HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 07.08.2014 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
JULY 8, 2014
The Georgetown City Council will meet on JULY 8, 2014 at 3:00 P.M. at the 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.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the Proposed Budgets for the City Attorney and
City Secretary for FY 2014-15 -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
B Update on 5 Year Business Plan and Priorities for the City of Excellence, including discussion and
possible direction to staff -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Paul E. Brandenburg, City
Manager
C Presentation on Sales Tax and Utility Revenues -- Paul Diaz, Utilities Financial Analyst, Chris Foster,
Manager of Resource Planning and Integration and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
D Joint Workshop with the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board regarding the Austin Avenue
Bridges -- Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities
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
- Ellison Employment Claim
- Discussion regarding Airport legal items, including an update on the Georgetown Jet Center
bankruptcy and other leases
Sec 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager Goals
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 _________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
July 8, 2014
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the Proposed Budgets for the City Attorney and City
Secretary for FY 2014-15 -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
City Council has requested that the City Attorney and City Secretary's proposed budgets for their
departments for FY 2014-15 be reviewed and discussed prior to the workshop discussions regarding the City
Manager's Proposed Budget for FY 2014-15 scheduled for July 14-15, 2014.
The City Attorney submitted 1 Service Level Request for the FY 2014-15 Budget:
The City Attorney requested an Assistant City Attorney as a Service Level Request for the FY 2014-
15 Budget. However, the City Council approved the hiring of this position in the current year.
The City Secretary submitted 4 Service Level Requests for the FY 2014-15 Budget:
Laserfiche Signature Pad Implementation $12,000 one-time expense
Laserfiche Management Services Document Scanning $ 5,000 ongoing expense
Laserfiche License Purchases $ 8,000 ongoing expense
Records Management Administrative Assistant $69,166/$64,316 one-time/ongoing
Currently the City Manager's Proposed Budget for FY 2014-15 includes all of the above requested Service
Level requests except for the Records Management Administrative Assistant for the City Secretary's Office.
In the alternative, the City Manager's Proposed Budget for FY 2014-15 includes an Office Specialist position
for Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS), which is to be dedicated to address the records management needs
for the entire GUS Division. So, even though the Records Management Administrative Assistant position for
the City Secretary's Office is not included in the City Manager's proposed Budget for FY 2014-15, a records
management position has been included in the proposed budget for the GUS Division.
Additionally, there were some base budget adjustments that have been included in the Proposed Budgets as
well:
City Secretary:
Increased the Base Budget for the City Council Food Allowance from $3,500 to $4,000 based on current
spending trends in this line item for meals that are provided to the City Council.
City Attorney:
Increased the Base Budget for the Legal Contingency from $70,000 to $100,000 to provide additional
funding for legal service items.
Increased Base Budget for the telephone from $2,000 to $2,600 to include funding for telephone
expenses for the new Assistant City Attorney.
Increased the Base Budget for Travel and Training from $5,000 to $6,000 to including funding for
travel and training expenses for the new Assistant City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Current Proposed Budgets for FY 2014-15 for the City Attorney and City Secretary.
2. Program and Service Level Requests from City Attorney and City Secretary for Proposed FY 14-15
Budget. Cover Memo
Item # A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Any adjustments the City Council recommends for the City Attorney and City Secretary Proposed Budgets
will be incorporated into the City Manager's Proposed Budget for FY 2014-15 for the City Council's
consideration.
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
City Secretary and City Attorney Budgets
Cover Memo
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # A
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
July 8, 2014
SUBJECT:
Update on 5 Year Business Plan and Priorities for the City of Excellence, including discussion and possible
direction to staff -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The workshop will include:
1. Background of City's business & financial planning process
2. Review of City of Excellence and 5 Focus Areas – Economic Development, Public Safety, Signature
Destination, Transportation, and Utilities
3. Review of 2013/14 accomplishments
4. Overview of 5 year financial outlook and assumptions
The 5-year financial plan has been developed as a PLANNING TOOL for the City in forecasting financial
capacity for the period ending 2019. The model includes programs and costs associated with meeting the
Council's goals and objectives in implementing the City of Excellence through the 5 focus areas identified by
Council at its September 2012 visioning session. Revenues are projected as conservative but attainable.
Uncertain new revenue sources are not included. The purpose of this tool is to identify the funding gap for
Georgetown becoming the “City of Excellence” by 2019. It is not intended to “balance” those out years.
The City's 2014/15 Annual Budget is related to this Plan, yet independent of this process. The Budget is
appropriating and managing a single year's programs and financial costs, whereas, the Business Plan is an
outcome based planning tool. The 2014/15 Budget is the new base line of the Plan and is considered
“balanced” within the model. The Plan assumes an “all in” approach as an outcome with the target being
implementation of the City of Excellence goals and the 2030 Plan.
Staff has developed an extensive financial model that is the basis for this financial portion of the business
plan. This presentation will be an overview of the results of the Plan and provide a framework of
opportunities that are available to help in managing the financial outcomes.
This planning tool lays the groundwork for identifying strategies and policy decisions that will mitigate the
funding gap between current revenues and what is needed to achieve the City of Excellence at the lowest
possible cost (tax rate).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Becky Huff
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
July 8, 2014
SUBJECT:
Presentation on Sales Tax and Utility Revenues -- Paul Diaz, Utilities Financial Analyst, Chris Foster,
Manager of Resource Planning and Integration and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
Sales Taxes will be shown by their economic categories, and in aggregate to update Council on the state of
their local economy. Utility revenues are on track, without much change expected for FY15.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact is expected.
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Diaz - Utilities Financial Analyst
ATTACHMENTS:
Sales Tax/Utility Revenue Update
Cover Memo
Item # C
Sales Tax Analysis
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 21
Item # C
Sales Tax Background
City of Georgetown
Row Labels Actual
FY 08 13,963,313
FY 09 13,100,865
FY 10 14,025,782
FY 11 15,553,557
FY 12 16,555,003
FY 13 18,645,312
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 21
Item # C
Sales Tax Background
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 21
Item # C
Current Year Performance
•Through 6 months,
sales tax revenue is
up 9.8% relative to
last year.
•Based on correlation
and regression
modeling, it is
expected the City will
end the fiscal year
with $20.3 M in total
sales tax revenue.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 21
Item # C
Historical Distribution
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 21
Item # C
Retail Sector (47% of Total)
City of Georgetown
•Retail is up 4.86% YTD.
•Three main subsectors make up roughly
2/3 of the sector.
–Building Materials (25.88%)
–General Merchandise (21.01%)
–Other Retail (16.82%)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 21
Item # C
Retail Sector: Building Materials
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 21
Item # C
Retail Sector: Other Subsector
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 21
Item # C
Retail Sector: Gen. Merchandise
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 21
Item # C
Retail Sector (47% of Total)
•Growth in the
Building
Material and
Other
subsectors.
•Stagnation in
the General
Merchandise
subsector.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 21
Item # C
Food Sector (11% of Total)
•Sector up
6.61% YTD.
•FY15
Projection:
Continued
growth but at
a slower
pace.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 21
Item # C
Information Sector (8% of Total)
•Year to date,
the sector is
up 14.48%.
•The FY15
projection still
expects
growth but at
a less hyper
state.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 21
Item # C
Wolf Ranch
•Year to date,
Wolf Ranch is
up 3.64%.
•Wolf Ranch
accounts for
13.2% of all
sales tax
revenue.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 21
Item # C
FY14 Year to Date
City of Georgetown
2013 2014
Row Labels Difference Pecentage Change
Retail Trade 4,547,602 4,768,614 221,012 4.86%
Food Services 939,864 1,001,997 62,133 6.61%
Manufacturing 850,918 907,651 56,734 6.67%
Information 648,936 742,924 93,988 14.48%
Real Estate Rental and Leasing 157,779 421,853 264,074 167.37%
City 355,385 415,037 59,651 16.78%
Wholesale Trade 340,172 358,087 17,915 5.27%
Other Services 208,012 250,218 42,206 20.29%
Utilities 134,459 220,763 86,303 64.19%
Professional Services 163,769 184,090 20,322 12.41%
Construction 138,667 156,839 18,171 13.10%
Administrative and Support 131,040 150,341 19,300 14.73%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 144,060 143,465 (595) -0.41%
127,402 81,239 (46,164) -36.23%
Finance and Insurance 20,795 47,933 27,138 130.50%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 20,800 31,541 10,741 51.64%
Mining 26,453 30,022 3,570 13.49%
Transportation and Warehousing 25,578 25,107 (471) -1.84%
Public Administration 10,788 16,115 5,327 49.38%
Educational Services 4,169 4,096 (73) -1.76%
Health Care and Social Assistance 3,340 2,249 (1,091) -32.67%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 480 814 334 69.56%
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 21
Item # C
FY15 Forecast
•Retail: 3-4% growth due to stagnation of General
Merchandise and possible slowing of Building
Material.
•Continued strong growth in the Food and
Information sectors (4-6% growth).
•Budget low growth on volatile sectors like
Manufacturing and Real Estate.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 21
Item # C
FY15 Forecast
•FY15 projection model shows 5% growth
relative to the assumed FY14 collection.
•FY15 Sales Tax Budget: $ 21,336,000.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 21
Item # C
Utility Revenues
•Electric Transfers
–$0.002947/kWh transfer for Franchise Fees
–$0.007253/kWh ROI transfer
•Water Services (WTR, WW, IRR)
•Stormwater
–3% of Gross Revenues for Franchise Fees
–7% of Gross Revenues for ROI
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 21
Item # C
Stormwater
•$5.25 fee per house, or per 2,808 sq. ft. of commercial
property.
•Projected $170,742 in ROI
•No Variance to Budget
City of Georgetown
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
FY11FY12FY13 Thru
May
14
Proj
14
Proj
15
Fee Rev
Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 21
Item # C
WasteWater and Irrigation
Projected $616,692 in ROI
No Variance to Budget
$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$7,000,000$8,000,000$9,000,000$10,000,000
WW Rev
Projected $12,250 in ROI
No Variance to Budget
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
IRR Rev
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 21
Item # C
Water
•Projected to Finish at
$1,083,013 in ROI
•$7,843 variance to budget
City of Georgetown
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
FY11 FY12 FY13 Thru
May
14
Proj
FY14
Proj
FY15
WTR Rev *NOAA at
the Lake
Rainfall
Total in
inches
*FY11 7.76”
*FY12 35.86”
*FY13 22.1”
*Thru May
14
23.14”
*Expected
FY14
--
D1-
Moderate
Drought at
end of May
*CTSUD Could shift rev and exp by $6-7 million
Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 21
Item # C
Electric
•Projected to Finish at $4,177,673 in ROI
•($86,662) variance to budget, about 2%
less kWhs sold. Still in the margin.
City of Georgetown
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000
FY11 FY12 FY13 Thru
May 14
Proj
FY14
Proj
FY15
kWh sold
Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 21
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
July 8, 2014
SUBJECT:
Joint Workshop with the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board regarding the Austin Avenue Bridges -
- Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown accepted maintenance responsibilities for Austin Avenue from Leander Road to
Williams Drive in 2006, with full transfer being completed from TxDOT in 2008. As part of the routine
maintenance last summer some paving issues arose on Austin Avenue. The City employed Aguire & Fields
to inspect the bridges when we were looking at our maintenance options for Austin Avenue following the
resurfacing issues. They discovered some issues with the joints on the surface and began investigating
TxDOT's off-system bridge inspection reports related to the bridges. By early May, we have discovered
several deficiencies in the bridges that coincided with TxDOT's lowering of the weight restrictions on the
bridges. Aquire & Fields have completed an investigation into the City's options to improve the structural
capacity of the bridges, while addressing issues such as maintaining traffic flow, addressing capacity issues
and providing improved pedestrian facilities called for in the Downtown Master Plan.
Aquire & Fields will present the findings from their report at the Workshop.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Initial review and inspection is being paid from Streets Maintenance accounts. Future work will be funded
from the Arterial Reserve in Streets Maintenance. Construction cost are not yet set and funding has not been
identified.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Assessment part 1
Assessment part 2
Cover Memo
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown, TX
June 5, 2014
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
2
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
1.0 Purpose of Bridge Assessment
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the condition of the Austin Avenue
Bridge over the North San Gabriel River and the Austin Avenue Bridge over the
South San Gabriel River (see figure 1). Bridges will be referred to as North and
South bridges. North Bridge bents are numbered from south to north and South
Bridge bents are numbered from north to south. Options for repairs, cost
estimates and lifecycle costs are presented following the condition assessment.
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
South Austin Ave Bridge
North Austin Ave Bridge
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
3
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
2.0 Existing Bridge Description
The bridge information presented in this report is based on our field observations
and review of the latest BRINSAP inspection report and related information dated
January 2014.
The North and South bridges are seven-span steel beam structures 367 feet long
(see photos 1 and 2), designed in 1938. The identical bridges have four 40’ long
simply supported spans and three continuous spans (60’-85’-60’) with a
suspended section in the middle span. The abutments and interior bents are
supported on spread footings bearing on hard rock. The bridges were
constructed in 1940 and designed for four 15-ton trucks per AASHTO 1935
Specifications. Both bridges have an overall width of 53’-6”. Each structure
carries four lanes of traffic on a 43’-6” clear roadway width (see figure 2).
Sidewalks on both sides have a clear width of approxima tely 4 feet. The
superstructure consists of a 7-inch thick reinforced concrete deck and nine steel
I-beams. The concrete deck, as originally designed and constructed, is not
connected to the steel beams to provide composite action. The bridges have
been overlaid with approximately 2 inches of asphalt.
Both bridges have recently been load posted with a gross weight limit of 48,000
pounds and a tandem axle weight limit of 21 ,000 pounds. The need for load
posting was triggered by the corrosion in the beams o bserved by the BRINSAP
inspector. The superstructure condition rating was lowered from a “6”, meaning
satisfactory condition, to a “5.” The lower condition rating means that the bridge
superstructure elements are in fair condition with minor deterioration occurring
extensively. Although the lower condition rating requires that the bridge be load
posted because the controlling inventory rating is less than HS20, the load
capacity is actually calculated with no reduction in the steel section from
corrosion. We agree with this assessment as explained in the description of the
superstructure condition.
Figure 2 – Bridge Typical Section
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
4
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 1 – North Bridge
Photo 2 – South Bridge
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
5
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 3 – Typical Superstructure
Photo 4 – Typical Pier
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
6
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 5 – Typical Bent
3.0 Deck and Superstructure Condition
The deck expansion joints at abutments and interior bents are not adequately
sealed allowing infiltration of water onto the diaphragms, beams, and bearings.
There is also water infiltration at third points of spans where existing vertical steel
plates (screed plates) at construction joints have likely rusted and developed
voids allowing water to reach the top flanges of steel diaphragms (see figure 3).
The exposure to water has caused corrosion of steel diaphragms, beams and
bearing shoes.
Rust buildup on top of the beam flanges and diaphragms is prevalent below
expansion joints and construction joints. Construction joints are present at third
points of every span. The rust buildup on the top of the beam flanges at these
joints has caused separation between the bottom of the deck and the top of the
flanges. The flange edge rust has caused cracking and spalls in concrete
haunches. There are several locations where the haunch is delaminated and
about to spall. The corrosion appears to be worse at the exterior beams where
the sidewalk joints are not sealed. Where accessible, we measured the flange
thickness and found minimal section loss from corrosion. However, the space
between concrete haunch and steel top flange measured up to 3/16 inch
indicating that corrosion may be more severe in the middle of the flanges (see
photos 6 to 10). The corrosion at construction joints is of concern since these
are locations of higher flexural stress (see photos 11 and 12).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
7
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Bearings are composed of an upper-cast steel bearing element, a lead sheet in
between, and lower cast steel bearing element with both plates curved to allow
rotation. The lead sheets designed to avoid “freezing” of bearings are partially
torn or missing at several bearings (see photos 13 and 14). Bent 7 on the South
Bridge has moderate spalling caused by a frozen bearing (see photo 15).
The asphalt overlay is worn and cracking near expansion joint headers (see
photo 16). The joint headers also have cracks and one header on the South
Bridge is missing a section that has been patched with asphalt (See Attachment
C for photos of expansion joints).
Sidewalks have cover plates spanning the expansion joints (see photo 17).
These cover plates appear to have been repaired a few times due to shear or
pop-out failure of the anchor bolts. This is caused by a non-preferred detail of
attaching the cover plate to both sides of the expansion joint. Current TxDOT
sidewalk cover plate standard shows plate connected on one side (see figure 4).
Figure 3 – Sections at Expansion and Construction Joints
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
8
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 6 – North Bridge SE Corner Spalled Concrete Haunch at Top Flange
Photo 7 – South Bridge at Bent 7 Spalled Concrete Haunch
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
9
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 8 – Pack Rust between Concrete Haunch and Top Beam Flange
Photo 9 – Heavy Rust in Diaphragm Top Flange
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
10
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 10 – Heavy Rust in Diaphragm to Beam Connection
Photo 11 – Water Stains at Construction Joint
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
11
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 12 – Corrosion and Spall at Expansion Joint
Photo 13 – South Bridge at Bent 7 Bearings with Torn Lead Sheets
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
12
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 14 – South Bridge at Bent 7 Frozen Expansion Bearing
Photo 15 – South Bridge Bent 7 Moderate Spall at Frozen Bearing
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
13
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 16 – Spalled Header with Asphalt Patch and Worn Asphalt
Photo 17 – Expansion Joint Cover Plate Connected on Both Sides
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
14
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Figure 4 – TxDOT Standard with Sidewalk Plate Connected on One Side
4.0 Substructure Condition
The substructures are generally in satisfactory condition. However, as the steel
expansion bearings continue to corrode and freeze the top of caps may develop
additional cracks and spalls. Some abutments and bents have cracks related to
expansion bearing issues (see photos 15, 18 and 19).
The top of abutment caps and bent caps receive significant flow of water during
rain events (see photos 20 to 24). The debris accumulated on top bent caps trap
moisture that can cause corrosion of reinforcing. Because of the age of the
structures, the concrete likely has advanced carbonation. Carbonation causes a
drop in the ph of concrete and the passive layer that usually covers and protects
the reinforcing steel from corrosion becomes unstable. The depth of carbonation
can be measured to determine if the reinforcing is susceptible to accelerated
corrosion.
The main pier spread footing foundations are exposed up to 20 inches (see
photos 23 and 24). However, the footings are bearing on hard rock that is not
susceptible to scour. There is minor erosion at the South San Gabriel southwest
corner abutment riprap has developed a void between the riprap and
embankment (see photo 25).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
15
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 18 – Crack Due to Frozen Expansion Bearing
Photo 19 – Crack Due to Frozen Expansion Bearing
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
16
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 20 – Typical North Bridge Asphalt Staining from Flow of Water
Photo 21 – South Bridge South Abutment Cap after Rain Event (1)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
17
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 22 – North Bridge Foliage and Asphalt Staining from Flow of Water
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
18
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 23 – South Bridge South Abutment Cap after Rain Event (2)
Photo 24 – South Bridge Bent 7 after Rain Event
Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
19
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 25 – Pier 3 Footing Exposure
Photo 26 – South Bridge Pier 3 Footing Exposed from Scour
Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
20
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Photo 27 – Minor Erosion at SW Corner of South Bridge Riprap
5.0 Summary of Bridge Condition
The approximately 74-year-old structures are in fair condition. However, the
corrosion present in the top beam flanges that is hidden from view may continue
to reduce the flange section and affect the flexural capacity of the beams. The
bridges may remain in service for loads at the current posted levels. However,
as more problems related to corrosion of the beams and bearings develop, it is
possible that the in future a BRINSAP inspector will further reduce the beam
capacity for load rating calculations resulting in a lower load posting.
6.0 Bridge Options
The following options are considered for the present cost and life-cycle analysis
of the two bridges:
1. Do nothing
2. Short-term repairs
3. Deck and bearing replacement
4. Total replacement with phased construction
Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
21
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
6.1 Do Nothing
The existing bridges are near their end of service life. With continued use at
the current load posted levels, it is probable that the bridges can remain in
service as-is for a limited duration of time. For the cost and life-cycle analysis,
it is assumed that bridge replacement will be required in five years if no repairs
are made.
The “Do Nothing” option will require continued maintenance and short-term
repairs of the bridges.
6.2 Short Term Repairs
The goal of short term repairs is to extend the life of the bridges as much as
possible while safely carrying vehicles within the load posted limit. The repairs
for this option include replacing the existing header expansion joints, sealing
construction joints and painting the steel. See Attachment B for existing
expansion joint condition photos. For the life-cycle analysis, the assumed
remaining life of the bridges if repairs these are made is ten years. This option
does not change the load posting. This option also does not affect the historic
value of the bridges.
Short term repairs will require approximately two months of phased
construction and traffic control with a reduction to two lanes of traffic (one in
each direction).
6.3 Deck and Bearing replacement
The goal of deck and bearing replacement is to extend the life of the structures
and strengthen the superstructure to eliminate the load posting. The repairs
for this option include:
removing and replacing the bridge deck, sidewalks and bridge rails,
replacing bridge bearings, and
painting the steel beams and diaphragms.
The capacity of the beams may be increased by welding shear studs to the top
flange to make the deck composite with the beams. The deck can be replaced
in phases to allow two lanes of traffic on the bridge during construction. This
option also may allow for a 2-foot widening of the bridge deck to allow for
slightly wider sidewalks. For the life-cycle cost analysis, the assumed
remaining life of the bridges is twenty years. The historical value of the
bridges will be affected.
Deck and bearing replacement will require approximately 4-6 months of
phased construction and traffic control with a reduction to two lanes of traffic.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
22
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
6.4 Total Replacement with Phased Construction
An overall bridge width of 67’-7” will be necessary to maintain two lanes of
traffic during phased construction. This allows for a 12-foot sidewalk width on
the side constructed in the first phase and a six-foot sidewalk width the other
side (see figure 5). The most economical girder to span at least 85-feet (the
current maximum span) is a Type Tx40 Girder. This girder is slightly deeper
than the existing beams; thus, its adequacy would have to be verified relative
to hydraulic requirements. An estimated life of 75 years is assumed for the
new structures. This option affects the historic value of the bridges.
Total replacement of both bridges will require approximately 12 -18 months of
phased construction and traffic control with a reduction to two lanes of traffic.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
23
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
Figure 5 – Phased Bridge Replacement Option
Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
24
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
7.0 Present Cost Analysis and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
7.1 Present Cost Analysis
For the purpose of budget programming, the present design and construction
cost summary for the four (4) options noted in section 6 follow. Note that option
4 (bridge replacement) includes costs for aesthetic replacement structures as
opposed to standard TxDOT-style bridge replacements. The values below are
total “hard” costs for both Austin Avenue Bridges. (Other consideration of “soft”
costs are noted in section 6.)
Year
Do Nothing
(Option 1)
Short-Term
(Option 2)
Replace Deck
(Option 3)
Replace
(Option 4)
0 $ 20,000 $ 640,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 6,100,000
5 $ 6,100,000 $ 60,000 $ 20,000 $ -
10 $ - $ 6,100,000 $ 40,000 $ -
20 $ - $ - $ 6,100,000 $ -
For the present cost summary, the following assumptions per option are:
Option 1
5 year service life remaining
~$20,000 in design and repair costs in the next 5 years
Option 2
10 years of service life remaining
~$60,000 in design and repair costs in the next 10 years
Option 3
20 years of service life remaining
$60,000 in repair costs in the next 20 years
New bridge deck width 2 feet wider than existing deck
TxDOT C223 rails
Option 4
Enhanced “TxDOT-style” bridge replacement with aesthetic treatments
such as custom façades, rails, deck/sidewalk/surface finishes, etc.
New bridge deck width equal to 67’-7”
7.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
In addition, a life-cycle cost analysis is included in Attachment A. Life-cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) is an economic method of project evaluation in which all costs
arising from owning, operating, maintaining and ultimately disposing of a project
Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
25
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
are considered to be important to a capital investment decision. LCCA allows for
option comparison in present value costs and considers the time-value of
money.
The LCCA summary of costs in Attachment A for the four (4) options are total
“hard” costs for both Austin Avenue Bridges. (Other consideration of “soft” costs
are noted in section 6.)
LCCA Assumptions:
Analyses are provided with 1% and 4% discount rates (4% may be
considered an “industry standard” for LCCA calculations;” 1% is also
considered for programming purposes where time-value of money may
not be realized)
75 year estimated service life for new bridges
For life of structure definitions, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications
provides these definitions:
Service Life – “The period of time that the bridge is expected to be in
operation.”
Design Life – “The period of time on which the statistical derivation of
transient loads is based: 75 years for these Specifications.”
Prior to the more current AASHTO Specifications, the design life of a structure
was 50 years. AASHTO does not recommend any duration of time for service
life as it is based on many environmental, design, materials , and construction
factors along with the level of maintenance performed. In general, the service life
of a bridge should be equal to or greater than the design life because of
maintenance and repairs that can be done. The service life of a bridge ends
when it is no longer possible to replace or retrofit one or more of its
elements/components economically or because of other considerations. In this
region, the industry has generally used a service life of 70-75 years based on a
50-year design life. It is reasonable to conclude that a 100-year service life may
be achieved with the AASHTO LRFD 75 -year design life as further
advancements are made in maintenance and retrofitting technology.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
26
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
8.0 Recommendations
At this time, we recommended consideration of the following in selection of
bridge option 1 through 4:
Cost considerations:
o Present value design/construction costs
o Life-cycle cost analysis
Considerations during Construction:
o Required traffic control
o Duration of construction
o Duration of load posting remaining in effect
o Local access
Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 26
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
ATTACHMENT A
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 16
Item # D
FUTURE VALUES AS PRESENT VALUES
(DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION)
Austin Avenue Bridges
Georgetown, Texas
Year
Do Nothing
(Option 1)
Short-Term
(Option 2)
Replace Deck
(Option 3)
Replace
(Option 4)
0 20,000$ 640,000$ 2,600,000$ 6,100,000$
5 6,100,000$ 60,000$ 20,000$ -$
10 -$ 6,100,000$ 40,000$ -$
20 -$ -$ 6,100,000$ -$
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 16
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridges
Georgetown, Texas
Discount Rate
4.0%
Year
Do Nothing
(Option 1)
Short-Term
(Option 2)
Replace Deck
(Option 3)
Replace
(Option 4) Discount Factor
Do Nothing
(Option 1)
Short Term
(Option 2)
Medium Term
(Option 3)
Replace
(Option 4)
0 15,000.00$ 567,000.00$ 2,267,000.00$ 5,250,000.00$ 1.000 $15,000 $567,000 $2,267,000 $5,250,000
5 5,250,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 15,000.00$ -$ 0.822 $4,315,117 $41,096 $12,329 $0
10 -$ 5,250,000.00$ 30,000.00$ -$ 0.676 $0 $3,546,712 $20,267 $0
20 -$ -$ 5,250,000.00$ -$ 0.456 $0 $0 $2,396,031 $0
25 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.375 $0 $0 $0 $0
35 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.253 $0 $0 $0 $0
40 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.208 $0 $0 $0 $0
50 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.141 $0 $0 $0 $0
60 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.095 $0 $0 $0 $0
70 (350,000.00)$ (700,000.00)$ (1,400,000.00)$ -$ 0.064 ($22,477) ($44,954) ($89,907) $0
Total Cost (PV):$4,308,000 $4,110,000 $4,606,000 $5,250,000
Replacement Cost: 5,250,000.00$
Estimated Bridge Life: 75
*Salvage Value Option 1: (350,000.00)$
*Salvage Value Option 2: (700,000.00)$
*Salvage Value Option 3: (1,400,000.00)$
*Salvage Value based on Straight Line Analysis for the life of the structure.
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS (CONSTRUCTION)
Discounted Costs
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 16
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridges
Georgetown, Texas
Discount Rate
1.0%
Year
Do Nothing
(Option 1)
Short-Term
(Option 2)
Replace Deck
(Option 3)
Replace
(Option 4) Discount Factor
Do Nothing
(Option 1)
Short Term
(Option 2)
Medium Term
(Option 3)
Replace
(Option 4)
0 15,000.00$ 567,000.00$ 2,267,000.00$ 5,250,000.00$ 1.000 $15,000 $567,000 $2,267,000 $5,250,000
5 5,250,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 15,000.00$ -$ 0.951 $4,995,195 $47,573 $14,272 $0
10 -$ 5,250,000.00$ 30,000.00$ -$ 0.905 $0 $4,752,757 $27,159 $0
20 -$ -$ 5,250,000.00$ -$ 0.820 $0 $0 $4,302,608 $0
25 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.780 $0 $0 $0 $0
35 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.706 $0 $0 $0 $0
40 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.672 $0 $0 $0 $0
50 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.608 $0 $0 $0 $0
60 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.550 $0 $0 $0 $0
70 (350,000.00)$ (700,000.00)$ (1,400,000.00)$ -$ 0.498 ($174,410) ($348,820) ($697,641) $0
Total Cost (PV):$4,836,000 $5,019,000 $5,913,000 $5,250,000
Replacement Cost: 5,250,000.00$
Estimated Bridge Life: 75
*Salvage Value Option 1: (350,000.00)$
*Salvage Value Option 2: (700,000.00)$
*Salvage Value Option 3: (1,400,000.00)$
*Salvage Value based on Straight Line Analysis for the life of the structure.
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS (CONSTRUCTION)
Discounted Costs
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 16
Item # D
Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Cost
REMOVE HEADER EXPANSION JOINTS LF 288 30 $8,640
HEADER TYPE EXPANSION JOINT LF 288 130 $37,440
SAWCUT AND SEAL CONSTR JOINTS LF 832 70 $58,240
CLEAN AND PAINT STEEL BEAMS LS 1 120000 $120,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL MO 2 6000 $12,000
SUBTOTAL $236,320
CONTINGENCY (20%) $47,264
Total Cost (For Two Bridges) $567,000
Option 2 Estimate (Construction)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 16
Item # D
Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Cost
REINF CONC SLAB (HPC)(CL S) SF 20368 16 $325,888
CL S CONC (BRIDGE SIDEWALK) CY 122 400 $48,800
RAIL (TY C223)(HPC) LF 734 94 $68,996
SHEAR CONNECTORS LB 60000 3.5 $210,000
CLEAN AND PAINT STEEL BEAMS LS 1 120000 $120,000
REPLACE BEARINGS EA 90 850 $76,500
SEALED EXPANSION JOINT (4 IN) (SEJ-A) LF 304 100 $30,400
TRAFFIC CONTROL MO 4 6000 $24,000
REMOVE EXISTING DECK LS 1 40000 $40,000
SUBTOTAL $944,584
CONTINGENCY (20%) $188,917
Total Cost (For Two Bridges) $2,267,000
Option 3 Estimate (Construction)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 16
Item # D
Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Cost
APPROACH SLABS CY 110 350 $38,500
DRILLED SHAFT (36 IN) LF 640 350 $224,000
CL C CONC (ABUT)(HPC) CY 82 1000 $82,000
CL C CONC (BENT)(HPC) CY 165 1200 $198,000
CL S CONC (BRIDGE SIDEWALK) CY 399 400 $159,600
REINF CONC SLAB (HPC)(CL S) SF 24802 16 $396,832
PRESTR CONC GIRDER (Tx40) LF 3660 135 $494,100
RIP RAP (CONC) (5 IN) CY 100 360 $36,000
RAIL (TY C223)(HPC) LF 734 94 $68,996
SEALED EXPANSION JOINT (4 IN) (SEJ-A) LF 344 91 $31,304
REMOV STR (BRIDGE 100 - 499 FT LENGTH) EA 1 60000 $60,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL MO 12 6000 $72,000
SUBTOTAL $1,822,832
AESTHETIC TREATMENTS/ELEMENTS (20%) $364,566
CONTINGENCY (20% of total+aesthetic) $437,480
Total Cost (For Two Bridges) $5,250,000
Option 4 Estimate (Construction)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 16
Item # D
Austin Avenue Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS
ATTACHMENT B
EXPANSION JOINT PHOTOS
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A1 – North Bridge Abutment 1 Joint Photo A2 – North Bridge Bent 2 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A3 – North Bridge Bent 3 Joint Photo A4 – North Bridge Bent 4 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A5 – North Bridge Bent 5 Joint Photo A6 – North Bridge Bent 6 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A7 – North Bridge Bent 7 Joint Photo A8 – North Bridge Abutment 8 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A9 – South Bridge Abutment 1 Joint Photo A10 – South Bridge Bent 2 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A11 – South Bridge Bent 3 Joint Photo A12 – South Bridge Bent 4 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A13 – South Bridge Bent 5 Joint Photo A14 – South Bridge Bent 6 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 16
Item # D
Austin Ave Bridge Assessment
City of Georgetown
AGUIRRE & FIELDS ATTACHMENT C
Photo A15 – North Bridge Bent 7 Joint Photo A16 – South Bridge Abutment 8 Joint
Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 16
Item # D
City of Georgetown, Texas
July 8, 2014
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
- Ellison Employment Claim
- Discussion regarding Airport legal items, including an update on the Georgetown Jet Center bankruptcy
and other leases
Sec 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager Goals
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # E