and construct a portion of an IH-35 NB Frontage Road from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard Bridge of a proposed NB FR which would ultimately extend to Lakeway Drive. Purpose To relieve congestion in the Williams Drive/Austin Avenue intersection by providing a NB alternate, interim route to FM 971 and Georgetown High School. This project is the only remaining portion of IH 35 in Central Texas without a frontage road existing, under construction or being designed. Project Manager Bill Dryden Engineer Klotz Associates low Al . --REMOVE EXISTINZ% 1ENTRANCE RAMP iW A fie` Aft .31 Element Status / Issues Design Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. Environmental/ Archeology TBD Rights of Way None identified Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues Staff is working with TxDOT to develop the AFAs required to complete the project Northwest Boulevard Overpass (Fontana Drive to Austin Avenue) Project No. 5QX TIP No. QQ March 2015 Unchanged Project Description Construction of overpass and surface roads to connect Northwest Boulevard with Austin Avenue and FM 971. Purpose This project will relieve congestion at the Austin Avenue/Williams Drive intersection and provide a more direct access from the west side of IH 35 corridor to Georgetown High School and SH 130 via FM 971. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates 2 m H ° ok 0,9 NORfH WEST BLVD. 0 I a .t ru _-_l 1-' -.- _ Imo.' Element Status / Issues Design Engineer has presented the Preliminary Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Environmental/ Archeological Concurrent with preliminary engineering and schematic design. Rights of Way Engineer is developing ROW strip map and individual parcel plats and documents. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues Staff met with TxDOT to develop an AFA for TxDOT review of the bridge crossing of 135 and its frontage roads. Rivery Boulevard Extension (Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive) Project No. 511M TIP No. None March 2015 Project Description Develop the Rights -of -Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in anticipation of future funding availability. Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf Ranch Parkway. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Surve in and preliminary design underway. Environmental/ Archeology TBD Rights of Way Survey has begun; Engineer expects to have documents available to begin appraisals this month. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues TBD Snead Drive Project (SE Inner Loop to Airborn Circle) Project No. 5QZ TIP No. None March 2015 Project Description Develop Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the widening of Snead Drive from S.E. Inner Loop to 600 feet north of Cooperative Way, including appurtenant waste water improvements. Purpose This project has been identified as GTEC eligible project and will provide necessary infrastructure for ongoing economic development in the area. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Steger Bizzell S �H 35 / ye - Roadway Widening O Proposed WW Lines I a --- _ under roadway SAUST/N ' Proposed WW Lines I ,�u E outside of roadway �Q Existing WW 4� Lines City Limits OO , 0 O 0 5 0 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet ,`aGOOJ� i Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Included with PS&E. Rights of Way Agreement has been reached for the property need to install a water quality pond; paperwork pending. Utility Relocations Utility relocations either complete or are part of the construction contract. Construction TBD — Upon acquisition of property for water quality pond. Other Issues It was anticipated that the property for construct water quality pond would be donated, but owner has some issues with the mortgage holder concerning donation. Property owner is seeking compensation. Southwest Bypass Project (SH 29 to RM 2243) Project No. 5QC TIP No. 14b March 2015 Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to SH 29 and Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the construction of approximately 1.3 miles of 2-lane interim roadway with bridges from Leander Road to its intersection with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (TIP Project No. 14A. Purpose This project is identified as needed in the OTP and GTEC TIP. This project, in coordination with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension, will provide access from Leander Road to DB Wood Road south of SH 29, allowing alternate access from southwest to west areas of the City, relieving the increasing traffic demand along the IH 35 corridor. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR Engineering, Inc. PROPOSED I L.o.na r Ezisnr� Pans s cm ums W 1 F Element Status / Issues Design Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual construction. Environmental/ Draft Report detailing the environmental, geotechnical and historical issues has Archeological been completed and submitted to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation for determination of issues to be mitigated. Rights of Way Weir Trust property - Condemnation pending. Guy/Knight property - Acquisition complete. Wolf property - Acquisition complete. Utility Relocations None identified at this time. Construction TBD Other Issues Several re -design items pending due to ROW negotiations and changes to adjacent development; final task order amendment will be brought forth to finish the work required for this project at the 90% level. Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension Project (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) Project No. 5QV TIP No.14a March 2015 Project Description Design Schematic and Plans Specifications & Estimate for the construction of a roadway from Southwest Bypass (TIP Project # 14B) to DB Wood Road south of SH 29. The project is planned as a major arterial. Purpose This project is identified as needed in the OTP and the TIP. This project, in coordination with Southwest Bypass (#14B), will provide access from Leander Road to DB Wood Road south of SH 29, allowing alternate access from southwest to west areas of the City, relieving the increasing traffic demand along the IH-35 corridor. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR, Engineering, Inc. �wl�whH.taY �Fi all ar m �ew••a4 Element Status / Issues Design Design 90% complete; final 10% (construction contract documents and WCCF environmental permitting fees required at time of actual construction.) Environmental/ Archeological Final report concerning the environmental, geotechnical and historical issues has been submitted for review. Rights of Way Complete. Utility Relocations None identified at this time. Construction Pending 2015 bond funding Other Issues Fencing has been deleted from project. Staff is completing a task order amendment to pay for that work performed by Engineer prior to it being deleted from project. Austin Avenue - Bridge Evaluations (North and South San Gabriel Rivers) Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several phases - I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents, estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration. Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long-term vehicular capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP Element Status / Issues Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic paths to consider: Do Nothing. Short Term Temporary Fix. Medium Term Fix. Replace Structure. Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed reconstruction of the bridge. Surveying TBD Environmental TBD during Phase II Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street. Utility Reloc'ns TBD (future) Construction TBD Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election; Project submitted for CAMPO funding; Project eligible for TxDOT Off -System Bridge Replacement Program. CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project Madella Hillard Center to MLK Blvd. Project No. None TIP No. None April 2015 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for sidewalk improvements around the Madella Hilliard Center and continuing along the north side of 8th street to MLK Boulevard. Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Steger Bizzell A A lit I A iTREET Y � r � , Z p' W. 8TH STRE !� C #44 v _ to 6J fit It 6 A, J i l , # Element Status / Issues Design Complete. Environmental/ Archeological Complete. Rights of Way N/A Utility Relocations N/A Construction Ongoing; approximately 95% complete. Contractor is addressing items from the walk-through and performing final clean-up and revegetation. Other Issues None. FM 971 at Austin Avenue Realignment Intersection Improvements Project No.1BZ TIP No. QQ1 April 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 135 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. L� Element Status / Issues Design Preliminary Engineering complete; Engineer working on 60% design submittal Environmental/ Archeological 10/2015 Rights of Way Complete Utility Relocations TBD Construction 10/2016 Other Issues Working with TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding Agreement for plans review and construction administration. FM 1460 Quail Valley Drive to University Drive Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc April 2015 Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update to existing Schematic, Right -of -Way Map and Environmental Document and completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway. Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW, effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on -the -shelf PS&E for TxDOT letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. 0 2 L1. F- = > H p o W 0 IL �p z0 0 oJ �d, prL—IX Z a oo o Zi— w o w m a `ry 0 i r\ LU �0 QQ / y� O ,°c o W Za z--° Ln AL _ r z o J Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way As of October 1611,, 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 Construction scheduled to commence Spring 2015. Other Issues Two task order amendments pending and the respective contractor. change orders for Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit April 2015 Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of Georgetown City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future program requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan. Project Nat Waggoner, PMP® Manager Engineer HDR, Inc. Task Initiation - Completed Planning - Completed Execution - See below ask Name Start ADA Reporting Criteria for Sidewalk Analysis May-14 Jun-14 ✓ Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Reports Self -Assessment Survey of Downtown District Data Collection and Field Inventory Plans, and May-14 Jun-14 City Facilities Survey Sidewalk Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization Parks and Amenities Survey Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings Public Meetings and Hearings ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Project Close Out Activities 10 Yr. Recommended Implementation Strategy May-14 Jul-14 ✓ Jun-14 Aug-14 Jul-14 Sep-14 May-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Feb-14 ✓ May-14 Jan-15 ✓ Periodic Mar-15 thru Targeting May-15 Ongoing Targeting Apr-15 Ongoing Funding Needed Priority 1 Projects $10.2 M Operations and Maintenance $5 M Replacement and Retirement (Recommended in 2025) $8 M Outside Fundin Pursui Staff is working to submit SWMP identified projects to meet the CAMPO calls for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Applications are submitted in late June of this year. Staff met with TxDOT 3/30 to discuss sidewalk projects, program calls and their support. Implementation of Priority 1 projects and budget requests for operations and maintenance will involve boards and commissions, including GTAB. At the 1st Reading on February 24th, Councilmember Hesser asked staff to further investigate ownership and maintenance policies for sidewalks. Staff is coordinating with the Planning Department for possible inclusion in the UDC amendment process and is looking for guidance from GTAB as to inclusion in as a regular agenda item. Southwest Bypass Project (RM 2243 to IH 35) Project No.1CA Project No.14c April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2-lane roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. The portion from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC. Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road. Project Manager Williamson County City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility. Alignment has been presented to staff and management. Surveying City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be acquired from Texas Crushed Stone. Environmental/ TBD by preliminary engineering phase. Archeological Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the schematic design phase. Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW Utility Relocations TBD (future) Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2 lanes of the ultimate roadway. Other Issues None Transit Study as Requested by City Council Project No. None Project No. None April 2015 Unchanged Project Council Motion: Discussion and possible direction to the City of Georgetown's Transportation Description Advisory Board (GTAB) to conduct an analysis and make a recommendation to the City Council no later than June 24, 2014 ,regarding the City's potential future participation in State and Regional Transportation Organizations including the benefits, conditions, and justification which would prompt the City's participation in Project Connect, Lone Star Rail and any other relevant State and Regional Transportation Organizations that the City should be involved with -- Steve Fought, Councilmember, District 4 Amended Motion: 1. The City Manager to determine what time and effort staff have available to conduct this type of study over the next year. If it is not in the Transportation Division, Planning Department, Finance Department and/or City Manager's Office work program, as outlined in the current draft budget, can it be adequately staffed to complete this level of work over the next year? 2. Is the challenge to research Federal, State and Regional transportation organizations or is it transit programs? This direction to staff is assuming it is transit programs. 3. Narrow the specific analysis to programs that are actually authorized to receive Federal formula and discretionary funding programs found within the current Federal Transit Administration. However, that would narrow the field down to three agencies or programs. Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail and the State of Texas through the Texas Department of Transportation. CARTS is only a contractor to Capital Metro and provides certain 5310 transit opportunities to persons outside of the Capital Metro Service Area in our jurisdiction. CAMPO, Project Connect, Project Connect North and My35 are simply planning programs that include staff from Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, and TxDOT and representatives from local governments. 4. The analysis should be based on how those planning programs will lead to funding through the project delivery agencies. (Fought amended to include financial risk and benefits to the City) 5. The Council should provide the Board and staff specifics on what type of economic analysis data will lead to an ultimate decision by the City Council. 6. Finally, some people 'can't see what the final project would look like' or 'can't see what a Transit Oriented Development would look like.' Years ago, when the City was looking at transportation options and creating a TOD ordinance, there was a field trip to perform some on the ground research. Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and staff (GTAB was not in existence at the time) went and stayed at a TOD to see for themselves. We should have at least one field trip during this study. Since it has been about 8 years or so since that first and only field trip, it should be extremely informative to do it again and see what a TOD looks like today and how the project has performed over the years. Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved (6-1) (Hesser opposed) Project Ed Polasek, AICP Manager Engineer TBD Project Status Workplan Under Development Transportation Services Operations CIP Maintenance April 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, Steger Bizzell, Halff Assoc. Task Status / Issues 2nd Street (KPA) 2nd St. to College St. plans are complete. Advertising, bidding and Engineering construction will coincide with Parks and Recreation VFW Field reconstruction project in approximately June / July minimizing disruption to baseball season and to residents. 91h Street (KPA) (Patin Construction) Austin to Rock portion 98% completed. Electric (Main to Rock) conduit is in place. Patin Construction is currently working on the area from Austin Ave. to Main and will work until the 22nd of April at which time we have asked for them to de -mob from the site and make the area passable and usable, if they are not complete, for the Poppy fest. If additional work remains they will return after the weekend of 4-25. The work remaining in the project is projected to be complete in May. With the stop work request that was issued the contractor the contract time will run through mid -June. Chip Seal 2015 proposed to be bid April 1st and brought to April 101h GTAB with construction complete by August 301h. Fog Seal 2015 Fog sealing will be completed in-house. In-house engineering is being provided for specified streets. Engineering under way and fog sealing will be completed prior to mid -June or as temperature allow. Temperatures much above 80 degrees slows dry time. HIPR/overlay 2015 proposed HIPR Overlays Proposed to be bid on April 1st and brought to April 101h GTAB with construction complete by October 1st. Pavement KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year Evaluation (Complete) City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - EMS Contract Discussion Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Inner Peace Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - Interim City Manager Compensation ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined SUBMITTED BY: