HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.24.2004Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
- Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 at 06:00:00 PM at the City Council
Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Streets, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the Mayor,
Councilmembers, and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Saturday preceding the council
meeting. The library's copy is available for public review.
Please Note: This City Council Meeting will be video taped live and made available for broadcast
by the local cable company.
Regular Session to convene and continue Executive Session, if necessary
A Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
- Pending Litigation
- Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters
B Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property
- Discussion and possible action regarding acquisition of property for downtown parking and city facilities
C Sec.551.087 Economic Development
- Discussion and possible action regarding economic development incentives for a mixed use project at the intersection
of Austin Ave. and 2nd St.
Special Appreciation Reception for outgoing members of Boards and
Commissions at 5:00 p.m. in Lobby of Council Chamber/Court Building
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 P.M.
(The City Council for the City of Georgetown reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at any time during
the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed below, as authorized by Texas Government Code
Sections 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney), 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property), 551.073 (Deliberations
about Gifts and Donations), 551.074 (Personnel Matters), 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices) and
551.086 (Economic Development).
D Call to Order
E Pledge of Allegiance
F Comments from the dais regarding the following items:
- Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments -- Mayor Gary Nelon
Recognition of the outgoing members of the City Council -appointed Boards and Commissions.
G Announcements and Comments from City Manager
H Public Wishing to Address Council
- Todd Mentz regarding a letter he received from the City concerning wastewater service to his
property-
- Randall Deavers regarding Sedro Trail related to the issues of water service, connectivity, and
signalization.
City Council Agenda/February 24, 2004
Page 1 of 4 Pages
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
I Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop on Monday, February
9, and the Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, February 10 -- Shirley Rinn, Deputy City Secretary
J Consideration and possible action to accept the report of the independent audit of all accounts of the City
and the report to management for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 — Laurie Brewer, Comptroller
and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
K Consideration and possible action to accept of the City's Quarterly Financial Report which includes the
Investment Report for both the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC) for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 -- Laurie Brewer, Comptroller and Micki
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
L Consideration and possible action regarding approval of the payment to Williamson County for the City's
portion of the annual maintenance and operation of the 800 Mhz radio system for fiscal year 03/04 in the
amount of $32,739.18 -- Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance &
Administration
M Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to the contract between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker and Kasberg, L.L.P. for engineering services related to street
rehabilitation projects in the amount of $28,500.00 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and
Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
N Consideration and possible action regarding to approve the purchase of a brush chipper from Vermeer
Equipment of Texas through the Texas Local Government Cooperative contract in the amount of
$27,060.00 --Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
0 Consideration and possible action to approve an award of bid for a cab and chassis with chipper body
to Philpott Motors in the amount of $39,962.00 -- Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki Rundell,
Director of Finance and Administration
P Consideration of a resolution granting a petition and setting public hearing dates for the annexation into
the City for 3.11 acres, more or less, in the Joseph P. Pulsifer Survey, located at the 1310 Country Club
Road -- Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director Planning and
Development Services
Q Consideration of a resolution granting a petition and setting public hearing dates for the annexation into
the City for 9.01 acres, more of less, in the John Powell Survey, which are Lots 1 and 2, Kelley Trust
Phase 4-A— Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director Planning and
Development Services
R Consideration of a resolution granting a petition and setting public hearing dates for the annexation into
the City for 30.42 acres, more or less, in the Burrell Eaves Survey, north of Texas Drive, for Sun City
Neighborhoods 248-2 and 60 — Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director
Planning and Development Services
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
S Consideration and possible action to include a Teen Center as a part of the November 2004 bond election
for City Facilities -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
T Second Readings
City Council Agenda/February 24, 2004
Page 2 of 4 Pages
Second Reading of an ordinance amending Section 4.16.010 of the City of Georgetown Code of
Ordinances relating to the amount of the residence homestead tax exemption for persons age
65 or older; adopting a new Section 4.16.060 relating to establishment of a residence homestead
tax exemption for disabled persons; and adopting a new Section 4.16.070 establishing a sunset
provision -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration, Patricia E. Cads, City Attorney;
and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
2. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 4.09 of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) pertaining to the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District- Carla Benton,
Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director, Planning and Development Services
3. Second Reading of an ordinance designating a continuous geographic area within the City of
Georgetown, generally described as Tract One (1) of Georgetown Industrial Park Southwest
Phase, Section One, as a Reinvestment Zone for property tax abatement purposes pursuant to
Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code — Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
U Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute a tax abatement agreement for
TASUS Corporation, Inc. -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration and Paul E. Brandenburg,
City Manager
V Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to executive an Infrastructure and Utility
Agreement, between the City of Georgetown and TASUS Corporation, Inc. -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
W First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, establishing a
cemetery use for a 20.49 acre site in the Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 556, located in the City's
Extra-territodal Jurisdiction (ETJ) at 330 Berry Lane in compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 667
(78th leg. sess. 2003) -- Bobby Ray, Chief Current Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning
and Development Services
X Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution supporting the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Clean Air Action Plan for the Austin/Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area and the
implementation of the ozone pollution control measures in that plan that should result in local attainment of
the 8 -hour ozone NAAQS by 2007 — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
Y Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 9.01 acres in the John Powell Survey,
to be known as Kelley Trust, Phase Four -A, located on the east side of Kelley Drive -- Carla Benton,
Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
Z Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for McDaniel Park Lot 2, 10.67 acres, to
establish and collocate an additional antenna on an existing tower at the Cox Communications Facility,
located at 111 North College Street -- Melissa McCallum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
AA Consideration of an Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County concerning construction of the
Georgetown Innerloop NE from County Road 151 to Business 35 (Austin Avenue) at the Lakeway
intersection -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for
Utility Operations
BB Items Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility System (GUS) Advisory Board
1. Consideration and possible recommendation for approval of a contract amendment to the
existing Professional Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser,
and McKee, Inc. to provide engineering services related to the design of the Lake Water
Treatment Plant De -watering Facility for a total of $253,974.00 — Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
2. Consideration and possible recommendation for approval of a contract amendment to the
exisiting Professional Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser,
and McKee, Inc. to provide engineering services related to the design of the Dove Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion for a total of $527,000.00 -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
City Council Agenda/February 24, 2004
Page 3 of 4 Pages
3. Consideration and recommendation to award a contract to Corrosion Eliminator, Inc. of Mineral
Wells, Texas and to establish a project budget of $100,000.00 for the rehabilitation of the Berry
Creek Ground Storage Tank -- Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager and Jim Briggs,
Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
4. Consideration and possible recommendation to award contracts to H. Deck Construction and
Horseshoe Construction, Inc. and to approve the budget for the Phase I EARZ Rehabilitation
Project and Phase I EARZ Pipe Bursting Projects in the amount of $1,235,000.00 — Glenn
Dishong, Water Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
5. Consideration and possible recommendation to award the bid, from Viking Construction, for street
microsurfacing in the amount of $264,400.24 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager
and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
CC Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of five representatives to a Council
Compensation Committee to review and determine the amount of monthly compensation provided to the
Mayor and Councilmembers -- Mayor Gary Nelon
Certificate of Posting'
I, Sandra Lee, 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 , 2004, at , and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
City Council Agenda/February 24, 2004
Page 4 of 4 Pages
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. /'
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to
the contract between the City of Georgetown and Roming, Parker and
Kasberg, L.L.P. for engineering services related to street
rehabilitation projects in the amount of $28,500.00.
ITEM SUMMARY
Professional engineering services for this project will
provide design and schematics, bidding of the project and
construction administration and will assure quality and consistency
throughout the project.
This project consists of combining several road projects that
are similar in nature. Construction will consist of replacing
aging curbs, repairing failed sections and resurfacing the
roadways. Combining these projects usually provides better prices
or bids.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$28,500.00 total to come
$4,000.00 from account
$12,250.00 from account
$12,500.00 from account
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
from the following accounts.
# 100 -134 -5801 -CR
# 203-101-6012-00 Gabriel View
# 110-101-6010 Northwest Blvd..
1.Engineering proposal
2.maps showing project area
3.Agenda IteT,-4E�ieck list
tied By.
Jim B ggs
Assis City
of Utilities
Mark Miller
Manager of Transportation
Services
C
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773-6667 mail®rpkengineers.com
WM. MACK PARKER, P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG, P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E.
February 9, 2004
Mr. Jim Briggs
Assistant City Manager
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Re: City of Georgetown
Proposal for The 2004 Street Rehabilitation Projects
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Briggs:
W. CLAY ROMING, P.E.
Partner Emeritus
This letter proposal is in response to your request for basic and special engineering services required
to provide construction drawings for street improvements for:
The 2004 Street Rehabilitation Projects
The charges for this work are shown on Attachment "A" of this letter. We have priced the work
according to the facts that we know about the project as of this date. Lump Sum charges are shown
and will not change unless the scope of work is expanded, at which time we will meet with you and
plan accordingly. The following are tasks that we have included in the work schedule:
DESIGN PHASE. The basic services for the final design phase includes:
1. Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent
of the project based on the survey data.
2. Preparing and furnishing to the CITY a revised opinion of probable costs based on the
final drawings and specifications.
'Mr. Jim Briggs
February 9, 2004
Page Two
3. Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits
from local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not
include detailed applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or
planning grants that would be furnished as additional services. Fees for any local,
state or federal construction permit applications are not included as part of the
professional fee charges. These will be paid by the CITY.
4. Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval
by the CITY (and the CITY's legal and other advisors). These may include contract
agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid,
instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other
contract -related documents.
5. Furnishing to the CITY the specified number of copies of drawings, specifications,
and other contract documents.
6. Design the final plans for the project.
7. Design surveys including the transfer of validated benchmarks to the proposed area.
8. Design and submittal (if required) of WPAP reports to the TCEQ for project
acceptance in the Re -charge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
9. Meet regularly with the City of Georgetown Staff to review the progress of the design
and coordinate any conflicts that arise.
BIDDING PHASE. Services under this phase include:
1. Assisting the CITY in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime
construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding
documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and
processing fees for bidding documents.
2. Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the bidding documents.
'Mr. Jim Briggs
February 9, 2004
Page Three
3. Assisting the CITY in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective
constructors, subcontractors and suppliers.
4. Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets and providing assistance to
the CITY in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts
for construction, materials, equipment and services.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the
CITY during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the CITY's
representative. Such services comprise:
1. Preparing for and conducting a pre -construction conference and issuing a Notice to
Proceed on behalf of the CITY.
2. Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance
with design concept.
3. Reviewing laboratory, shop and mill test reports on materials and equipment.
4. Visiting the project site as construction proceeds to observe and report on the progress
and the quality of the executed work.
5. Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing
change orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making
recommendations as to the acceptability of the work.
6. Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions
encountered.
7. Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the CONTRACTOR.
SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE PROJECT
• Research of existing facilities
• Research of existing utilities
• Survey curb and gutter and establish a project baseline
• Final Design Schematics of the plans
• Clearance from state and federal environmental agencies
• Project to be bid and awarded
• Construction Administration of the project
• Record drawing produced and delivered to the City
Mr. Jim Briggs
February 9, 2004
Page Four
If this proposal is agreeable, please return two executed originals to our office.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/crc
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF CHARGES FOR SERVICES
2003 - 2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
FOR THE 2004 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECTS
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
TASK
The 2004 Street Rehabilitation
Projects
I. BASIC SERVICES
A. Design & Schematics
$
12,000.00
B. Bidding
$
3,500.00
C. Construction Administration
$
5,000.00
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES
$
20,500.00
II. SPECIAL SERVICES
A. Design Surveys
$
8,000.00
TOTAL SPECIAL SERVICES
$
8,000.00
AMENDMENT DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2004
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
AND ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DESIGN FOR THE 2004 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECTS
The General Services Agreement between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN (City) and Roming,
Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P., (Engineer) last authorized on March 14, 1995, is hereby amended as
follows:
The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The charges
for the work in Amendment February 9, 2004 are to be paid on a lump sum basis unless
additional work due to change in scope is authorized.
Your signatures below will constitute your acceptance of Amendment Dated
February 9, 2004.
Executed in duplicate original this day of 2004 at
Georgetown, Texas, where this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form: Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Patricia E. Carls
City Attorney
Gary Nelon
Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
Party of the Second Part: City Secretary
ROMING�PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
By: R. David Patrick, P.E.
Principal Engineer
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BELL
This instrument as acknowledged before me on this the i D day of V -a 6 r "P r
2004.
'�-bor" �-n .
Notary Public
N
DORIS M. WALTERS
Notary WGA, State of Teras
My CommisrAw E)Vfes
Deambor 27, 2005
Printed name: dlorrss AA •yJa1-1-j-r-s
Commission Expires: 12 - a "7 -05
Exhibit A
(Updated February 9, 2004)
This updated Exhibit A to the original General Services Agreement between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P., dated March 14, 1995, provides for the
scope of basic and special services required for developing design plans for The 2004 Street
Rehabilitation Projects.
The attached letter details the services and associated charges for the proposed work.
1
y _ A14
'
� � f
14P 4
i d
r a
r. \aFnyp y
r
�i}'P�'aLt�s ".si- T Tu•� q' ', f,�a�"�,.',� y 3�����s, ■.
�� '�� ��i1lr'ha a &.Xr ,-+i ',�,'ip'F'�'YF g A :_�z r ■■■
t v.r
kMj�
n
Agenda Item: Engineering RPK
Council Date: February 24, 2004
Prepared by: Barbara Lake
Date: February 16, 2004
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
Yes
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
Yes
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
N/A
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
N/A
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
No
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how? N/A
Year:
Department:
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
Major rehabilitation of these roads at this time will reduce maintenance costs in the coming years. Minimal
Maintenance costs starting approximately five years from completion of rehab.
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact.
N/A
Finance ❑
Review
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004 Item No.—
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute an Infrastructure and Utility
Agreement, between the City of Georgetown and TASUS Corporation, Inc.
ITEM SUMMARY
As a result of action taken by the Council in its Meeting on November 25, 2003, the City has offered
infrastructure and utility incentives to TASUS for locating its plastic injection molding facility in Georgetown.
These incentives include the expansion of drainage facilities, construction of a public road, and installation
of water and wastewater lines to serve the facility.
The attached Infrastructure and Utility Agreement commits the City to construct the drainage, road,
water, and wastewater improvements. The Agreement also limits the City's participation in water and
wastewater improvements to $10,000.
Staff recommends approval of the hrfrastructure and Utility Agreement.
None
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for the water and wastewater improvements will be paid from the Water Capital Fund 661-101-
6300-00 and the Wastewater Capital Fund 651-101-6102-00. Funds for the drainage and road improvements
will be paid by GTEC.
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Infrastructure and Utility Agreement
Submitted By:
for Utility
Manager
Glenn W. Dishong
Water Services Manager
THE STATE OF TEXAS § INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITY
§ AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § TASUS CORPORATION, INC.
§ AND
CITY OF GEORGETOWN § CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
WHEREAS, T ASUS C orporation, Inc., a _ Corporation authorized to do
business in Texas (hereinafter "TASUS") desires to expand its business by constructing a plastic
injection molding manufacturing facility on a certain tract of land in Williamson County, Texas,
more fully described on Exhibits "A" and "B" which are attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference (hereinafter "the Property"); and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2004, the City Council of the City of Georgetown ("City")
adopted a Resolution stating that the City elects to become eligible to participate in a property
tax abatement for real property and for tangible personal property located on the Property for
TASUS pursuant to Section 312.002(a) of the Texas Tax Code; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice and a public hearing, the City designated an area
including the Property as Reinvestment Zone No. 2004-01 pursuant to Chapter 312 of the Texas
Tax Code and therefore qualified for tax abatement subject to the approval of the specific terms
of the tax abatement agreement by the City; and
WHEREAS, after designation of the Reinvestment Zone, the City, Williamson County,
and TASUS entered into a property tax abatement agreement as authorized by Chapter 312 of
the Texas Tax Code ("Tax Abatement Agreement"); and
NOW THEREFORE, as additional consideration for the agreement by TASUS in the Tax
Abatement Agreement to construct a plastic injection molding manufacturing facility on the
Property and to create the number of jobs set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement, the City
and TASUS further agree as follows:
1. The City agrees to expand the existing drainage structure located near the northeast
property line and Austin Avenue, and to construct a public road and associated drainage
improvements from Austin Avenue to the Property.
2. The City agrees shall construct appropriate water and wastewater lines from existing City
facilities to the TASUS facility, provided however, that if the cost of constructing such
service lines exceeds a total of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000), then TASUS
shall pay to the City the full amount of such additional costs within thirty (30) days of
receipt from the City of an invoice for such costs.
3. Nothing in this Agreement relieves TASUS of the obligations to pay the City's tap,
impact, and other development related fees as required by the City's applicable
ordinances, and TASUS shall be obligated to pay such fees in accordance with the terms
Utility and Infrastructure Agreement
TASUS Corporation
Page 1 of 6
of the City requirements.
4. In the event that TASUS fails to comply with the Tax Abatement Agreement following
notice and opportunity to cure as set forth is said Tax Abatement Agreement, TASUS
shall reimburse to the City TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) for the cost of the
water and wastewater lines referred to in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. Payment of
such costs shall be due within thirty (30) days of the City's written demand therefor.
5. Miscellaneous.
a. Attorney's Fees. Should TASUS breach or default its obligations under the
terms, conditions, or covenants of this agreement, and it is necessary for the City to retain the
services of an attorney or attorneys to enforce or defend any of the rights or remedies hereunder,
the City shall be entitled to any reasonable attorney's fees, costs, or expenses incurred in
connection therewith.
b. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under the present or future laws effective while this Agreement is in effect, such
provision shall be automatically deleted from this agreement and the legality, validity and
enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and in
lieu of such deleted provision, there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement a
provision that is similar in terms and substance to such deleted provision as may be possible and
yet be legal, valid and enforceable.
C. Place for Performance and Applicable Law. TASUS and the City agree that this
Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and all
obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in Williamson County, Texas.
d. Prior Agreements Superseded. This Agreement constitutes the sole agreement
of the parties herein and supersedes any and all prior written or oral agreements, arrangements or
understandings between the parties relating to the subject matter.
e. Amendments. No amendment, modification o r a Iteration o f t he t erms h ereof
shall be binding unless the same shall be in writing, dated subsequent to the date of this
agreement and duly executed by the parties hereto.
f. R ights a nd R emedies C umulative. T he r ights a nd remedies p rovided b y t his
Agreement are cumulative and the use of any one right or remedy by any parties shall not
preclude or waive its rights to use any or all of their remedies. Said rights and remedies are
given in addition to any other rights the parties may have by Law, statute, ordinance or
otherwise.
g. No Waiver. No waiver by either of the City in any event of default, or breach of
any covenant, condition or stipulation herein contained by TASUS shall be treated as a waiver of
any subsequent default or breach of the same or any other covenant, condition or stipulation
Utility and Infrastructure Agreement
TASUS Corporation
Page 2 of 6
hereof.
h. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by TASUS without the prior
written approval of the City.
i. Notices. Notices as required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered
to the parties at the addresses stated below.
TASUS:
CTI'Y:
City Manager
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Changes of address shall be made by delivering notice to all parties at the above addresses.
j. Signature Warranty Clause. The signatories to this Agreement represent and
warrant that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City and TASUS,
respectively.
Utility and Infrastructure Agreement
TASUS Corporation
Page 3 of 6
SIGNED in multiple originals, on this the _ day of , 2004.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Gary Nelon, Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
Approved as to form:
Patricia E. Carls
City Attorney
TASUS CORPORATION
AN
Utility and Infrastructure Agreement
TASUS Corporation
Page 4 of 6
STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _ day of 2004,
by a person known to me, in his capacity as
of TASUS Corporation, a
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
Notary Public in and for the
State of
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _ day of 2004,
by Gary Nelon, a person known to me, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown on
behalf of the City Council of the City of Georgetown.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas
Utility and Infrastructure Agreement
TASUS Corporation
Page 5 of 6
�.'MC a
Property Description
Tract One( 1) of Georgetown Industrial Park South-West Phase, Section One, as recorded in
Cabinet `B", Slides 155 through 159 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas.
SAVE AND EXCEPT:
That tract of land being 1.26 acres of land out of the Ruidoso Irrigation Survey No. 207,
Williamson County, T exas, a nd b eing a p art o f T ract O ne (1) o f Georgetown Industrial Park
South-West Phase, Section One, as recorded in Cabinet "E," Slides 155 through 159 of the Plat
Records of Williamson County, Texas, and said 1.26 acre tract being more fully described in
Exhibit `B," which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set out in full herein.
Utility and Infrastructure Agreement
TASUS Corporation
Page 6 of 6
t�KI13i IT $
FROM : S'EMR&B172t3L aC, iMC. FRX hO. : 512 930 5416 Ian. 23 2804 03:56PM P2
LEGAL DPSCRIMON FOR TASUS CORPORATION
BEING 23.08 urea of lend, sit=dd-in dee Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558 and the
Ruidtna Irrigation Company Survey, Abstract No. 715, being a portion of Tract One of Gemgent"
lrulwfial Park South, Wet Phut Sea. One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet In Slides 155-159, of the
Flat Records of Williamson County, Tem. Surveyed on the ground In the month of January, 2004,
un4rr $be supervision of Patrick J. Steven, Registered Ptofmional Lod Surveyor, and being more
particularly described a follows;
BEOINMG arm I'm pin found on the west Was of Business imp No. 35M, (United Stara Highway
No. 81, Budrrsa 81 Highwayf, maddag the Southeast cancer of the above-mbrenoed Tract One, being
the Northeast went+ of Itact Two of the said Oeorgdcu industrial Park South, West Phase Sec. One,
for the mos+soM1164l7 Southeast corner beano!;
77ONM along the South line of the said Tract Ow, bring the north line of the &aid Tran Two.
S 80' 20' 30' W, 997.15 bel to a ootma picker spindk found; N 89.56' 45' W, 296.05 feet to an iron
pm fond, (from winch w orhet iron pin found bean N 94' E, 0A0 of a foot); end N SW 09' 30" W,
37332 fur to an iron pin fouad on the Southwest line of the Georgetown Railroad Company rightat-
way, marldag the Southwest comer of the said Tract One, being the Northwest corner of the said Tran
Two, for the Southwest cancer bumf; -
THENCE, along the said Soatknest line of the Geotgetosm Railroad Company nghtef-way, being the
Northwest line of the aid Tract One, a folk": N 18' 51' 30" li 197.73 fret to an iron pin
found at the beginning of a curve to the eight, (RWius . 831.69 fear, Long Chord bean
N 55' 16' E, 986.82 feeix
Thence, along the Sod curve for m rte disunee of 1,056.42 feet to an iron pin ser;
Theocs, S 89' 21' 45' E, 91854 feet m a pipe bund on the said weet Bete of Business Imp No.
35K msrPmg the Northeast cornu of the said Tract One, for the req northerly Northeast comer
hxwf;
THENCE, alcag the said %eat Ilse of Bwineas Imp No. 35M. S 14' 49' 45" W, 1 ±�,v3. tcu to an hen
pin sat and S 11"^' 15" W, 43.151sak to a pipe found making the Northeast censer of cur certain trach
of laud, aged 1.:6 Ked, a Owvcytd w the qty of Gtargetown of roved in Volume 951, Page 1, of the
Deed Records of Willismwn County, Texas, for the moat nonhnly Southeast cornu hereof.
THENCE, along the Northwcn lint of the said 1.26 ase City of Georgetown tract a fbjlcm;
N 78' 3a'45' W, 10.00 fest to an iron pin w S 62' 57' W, 129.28 foe to an Iron pin aet; S 46' 57' W,
70.00 feet to an icon pin set; S 29.00' 45' W, 74.93 fete man iron pia net and S 11' 21' 15" W, 178.73
feet to an iron pin air for the Southwest wraer of the said 1.26 acre City of Georgetown tract, for se
interior txuner hemok
THENCE. S 78' 38' 45" E, 172.18 feu to a pipe fount oo the said wart line of Butinces Loop No. 35K
mar)ong the Southeast comer of the said 126 acre City of Georgetown tract, for the most southerly
Northeast names hemof,
THENCE. ►long the said "-est line of Business Imp No. 35M, S 15.08' 30" W, 91.27 feu to the Place
Of REGD4NMr and containing 73.08 come of land .
STATE OF TW(AS
COI/I4EY OF WILLIAMSON
KNOW AIL MIN BY THESE PRESENTS:
}
1, Patrick J. Stayms, Registered Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that this survey was made
on the ground of the property kgally described hereon and is coma, and that then am on apparent
disacpancle.., cotii hd , Overlapping of uopmvemeyn, A&Ne utility lines or rads in place, except as
shown on the acoorNraaying pial. Lod that aid pmpfny has aoceas nand from a dedk ,,d roadway, to
the beat of my knowledge and belieL
To cerb%�ry/q ick, witness my ban and se... _. _.-.6cwwn, Williamson County, Testi, this the
dry of 2004. AD.
Re&e ad P
20421-Iddoc
City Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004 Item No. AA
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
TECT s
�uusideration of an Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County ("County") concerning
construction of the Georgetown Innerloop NE from County Road 151 to Business 35
(Austin Avenue) at the Lakeway intersection.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Williamson County has agreed to design, engineer and construct a two-lane road from
CR 151 to Business 35 (Austin Avenue) at the Lakeway Blvd. intersection, in exchange
for the City's acquisition of a portion of the necessary right-of-way. On October
22, 2002, Council authorized the acquisition of 2.004 acres from Larry D. Kokel, et
al. and 0.0411 acres from Mr. & Mrs. Joe Higginbotham for the construction of the
Innerloop NE by Williamson County. Both of these tracts have been acquired by the
City.
The Texas Department of Transportation has requested that the IH -35 frontage road
adjacent to Industrial Park North be converted to one-way when the Innerloop connects
to Business 35, thereby restricting access to and from the industrial park. In order
to provide an alternate route for the industrial park, the Georgetown Transportation
Enhancement Corporation ("GTEC") has budgeted $300,000.00 for acquisition of right-
of-way and construction of a two-lane connecting road to alleviate any hardship on
the businesses located in the park.
The attached interlocal agreement sets out the City's and County's respective
'igations concerning this segment of the Georgetown Innerloop and the connecting
g handle" roadway.
_CIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GTEC approved the expenditure of 4B sales tax funds for this project on June 10,
2003 (Approved 5-0, Smith and Masterson absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council authorize the execution of the above agreement to document
the City's and County's rights and duties with respect to this segment of the
Georgetown Innerloop and connecting "jug handle" road.
rnMMF.NTR
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed interlocal
tt
Uti
with Williamson County
Mark Miller"
Transportation Services Manager
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective this day of
, 2 004, b y and between WILLIAMSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Texas (the "County") and the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas home -rule municipal
corporation (the "City"), for purposes of designing, engineering, constructing and maintaining
the northeast segment of the Georgetown Inner Loop from County Road 151 north to Business
35 (Austin Avenue) at its intersection with Lakeway Drive.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 791, the Texas Interlocal Cooperation
Act, provides that any one or more public agencies may contract with each other for the
performance of governmental functions and for the joint use of facilities or services for the
promotion and protection of the health and welfare of the inhabitants of this State and the mutual
benefit of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the County is planning the design and construction of a two-lane roadway
from County Road 151 to Business 35 (Austin Avenue) in the approximate location shown on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast),
measuring twenty-four (24) feet wide with 10 -foot shoulders and transitioning into three lanes at
its intersection with Business 35 (Austin Avenue) to provide for a turning lane; and
WHEREAS, the City is planning the design and construction of a two-lane roadway
connecting the above-described Georgetown Innerloop Northeast to Industrial Park Circle in the
approximate location shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein to provide
an alternate route for ingress/egress between the Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast and the
Industrial Park North Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, the undersigned parties agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The County hereby agrees to perform all necessary and appropriate engineering, design
and construction of the above-described Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast shown on
Exhibit "A', which shall include theacquisition, and related costs, of a 120 -foot -wide
strip of right-of-way for a portion of said Georgetown Innerloop Northeast shown on
Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein and described as the "Sudduth Tract
#1".
2. As consideration for the engineering, design and construction of the Georgetown Inner
Loop Northeast by the County, the City shall acquire the right-of-way described as the
"Kokel Tract" shown on Exhibit "D" attached hereto the "Higginbotham Tract" shown
on Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein, including related costs. The City
shall also provide all necessary engineering, design, construction, right-of-way
acquisition and related costs for a 50 -foot -wide strip of roadway connecting the
Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County
Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast
Pagel of 2
Georgetown Innerloop Northeast to Industrial Park Circle described as the "Sudduth
Tract #2", in the approximate location shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
3. Upon completion of the construction of the Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast and the
connecting road to Industrial Park Circle and acceptance thereof by the City, or as soon
as possible after each road is open to the public, the County agrees to file a petition
requesting voluntary annexation of the road and r ight-of-way b y the City. Upon final
annexation, the City shall maintain the annexed portions of the Georgetown Inner Loop
Northeast and connecting road. The City hereby agrees to construct or cause to be
constructed within the right-of-way limits described herein, such additional roadway as
may be warranted by future traffic demands.
II.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. The parties agree that in the event any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of
competent j urisdiction t o b e i n c ontradiction o f a ny laws of the State of Texas or the
United States of America, the parties will immediately rectify the offending portions of
this Agreement. The remainder of the Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
2. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and
supersedes all their oral and written negotiations, agreements and understandings of every
kind. The parties understand, agree and declare that no promise, warranty, statement or
representation of any kind whatsoever, which is not expressly stated in this Agreement,
has been made by any party hereto or its officers, employees or other agents to induce
execution of this Agreement.
3. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any immunities from suit or
liability enjoyed by the County, the City, their past or present officers, employees, or
agents or employees.
4. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, waived, or altered in any way, except by
an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto.
5. Except as otherwise specified herein, all notices and demands shall be made in writing to
the other party at the following addresses:
To County: To City:
County of Williamson City of Georgetown
c/o Williamson County Attorney ATTN: City Manager
405 Martin Luther King Drive, Box 7 P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78626 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
or to such other address as provided in writing by the receiving party.
Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County
Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast
Page 2 of 2
6. This Agreement has been approved by the governing bodies of the City and of
Williamson County.
7. Each party paying for the performance of governmental functions or services must make
those payments from current revenues available to the paying party.
This Agreement shall be performable in Williamson County, Texas.
COUNTY
John Doerfler, County Judge
ATTEST:
Printed Name:
Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County
Georgetown Inner Loop Northeast
Page 3 of 2
CITY
Lo
Gary Nelon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
+
DAVID -MiGhr- SURVElm' 4-)' 3'
Z411
431 FLORE5 31Y-TTY --,?-
01
too AC)
Ml %W,tats Sadd.tl
00 -'35/-C6
1P.
all,
5H, —I
<
0 0 M 7)
L
0
Mil
SCAM-I*-30D*
Proposed Georgetown Inner Loop EXHIBIT
*Steger w.& Bizzell Engineering, rerInc.
='s
Conaulg Kn&MM S�Yon
0.9. T. tmtt (512)93(tW12 (512)11W41fi
L/Dale's ACAD Drawing./Autocad Drowinqs/2053I Geor90town\lnnw Loop Georgetown Street Ei blLdwg
l
l�
/ DAVID WRICiT SYRVSY A-' 3
F- j a i o •:x�,�rl 7 I --
I ItT��ly `y. ha wh".a� �4:.y e1��°yhI you I
4
iiT?AtiJ=L0:4SS ., SR!/zl'; A-335
i
0
\\ m
(:4 o
.rn Wu'I:ams sumua,
SCALER" -30W
54Ac'
'Hill '.1511iCMs zaavN
- - - 151 �--
Proposed Street By City of Georgetown
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
ConaltlAg Engle n Sm on
EXHI
,on s M Awttr• T-WFI e: faoxnPc
WOMEMW
T Tau mem (512)9�12 (512)M"16
L/DWe's ACAD Drawings/Autoena Drawings/20331 Gaargeto Njnner Lo — Georgetown Street Ed bitdwg
I
Tim
-'ar4f1
l
l�
/ DAVID WRICiT SYRVSY A-' 3
F- j a i o •:x�,�rl 7 I --
I ItT��ly `y. ha wh".a� �4:.y e1��°yhI you I
4
iiT?AtiJ=L0:4SS ., SR!/zl'; A-335
i
0
\\ m
(:4 o
.rn Wu'I:ams sumua,
SCALER" -30W
54Ac'
'Hill '.1511iCMs zaavN
- - - 151 �--
Proposed Street By City of Georgetown
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
ConaltlAg Engle n Sm on
EXHI
,on s M Awttr• T-WFI e: faoxnPc
WOMEMW
T Tau mem (512)9�12 (512)M"16
L/DWe's ACAD Drawings/Autoena Drawings/20331 Gaargeto Njnner Lo — Georgetown Street Ed bitdwg
I
DAVID ;'RICH? SURVEY A- i S
SURVEY G-235
v ' I L�1 f I
0
ZA
YAII W9uu[h
335/dd1—
735j566
sfi � '
OAQ
i
ml YA14ic n. Su33uth
_
375i566 I �
-------- - �J J
j TAT T 1 7
��11�
f��_i.1
(54.1PC)
WII Wlliame ?adduth ,
SCAi
i 1 .gym Ifi 1 �
LC Jr�
i
COLIM
I
Proposed Georgetown Inner Loop
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
coil cn&"m �1r. Wm
,om � A A Twwi w .eedrww
Me.n
C.wy. Tw n (512)l �,z (512A$ 16
L/Dala a ACRD Drawings/Autocad D Cwinga/20331 Ceargetown\Jnn Loop — Georgetam Street E.'hlblLdwg
DAVID YRICHT( SURVEY A-1 3
�Iyp�.�y'�� ya4Nl °Wu-�n��Ya�� q: 01 I
I1doII
11,�•{la`I ° -" I'W WS �uyyF� my�� gybl�gat ��. 4u
41; ,. TV- NLO FLORES SURVEY A-235
✓zl o
i
1
I
i
I
5.icc
Will Mldilams ou
335/55c
I
I
I
i
I
(5 CA AC)
100
`MII Mhlliams SUCEuf
335/566
v�
0
<Q
4
B
k�
0
SCXL.1,-3 0•
O
7 r 1
(54 5d AC)
7m I I— —1—
WII VAliame Suaaetn
335%56E
—I—
Tj T 1 -T
I Z111
1�1�11 J�
,' r i
r
Jr
4
I � I
I I
I
— J
Proposed Georgetown Inner Loop EXHIBIT
e
�r rl
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
_Comaltln6 ftgin— Sw Ma7on
1pe SwIA Awlw .W... TOW. I°eae�
a.aaoe.a. T. TpEte (512)e.A 11 (E12)0.b.f116
L/Dde's ACAO DraMly1/A0d oTawings/20331 0ea1getown\Inner Loop - Georgetown Street Exhloll0rg
DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY A—I 3
1T
I ,
VT NIO FLORES SURVEY A-235
CO Y.ill Williams �Jdellth / —� 1"— — — t
0.. 335/566
q J {54y�AC) I� �— 1
Rtr
--4�
d wal Wu 335/566
j TjT7-'T
\�1 is
- Will Ntllkms Ead0u!h I , +$�'Ij
j335/566 IFI- �
SCALE.1'.300 I 4
H 1
i
Proposed Georgetown Inner Loop
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
ConydUng Latin—
Ina sara A /awa. T+p� raaN,Aa
Ge.yrlean. T. 1ae2a (512Ja] 11 (51I)9R1941a
L/Dda'a ACAD Dr(Wnga/Autocad Drawings/20331 Ceargetown\Jnnar Loop - ceorgal Str«t Ea bltdq
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Item No. 466-1
Consideration and possible action for approval of a contract amendment to
the existing Professional Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., to provide engineering services related to the
design of the Lake Water Treatment Plant De -watering Facility for a total of
$253,974.00.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Lake Water Treatment Plant (LWTP) has recently been expanded to 17.6
MGD. The capacity of the original drying beds is 7.5 MGD, but subject to wet
weather degradation. The new De -watering facility will replace the existing
drying beds and increase the capacity of the process to the future LWTP capacity
of 26 MGD.
This contract provides for the necessary engineering design, bid
specifications, contract documents, and project services to allow for the proper
award of a future contract to build the de -watering facility.
Therefore, staff requests a GUS Board recommendation for the amendment of
the contract with Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. to provide engineering services
related to the design of Lake Water Treatment Plant De -watering Facility in the
amount of $253,974.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval of the contract amendment to provide
engineering services related to the design of the Lake Water Treatment Plant De-
watering Facility in the amount of $253,974.00. Approved 6-0 (Brown absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the contract amendment to provide
engineering services related to the design of the Lake Water Treatment Plant
De -watering Facility in the amount of $253,974.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Fiscal year 2003/2004 in the amount of $253,974.00 will be funded out of
water capital fund 661-101-6631-00.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Financial Impact Checklist.
CDM Professional Service Contract Amendment.
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Glenn Dishong,
Assistant City Manager Water Services
for Utilities Manager
Agenda Item: LWTP De -watering Facility
(ENG)
Council Date: February 24, 2004
Prepared by: Glenn Dishong
Date: February 3, 2004
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
Yes.
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
Yes. However, estimated construction costs are expected to exceed budgeted amount by approximately
$300k.
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
Construction expenses may need to be spread over a two-year period or other Water Capital projects may need
to be delayed (i.e. Rabbit Hill Pump).
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
Not known at this time. Rabbit Hill pump station is likely candidate.
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
No, unless project is postponed or spread across two budget years.
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how?
Year. N/A
Department: N/A
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
N/A
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact:
N/A
Finance Fl
Review
CAdlllllk�m
DM
12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 210
Austin,Texas 78727
tel: 512346-1100
fax: 512 345-1483
October 2, 2003
Mr. Glenn Dishong
Water Services Manager
Georgetown Utility Systems
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, TX 78726
RE: Lake Georgetown Water Treatment Plant
Sludge Dewatering Facility
Amendment for Professional Engineering Services
Dear Mr. Dishong:
Transmitted with this letter are three partially executed Amendments to the Agreement between the City
of Georgetown and CDM for the design of the Sludge Dewatering Improvements at the Lake
Georgetown Water Treatment Plant. This Amendment includes not only the design of the facility but
also the following special services:
1. Surveying
2. Geotechnical Investigation
3. Geologic Assessment
4. Construction Materials Testing
5. Water Pollution Abatement Plan Application Preparation
6. Water Pollution Abatement Plan Fee
7. Sewer Collection System Application Preparation
8. Sewer Collection System Fee
9. US COE Easement Application and Coordination
The Sludge Dewatering Facility will generally consist of a submersible sludge pump station, a sludge
thickener, a sludge dewatering building with mechanical sludge dewatering equipment, a submersible
filtrate pump station, and force main to the HEB wastewater line. The project is needed to dewater
sludge produced during the water treatment process. The Lake Water Treatment Plant was originally
rated for 6 mgd and had three sludge drying beds for this capacity. Through one rerate and one
expansion, the capacity of the Lake Water Treatment Plant is now 17.6 mgd. However, the capacity of the
sludge drying beds has not been increased. This project will provide the capacity for the 17.6 mgd plant
and will also be able to dewater the sludge from the next expansion of the Lake Water Treatment Plant.
If you have any questions
Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Te Amendment or the proposed project, please call.
consulting - engineering - construction - operations won a
AMENDMENT
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DESIGN THE SLUDGE DEWATERING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
LAKE GEORGETOWN WATER TREATMENT PLANT
The General Services Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER last authorized on
November 26, 1991, is hereby amended as follows:
The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The fee for
the work in this Amendment is to be paid on a lump sum basis.
Your signature below will constitute your acceptance of this Amendment.
EXECUTED in duplicate original this — day of 2003 at Georgetown, Texas, where
this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form: Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
City Attorney
Party of the Second Part -
By: A
art:By:/ Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
Gary Nelon
Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the day of12003, by Mr. Allen
D. Woelke in his capacity as Vice President of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Printed name: a c. nauc
Notary Public, State of Texas Commission Expir, St ate n. T
EMcras
o. SEPTEMBER 13. 200a
Page 1 of I
A4272AMD N99.doc
E3CMrF 1
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Need: The Lake Water Treatment Plant has been expanded from an initial capacity of 6
mgd to 17.6 mgd. The expansions have added raw water pumping capacity, water treatment
capacity, clearwell capacity, and high service pumping capacity. The expansions to date have not
addressed the additional solids (sludge) produced by the expanded facilities. The existing sludge
drying beds are inadequate to dewater the sludge produced from the expanded facility. The
proposed dewatering facilities will meet the need of the current 17.6 mgd facility, and will also be
sized to meet the future capacity of the Lake Water Treatment Plant.
Project Description: The Lake Water Treatment Plant Sludge Dewatering Improvements consist
of a submersible sludge pump station, sludge thickener/holding tank, sludge dewatering building
with mechanical dewatering equipment, and submersible filtrate pump station, filtrate force main to
HEB wastewater line, and associated electrical and instrumentation improvements.
Preliminary Engineering Phase. This phase involves determination of project scope and
economic and technical evaluation of feasible alternatives. Services during this phase include:
1) Reviewing available data and consulting with the OWNER to clarify and define the
OWNER's requirements for the project.
2) Advising the OWNER as to the necessity of providing or obtaining from others additional
data or services. These additional services may include photogrammetry, reconnaissance
surveys, property surveys, topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations and
consultations, compilation of hydrological data, traffic studies, materials engineering,
assembly of zoning, deed, and other restrictive land use information, and environmental
assessments and impact statements.
The scope of work includes the following special services:
a. Topographic survey of the plant site and filtrate force main alignment. (It does not
include easement acquisition surveys and preparation of field notes).
b. Geotechnical analysis
C. Construction materials testing
d. Geologic assessment of the site and force main alignment
e. Preparation of WPAP and submittal to TCEQ including applicable fees.
f. Preparation of SCS and submittal to TCEQ including applicable fees.
g. Preparation of COE documents and coordination with COE.
3) Identifying and analyzing requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to
approve the design of the project, and participating in consultations with such authorities.
4) Providing analyses of the OWNER's needs, planning surveys, and comparative evaluations
of prospective sites and solutions.
Pagel of 3
5) Consulting with the OWNER, reviewing preliminary reports, clarifying and defining the
project requirements, reviewing available data, and discussing general scheduling.
Conferences may also be required with approving and regulatory governmental agencies
and affected utilities.
6) Advising the OWNER as to whether additional data or services are required, and assisting
the OWNER in obtaining such data and services.
7) Preparing preliminary design documents consisting of final design criteria, preliminary
drawings, outline of specifications, and written descriptions of the project. A maximum of
five copies will be provided to the OWNER.
8) Preparing revised opinions of probable total project costs.
Final Design Phase. This phase of project development is undertaken only after the OWNER has
approved the preliminary engineering phase material. The basic services for the final design phase
includes:
1) Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent of the
project based on the accepted preliminary engineering documents.
2) Preparing and furnishing to the OWNER a revised opinion of probable total project costs
based on the final drawings and specifications.
3) Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits from
local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not include detailed
applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or planning grants that
would be furnished as additional services.
4) Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval by the
OWNER (and the OWNER's legal and other advisors). These may include contract
agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid,
instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other
contract -related documents.
5) Furnishing to the OWNER a maximum of five copies of drawings, specifications, and other
contract documents.
Bidding Phase. Services under this phase include:
1) Assisting the OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime
construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding
documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and processing
deposits for bidding documents.
2) Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents.
Page 2 of 3
3) Assisting the OWNER in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective
constructors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
4) When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents,
consultation with and advising the OWNER as to the acceptability of alternate materials and
equipment proposed by the prospective constructors.
5) Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets, and providing assistance to the
OWNER in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for
construction, materials, equipment, and services.
Construction Phase. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the OWNER
during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the OWNERS
representative. Such services comprise:
1) Preparing for and conducting a preconstruction conference and issuing a Notice to Proceed
on behalf of the OWNER.
2) Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance with
design concepts.
3) Reviewing laboratory, shop, and mill test reports on materials and equipment.
4) Visiting the project site monthly as construction proceeds to observe and report on the
progress and the quality of the executed work.
5) Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing change
orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making recommendations
as to the acceptability of the work.
6) Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered.
7) Determining amounts of progress payments due, based on degree of completion of the
work, and recommending issuance of such payments by the OWNER.
8) Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the CONTRACTOR.
9) Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including
recommendations concerning final payments to constructors and release of retained
percentages.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DESIGN THE SLUDGE DEWATERING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
LAKE GEORGETOWN WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENGINEERING FEE ESTIMATE
■ Preliminary Engineering Phase: $ 48,955.00
■ Design Phase:
$
73,433.00
■ Surveying
■ Bid Phase:
$
14,458.00
$
■ General Services During Construction Phase: $ 52,378.00
■ Other Direct Costs, including: $ 15,500.00
Travel
Telephone
Copying/bluelines
Postage/facsimile
Computer time
Total Basic Engineering Services
$204,724.00
■ Surveying
$
7,500.00
■ COE Application & Coordination
$
4,200.00
■ Geotechnical
$
4,000.00
■ Construction Materials Testing
$
10,000.00
■ Geologic Assessment
$
2,000.00
■ WPAP Application Preparation
$
9,350.00
■ WPAP Application Fee
$
5,000.00
■ SCS Application Preparation
$
6,600.00
■ SCS Application Fee
$
600.00
Total Special Services
$ 49,250.00
TOTAL
$ 253,974.00
Page 1 of l
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action for approval of a contract amendment to
the existing Professional Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., to provide engineering services related to the
design of the Dove Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion for a total of
$527,000.00.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Dove Springs Wastewater Plant is currently operating at 60W of its
design capacity. Although the average daily flow does not currently exceed the
limit imposed by the TCEQ to start the design phase (70%), this plant has
traditionally had significant peaks during wet weather periods that would result
in average daily flows where commencement of the design work would be required.
The Current Wastewater master plan and existing Dove Springs discharge
permit allow for expansion from the current 1.24 MGD to a total capacity of 2.5
MGD. This contract provides for the necessary engineering design, bid
specifications, contract documents, and project services to allow for the proper
award of a future contract to expand the plant capacity.
Therefore, staff requests a GUS Board recommendation for the amendment of
the contract with Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. to provide engineering services
related to the design of the Dove Springs Wastewater Plant expansion to 2.5 MGD
in the amount of $527,000.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval of the amendment to provide engineering
services related to the design of the Dove Springs Wastewater Plant expansion to
2.5 MGD in the amount of $527,000.00 at their February 17, 2004 meeting.
Approved 6-0 (Brown absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to provide engineering services
related to the design of the Dove Springs Wastewater Plant expansion to 2.5 MGD
in the amount of $527,000.00
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Fiscal year 2003/2004 in the amount of $527,000.00 will be funded out of
wastewater capital fund 651 -101 -6608 -EN.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Financial Impact Checklist.
CDM Professional Service Contract Amendment.
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Glenn Dishong,
Assistant City Manager Water Services
for Utilities Manager
Agenda Item: Dove Springs WWTP Prepared by. Glenn Dishong
Expansion to 2.5 MGD (ENG)
Council Date: February 24, 2004 Date: February 3, 2004
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
Yes.
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
No. Actual item budgeted at $480,000.00.
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
Cost savings from EARZ testing and repairs, Manikins Property purchase.
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
N/A
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
No.
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how?
Year: N/A
Department: N/A
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
N/A
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact:
N/A
Finance ❑
Review
CDM
12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 210
Austin,Texas 78727
tel: 512346-1100
fax: 512 345-1483
November 21, 2003
Mr. Glenn Dishong
City of Georgetown
Georgetown Utility Systems
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Subject: City of Georgetown
Dove Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Dishong:
Please find enclosed three partially executed originals of the Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Georgetown and CDM for design of the Dove Springs Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Associated Improvements.
Please review, and if acceptable, forward for execution. Upon execution, please return one
copy to CDM for our files.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
/'0"4L
Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
ENCLOSURES
Tranarnrig1k.11.211-03.6oc
consulting -engineering • construction • operations
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DESIGN THE DOVE SPRINGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
The General Services Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER last authorized on
November 26, 1991, is hereby amended as follows:
The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The fee for
the work in this Amendment is to be paid on a lump sum basis.
Your signature below will constitute your acceptance of this Amendment.
EXECUTED in duplicate original this _ day of 2003 at Georgetown, Texas, where
this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Party of the Second Part:
CAMP DRESSER & Mc
Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
in his
Notary Ptfblic, State
A4272AMD N94 dm
Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Gary Nelon
Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
Lbefore me on this the � day of /%W 20Q3by Mr
President of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Printed name:
Commission E
Allen
EXHIBIT 1
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Description: The Dove Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant and Associated
Improvements consist of a 1.26 mgd concrete, package -type, wastewater treatment plant, common
influent bar screen/splitter structure, and pumping and associated electrical improvements at the
Smith Branch Lift Station.
Project Need: The project is needed to keep pace with growing wastewater flows in the Dove
Springs service area which is most of the City south of SH 29. The existing plant is a 1.24 mgd
package -type, wastewater plant in a concrete structure. Current flows are approaching plant
capacity. The City has a wastewater discharge permit that allows construction of a wastewater
plant with a 1.24 mgd initial and 2.5 mgd final discharge into an unnamed tributary of Mankins
Branch. This project would comply with the final permit limit.
Preliminary Engineering Phase. This phase involves determination of project scope and
economic and technical evaluation of feasible alternatives. Services during this phase include:
1) Reviewing available data and consulting with the OWNER to clarify and define the
OWNER's requirements for the project.
2) Advising the OWNER as to the necessity of providing or obtaining from others additional
data or services. These additional services may include photogrammetry, reconnaissance
surveys, property surveys, topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations and
consultations, compilation of hydrological data, traffic studies, materials engineering,
assembly of zoning, deed, and other restrictive land use information, and environmental
assessments and impact statements.
The scope of work includes the following special services:
a. Topographic and property survey of the plant site.
b. Geotechnical analysis
C. Construction materials testing
3) Identifying and analyzing requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to
approve the design of the project, and participating in consultations with such authorities.
4) Providing analyses of the OWNER's needs, planning surveys, and comparative evaluations
of prospective sites and solutions.
5) Consulting with the OWNER, reviewing preliminary reports, clarifying and defining the
project requirements, reviewing available data, and discussing general scheduling.
Conferences may also be required with approving and regulatory governmental agencies
and affected utilities.
6) Advising the OWNER as to whether additional data or services are required, and assisting
A4272AMD N94.dx
the OWNER in obtaining such data and services.
4W 7) Preparing preliminary design documents consisting of final design criteria, preliminary
drawings, outline of specifications, and written descriptions of the project. A maximum of
five copies will be provided to the OWNER.
8) Preparing revised opinions of probable total project costs.
Final Design Phase. This phase of project development is undertaken only after the OWNER has
approved the preliminary engineering phase material. The basic services for the final design phase
includes:
1) Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent of the
project based on the accepted preliminary engineering documents.
2) Preparing and furnishing to the OWNER a revised opinion of probable total project costs
based on the final drawings and specifications.
3) Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits from
local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not include detailed
applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or planning grants that
would be furnished as additional services.
4) Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval by the
OWNER (and the OWNER's legal and other advisors). These may include contract
agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid,
instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other
contract -related documents.
5) Furnishing to the OWNER a maximum of five copies of drawings, specifications, and other
contract documents.
Bidding Phase. Services under this phase include:
1) Assisting the OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime
construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding
documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and processing
deposits for bidding documents.
2) Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents.
3) Assisting the OWNER in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective
constructors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
4) When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents,
r consultation with and advising the OWNER as to the acceptability of alternate materials and
equipment proposed by the prospective constructors.
A4272AMD_N94.dx
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DESIGN THE DOVE SPRINGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEERING FEE ESTIMATE
Preliminary Engineering Phase: $136,000.00
Design Phase: $204,000.00
Bid Phase: $ 18,000.00
General Services During Construction Phase: $138,000.00
Other Direct Costs, including: $ 10,000.00
Travel
Telephone
Copying/bluelines
Postage/facsimile
Computer time
Total Basic Engineering Services $506,000.00
Surveying $ 8,000.00
Geotechnical $ 5,000.00
Construction Materials Testing $ 8,000.00
Total Special Services $ 21,000.00
TOTAL 5527,000.00
A4272AMD N94.dm
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. ew
LJ - 3
SUBJECT:
Consideration and recommendation to award a contract to Corrosion
Eliminator, Inc. of Mineral Wells, Texas and to establish a project budget
for the rehabilitation of the Berry Creek Ground Storage Tank of
$100,000.00.
ITEM SUIUARY:
This item continues the process of the rehabilitation of the City's
water tanks based upon recommendations of Dunham Engineering following the
annual inspections conducted in 2001. Sealed bids were received and opened
on February 12, 2004 for the rehabilitation of the Berry Creek Ground
Storage Tank.
The bids were presented in the form of a base bid to sandblast and
repaint the interior and exterior of the tank with one potential adder to
clean the interior of the tank if required.
The engineering firm responsible to review the bids, Dunham
Engineering, has recommended that the bid be awarded to Corrosion
Eliminator, Inc. of Mineral Wells, Texas. Corrosion Eliminator was the low
bidder with a total bid of $95,232.00. Staff recommends establishing the
project budget at $100,000.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This project will be funded out of the Water Operations Fund 660 -108-
5204 -TM.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended that the bid for the Berry Creek Ground
Storage Tank Rehabilitation project be awarded to Corrosion Eliminator,
Inc. in the amount of $95.232.00 and that the project budget be set at
$100,000.00. Approved 6-0
(Brown absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends that the bid for the Berry Creek GST
rehabilitation be awarded to Corrosion Eliminator, Inc. and the project
budget be set at $100,000.00.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Dunham Engineering Bid Award Letter.
2. Financial Impact Checklist.
Submitted by: Jim Briggs, Assistant Glenn Dishong
City Manager for Utilities Water Services Manager
FBid
7Date:
ry Creek GST Rehab Prepared by: Glenn Dishong
ruary 24, 2004 Date: February 3, 2004
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
Bid Opening scheduled for February 17. Prices expected to be less than the budgeted amount. I
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
Water Operations Fund
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
No.
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how?
Year: N/A
Department: N/A
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
N/A
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact:
N/A
Finance ❑
Review S�'
DUNE AM ENGINEERING
13141 Hill Rd. • College Station, TX 77845 a (979) 690.6655 a Mobile (979)
www.Do»han nginavrinQ.cont
February 12, 2004
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Attn: Glen Dishong, Water System Manager
Ref.: Berry Creek Water Tank Rehabilitation Project
The purpose of this letter is to recommend award of the low bidder for
project. See bid tabulation sheet attached.
The low bidder, Corrosion Eliminator, Inc., is an established firm local
Mineral Wells, Texas that specializes in water tank rehabilitation projects.
Tank Consultants
• FAX (979) 690.7034
ref.
in
Corrosion Eliminator, Inc. has performed several water tank projects for ur firm
over the past ten years. They recently completed similar projects in Kempner, I =as and
Pearland, Texas under our direction. Both projects were completed on time and he work
was satisfactory. Corrosion Eliminator, Inc. is qualified to perform the work and we
recommend award of the contract to them.
Please call if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Ay
D. Dunham, P.E.
FEB 12 2004 19:01 409+S90+7034 PAGE.002
DUNHAM ENGINEERING
WatAr Tank Consultants
13141 Hill Rd. • College Station, 7R 77846 • (979) 690-6666 • Mobile (979) 620-164 i • FAX (979) 690-7034
w .DunhanMngin"ring.com
Bid Tabulation Sheet
Georgetown, Texas
Berry Creek Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation Project
Bids opened February 12, 2004 @ 2:00 p.m. @ City office.
Contractor Base Bid Amount Ad"ivcItedi 41
Angelos Painting
Utility Service Center Houston
f N.G.Pairlting
Water Tank Service Co.
V DMS Painting
✓ Gulf States Protective Coatings
Corrosion Eliminators
Travis Abrasive Blasting & Painting
J BondCoat
General Construction by Randy's
Cunningham Sandblasting & Painting
McCrea Water Tower
immy D. Dunham, P.E.
$ $
s 1111 400. s 4,J
s 119 BOO. $ S
$
(
3, d
1—
s
$
1-:55,390 .
$�
$ 12-cf-, q 3$ .
$ 911 --3Z-
$ 3 o.,
$ 3,J -I
$
`go ck
$
$
1011000-
091000-$
$
$ ....-.
$
s �3
3.d�1cr is ►�.
0
In
v w. Mc'N d td
FEB 12 2004 19:02 409+690+7034 PAGE.003
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. _J56---4
SUBJECT:
consideration and possible recommendation to award contracts to H. Deck
Construction and Horseshoe Construction, Inc. and to approve the budget for the
Phase I EARZ Rehabilitation Project and Phase I EARZ Pipe Bursting Projects in
the amount of $1,235,000.00.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Chapter 213 - Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ) rules of the TAC
requires the repair of structural damage and defects that pose a threat to the
Edwards Aquifer. The engineering and design of the Phase I EARZ Repairs was
completed by Roming, Parker, and Kasberg (RPK). Due to wastewater collection
system repairs needed along a significant portion of Church Street, a major
street and drainage project was combined with the EARZ repairs to allow
completion of all work within the same fiscal year and to achieve potential
construction cost savings.
The bid opening was conducted on February 12, 2004. The Project was
divided into three parts: 1) Wastewater System Rehabilitation Part A for various
collection system repairs, 2) Wastewater System Rehabilitation Part B for Church
Street repairs not related to wastewater collection, and 3) EARZ Pipe Bursting
Repairs. Two (2) companies presented bids for each project.
The design engineer (RPK) has reviewed the bids and has recommended the
award of the bid for the Wastewater System Rehabilitation (Parts A and B) to H.
Deck Construction for $845,400.00. RPK has recommended the award of the EARZ Pipe
Bursting Repairs to Horseshoe Construction, Inc. for $257,975.00. The contract
bid total for the three parts is $1,103,375.00.
Staff recommends establishing a project budget of $1,235,000.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds will come from the Wastewater Capital Fund 651-101-6618-00, the
Storm water Capital Fund 641-101-6113-00, and the Street Maintenance Sales Tax
Fund 203-134-5801-02.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended award of the bid for EARZ Phase 1 Wastewater System
Rehabilitation to H. Deck Construction and the EARZ Phase 1 Pipe Bursting Repairs
to Horseshoe construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,235,000.00. Approved 6-0
(Brown absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends awarding the bid for EARZ Phase I Wastewater System
Rehabilitation to H. Deck Construction. Staff recommends awarding the bid for
the EARZ Phase I Pipe Bursting Repairs to Horseshoe Construction, Inc. The
Project Budget is recommended at $1,235,000.00.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) RPK Bid Award Letter.
2) Financial Impact Checklist.
Submitted by: Jim Briggs, Glenn W. Dishong,
Assistant City Manager Water Services Manager
For Utility Operations
Agenda Item: Phase I EARZ Repairs Prepared by. Glenn Dishong
Council Date: February 24, 2004 :1 Date: February 13, 2004
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
Yes - Wastewater. No - Streets and Drainage
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
Yes - Wastewater.
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
Money for Streets and Drainage portion will come from the Storm Water Capital Fund 641-101-6113-00 and the
Street Maintenance Sales Tax Fund 203-134-5601-02.
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
Yes. River Bend Storm Drainage Project will be deferred until FY 04/05.
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
No.
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how?
Year: N/A
Department: N/A
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
Completion of this project is expected to reduce inflow into the Dove Springs Basin, thereby reducing the cost of
operation for the Dove Springs WWTP. Cost savings would materialize as both a reduction in volumetric
charge by BRA and a reduction in pumping costs (electricity) at the lift stations and WWTP.
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact:
N/A
Finance El
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Tempe. Teas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fu (254) 773-6667 nuil®rykengi mn.mm
WM. MACK PARKER, P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG, P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK. P.E.
February 13, 2004
Mr. Joel Weaver
CIP Coordinator
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: City of Georgetown
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Rehabilitation, Phase I - Pipe Bursting
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Weaver:
W. CLAY ROMING. P.E.
Partner Emerson
Attached is the Bid Tabulation Sheet for the bids received at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12,
2004 for the above referenced project.
There were two bids received for this project as shown on the attached tabulation sheet. After
tabulation of the bids, we have concluded that Horseshoe Construction, Inc. is the low bidder with a
Total Bid of $257,975.00.
We have reviewed the current workload and construction history of Horseshoe Construction, Inc. as
well as contacted several references. As a result of our findings, we recommend that a contract be
awarded to Horseshoe Construction, Inc. for the total base bid in the amount of $257,975.00. If
you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/rdp
2003-120,41
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One Snwh Main
Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 7733731 Fax (254) 773-6667 made rpkcngmccrs-urm
WM. MACK PARKER. P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG. P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E.
February 13, 2004
Mr. Joel Weaver
CIP Coordinator
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: City of Georgetown
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Rehabilitation, Phase I - Pipe Bursting
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Weaver:
W. CLAY ROMING. P E.
Panner Emcriws
Attached is the Bid Tabulation Sheet for the bids received at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12,
2004 for the above referenced project.
There were two bids received for this project as shown on the attached tabulation sheet. After
tabulation of the bids, we have concluded that Horseshoe Construction, Inc. is the low bidder with a
Total Bid of $257,975.00.
We have reviewed the current workload and construction history of Horseshoe Construction, Inc. as
well as contacted several references. As a result of our findings, we recommend that a contract be
awarded to Horseshoe Construction, Inc. for the total base bid in the amount of $257,975.00. If
you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/rdp
2003-120-41
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773-6667 mail@rpkengmeers.com
WM. MACK PARKER. P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG. P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK. P.E.
February 13, 2004
Mr. Joel Weaver
CIP Coordinator
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
W. CLAY ROMING. P.E.
Partner Emenws
Re: City of Georgetown
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Rehabilitation, Phase I - Wastewater System Rehabilitation
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Attached are the Bid Tabulation Sheets for the bids received at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12,
2004 for the above referenced project.
There were two bids received for this project as shown on the attached tabulation sheets. After
tabulation of the bids, we have concluded that H. Deck Construction is the low bidder with a Total
Bid of $845,400.00 broken down as follows:
• Base Bid Part A (EARZ Rehabilitation) = $606,075.00
• Base Bid Part A (Church St. Drainage ) = $239,325.00
We have reviewed the current workload and construction history of H. Deck Construction as well as
checked references. In addition, H. Deck Construction has successfully completed similar
construction projects for us in the past. As a result of our findings and previous experiences, we
recommend that a contract be awarded to H. Deck Construction for the total bid in the amount of
$845,400.00. If you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/rdp
2003-120-40
e
BID TABULATION My.129.0 W5P
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
I hereby rend, 11u11hrsIs s rorrat aM 1. ubulatop of all bMs rrce.vM
Ro.,, Paten & Kasberg. L L P
Edwards A9uifrr R.barpe %one
Pbau 1 - W'aslewater Syslem Rebabilimlion
Feb.0 12, 2000 2:00 pro
300 IrWmrnal :Venue Georpem•rn. TS 78626
BIDDER INFOR.I/ATION
11. Dick Cormrurlion Co. TTG, GI,DHes, Inc.
1601 Oxford Bl.d P. O. Bo, 199
Round Rork. Tew 73600 Gasuv0le. Teras 96528
Rew
Au.
EmwnrM
Qnnun
Umr
H,d Opnr
Onrn r
Unn
Prr"
Ewww
Amonnr
Uun
Pn[e
ErreMed
Amoum
P:IRT S-COURCHSTREET DRAINAGE
6.1
1004
LS lCmtml
Plan for Vehwular and Pedes.rtn Trarf, S
1.00000 S
1.000.00 5
1.50000 S
I.SOO.OD
6.2
1009
LS Illarricacles
aM Tnlfw Control Plan Ito Ieoummron
8.00000
1.00000
10,000 DO
10.000.00
9-3
80
LFIwallaior
a1 12-nch. Clens IV Hardie Nos Sturm Oran s,,, wpphcd b5 GeorSemwn)
bw tng Esrava.n, Embedment. Bxklill sM Testing
25.00
2.000 OD
40 00
3.20000
B.J
290
LF
:rwa.n m IB... Is. Class IV Hardle Nw Storm Dran (pipe suppl.M by GeorBnowna
mlMin E.ravamn. Emhdmenl. Bxklill and Tesun
27.50
7.975.00
8500
13.050.00
8.5
2.240
LF
Instillation of 24 imh. Clus IV Hirdm Pipe Storm Dmn lam wpp$icd by Georgu,ownl
Incl.dint Eusvaipn. Embedment. Bxklill mM Tesun
30.00
67.200 00
50.00
112.000.00
B-6
210
LF
IntalWmn of lB-.tun. Class IV Harden Pipe Culven(p,pe wppliM by Georgnown) Inludm8
Eauvaton. EmEMmcn1. Bxkf ll aM Teo1n
30.00
6.30000
80.00
'
8400.00
BJ
190
LF
Intalbtion of 24inrh. Class IV HaNie Pipe Culvert (pipe wppliM by Georgetown) Imludin8
Ewivaton. Embcol.l. Bxhfill aM Tesun
30.00
5,700.00
42.00
7.980.00
B-1
10
EA
Fumnh At Imtall3 0' Cm rrsc Juow,ion Boces whava.aorn aM bxklill
2.200.00
22.000.00
L50000
ISOOD 00
B-9
7
EA
Fumuh & Ipna1l 5 -fowl Storm Drain Inlet per da S,".4 De,nls arM 5 ,frtaiom
2.500.00
8500 DO
1 900 00
13.30D.00
8.10
1
EA
Fumuh & Install IW. Storm Drain Inkrs r the SIa d Delals and S -.lies,..
3.001.00
3.00D.00
2.730.00
2.730.00
Bit 1
7
1 EA
FurnA & frosts IS.foto Slmm Dnin INas or, rte Stara Deui is and 5 ifirn.ons
4.00000
12.0MD0
4.300 OD
12 90000
B.12
900
1 LF
R nd.n Er,nm Ch..[ Servat to Facmum Dmm e as Shown on Plans
950
8.55000
5 00
4.50000
111.13
1.500
SY INmah,
)mull aM 14amain Emslon Comrol Blinkers (Cunei Typ, I or approyrd c 0
2.90
8,35000
4 00
6,00000
8.18
10D
SY
Fun.sh arms Inuall SI Ausuping or &rmuda Grams Sod.n w/Wamnn to Surstato Growth
5.00
SOD 00
7 00
700 00
8-15
2.500
SY
Plxin Loam. and Seedin w/wamnn ,o Suslan Growth
2 50
6.25000
2 50
6.250.00
6.16
L900
SY
Fumish & Plac'84rk Base- Ipr 8xk6llin9 Storm Dnm Tmxh as Slmwn on Detail Sl a . Steel
DOe
20.00
38.000 00
20 00
38.000.00
8.17
600
TN
Fumish sM Plxe Type D Asphalt Overby, „wiMmB necxss ay sew<uu and asphalt removal ic
allow far SngpIh I.s,,..n al ImIS UI Asah.11 O•M.
55 OD
33,000 00
110 OD
66.000,00
BID AMOUNT PART R fITEMS 8-1 - 847s
S
239.725 W
S
321.510.
B.dder &kowwlM a AddeMa No 1+
it
YES
YES
BNder Aro wl"Ife AW,W, No ?I
YES _ _
YES
_ BMder Pro. a<Serur 10
1
YES 1
I
YES
I hereby rend, 11u11hrsIs s rorrat aM 1. ubulatop of all bMs rrce.vM
Ro.,, Paten & Kasberg. L L P
Council Meeting Date: February 24, 2004 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
&0�- G36h-
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to award the bid, from Viking
Construction, Inc., for street microsurfacing in the amount of $264,400.24.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Sealed bids were received and opened Monday, February 9 at 2:00 p.m. for the
application of microsurfacing to approximately 149,643 square yards of streets.
The areas designated for microsurfacing this budget year are portions of the
River Ridge Subdivision, areas in Old Town, Quail Valley Subdivision and the
Oakcrest Subdivision.
$300,000.00 was budgeted for microsurfacing this fiscal year. The actual
bid came in at $262,400.24. Staff recommends that the project amount budgeted
be approved so that the City may utilize the low bid price presented on this
year's bid and possibly expand the area to be microsurfaced.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended award of the bid to Viking Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $264,400.24 and approval of a project budget in the amount of
$300,000.00 at their February 17, 2004 meeting. Approved 6-0 (Brown absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends award of the bid to Viking Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $264,400.24 and approval of a project budget in the amount of
$300,000.00
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding from microsurfacing account number 100-134-5807-00.
COMMENTS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Bid documents and bid tab.
Financial Impact check List
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Mark Miller
Assistant City Manager Transportation Sermoes Manager
For Utilities
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
Yes
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
Yes
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
N/A
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
No
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how? N/A
Year:
Department:
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
Microsurfacing of roadways extends the life of the street and is the City's primary preventive maintenance tool
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact.
N/A
Finance
Review 7
2004
Prepared by:
Barbara Lake
=Agendaltem:icrosurfacing
bruary 24, 2004
Date:
February 18, 2004
Agenda Item Check List - Financial Impact
1. Was it budgeted?
Yes
2. Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
Yes
3. If not, where is the money coming from?
N/A
4. Is there something (budgeted) that won't get done because you are spending these funds? If
so, please explain.
No
5. Will this have an impact on the next year's budget?
6. Does this project have future revenue impact? If so, how? N/A
Year:
Department:
7. Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational
costs, etc).
Microsurfacing of roadways extends the life of the street and is the City's primary preventive maintenance tool
8. Estimated staff hours:
N/A
9. Cross -divisional impact.
N/A
Finance
Review 7
CITY OF GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY OWNED UTILITIES
MICROSURFACING BID TAB
2004
BIDDER
TOTAL AMOUNT BID
RECEIPT
ADDENDUM #1
AND #2
BID BOND
Viking Construction, Inc.
$262,400.24
N/A
Yes
Ballou Construction
$299,321.70
N/A
Yes
CiWof Georgetown
Microsurfacing Contract 2004
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
THIS BID IS SUBMITTED TO:
SECTION 00120
BID FORM
City of Georgetown
Microsurfacing Contract
Various locations throughout the City
City of Georgetown, Texas
300 Industrial Boulevard
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
The undersigned BIDDER proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to enter into an agreement with
OWNER in the form included in the Contract Documents to perform and famish all Work as specified
or indicated in the Contract Documents for the Contract Price and within the Contract Time indicated
in this Bid and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
. j 2. BIDDER accepts all of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Bid and Instructions to Bidders,
including without limitation those dealing with the disposition of Bid security. This Bid will remain
subject to acceptance for sixty calendar days after the day of Bid opening. BIDDER will sign and
submit the Agreement with the Bonds and other documents required by the Bidding Requirements
within ten days after the date of OWNER's Notice of Award.
3. In submitting this bid, BIDDER represents, as more fully set forth in the Agreement, that:
a. BIDDER has examined copies of all the Bidding Documents and of the following addenda
(receipt of all which is hereby acknowledged):
Number Date Name
l
i
i
b. BIDDER has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work,
site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect
cost, progress, performance or famishing of the Work.
C. BIDDER has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for obtaining and
carefully studying) all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests and studies which
pertain to the subsurface of physical conditions at the site or otherwise may affect the cost,
progress, performance or furnishing of the Work as BIDDER considers necessary for the
performance or finishing of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in
accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including
specifically the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Agreement; and no additional examinations,
investigations, explorations, tests, reports, or similar information or data are or will be required
by BIDDER for such purposes.
arOWNs00. 120 00120-1
eKrzaroa
City of Georgetown
Microsurfacing Contract 2004
d. BIDDER has reviewed and checked all information and data shown or indicated on the Contract
Documents with respect to existing Underground Facilities at or contiguous to the site and
assumed responsibility for the accurate location of said Underground Facilities. No additional
examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports or similar information or data in respect
of said Underground Facilities are or will be required by BIDDER in order to perform and
furnish the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the
other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of
paragraph 8 of the Agreement.
e. BIDDER has correlated the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations,
explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
f. BIDDER has given OWNER written notice of all conflicts, errors or discrepancies that it has
discovered in the Contract Documents and the written resolution thereof by OWNER is
acceptable to BIDDER.
g. This Bid is genuine and not made in the interest of or on behalf of any undisclosed person, firm
or corporation and is not submitted in conformity with any agreement or rules of any group,
association, organization or corporation; BIDDER has not directly or indirectly induced or
solicited any other BIDDER to submit a false or sham Bid; BIDDER has not solicited or induced
any person, firm or corporation to refrain from bidding; and BIDDER has not sought by
collusion to obtain for itself any advantage over any other BIDDER or over OWNER.
4. BIDDER will complete work on or before June 5. 2004 for the following prices, as shown in Bid
Schedule. Work shall be completed within 30 days of the start of the microsurfacing process.
The Bid Items for Mobilization, Bonds and Insurance shall not exceed 5% of the total amount Bid for any
particular Base Bid.
GTOWNs0o.120 00120-2 0624194
1
City of Georgetown
Microsurfacing Contract 2004
BID SCHEDULE
FOR
MICROSURFACING CONTRACT
Total
Item Estimated Unit Amount
No. Quantity Unit Description and Unit Price in Words Price (in Figures)
100% LS Mobilization_ CA pO
00
Dollars $kk': $
and V n Cents
2 149,643 SY Microsurfacing complete in place as detailed
and specified, the sum of $ N.66 $ ` y Oo Z�
O MT Dollars
and \ G,%ArCents
1 TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT
BASE BID AMOUNT $l.ao "0i2F>n5.xi'Z d u 0 Abu+2 iA\3+.4 0 a..Eb b3UAi>s
(words) PC N e) Ti w EN T 1k
(figures)
Quantities are not guaranteed. Final payment will be based on actual quantities.
6. BIDDER agrees that all Work on each project will be substantially complete and ready for final
payment by the dates indicated in Paragraph 15 of the Agreement. BIDDER accepts the provisions
of the Agreement as to liquidated damages in the event of failure to complete the Work on time.
7. BIDDER must answer the following questions (refer to INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS for
definitions):
A. Is the bidder that is making and submitting this bid a "RESIDENT BIDDER" or a
"NONRESIDEJkt% ZF$J, ��--
B. If the bidder is a "NONRESIDENT BIDDER", does the State in which the Nonresident Bidder's
principal place of business is located have a law requiring a Nonresident Bidder of that State to
bid a certain amount or percentage under the bid of a Resident Bidder of that State in order for
the Nonresident Bidder of that State to be awarded a contract on his bid in such State?
Answer:
C. If the answer to Question B above is "yes", then what amount or percentage must a Texas
Resident Bidder bid under the bid of a Resident Bidder of that State in order to be awarded a
contract on such bid in said State?
Answer:
GTowNSOO.120 00120-3
City: of Georgetown
Microsurfacing Contract 2004
8.The following documents are attached to and made a condition of this Bid:
a. Required Bid Security in the form of five percent of the Bidder's maximum base bid price and
in the form of certified check of a Bid Bond.
9. Communications concerning this Bid shall be addressed to:
ge•1 •� ki
'Ci
•: �•�� to
10. The terms used in this Bid which are defined in the General Conditions of the Construction Contract
included as part of the Contract Documents have the meanings assigned to them in the General
Conditions.
SUBMITTED ON r" �� .20014
y
If BIDDER is:
An Individual
By
doing business as
(Individual's Name)
Business address:
Phone No.:
A Partnershio
By
(Firm Name)
Business address:
(General Partner)
Phone No.:
GrOWNS00.120
00120-4
City of Georgetown
b icrosurfacing Contract 2004
A Corporation
By
(Corporation Name)
(State of Incorporation)
By \ J 3 Ift Izfri 1�- �u N �f✓
(Name of Person Authorized to Sign)
I (Title)
(Corporate Seal)
Attest �� -------
Business
Business address: 2 Z
z
Phone No.: .S t i. 9
A Joint Venture
By
(Name)
(Address)
(Name)
(Address)
Phone No.
(Each joint venturer must sign. The manner of signing for each individual, partnership and corporation that
is a party to the joint venture should be in the manner indicated above.)
GTOWNS00.120
END OF SECTION
00120-5
10111Mmn