HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 11.25.2003i'�,
Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 at 06:00:00 PM at the City
Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, 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
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows
A Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
- Pending Litigation
- Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters
B Sec.551.087 Economic Development
- Discussion regarding economic development prospects regarding automobile manufacturing suppliers
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).
C Call to Order
D Pledge of Allegiance
E Comments from the dais regarding the following items:
- Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments -- Mayor Gary Nelon
- Board/Commission Vacancies:
- One position on the Housing Authority
- One position on the Library Board
F Announcements and Comments from City Manager
G Public Wishing to Address Council
Dr. JoAnn Ford regarding results of Mission of Mercy.
Keith Peshak regarding management of the City.
City Council Agenda/November 25, 2003
Page 1 of 5 Pages
Action from Executive Session
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, November
10, and the Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 -- Sandra Lee, City Secretary
J Consideration of authorization for Paul Brandenburg, Georgetown City Manager, to sign a contract
permitting the Georgetown Public Library to receive direct financial aid in the amount of $6,090.00 from
the Texas State Library and Archives Commission — Eric Lashley, Library Director
K Consideration and possible action to authorize the approval of the annual license renewal, system
support, and software activation and hardware repair for the AMR Genesis and MVRS system between
the City of Georgetown and Itron Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $42,096.00 — Michael W.
Mayben, Energy Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
L Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of two (2) copiers from Ikon Office Solutions
and one (1) copier from Dahill Industries through the the Texas Local Government Cooperative contract in
the amount of $28,795.00 — Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and
Administration
M Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a lease with the U.S. Department of the
Army, Army Corps of Engineers for public park and recreational purposes -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City
Manager
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
Awards of Bids
1. Consideration and possible action to award the bid for Police vehicles to Philpott Ford in the
amount of $489, 873.00 -- Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance
and Administration
2. Consideration and possible action to award the bid for pickups and vans to Philpott Ford in the
amount of $324,490.00 — Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance
and Administration
3. Consideration and possible action to award the bid for a bucket truck to Altec Utility Equipment in
the amount of $97,480.00 — Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki Rundell, Director of
Finance and Administration
O Discussion and possible action regarding the proposed Parking Management Plan for downtown — Tom
Yantis, Assistant City Manager and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
P Item Forwarded from Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
Consideration and possible action to renew a contract between the City of Georgetown and ElectSolve
Technology Solutions and Services Incorporated to provide AMR System Data Services in the amount of
$56,000.00 — Michael W. Mayben, Energy Services; Walter Koopmann, Wireless Communications System
Manager; and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
Q Consideration and possible action to approve the contract, budget and scope of work with GRW Willis,
Inc. for the Airport Master Plan Update — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
R Consideration and possible action to authorize a contract with Montgomery and Associates to conduct the
2003/04 City of Georgetown Quality of Life Citizen Survey, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 — Micki
City Council Agenda/November 25, 2003
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Rundell, Director Finance & Administration and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
S Consideration and possible action on a resolution expressing official intent to reimburse costs of fleet
police vehicle capital replacement not to exceed $585,600 with proceeds from bonds that will be issued
at a later time -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Second Readings
1. Second reading of an Ordinance amending the Georgetown Code of Ordinances, Section
8.20.0201, related to the prohibition of Items placed in such a manner as to obstruct
passageway of or on public grounds and rights-of-way — Tom Leggitt, Fire Marshal and Anthonly
Lincoln, Fire Chief
2. Second Reading of an ordinance revising Section 3.01.490 of the Code of Ordinances entified "
Disciplinary Action and Appeals" — Cada Boudand, Director of Human Resources
3. Second Reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the of City 9.88 acres, more or
less, in the Joseph Thompson Survey, located 100 feet north of and parallel to the approximate
center line of the South Fork of the San Gabriel River — Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner
and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
4. Second Reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the of City 308.06 acres, more
or less, in the Joseph Thompson Survey, Abstract 608, located at 2951 SH 29 West, 2.5 miles
West of IH35 — Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
Public Hearinas f First Readinas
1. First reading of an ordinance of the City of Georgetown renaming Hacia Los Lobos Boulevard to
Wolf Ranch Parkway and Turkeytail Trail to Indigo Lane -- Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief and
Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief
2. First Reading of an ordinance providing for the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan as a new
element of the Century Plan— Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
3. Public Hearing to consider a Rezoning of Williams Addition, Block 1, Lot 9 and 10 and .361
acres out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, from RS. Residential Single Family to OF, Office
District, located at 2201 Williams Drive — Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia
Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
4. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning of Williams Addition, Block 1, Lot 9 and 10 and .361
acres out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, from RS. Residential Single Family to OF, Office
District, located at 2201 Williams Drive — Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia
Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
5. Public Hearing to consider a Rezoning of .303 acres out of Block 69 of the Lost Addition from
RS, Residential Single Family District to OF, Office District, located at 214 West University Avenue
— Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
6. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning of .303 acres out of Block 69 of the Lost Addition from
RS, Residential Single Family District to OF, Office District, located at 214 West University Avenue
— Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
7. First Reading of an ordinance amending the 2002/03 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget)
to offset variances in various fund budgets for increases in expenditures that are tied to service
requests and revenue collection rates — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Consideration and possible action on a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of The Rivery Park, Block A, Lot 1,
located on Rivery Boulevard — Carla Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
City Council Agenda/November 25, 2003
Page 3 of 5 Pages
W Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 195.63 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey to be
known as Woodland Park West, located off 4-T Ranch Road and behind Woodland Park Phase 1-A —
Mclissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development
Services
X Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 42.24 acres in the John Sutherland
and C. Joyner Surveys, to be known as The Woods of Fountainwood, Phase 5, located on Russell Park
Road with variances to the Subdivision Regulations — Cada Benton, Development Planner and Amelia
Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
Y Consideration and possible action on a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Villages of Berry
Creek, Block H, Lots 108,109 and 110, located on Buck Meadow Drive — Melissa McCollum,
Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
Z Discussion and possible action to amend the enabling ordinance and bylaws of the Animal Shelter
Advisory Board -- Councilmember Gabe Sansing
AA Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding partnership opportunities with Habitat for Humanity of
Greater Georgetown — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
BB Appointments to City Boards and Commissions
1. Consideration and possible action to appoint Councilmember Patty Eason to the Georgetown
Utility System Advisory Boardto fill the term left vacant by the resignation of Ken Evans — Mayor
Gary Nelon
2. Consideration and possible action to appoint Councilmember Farley Snell to the Georgetown
Transportation Enhancement Corporation to fill the term left vacant by the resignation of Ken
Evans -- Mayor Gary Nelon
3. Consideration and possible action to appoint Sarah Milburn as an alternate to the Planning and
Zoning Commission to fill the vacancy created due to the resignation of Michelle Gambino --
Mayor Gary Nelon
CC Discussion and possible action to authorize the preparation and filing of the necessary applications and
documents with the Public Utility Commission of Texas to authorize the Georgetown Utility System to
provide electrical services to the Meadows of Georgetown and other subdivisions/areas for the
purposes of serving municipal load, and to approve the retention of the law firm of Lloyd Gosselink Blevins
Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. for same — Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
DD Consideration and possible action to adopt a policy for access management on state maintained
roadways within the City of Georgetown's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction — Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
EE Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to Resolution 111103-R, calling the Special
Election for December 20, 2003, to add an additional Election Day Polling Place and to approve the
Election Judges and Alternate Judges for the election of a councilmember for District 7 -- Sandra D. Lee,
City Secretary and Trish Cads, City Attorney
FF Consideration and possible action to set a date for a special council meeting in December to consider
the second reading of an ordinance establishing a tax increment reinvestment zone for Simon/Wolf Ranch
— Trish Cads, City Attorney
GG Consideration and possible action to approve a First Amendment to the Purchase Contract between the
Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) and the City relating to the purchase of 33.16 acres of land
out of the John F. Ferguson Survey, A-231, for purposes of constructing and operating a regional
wastewater treatment plant to be known as the "Mankins Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant", to
include provisions required by the Texas Education Agency -- Trish Cads, City Attorney
City Council Agenda/November 25, 2003
Page 4 of 5 Pages
1
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 , 2003, 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/November 25, 2003
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Council Meeting Date: November 25, 2003 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Council consideration and possible action to authorize the
approval of the annual license renewal, system support, and
software activation and hardware repair for the AMR Genesis and
MVRS system between the City of Georgetown and itron Incorporated.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting authorization to renew AMR Network
supplies, support, repair services and software for the City's AMR
system from Itron Incorporated for 2004. Itron has been providing
this support since December of 2001.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a proprietary software application and maintenance
contract and does not require competitive bid.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds not to exceed the amount of $42,096.00 will be taken
from the Electric/AMR operations account number 610 -115 -5303 -AM.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Itron Summary Billing Report
By:
igg Michael W. Mayb
an y Manager Energy Services
Uti i Operations
Itron Summary Billing Report
TOW $2,{X50 $2,4X50 $2,50.50 $2.4X0 $2,43150 52AX.W 32,4X§4 $2A" $2.4X0 $2,4&1.50 51AX.M S2A
SOSwn 08S,Gl W01.00MGE ISIS 1 6500.W S SUU.W $ 50000 s 00.00 S 500.00 5 300.00 s 50000 3 00.0 $ 500.W S 50000 s 500.W $ WON S W(IM
TOW $ WY.00 3 $00.50 s 500.60 s MOO $ 50.00 $ MOm s 30.00 s &10.00 $ MOO 5 W0." $ $60.66 $ 533.00
G TOM 323X0 52.331.30 32AM.50 $2.354.60 $2,3x50 !2.3X.50 {2,034,30 32.M.W 52AUM $2.3XW $2.3X.§4 $2}11430
WbP
COst4 Cusbnlsr IU. MFcrwpdr GOSrAg
UNI
J.
J3n-04
FPPM
wrO1
APris
11gM
JO
JOIis
AO004
sq
Odic
NpO4
0 414
0041600004 00555 GEORGETONN(r)(), ClT(XCCUASSY,MJ.W9R GATT.
45 5
4.W
S 104.50
5 02.50
$ 202.W
S 20230
5 =W
3 202.W
5 20050
3 WYW
5 MW
S MIN
S N2,W
S 2N.W
CpI ASSY 12 .W9ACXUP"n.
26 S
4.50
S 112.0
S 112W
$ 112.50
$ IMSO
5 112W
$ 112.0
6 112.50
S 112.50
5 112.W
S 112.50
$ 112.W
S 112W
CCU ASSY 12100, wrHKXtP BAT.
15 S
4.W
S 67W
S 67.W
$ 57.50
$ VW
5 W.W
$ 67.W
5 6150
5 6TW
$ 67W
S 67.W
S ST.W
S 6T.W
CCU ASSY 120V. V49A WBATT.
6 S
4.W
S 27.W
S 27W
$ 27.00
S 27.00
$ n.W
S 2TW
S 27M
S V.W
S 210
S 27M
$ 27.00
S 27.0
CCU ASSY 120V, WIBAf BATT.
55
4.W
$ 11.0
$ 22.50
$ 220
S n.W
S n.W
$ n.W
$ 22.50
5 22.0
S 22.0
S 22.W
6 22.50
S VW
OBS.CC0.110VWl BACXUPaAn
b2 3
4.W
31.741.50
S1.741.W
31.241.50
31.74130
51,741.50
31]41.0
$1]41.50
$1.741.0
51.741.W
51.741.W
5114130
11114,38
OBS.CCU,M"GAClU aAT.
6 $
4.W
S MW
$ MW
3 15.0
5 160
$ b.N
3 b.00
$ 36.00
3 MW
S bN
5 b.W
s b.N
S MW
OBS.Cp1.120V W7BACK lA BAT.
W s
4.60
5 2260
i n500
S 225.W
S MW
3 n5.0
S 226W
$ 225W
S MW
s 225.00
S 225.W
S n500
s 225.W
TOW $2,{X50 $2,4X50 $2,50.50 $2.4X0 $2,43150 52AX.W 32,4X§4 $2A" $2.4X0 $2,4&1.50 51AX.M S2A
SOSwn 08S,Gl W01.00MGE ISIS 1 6500.W S SUU.W $ 50000 s 00.00 S 500.00 5 300.00 s 50000 3 00.0 $ 500.W S 50000 s 500.W $ WON S W(IM
TOW $ WY.00 3 $00.50 s 500.60 s MOO $ 50.00 $ MOm s 30.00 s &10.00 $ MOO 5 W0." $ $60.66 $ 533.00
G TOM 323X0 52.331.30 32AM.50 $2.354.60 $2,3x50 !2.3X.50 {2,034,30 32.M.W 52AUM $2.3XW $2.3X.§4 $2}11430
TOtsl S &1100 5 X3.00 5 X3.00 5 304 S 3.00 3 MOO 5 X3.W i &13.00 S uta S MOO 3 MOO S MOO
Gr4r16TW1 S 4X00 $ 44.00 S OSO.M $ 40000 546.00 11446,00 5 484.00 $ 484.00 $ 4X00 $ 4b.N $ 3X00 s 4b.N
wb Psr
Curti Gu4tarrNr Wr00 Oncryam
O .VtY um
J.
FPM
wr-0
Apr4)4
N4yA
J.
MW
AupO1
SPP<4
OCIAs
N.
G4c-0
Wr6wsr4 MSI I GEORGETOWN(rX). CIT U TRl TOP LEVF1.N OREADY
I S Sial S
35.00
3 51.0
S MW S
MW
s 110
3 SS.m
S M,W S
X.W s
WOO
s 17.0
s 33.00
S 33.0
Timm TOP LEVE FW40 READY
1 3 33.00 S
33.0
S 55.0
3 3500 S
17.0
S XIN
S MW
3 MW 3
11.W 3
WIN
S MW
3 33.M
S WW
TRX.GSR TOP LEVEL
1 3 310 $
b,0
S b.50
S X.50 3
X.50
$ b.50
3 U
3 b.50 $
M,W $
b.0
$ b.W
3 M,W
3 MW
TRX,GSR TOP LE
1 s X50 $
MW
S b.W
S b.W S
X.0
$ b.W
s b.W
s b.50 S
MW S
36.0
s Mm
$ MM
S bW
TO 3
I4100
S 143.00
3 143.00 5
14.00
It 143.00
It 143.00
3 143.00 S
14100 3
14100
S 143.00
5 14100
S 14.00
SpIW4rr. MOaIlE SY59FTW ACTFEE LNRS
1 {114.00 $
176100
s 11600
$ 176.00 s
125.M
s 170M
s 178M
$ 176W S
17600 3
17600
S 176.00
It 176W
3 17600
WI(X4 COLLECTICMSYTEU
1 {3§4.00 3
-
s -
s - S
-
s -
It
3 - 3
- S
$ 350.00
$ 35600
s MO
10,X1 TO 2W IAUERS
1 i . $
-
s -
$ - s
-
s -
$
s - S
- 5
$ .
s .
s -
Stw.NVR3,V!$W.POLLING
1 $161.00 3
157N
S IBT.00
s 167.00 $
167.00
s 16100
3 15100
s 152.W s
151W 5
157.00
$ 167m
s 167.00
$ Is100
TOtsl S &1100 5 X3.00 5 X3.00 5 304 S 3.00 3 MOO 5 X3.W i &13.00 S uta S MOO 3 MOO S MOO
Gr4r16TW1 S 4X00 $ 44.00 S OSO.M $ 40000 546.00 11446,00 5 484.00 $ 484.00 $ 4X00 $ 4b.N $ 3X00 s 4b.N
00,
City Council Meeting Date: November 25, 2003 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Council consideration and possible action to renew a contract
between the City of Georgetown and ElectSolve Technology Solutions and
Services Incorporated to provide AMR System Data Services.
ITEM SUMMARY:
In December 2001 the Georgetown City Council approved the contract
for AMR data services between ElectSolve Technology Solutions and
Services Incorporated and the City of Georgetown. This contract is a
five-year contract renewable annually upon the agreement of both the City
and ElectSolve Technology Solutions and Services Incorporated. This year,
both the City of Georgetown and ElectSolve Technology Solutions and
Services Incorporated have agreed to renew the contract from January 2004
through December 2004. Renewal of this contract will allow the City to
continue to streamline and further automate data gathering and reporting
as well as maintain 24 x 7 customer support. Therefore, staff recommends
Council approval of the contract renewal in the amount of $56,000.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds not to exceed the amount of $56,000 will be taken from the
Electric/AMR operations account.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Board recommended approval to
at their meeting held November 18,
$56,000.00. Approved 6-0
renew the contract with ElectSolve
2003 in an amount not to exceed
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approval of the contract renewal in the
amount of $56,000.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Letter of agrfsm=15 for contract extension from Electsolve
Technology SqTutjzbs 4pd Services Incorporated. ,
Assistant Michael W. Mayb
for Utilities Energy Services
V
Twv Fwolo�Y `-TaWtlenw �nJ eovlew w. Iwo.
P.O. Box 661
Shreveport, La. 71162
Walter: 11/4103
The Georgetown AMR Support Agreement is nearing completion for the calendar year of 2003.
ElectSolve Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. wishes to renew this agreement with the City
of Georgetown for the calendar year 2004 as allowed within the terms of the contract. We believe
that we can continue to provide value by delivering a premium support service and continuing to
enhance this system during the coming year. Due to the addition of a second Itron DEC Alpha
system and the VEE system and related processes in 2003 our monthly support and system
enhancement fees will be $4200.00 per month.
During 2003 in addition to providing 247 technical system support, consulting and on-site
solution management, we continued to enhance and streamline meter reading system processes
including the addition of VEE(Validation, Editing and Estimation) capabilities to support AMR's
new meter read "Edit" process.
Our goal for 2004 , will be to upgrade one additional DEC Itron Fixnet server which will provide
AMR Services with 2 reliable primary servers to insure long term viability of AMR capabilities
going forward. We also will be conducting an equipment life cycle replacement project to replace
all aging meter reading computer servers and workstations.
We will also continue to streamline and automated meter data gathering and reporting functions
overall and will add additional functionality as necessary.
The City's investment in AMR continues to be leveraged to enhance customer service and to
provide returns on this electric metering system investment. ElectSolve feels that this investment
will continue to return value to the City of Georgetown as long as it is properly managed and
enhanced on an ongoing basis. ElectSolve plans to maintain its' commitment to the City of
Georgetown and to provide the absolute best service we can possibly provide.
Sincerely
Mark Ponder
Chief Technologist/Managing Director
ElectSolve Technology Solutions and Services, Inc.
mponder@electsolve.com
318.347-4305 Cell
318-752-1500
318-949-8885 Fax
11 An10. .
Council Meeting Date: November 25, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Item No.
Discussion and possible action to authorize the preparation and filing of
the necessary applications and documents with the Public Utility Commission of
Texas to authorize the Georgetown Utility System to provide electrical services
to the Meadows of Georgetown and other subdivisions/area's for the purposes of
serving municipal load, and to approve the retention of the law firm of Lloyd
Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. for same
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Meadows of Georgetown is subdivision east of Churchill Farms in
Georgetown. Currently, Oncor Energy is the electric provider for this
subdivision. The City of Georgetown has an interest in serving street lighting
in this area, as it is a municipal load and not a retail load. Staff has held
meetings with oncor concerning service to these facilities.
In order for the City to serve this classification of load, municipal load,
an Electric CCN Amendment will be necessary to accomplish this. The law firm of
Lloyd, Gosselink, Blevins, Rochelle, and Townsend, P.C. has performed this
service for the City numerous times over the past years and have proven
themselves to be very efficient.
Therefore staff recommends Council approval to authorize Lloyd, Gosselink,
Blevins, Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. to prepare and file the necessary applications
and documents with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which will authorize
Georgetown Utility Systems to provide electrical service to the Meadows of
Georgetown and other subdivisions for the purposes of street lighting.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Legal fees to be paid from the Electric Capital Projects budget as
appropriate.
COMMENTS:
Representative from Lloyd, Gosselink will be available at the meeting tc
provide additional information and to answer any questions the Council may have.
ATTACHMENTS:
NONE
tted By: Jim Bri
sista Manager
for Utilitl s
I
Council Meeting Date: November 25, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. T)V)_
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to adopt a policy for access management on state
maintained roadways within the City of Georgetown's ETJ.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Senate Bill No. 361, effective September 1, 2003, amends the state Transportation Code to
allow municipalities to establish an access management policy, as long as doing so does not impair
the ability of the state to receive federal funds for highway construction.
The attached proposed access management policy was prepared by HDR Engineering for the
council to consider adopting as the City of Georgetown's policy.
The policy was developed incorporating guidelines currently contained in the City of
Georgetown's UDC and HDR's Driveway Spacing Study completed in 2001.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
HDR's Access Management Policy for the State Highway System Within the City of
Georgetown's ETJ. 11 sr-� I A .
Submitted By: ( Jim
For Utilities
Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
DRIVEWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN
GEORGETOWN ETJ
Prepared for:
M El X 1A 0
Prepared by:
FUR
Novemeber 2003
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
DRIVEWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN
GEORGETOWN ETJ
Prepared for:
City of Georgetown, Texas
Prepared by:
HDR EngigQring, INC.
..........
...........
...
GARY L. GEMA.R .
....................
91581
/L 1�.& � -
Gary L. Gemar, P.E.
Project Manager
Table of Contents
Section Page
1 Overview........................................................................................................................... 1
2 Design Documentation.................................................................................................... 2
3 Driveway Spacing/Frontage Roads................................................................................. 6
4 Driveway Spacing — Other State System Highways....................................................... 12
5 Deviations &Appeals....................................................................................................... i4
List of Figures
Figure
Page
I Access Connection Spacing............................................................................................. y
2 Frontage Road U -Turn Spacing...................................................................................... y
3 Recommended Access Control At Exit Ramp Junction With Frontage Road .............. 8
4 Recommended Access Control At Entrance Ramp Junction With Frontage Road ..... 9
List of Tables
Figure
Page
I Frontage Road Connection Spacing Criteria.................................................................. 8
2 Desirable Spacing Between Exit Ramps and Driveways ............................................... to
3 Other State Highways Connection Spacing Criteria...................................................... 12
4 Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines........................................................................... 13
ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN GEORGETOWN ETJ
S.B. No. 361, effective
September 1, 2003,
amends the Transportation
Code to state that a state
highway access
management plan does
not surpass a city's rule. In
other words, S.B. 361
prohibits TxDOT
endorsement of a city's
highway access rules as a
stipulation for enforcement
of a city's regulations.
As a result, City of
Georgetown desires to
implement access
permitting for state
highway system roadways
within their jurisdiction
through the development
of an access management
policy incorporating
guidelines currently
contained in The City of
OVERVIEW
S.B. No. 361
SECTION 1. Section 203.032, Transportation
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 203.032. PRECEDENCE OF
COMMISSION ORDER. (a) Except as provided
by Subsection (b), an (An] order of the
commission under Section 203.031 supersedes
a conflicting rule or ordinance of a state
agency or subdivision of this state or any
county or municipality, including a home -
rule municipality.
(b) An order of the commission under
Section 203. 031(a)(2) or (4) does not
supersede a conflicting rule or ordinance
of a municipality, including a home -rule
municipality, unless the United States
Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration notifies the
department that enforcement of the
municipal rule or ordinance would impair
the ability of the state or the department
to receive funds for highway construction
or maintenance from the federal government.
(c) Subsection (b) does not apply
when the department owns the access rights.
Georgetown's Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC is based in large
part on the recommendations contained in the City of Georgetown's 2001
Driveway Spacing Study. This study included investigation into area and national
access policies as well as those found in industry design manuals such as
AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. In addition,
the TxDOT's Access Management Manual was consulted as guide in the
development of this policy.
Proper access management aids in protecting the substantial civic investment in
transportation by safeguarding roadway efficiency and augmenting traffic safety,
consequently reducing the necessity for costly improvements. Additionally,
access management can significantly lower traffic accidents, personal injury, and
City of Georgetown—Driveway Accm Policy
property damage, as well as encourage the orderly layout and sustainability of a
community. It is for these reasons, the City of Georgetown has compiled the
following driveway access policy governing the state highway system within the
City's jurisdictional limits.
DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
Adherence to the City of Georgetown's driveway access policy does not preclude
the need for engineering driveway locations. Any changes to drainage or
hydraulics on the state highway system resulting from access connections must
be approved by TxDOT prior to any local access connection approval.
Consideration also needs to be given to the actual driveway design, utility
location/relocation, traffic control during construction, compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS),
environmental requirements, wetland considerations if appropriate, and the need
to follow all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations.
Engineering studies or analyses can be used to assist in the evaluation of future
access connections to the state highway system within the City of Georgetown.
Regardless of if the preceding criteria can or cannot be met, an engineering
study may be required.
The purpose of an engineering study is to determine the safety, mobility, and
operational impacts that the access connection will have on the highway system.
In addition, such studies can also assist in the determination of the compatibility
between the proposed land use and the transportation network.
Early Coordination
As early as possible in the development process, applicants are encouraged to
meet with the City of Georgetown's Development Engineer to discuss specific
requirements associated with obtaining access to the state highway system. This
meeting, in addition to bringing all affected parties together regarding access
connection issues, will also help to define the requirements of any needed
engineering study.
When determining the need for and level of detail of an engineering study, the
following questions should be considered:
• Does the proposed driveway(s) meet the minimum spacing requirements
per Tables 1 and 2?
• Will the proposed driveway(s) require a deceleration or acceleration lane?
• What are the traffic volumes and classification of the intersecting street at
the proposed driveway location?
2
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy
• Are there any sight distance or physical obstructions and/or constraints that
will result in a safety problem?
• Are there any environmental or hydraulic issues associated with the
proposed driveway(s)?
• Is there an unusual lot configuration?
The responses to the above list of questions will determine the level of detail
required in an engineering study. If necessary, specifics regarding needed level
of study, time of day analysis, phasing of development, and project area can be
defined and agreed upon at the initial coordination meeting. Additional
information and analyses may be required if the access connection cannot meet
the minimum spacing requirements, or there is an operational or safety impact.
Engineering Study versus Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is defined in the requirements described below.
The following section outlines the purpose and requirements of an engineering
study and a TIA.
In nearly all cases where the access requirements set forth herein are satisfied, a
TIA will not be required. Typically, the impacts of an access point along a state
facility can be ascertained by means of an engineering study that indicates the
forecasted turning movements at the proposed access connections. The
forecasted turning movements, used in conjunction with the TxDOT Roadway
Design Manual, will determine the need for and the required length of left -turn
and/or right -turn deceleration lanes.
Requirements for Engineering Studies and TIAs
The intent of this section is to identify the possible criteria for engineering studies
and TIAs. It is by no means meant to minimize the need for the applicant to meet
with the City to determine the study's requirements. It is the intent of the City to
require only those elements of an engineering study or TIA that are necessary to
answer the specific questions that arise during the permitting process for specific
access points. It is not the intent of the City to require an exhaustive TIA for every
application for a driveway permit on a state roadway. The early coordination
meeting, as discussed above, will be the mechanism to identify whether or not an
engineering study or TIA is necessary and, if so, the level of detail that will be
required.
City of Georgetow Driveway Access Policy
Engineering Study
Should an engineering study be required, it may include the following elements:
trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment at the proposed access
points. Additionally, the engineering study may require that existing traffic volume
data be collected.
The trip generation will be conducted using the latest edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trio Generation Manual unless there is acceptable
data that supports the use of another trip generation source. Trip distribution will
be performed with input from the City of Georgetown staff. The traffic assignment
will be conducted to determine the forecasted turning movements attributable to
the proposed development. The existing traffic counts will be grown using an
annual growth rate as agreed to by the City to the build -out year of the proposed
development. As an example, if the proposed development will take two years to
construct and occupy, the existing traffic volumes will be grown by the agreed
upon growth factor for two years. The resulting traffic volumes will be used as
background traffic volumes, and the assigned forecasted turning movements will
be added to the background traffic volumes resulting in the total traffic volumes.
The total traffic volumes will be used to determine the need for left -tum and right -
tum lanes. If such lanes are needed, refer to the TxDOT Roadway Design
Manual to determine their lengths and other design criteria.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
In the rare instances where a TIA is required by, it may include the above-
mentioned elements as well as the same type of data for intersections adjacent
to the proposed site. Additionally, the TIA may require operational analyses
(including LOS and capacity analyses) for the study intersections as determined
during the initial meeting between the applicant and the City of Georgetown.
Furthermore, the applicant's TIA should include recommendations for mitigation
measures should the impact of the proposed access point(s) on the state
highway system result in unacceptable levels of service.
DRIVEWAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
The Development Engineer or his assigns shall review driveway permit
applications as to their impact on vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and safety
and approve or deny the permit based on these considerations. No permit shall
be denied unless it is determined by the Development Engineer that the
proposed location of the driveway will have an adverse effect on the public
safety. In making this determination, the Development Engineer shall consider:
4
City of Gcotgetow Drivew y Accm Policy
1. The topography of the land;
2. Land use (including but not limited to the intensity of development
and trip attraction/generation potential, mix of vehicles and turning
movements;
3. Function of public street (including but not limited to the number of
lanes, medians, median openings, vertical and horizontal curvature,
sight distance, operating speeds, traffic volumes, entrance/exit
ramps and frontage roads);
4. The location of nearby streets and driveways;
5. The site plan (including but not limited to on-site circulation,
delineation of the intended paths, parking stalls, location of
buildings, location of loading areas;
6. Actual or anticipated excessive increase in vehicular traffic being
routed onto streets occurring as a result of any such permit;
7. Physical constraints on the site;
8. Unusual lot configurations;
9. Potential traffic movements which are unsafe or have an adverse
effect on traffic operations; and,
10. Joint access at the time of subdivision or site plan approval for
abutting lots which have insufficient frontage to allow a driveway
approach for each lot.
No driveway permit shall be issued unless the design of the driveway approach
has been approved by the Development Engineer or is established in
accordance with an approved site plan.
City of Gcorgcrow Dnvcway Accm Policy
DRIVEWAY SPACING / FRONTAGE ROADS
This section describes the spacing of driveways directly accessing freeway
frontage roads within Georgetown's jurisdictional limits, including how access
connections will be applied along these frontage roads. Frontage roads are
roadways that are constructed generally parallel to a freeway or other highway.
Frontage roads may be considered in order to provide direct access to abutting
property where 1) alternative access is not available and the property would
otherwise be landlocked, 2) where it is not feasible to purchase the access, and
3) where the frontage road allows for improved mobility together with the property
access.
Connection Spacing Criteria for Frontage Roads
Table 1 gives the minimum connection spacing criteria for frontage roads.
However, a lesser connection spacing than set forth in this document may be
allowed without deviation in the following situations:
• To keep from land -locking a property; or
• Replacement or re-establishment of access to the state highway system
under highway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.
It should be noted that for areas with conventional diamond ramp patterns the
most critical areas for operations are between the exit ramp and the arterial
street and between the arterial street and the entrance ramp. In X -ramp
configurations, the most critical areas are between the exit ramp and the
subsequent entrance ramp. While Table 1 gives minimum connection spacing
criteria, the critical areas with respect to the ramp pattern may need greater
spacing requirements for operational, safety, and weaving efficiencies.
The distance between access connections is measured along the edge of the
traveled way from the centerline of pavement of the first access connection to the
centerline of pavement of the second access connection (Refer to Figure 1).
Additionally, the access connection spacing in the proximity of frontage road U-
turn lanes will be measured from the inside edge of the U -tum lane to the
centerline of the first access connection (Refer to Figure 2).
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy
(refer to Table I or 2)
Access Connection Spacing I ;
v v
L L
n O
Ei t -Y
Figure l: Access Connection Spacing Diagram
T
a
3
+
�
m
>
m
L
�
>
O
I
Access Connection Sparing
i
(refer to Table 1 or 21
°
m
FRONTAGE
ROAD
Iw
z
Iw
CC
FREEWAY
MAINLANES—�7
iw
io
FRONTAGE
ROAD
v
E
Access Connection S acin
>
>,
(refer to Table I or 2)
°
0
I
>
o
�
o
v
�
�
w
Figure 2: Frontage Road U -Tum Spacing Diagram
7
City of Georgeto"—Driveway Access Policy
Minimum Connection Spacing Criteria for Frontage Roads")
Minimum Connection Spacing feet
Posted
Speed
One -Way
Two -Way Frontage
(mph)
Frontage Roads
Roads
< 30
125
200
35
200
300
40
325
360
45
325
435
>_ 50
1 450
510
Table 1: Frontage Road Connection Spacing Criteria
(1) Distances are for passenger cars on level grade. These distances may be adjusted for
downgrades and/or significant truck traffic.
In the case where frontage roads are provided, access should be controlled for
operational purposes at ramp junctions with frontage roads through access
restrictions or the use of police powers to control driveway location and design.
Figures 3 and 4 show recommended access control strategies for planned exit
and entrance ramps, respectively, and should be used where practical.
R
Frontage Road
Control of
access line
Intersection of
Roadway Surface Intersection
of Travel Lanes
(1) For exit ramp to driveway, side street, or cross street spacings, see Table 2.
(2) When the recommended minimum separation distance cannot be obtained,
consideration should be given to channelization methods that would restrict
access to driveways within the minimum separation distance.
NOTE: THIS SHEET IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW CHANNELIZATION,
STRIPING, OR PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS.
Figure 3. Recommended Access Control At Exit Ramp Junction With Frontage
Road.
City of Georgetow Driveway Access Policy
Weaving Lanes
}
a�
a�
T�
O+
3N
QT 40,
II
III
LN
0
C�a
ioble
50 ft
Variable
4ccess denied where practical
(1) For exit ramp to driveway, side street, or cross street spacings, see Table 2.
(2) When the recommended minimum separation distance cannot be obtained,
consideration should be given to channelization methods that would restrict
access to driveways within the minimum separation distance.
NOTE: THIS SHEET IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW CHANNELIZATION,
STRIPING, OR PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS.
Figure 3. Recommended Access Control At Exit Ramp Junction With Frontage
Road.
City of Georgetow Driveway Access Policy
Intersection Intersection of
Roadway Surface
of Travel Lanes
t
v
v
T�
a}
3h
?'O
En�f a�
Frontage Road
Control of
access line
(1) For exit ramp to driveway, side street, or cross street spacings, see Table 2.
(2) When the recommended minimum separation distance cannot be obtained,
consideration should be given to channelization methods that would restrict
access to driveways within the minimum separation distance.
NOTE: THIS SHEET IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW CHANNELIZATION,
STRIPING, OR PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS.
Figure 4. Recommended Access Control At Entrance Ramp Junction With
Frontage Road.
The placement of streets and driveways in the vicinity of freeway ramp/frontage
road intersections should be carefully considered and permitted only after local
traffic operations are considered. Table 2 shows the spacing to be used between
exit ramps and driveways, side streets, or cross streets if practical. The number
of weaving lanes is defined as the total number of lanes on the frontage road
downstream from the ramp.
9
City of Georgeto m Drivew y Access Policy
Table 2: Desirable Spacing between Exit
Total Volume Driveway or
(Frtg rd +Ramp) Side Street
(vph) Volume (vph)
Ramps and Driveways
Spacing
(ft)
Number of Weaving Lanes
4
< 2500
j< 250
460
460
560
> 250
520
460
560
> 750
790
460
560
> 1000
1
460
560
> 2500
< 250
2-0
920
460
560
> 250
950
460
560
> 750
1000600
690
> 10001000
1000
1000
Driveway or side street access on the frontage road in close downstream
proximity to exit ramp terminals increases the weaving that occurs on the
frontage road and may lead to operational problems. For this reason, it is
important to maintain appropriate separation between the intersection of the exit
ramp and frontage road travel lanes, and downstream driveways or side streets
where practical.
It is recognized that there are occasions when meeting these exit ramp
separation distance values may not be possible due to the nature of the existing
development, such as a high number of closely spaced driveways and/or side
streets especially when in combination with closely spaced interchanges. In
these cases, at least 250 ft of separation should be provided between the
intersection of the exit ramp and frontage road travel lanes and the downstream
driveway or side street. Since the use of only 250 ft of separation distance may
negatively impact the operation of the frontage road, exit ramp, driveway and/or
side street traffic, careful consideration should be given to its use. When the 250
ft separation distance cannot be obtained, consideration should be given to
channelization methods that would restrict access to driveways within this 250 ft
distance. Refer to the Texas MUTCD for specific types of channelization.
There will be similar occasions when meeting the entrance ramp separation
distance values may not be possible due to the same existing development
conditions associated with exit ramps. In these cases, at least 100 ft of
separation distance should be provided between the intersection of the entrance
ramp and frontage road travel lanes and the upstream driveway or side street.
Since the use of only 100 ft of entrance ramp separation distance may also
negatively impact the operation of the frontage road, entrance ramp, driveway,
10
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy
and/or side street traffic, careful consideration should be given to its use. As with
exit ramps, when the 100 ft entrance ramp separation distance cannot be
obtained, consideration should be given to channelization methods that would
restrict access to driveways within this 100 ft distance. Refer to the Texas
MUTCD for specific types of channelization.
Existing Driveways
If a driveway is being reconstructed in it's original location, documentation must
be submitted verifying the driveway location and width is not being altered for the
proposed reconstruction. This documentation can be in the form of a drawing (to
scale) showing the roadway, the existing drive location, the new drive location
and materials proposed for construction. If however, the reconstruction is due to
a change in property usage or zoning, realigning, widening or in some other
manner resulting in the modification of the configuration of the driveway, the
same policies and procedures will be followed as if the driveway access was
being requested for the first time.
Relocating Driveways
On reconstruction projects, it may be necessary to close or relocate driveways in
order to meet these guidelines. However, if the closure/relocation is not feasible,
and adjustment of the location of the ramp gore along the frontage road is not
practical, then deviation from these recommended guidelines may be necessary.
Ramp Location
In the preparation of schematic drawings, care should be exercised to develop
design in sufficient detail to accurately tie down the locations of ramp junctions
with frontage roads and thus the location of access control limits. These drawings
are often displayed at meetings and hearings and further become the basis for
right-of-way instruments or, in some cases, the City's regulation of driveway
location.
In some instances, ramps must be shifted to satisfy level of service
considerations or geometric design controls. When this is necessary, the access
control limits should also be shifted if right-of-way has not been previously
purchased.
I1
City of Georgew"—Driveway Access Policy
DRIVEWAY SPACING - OTHER STATE SYSTEM
HIGHWAYS
This classification applies to all state highway system routes that are not new
highways on new alignments, freeway mainlanes, or frontage roads within the
city limits.
Connection Spacing Criteria
Table 3 provides minimum connection spacing criteria for other state system
highways. However, a lesser connection spacing than set forth in this document
may be allowed without deviation in the following situations:
To keep from land -locking a property; or
Replacement or re-establishment of access to the state highway system
under highway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.
Other State Highways Minimum Connection Spacing(l)
Posted Speed
Distance
(mph)
ft
<30
125
30
200
35
200
40
325
45
325
Z 50
450
Table 3: Other State Highways Connection Spacing Criteria
(1) Distances are for passenger cars on level grade. These distances may be adjusted for
downgrades and/or significant truck traffic.
Corner Clearance
Table 3 provides minimum corner clearance criteria.
Where adequate access connection spacing cannot be achieved, the City of
Georgetown may allow for a lesser spacing when shared access is established
with an abutting property. Where no other alternatives exist, construction of an
access connection may be allowed along the property line farthest from the
intersection. This will provide reasonable access under these conditions but also
provide the safest operation, consideration should be given to designing the
driveway connection to allow only the right -in turning movement or only the right-
in/right out turning movements if feasible.
12
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy
Width of Access
The City of Georgetown shall determine the width of access driveways. However,
in no case shall an individual driveway width be greater than 40 feet, except that
the width of a landscaped center median shall not count towards this standard.
Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines
Urban
Rural
Residential Commercial I Industrial
Residential Commercial Industrial
Minimum
10
15
20
10
15
20
Width ft
Maximum
30
35
40
30
40
40
Width (ft)
Table 4: Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines
The minimum width of commercial driveways is intended to apply to 1 -way
operation. In high -pedestrian activity areas, such as in a central business district or
in the same block with auditorium, school, or library, the maximum basic widths
should be 30 feet. The width shown applies to rural routes and most city streets
including neighborhood business, residential, and industrial streets. The width is
intended to be measured along the right-of-way line, in most instances, at the inner
limit of a curbed radius or between the line of the radius and near the edge of a
curbed island at least 50 feet square in area.
The minimum radius for proposed drives shall be determined based upon the
intended usage including the volume and size of truck traffic. However, in no case
shall the drive return radius be less then 15 feet.
Existing Driveways
If a driveway is being reconstructed in it's original location, documentation must be
submitted verifying the driveway location and width is not being altered for the
proposed reconstruction. This documentation can be in the form of a drawing (to
scale) showing the roadway, the existing drive location, the new drive location and
materials proposed for construction. If however, the reconstruction is due to a
change in property usage or zoning, realigning, widening or in some other manner
resulting in the modification of the configuration of the driveway, the same policies
and procedures will be followed as if the driveway access was being requested for
the first time.
13
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy
DEVIATIONS
In the events circumstances, for whatever reason, do not allow the preceding
criteria to be met, a deviation from the criteria may be requested. The
documentation required for application for a deviation will be determined by the
Development Engineer in accordance with the previous section titled: Design
Documentation.
As the potential exists for factors other then those listed above to be sufficient to
warrant consideration of an exception to the policy, the City Development
Engineer should be consulted for a recommendation as to documentation
requirements for each particular situation.
APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Within 30 days after the date of the administrative decision, appeal of an
administrative decision may be initiated by any person aggrieved by the
administrative decision, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the City
affected by the decision. Appeals must conform to the provisions detailed in
Section 3.14 of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code.
14
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy