HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.22.2005 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, August 22, 2005
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 04:00:00 PM at City Council
Chambers, at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Streets, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 04:00 PM
A Public hearing on the proposed 2005/06 Property Tax Rate -- Micki Rundell, Director Finance &
Administration
Overview of the 2005/06 Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) budget — Micki
Rundell, Director Finance & Administration and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utilitiy Operations
Council Calendar
Tuesday, August 23, 6:00 p.m. Regular Council Meeting
Thursday, August 25, 4:00 p.m. Special Council Meeting for 2nd Public Hearing on Proposed Property Tax Rate
Thursday, September 1, at 6:00 p.m. Special Council Meeting for Public Hearing on Proposed Annual Operating Plan
and First Reading of Budget Ordinances; approval of GTEC Budget and related Transportation Improvement Plan;
approval of Georgetown Village Public Improvement District #1 Budget; and First Reading of Georgetown Village Public
Improvement District Ordinance
Monday, September 12, 4:00 p.m. regular Council Workshop, at the Council Chamber, 101 E. 7th Street
Tuesday, September 13, 6:00 p.m., Second Reading of Budget Ordinances at regular Council Meeting
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.
D Sec.551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Pending or Threatened Litigation
Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters
E Sec.551.086 Public Power Utility Competitive Matters
Consideration and possible action to approve payment to Flowers Construction Company, L.P. for electric system
maintenance and construction services
rhe .'
1
u _r. __._ rte,. ,
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 , 2005, 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/August 22, 2005
Page 1 of 1 Page
Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 06:00:00 PM at City Council
Chambers, 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 without editing and shown on the
local cable channel.
Executive Session
Regular Session to convene and continue Executive Session, if necessary
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 or Threatened Litigation
Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters
B Sec.551.086 Public Power Utility Competitive Matters
Consideration and possible action to approve payment to Flowers Construction Company, L.P. for electric system
maintenance and construction services
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM
Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of
the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
C Call to Order
D Pledge of Allegiance
E Comments from the dais
Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments — Mayor Gary Nelon
Review of new procedure for addressing the City Council
Announcement of vacancies for one position on the Civil Service Commission, an alternate position on
the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and two alternate positions on the Building Standards Commission
F Announcements and Comments from City Manager
G Public Wishing to Address Council
Ed Wohlrab regarding consideration of a change in the sewer billing procedure for offices.
H Action from Executive Session
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
City Council Agenda/August 23, 2005
Page 1 of 4 Pages
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, August 8,
and the regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 — Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
J Consideration and possible action to amend the lease with the Georgetown Heritage Society for Grace
Heritage Center -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
K Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of surplus equipment and authorize staff to
negotiate and execute a contract for auctioneering services — Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Mick!
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
L Consideration and possible action authorizing the purchase of forty six (46) tactical vests from Bull Tactical
Outfitters in the amount of $24,380.00 — Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief and Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
M Consideration and possible action to authorize the City to enter into the 2005-2006 City of Georgetown
employee benefit contracts — Kevin Russell, Personnel Director and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
N Consideration and possible action to approve the recommendation of the Main Street Advisory Board to
change the Main Street Bylaws — Shelly Hargrove, Tourism Director and Main Street Manager; and Randy
Morrow, Director of Community Services
0 Announcement of Advertisement Award from TACVB Conference -- Carl Miller, Convention and Visitors
Bureau Coordinator; Shelly Hargrove, Tourism Director and Main Street Manager; and Randy Morrow,
Director of Community Services
P Consideration and possible action authorizing the purchase of radio equipment from Motorola in the
amount of $73,647.90 — Clay Shell, Assistant City Manager and Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief
Q Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed Amendment to the Unified Development Code
UDC) pertaining to Marquee Signs -- Dave Hall, Director of Inspection Services and Tom Yantis, Assistant
City Manager
R Discussion and possible action to amend the contract with GRW Willis, Inc. to provide additional services
related to the Airport Master Plan Update — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
SDiscussion and possible action to amend the development agreement with 400 Main St., LP to increase
O /
the project budget for public improvements and modify the reimbursement arrangement -- Tom Yantis,
Assistant City Manager
T Consideration and possible action on a Resubdivision of Katy Crossing, a Planned Unit Development,
Section Two, Block C, Lot 10 to be known as The Townhomes at Katy Crossing located on Prairie
Springs Lane with variances to the Subdivision Regulations — Melissa McCollum, AICP, Development
Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Acting Director of Planning and Development
U Consideration and possible action to set a Public Hearing date for public comment regarding proposed
changes to the Utility Impact Fee for Water and Wastewater — Robert Kostka, Impact Fee Review
Committee Chair and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
V Items Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board
1. Consideration and possible action to award the annual bid for Autgniadc.Meter Reading Equipment
to vgdauslWders in the estimated total amount of $97,394,64 - erry Jones urchasing Director and
icki Run , Director of Finance and Administration
2. Consideration and possible action to award the annual bid for Electric Metering Materials to various
bidders
City Council Agenda/August 23, 2005
Page 2 of 4 Pages
in the estimated total amount of $104,864.00erry Jone rchasing Director ndMicki Rundell
Director of Finance and Administration
11 3. Consideration and possible action to award the annual bid for Water and ter Pipe and
JJ Fittings to variou adders in the estimated total amount of $137,153.4Terry Jones, Purchasing
Director and ki Rune , hector of Finance and Administration
4. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment in an estimated amount of
50,000 between the City of Georgetown and Steger and Bizzell Engineering Incorporated for
professional services relating to the Georgetown South and Georgetown East Substation projects
Michael Mayben, Energy Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility
Operations _+J 'D to $
5. Consideration and possible action to award the bid for an annual Street Rehabllitatlon-Concrete T
contract to J&A Construction Company for $253,734.20 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
6. Consideration and possible action to award the bid for an annual Street Rehabilitation -Asphalt . OcontracttoH. Deck Construction Co. for $333,067.50 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager
by U
and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations O
7. Consideration and possible action to approve the offsite utility construction cost sharing
agreement between the City and San Gabriel Harvard, LP (Shadow Canyon) — Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utilities
6. Consideration and possible action to amend the contract between the City of Georgetown and
Operations Management International (OMI) to increase the repairs budget to make repairs to the
Lake Georgetown Water Treatment Plant (LWTP) for a total of $100,000.00 — Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utilities.
W Item Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC)
Consideration and possible action to award the bid to Chasco Contracting for $186,338.68 and a project
budget of $192,000.00 for the construction of Sudduth Drive connecting Northeast Inner Loop to
Industrial Park Circle -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
X Second Readings
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning a 0.1148 acre portion of Lost Addition, Block 64 from RS,
Residential Single Family district to C-2, Downtown Commercial district, located at 212 W. 10th Street
Rebecca Rowe, Historic District Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Acting Director or Planning and
Development
2. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from C1, Local Commercial District to C3, General
Commercial District for 4.827 acres out of HEB / Georgetown #2 Subdivision, Block A, Lot 1, located
on Wildwood Drive (formerly Old Shell Road) east of Williams Drive — Bobby Ray, AICP, Acting
Director or Planning and Development
Y Public Hearings/First Readings
1. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning of 31.31 acres in the Leroy B. Lord Survey, from AG,
Agricultural District to RS, Residential Single-family district with a PUD, Planned Unit Development
District, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Georgetown Village, Section Six, located
northwest of Shell Road within Georgetown Village — Bobby Ray, AICP, Acting Director or Planning
and Development
2. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 31.31 acres in the Leroy B. Lord Survey, from AG,
Agricultural District to RS, Residential Single-family district with a PUD, Planned Unit Development
District, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Georgetown Village, Section Six, located
northwest of Shell Road within Georgetown Village — Bobby Ray, AICP, Acting Director or Planning
and Development
3. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning from RS, Residential Single -Family District to C1, Local
Commercial or C3, General Commercial District for River Hills, Section One, Block E, Lot 14, located
City Council Agenda/August 23, 2005
Page 3 of 4 Pages
rpNnDMFIAL
Council Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
EXECUTIVE SESSION
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
CONFIDENTIAL
a.2.
Item No.
cti
1
SUBJECT:
Consideration and approval of payment to Flowers Construction Company, L.P. for electric
system maintenance and construction services.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown currently has a contract with Flowers Construction Company to
provide electric system Construction and Maintenance services related to the Georgetown electrical
distribution system, and improvements and expansion projects thereon.
The current level of development within the city is increasing, and this trend is anticipated
to continue into the future with new projects such as the Simon -Chelsea Round Rock Premium
Outlet Mall, and our normal construction rate for other commercial and residential development.
Therefore, staff requests approval of funding, not to exceed $600,000.00, for additional
contract service to the City of Georgetown from Flowers Construction Company to continue the
aforementioned electric system services through January 2006.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None,
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval to Council at its August 16, 2005 meeting. Approve 5-0.
Smith and Brown absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Flowers payments for Electric Construction and O&M
Services.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds not to exceed the amount of $600,000.00 are to be paid from the Electric Capital
Improvement Projects funds as work is completed.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS: CONFIDENTIALCurrentprojectlist
ity Operations
Project Accounting
Number
Electric Project List (construction planning)
Last Updated: August 16, 2005
Project Designation Status
4AA Austin Ave / Rock St - Dtown URD Engineering
4AB Church St - Dtown URD Engineering
4AD Georgetown Sub Feeder GT10, T-1 In -Progress
4AG Inner Lp Feeder CB40 URD Tie Ln Planned Fall 2005
4AK Wolf Ranch - Offsite Complete
4AQ Simon Property Group Round Rock In -Progress
4AS Simon Georgetown (WR) - Onsite Complete
4BE GB70 Reconductor Austin Ave. Planned Fall 2005
4BF CB50 Reconductor FM 2243 Leander Rd. Planned Fall 2005
4BH Georgetown Country Club Complete
4BI Main (4th to 6th) Underground conversion In -Progress
4BJ Ash St (Univ to 5th) Rehab. Planned Fall 2005
4BK CR 151 / Austin Ave. Rehab Planned Fall 2005
4BL Forest (Univ to 20th) Rehab. Planned Fall 2005
4BM Main (Univ to 20th) Rehab. Planned Fall 2005
4BN Maple (Univ to 15th) Planned Fall 2005
4BO S. College (Univ to 15th) Planned Fall 2005
4BP Tasus Texas Corp. Complete
4BQ My First Gym Complete
4BR Pinnacle Streetlighting (Maple Ave) Planned Fall 2005
4BU City of Georgetown Animal Shelter Complete
4BV Village Lake Office Condominium Complete
4BY O'Reilly Auto Parts In -Progress
4BZ Sleep Study Center Complete
4CE World Gym Complete
4CF John Henry Enterprises Complete
4CH Inner Loop East Extension - CR 151 to IH 35 Planned Fall 2005
4CI Austin Ave and Morrow Signal Light Engineering
4CO 400 Main St In -Progress
4CS GT60 Feeder Exit and Rebuild Complete
4CT Sun City Neighborhood 33 Planned Fall 2005
4CU Lake Glown Trial / Rivery Park Hike & Bike Engineering
4CV Chase Bank (Wolf Ranch) Complete
4CW Austin Ave / Madison Oaks Streetlight Complete
4CZ Sun City NBH 24 B2 Complete
4DA Sun City NBH 25 Phase 2 Complete
4DB Sun City NBH 26 Complete
4DD Sun City NBH 18 Complete
4DF LWTP Additions Complete
4DH River Haven / FM 971 OH Relocation Complete
4DI Comfort Suites Hotel In -Progress
4DJ WR Offsite SH 29 Widening Complete
4DK Wilco Livestock Auction Building Complete
4DL 401 Grassland 400 Amp Service Complete
4DN 605 High Tech, Switchover TXU to GUS Complete
4DO Sun City NBH 27 Complete
4DP Wendy's Complete
4DQ Christ Lutheran Church Complete
4DS Chantal's Bistro (204 E. 8th) In -Progress
4DT Sun City NBH 20A In -Progress
4EF Wolf Ranch Crossing I Prelim Engineering
4EG Wolf Ranch Crossing II Prelim Engineering
4EH Celebration Church In -Progress
4EI West University Profession Center In -Progress
4EJ Chick-fil-a Complete
4EK Georgetown Hospital Helipad Engineering
4EM Sun City NBH 25 Phase 1 Complete
Page 1 of 3 Pnnted: 8/17/2005
Project Accounting
Number
Electric Project List (construction planning)
Last Updated: August 16, 2005
Project Designation Status
4EN Air Switch @ 920 N. Austin Complete
4EO Wolf Ranch Lift Station Complete
4EP 1711 McCoy Place complete
4EQ 1114 East Seventh Street complete
4EV Sun City NBH 14 complete
4EW Bealls Rivery Complete
4EX SU Central Plant Modifications Complete
4EY Williams / Rivery Ln Rebuild Complete
4EZ Wachovia Bank Complete
4FA Lansdale Automotive Engineering
4FC First United Methodist Engineering
4FD Habitat for Humanity @ 17th & Candee Engineering
4FN 9th Street County Fiber Complete
4FO SU Fine Arts Bldg Renovation Engineering
4FQ Bad Pole @ 823 South Austin complete
4FR Bad Pole @ 1805 Ash Street Planned Fall 2005
4FS Bad Pole @ 209 Church Complete
4FU Bad Pole @ 1211 NW Blvd Complete
417V Street Light @ 4305 W. Cordova complete
4FW Sun City NBH 19 In -Progress
4FX Sun City NBH 22 & 23 Complete
4FY Sun City NBH 28 Complete
4FZ Sun City NBH 29 Planned Fall 2005
4GA Bad Pole @ 1205 Laurel Street In -Progress
4GB 1102 South Austin Ave Complete
4GC Bad Pole @ 306 Shannon Lane In -Progress
4GD Bad Pole @ 2400 Leander Road In -Progress
4GE Bad Pole @ 201 MLK In -Progress
4GF New service @ 1114 East 7th Complete
4GG Riverside Dr. 12.5 to 25 KV Conversion In -Progress
4GH RV 10 Extension from Rivery to SH 29 In -Progress
4GQ SH 29 / IH35 Double Circuit Removal Complete
4GS New service @ 204 Holly Street Complete
4GU Bad Pole @ 707 East 7th In -Progress
4GV Wilco Appraisal District Office Engineering
4GW Hope Lumber Engineering
4GX Georgetown Church of Christ Complete
4GY Ken Jackson Office Building Engineering
4GZ University Park, Unit 2 Sec 1 Phase D Planned Fall 2005
4HA Svc Relocation @ 806 Mrytle Planned Fall 2005
4HB FM 2338 TxDOT Rd Widening Planned Fall 2005
4HC Georgetown HS Greenhouse Complete
4HD Pickett Elem. Security Lighting Complete
4HE River Ridge Subdivision URD In -Progress
4HF GL 60 Switchgear change out (Geo 44-G.2) Planned Fall 2005
4HG Parkview Dollar General Engineering
4HH Verizon Wireless Tower Engineering
4HJ Capacitor Additions Complete
4HK Bad Pole @ 18th & Main Complete
4HL 2338 Plaza Engineering
4HM Sun City Horticulture Club Complete
4HN Bad Poles @ 4100 Val Verde Complete
4HO 500 South Austin Avenue Engineering
4HP Reserve of Berry Creek, Section 2 Planned Fall 2005
4HQ Sun City Irrigation Station Engineering
4HS Georgetown Public Library Engineering
41A IH 35 Crossing (LCRA) Complete
Page 2 of 3 Printed: 8/17/2005
Project Accounting
Number
Electric Project List (construction planning)
Last Updated: August 16, 2005
Project Designation Status
41B Wilco Courthouse Restoration Engineering
41C Windridge Village Subdivision Planned Fall 2005
41D Street Light Layout - Austin Ave / Morrow (Signal light/Street Lig Engineering
41E Street Light Layout - Meadows of Gtown In -Progress
41G Gtown Air Traffic Control Tower Engineering
41K The Caring Place Completed
41N 501 South Austin Avenue Engineering
41B Wilco Courthouse Restoration Engineering
41C Windridge Village Subdivision Planned Fall 2005
41D Street Light Layout - Austin Ave / Morrow (Signal light/Street Lig Engineering
41E Street Light Layout - Meadows of Gtown In -Progress
41G Gtown Air Traffic Control Tower Engineering
41K The Caring Place Completed
41N 501 South Austin Avenue Engineering
410 Bad Pole @ 18th & Main - Continuation Complete
410 Hewlett Hummer Engineering
4IR Discount Tires Engineering
41S 84 Lumber Engineering
41T Sun City Blvd. Extenstion Engineering
41U Sun City NBH 21 Planned Fall 2005
41V 212 West 7th Street Engineering
41X Georgetown Village 6 Planned Fall 2005
4IY Katy Crossing Section 2c In -Progress
41Z Rabbit Hill Commercial Subdivision Engineering
4JA Ash St (15th - 18th) Completed
4JB Gtown Soccer Association Completed
4KA Pleasant Valley Subdivision Section 2 Engineering
Page 3 of 3 Pnnled: 8/17/2005
Agenda Item Check List
rr' MMM
Financial Impact
Agenda Item:
Agenda Item Subject:
Is this a Capital Improvement
Project:
Council Date:
Flowers Construction Company
Payment to Flowers for Construction and O&M Services
0 Yes 1_) No
08/22/2005
link to Agenda database => 40
Need Help?
Was it budgeted? Yes C ! No
Is it within the approved budgeted amount? Yes No
If not, where is the money coming from?
G/L Account Number 611 Budget
Amount Going to Council $ 600,000.00
Is there something (budgeted) that won't get Yes 0 No
done because you are spending these funds?
If so, please explain.
Will this have an impact on the next year's Yes • No
budget?
If so, please explain.
Does this project have future revenue
impact?
Year: 2005 and beyond
If so, how?
Yes No
Department: Georgetown Utility Systems
New revenue from development
Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, N/A
annual maintenance fees, licenses,
operational costs, etc...).
Estimated staff hours: N/A
Cross -divisional impact: Yes • No
If so, what division(s)?
Prepared by: Mike Mayben Date: 08/12/2005
Agenda Item Checklist:: Approved on 0811512005
pprovers itle Assigned Notified Received Status Changed Status
Jim Briggs Assistant City 08/12/2005 08/72/2005 08/15/2005 08/15!2005 Approved
Jose Lara Manager 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 8/15/2005 08/15/2005 Approved
Utility Financial
Analyst
Approval Cycle Settings
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBTECT:
Consideration and possible action to set a Public Hearing dae for public comment
regarding proposed changes to the Utility Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Impact Fee Advisory Committee, appointed by Council, reviewed and accepted the
report titled "2005 Update of Water and Wastewaterlmpact Fees for the City of Georgetown" in its August
16, 2005 meeting. The report updates the land use assumptions, creates a 10 -year Capital
Improvement Plan, and presents the calculation and recommendation of new Maximum Fee Costs.
The Committee approved the recommendations and calculations to set a new Maximum Fee Cost.
The Committee is recommending that a public hearing be set for September 27, 2005 to allow
City Council to receive public comment on the report and the actual Committee recommended
impact fee amounts. Upon completion of the Public Hearing process City Council will be asked to
take action adopting the actual new fees based on the Committee recommendatbns.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
2005 Impact Fee Report
Submitted By: Robert Kostka, Chairman ZA brigg
Impact Fee Advisory Committee Asst City Mana r for
Utility Operations
2005 UPDATE OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Prepared `Dr
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Prepared by:
Impact Fee Advisory Committee
City of Georgetown
and -
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2211 S. IH -35, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78746
WRI
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 210
Austin, Texas 78727
August 2005
2005 UPDATE OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Table of Contents
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT
7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
8.0 COMPARABLES
9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Paqe
1
3
2
A
01
12
14
15
16
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
2005 UPDATE OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The City of Georgetown is again going through the process of review and updating its impact
fees and conducting the associated public coordination to keep the fees current with its
expanding service area and to update its CIP with improved information. This report constitutes
the City's Impact Fee Consultants maximum impact fee determination and the Impact Fee
Advisory Committee's required reporting to the Georgetown City Council on the updating and
public coordination process.
Consistent with State law, the methodology that determines the maximum fee amounts
considers for each fee component either: (1) consideration of a credit for other methods of
payments for utility capital by a new customer, such as through utility rates or taxes, or
alternatively (2) a reduction of maximum fee amount equal to 50 percent of the unit capital cost
of providing new service.
By maximum amounts, this means that the determined fee amounts were calculated as the
highest that can be lawfully levied by the City, given the prospective capital improvements plan,
the cost of existing and new utility capacity, and consideration of a credit to new customers for
net capital contributions made through rate payments. The City Council can decide to enact
fees less than the maximum amounts shown in this report.
As detailed later in this report, the City's consultants and Advisory Committee have also
addressed the overall water and wastewater maximum fees in component pieces. For instance,
the overall water maximum fee is comprised of separate amounts for water supply, treatment,
pumping, storage, and transmission. The overall wastewater maximum fee is similarly
comprised of wastewater treatment, pumping, and interceptor components. This will facilitate
the consideration of offsets or credits from the applicable fee if a developer builds and dedicates
eligible facilities to the City or the City provides wholesale service to a neighboring utility and
wishes to charge certain portions of the fee to be collected by the wholesale customer and then
passed to the City.
The maximum fee amounts do not include any capital costs for local (neighborhood) water
distribution or wastewater collection systems as these facilities are, by City policy, provided by
developers at their own expense, or if funded by the City, are typically to provide service to
City of Georgetown, Texas 1
cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
existing development. In either case, these local facilities would not be applicable for an impact
fee charge.
Planning, service demand, and design factors assumptions used in the facility sizing and
costing were developed by Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM), consulting engineers to the City
of Georgetown. Data on current utility demand, outstanding utility debt and prospective cash
versus debt financing were obtained from or coordinated with the City of Georgetown staff.
HDR combined these elements into the maximum impact fee calculations presented in this
report.
City of Georgetown, Texas 2
IM, Ow
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA
The City's future ETJ boundary and other nearby areas that may ultimately request city utility
service were used as the primary basis for the larger future impact fee service area of the City
shown in Figure 1.
This fee application area boundary would constitute the area in which Georgetown may levy the
impact fees, in -part or in -full, if City service is provided. This boundary does not, however, imply
a legal obligation of the City of Georgetown to serve beyond its incorporated limits. If the City
does not provide service, in full or in -part, then the impact fees would not apply. It is
acknowledged that this proposed fee application boundary, in some areas, extends beyond the
City's predicted future ETJ and also encroaches on the ETJs and service areas of neighboring
utilities. This broader boundary is only intended to provide flexibility for the City, its neighboring
utilities, and the development community in developing or negotiating future wholesale or retail
arrangements for service these areas.
970 VPotential Impact Fee
1119eApplicationArea
A
2243
972
SHIM
971
City of Georgetown
sz9 Potential Impact Fee
Application Area
City of Georgetown, Texas 3
1 Ll cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Table 1 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the potential service
area. The overall acreage shown in Table 2 is reflective of the City's ETJ and its certificated
water service area. As indicated, about 5,091 acres (approx. 3.6% of total service area) is
currently in residential land uses served by the City sewer system. Another 8,816 residential
acres (6.3%) is served by septic tanks. About 1,120 acres (0.8%) is currently in non-residential
land uses. The remaining 124,817 acres (89.3%) is generally in open space or agricultural land
uses.
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Encompasses ETJ and Water CCN.
Source: GUS and CDM, 2005, gallons per acre per day
Reflects unit water use of: 1,460 residential 1,215 residential
1,445 non-residential 1,300 non-residential
Over time as the City grows into its future ETJ and potential utility service area, developed land
areas will both increase and become a higher percentage of overall land uses. Projected
residential land use served by the City's sewer system is expected to increase to 8.2% of the
total potential service land area. Non-residential land use is expected to comprise about 1.7%
of total land area. Areas with septic tanks are anticipated to account for about 6.3% of the large
service area, and open space and agricultural uses should account for about 83.8% of the
remaining land area. Current 2005 utility service population is estimated at about 40,000
persons. A projected utility service population of about 80,000 persons is anticipated by the end
of the 10 -year period in 2015, reflecting an anticipated 10 -year growth of 100°/x.
In using this information to develop utility projections for the next ten years, further assumptions
were made concerning a slightly -increasing household size (as the former Sun City Northern
Lands build out as family-oriented developments) and slightly -decreasing residential
development density (as the fringe lands of new development come in slightly less dense than
the already -developed inner city).
Georgetown, Texas 4 T m cm
Current 2015
ITEM Acres Acni
Utility Served
Residential (existing) 5,091 3.6% 5,091 3.6%
Residential(new) 0.0% 6,354 4.6%
Non-residential 1,120 0.8% 2,433 1.7%
Residential Septic Tank 8,816 6.3% 8,816 6.3%
Public/Open Space/Ag 124,817 89.3% 117,151 83.8%
Total Land Use Acreage 139,844 100.0% 139,644 100.0%
Encompasses ETJ and Water CCN.
Source: GUS and CDM, 2005, gallons per acre per day
Reflects unit water use of: 1,460 residential 1,215 residential
1,445 non-residential 1,300 non-residential
Over time as the City grows into its future ETJ and potential utility service area, developed land
areas will both increase and become a higher percentage of overall land uses. Projected
residential land use served by the City's sewer system is expected to increase to 8.2% of the
total potential service land area. Non-residential land use is expected to comprise about 1.7%
of total land area. Areas with septic tanks are anticipated to account for about 6.3% of the large
service area, and open space and agricultural uses should account for about 83.8% of the
remaining land area. Current 2005 utility service population is estimated at about 40,000
persons. A projected utility service population of about 80,000 persons is anticipated by the end
of the 10 -year period in 2015, reflecting an anticipated 10 -year growth of 100°/x.
In using this information to develop utility projections for the next ten years, further assumptions
were made concerning a slightly -increasing household size (as the former Sun City Northern
Lands build out as family-oriented developments) and slightly -decreasing residential
development density (as the fringe lands of new development come in slightly less dense than
the already -developed inner city).
Georgetown, Texas 4 T m cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Table 2 relates the number of water and wastewater utility connections by water meter size and
what is termed a standard Service Unit (or SU) conversion factor for meters of varying sizes. A
typical single family residential house in Georgetown is issued a 3/4" water meter, and this is
considered to be one SU. The City's current impact fee ordinance also allows for small,
affordable houses to be issued a3/4" meter, which is rated as two-thirds (or 0.67) of a SU.
Based on American Water Works Association standards, the equivalent number of 3/4" meters
can be determined for water meter of larger size. In this manner, meters of larger size (i.e.
larger potential service demands) can be couched in terms the equivalent demand of a number
of typical single family homes. For this reason, the SU concept is a useful tool for being able to
apply a base fee amount to service requests of varying (meter) sizes.
TABLE 2
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
WATER
5/8"
3/4"
1 ••
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
Total Water
WASTEWATER
5/8"
3/4"
1'•
1.5"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
Service Units Number of Number of
Sus) Meters sus
Meter Size per Meter (a) in 2005 (bl in 2005
0.67
1.00 14,854 14,854
1.67 872 1,453
3.33 236 787
5.33 227 1,211
10.67 72 768
75`•i'' 16.67 24 400
33.33 5 167
53.33
76.67
16,290 19,639
0.67
1.00 13,385 13,385
1.67 564 940
3.33 140 467
5.33 145 773
10.67 32 341
16.67 21 350
33.33 4 133
53.33
Total Wastewater 14,291 16,390
a) Derived from AWWA C700 -C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 3/4" meter.
b) Source: City of Georgetown.
Texas
Im
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the City's current and projected water and wastewater service
demands and existing supply (service) capability by facility. The number of existing SUs in
Tables 3 and 4 are reflective of the City's actual level of water and wastewater service demand,
whereas the meter inventory in Table 2 reflect the number of SUs embodied in each customer's
ultimate meter capacity. Simply said, the customers are, on the average, using less than the
maximum rated flow capacity of the meters.
The projected growth of the utility system and service demand reflect an average of between
1,500 to 1,800 new SUs per year. Some improvements in water conservation efficiencies were
also included. As indicated in Tables 3 and 4, the level of current and future utility demand
varies by whether water and/or wastewater service is provided. For instance, some
developments in the City use municipal water supplies and infrastructure, but not wastewater or
vice -versa. Over time, the number of service connection for wastewater is expected to exceed
that of water connections due to other water utility providers' certificated service areas limiting
the growth of the City's future water service area.
Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the
utility systems. As can be seen, with the realized and anticipated rapid growth of the City and
surrounding areas, service demand is expected to exceed the available capacity of most of the
City's current facilities by the year 2015, such that infrastructure improvements are needed in
most of the various facility components that provide utility service.
of Georgetown, Texas 6 T M CM
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
TABLE 3
EST. WATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Facility Type 2005 2015
Supply
39.780 39.780
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) 23.166 23.166
Est. Service Demand 9.052 17.050
Excess (Deficiency) 14.115 6.116
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs) • 43,677 43,677
Est. Service Demand 17,065 32,146
Excess (Deficiency) 26,611 11,531
Treatment
8.750 8.750
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) 23.270 23.270
Est. Service Demand 19.008 35.805
Excess (Deficiency) 4.262 12535)
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs) 20,892 20,892
Est. Service Demand 17,065 32,146
Excess (Deficiency) 3,826 11,254)
Pumping
gpd/SU for water supply
1,114
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) 39.780 39.780
Est. Service Demand 34.215 64.449
Excess (Deficiency) 5.565 24.669)
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs) • 19,841 19,841
Est. Service Demand 17,065 32,146
Excess (Deficiency) 2,776 12,304)
Ground Storage
Existing 2005 Capacity (mg) - 8.750 8.750
Est. Service Demand 5.887 11.090
Excess (Deficiency) 2.863 2.340)
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs)' 25,362 25,362
Est. Service Demand 17,065 32,145
Excess (Deficiency) 8,297 6,783)
Elevated Storage
Existing 2005 Capacity (mg) 3.650 3.650
Est. Service Demand 2.816 5.304
Excess (Deficiency) 0.834 1.654)
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs)' 22,121 22,121
Est. Service Demand 17.065 32,145
Excess (Deficiency) 5,056 10,024)
Transmission
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) 44.940 44.940
Est. Service Demand 34.215 64.449
Excess (Deficiency) 10.725 19.509)
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs)' 22,415 22,415
Est. Service Demand 17,065 32,146
Excess (Deficiency) 5,349 9,731)
Assume SU conversion factor of :
L;lty of Ueorgetown, Texas
530 gpd/SU for water supply
1,114 gpd/SU for treatment
2,005 gpm/SU for pumping
345 gals/SU for ground storage
165 gats/SU for elevated storage
2,005 gpd/SU for transmission
fDR cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
TABLE 4
EST. WASTEWATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Facility Type 2005 2015
Treatment
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) 5.740 5.740
Est. Service Demand 3.350 9.100
Excess (Deficiency) 2.390 (3.360)
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs)
Est. Service Demand
23,429
13,673
23,429
32.500
Excess (Deficiency) 9,755 9,071)
Pumping
Excess (Deficiency)
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) 11.080 11.080
Est. Service Demand" 6.53 `- _ 47.74A
Excess (Deficiency) 8
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs)' 15, 15,075
Excess (Deficiency) 6,187 (6,050)
r?
Interceptors .
Existing 2005 Capacity (mgd) ;. 53.500
Excess (Deficiency) ,7: 43.450 26.200
Existing 2005 Capacity (SUs)' 72,789 72,789
Est. Service Demand 13,673 32,500
Excess (Deficiency) 59,116 40,289
Assume SU conversion factor of 245 280 gpd/SU for wastewater treatment
735 840 gpd/SU for wastewater pumping
735 840 gpd/SU for interceptors
Assumes 65% 65% of existing ww service demand pumped
of Georgetown, Texas 8 T m cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
5.0 INDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
With the pending completion of the Lake Stillhouse Hollow pipeline to Lake Georgetown, the
City will effectively address its water supply needs for many years. Given the considerable
growth facing the City in the next ten years, improvements are needed in all other components
of water utility infrastructure, including water treatment, pumping, ground and elevated storage,
and transmission pipelines.
Georgetown will also need noticeable improvements to its wastewater systeijncluding three
wastewater treatment plant expansions and the construction of a new treatmert:facility.
Improvements are also identified for wastewater pumping (lift stations) and interceptor pipelines
that would serve future growth.
Specific projects that accomplish these service capacity goals are identified in Table 5, 6a, and
6b along with their cost, capacity, unit cost, and allocation of existing and projected demand to
these facilities. A weighted unit cost of service ($ per SU) is then calculated by facility type,
based on the proportionate share of use of existing versus new facility capacity by the growth
anticipated over the next ten years.
For water transmission mains, the modeled system capacity at current and 2015 conditions
were used to calculate the unit costs. For wastewater pumping and interceptors, each project
was separately examined as to whether it added to overall system capacity.
Table 6b identifies the expected average costs for the new South Fork wastewater service area.
Due to the noticeably higher costs of sewering this basin, the City wishes to have a special
wastewater interceptor fee for this area.' Thus, capital costs for interceptors for the South Fork
wastewater service area were separately calculated from the rest of the City interceptor system.
The South Fork system feeds into the City's existing sewer interceptor network, so a small
allowable was also included for use of the existing sewer system.
City of Georgetown, Texas 9
EMCM
TABLE 5
WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INVENTORY AND COSTING
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
Conatmdion Fac011y Ca0mmy AlbcallPm Taus)
Cest E7istin9 Growth Use In E7cess Ca9aey T.1
WATER SUPRY
S 2,075,153 59.780 19."1 S 105 17.085 2,776 19,011
FUTUREFAGILITIES
EXISTING FACILITIES mgU
Lake PS - Phaset S 21136,661
LAA" SUPPLY S 642,958 10.125 19089 17 555 2.021
S 2,402,092
190119
Lake S0lhouae Hollow f 21,000,000 1301 24,567
Relabel Hi PS - Phase 1
130%
0850 321
13,068
SutlPMI EMMkt9 FBLW9e5 3 21,612.958 23.188 13,671 S a9fi 11055 15,0E 11.532 43.87?
FUTUREFACRJVES
LwMa PS- ft. t S 9116,032 1510 2.2"
f
Leander PS - ft. 2 S 713,155 5700 2"3
SMIOW FWra Fad198s f
S 7.1:0),099
f
31 12.310 3.497 15601
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY S 21,129511 23.185 43.677
17,005
1 065 15080 11.532 1677
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU- 300
AVERAL9E CAPITAL COST PER NEN SU - S 496
GROUNOSTORAGE
WATER TREATMENT
ASTINGFACILITIES m9
EXISTING FACILITIES 8790
GG Tereus S 2,131,763 0750 25362
EmtyN W1P5 S 20881011 23270 20892
Sala. E."Fa Eek,
17.065 3820 20,692
SutlMaI PaMllq FadWles S 201SBTAII 23270 20892 S 1,000 17 M5 3,825 MAU
FU71ARE FACILITIES
Lake GST1 S 2,173,639 2000 5,797
Leake Gap9H WTP - Phase 111 f U,160.060 Mean 9,876 S 1497 9876
And4bnal WalMTmalmere f 2400)00) 18.300 146" S 1640 1.378
San Gabriel GST
SUOOW FNum FatlMka S 39763,060 27.300 21510 $ 1582 11,254 13255 24,610
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT f 59670,091 50.510 45401 17055 15,080 132511 45,401
337 M064
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU - $ 1,435
TOTAL GR(IAU STORAGE S 11424.143 17,250 52 SW
WATER PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES 10)]
SWa.NI Embl9 FaaYhes S 2,075,153 59.780 19."1 S 105 17.085 2,776 19,011
FUTUREFAGILITIES
Lake PS - Phaset S 21136,661 9.610 1908
Lake PS-Phana2 S 2,402,092 20.540 10,245
Relabel Hi PS - Phase 1 753.525 0850 321
R... HA PS-Rlase2 S 19.591 DIM 321
LwMa PS- ft. t S 9116,032 1510 2.2"
Leander PS - ft. 2 S 713,155 5700 2"3
SWIdM Fume Fae9Mes S 7.1:0),099 31.50) 15,601 $ 31 12.310 3.497 15601
TOTAL WATER PUMPING S 9.213212 71.400 35.642 17,005 15,080 3,197 33642
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU- 300
GROUNOSTORAGEASTINGFACILITIES m9
GG Tereus S 2,131,763 0750 25362 17,065 5027
Sala. E."Fa Eek, S 2.131.753 0750 25,382 S 17,065 5,027 3271 25202
UNRE FACILITIES
Lake GST1 S 2,173,639 2000 5,797
nandMGST1 S 1.19,093 2000 5791
lake GST2 3,149,601 2500 7,248
San Gabriel GST S 1,879695 2.000 5.797
Leander GST2 839,"0 TIM 2SN
SUOaW FMure FwlNbs S 9,292,380 8500 27,M S 337 M064 17,482 27,536
TOTAL GR(IAU STORAGE S 11424.143 17,250 52 SW 17,065 15.0110 20.753 52699
AVERAGE CAPITAL C0ST PER NEW SU - S 233
ELEVATED STORAGE
EIOSTINGFACILITIES me
ES Tarts 3 2,273794 3650 22.121 17,005 5026
SUMMM EaBUG FaNRles 3 2,275794 3850 22.121 S 103 17005 5,620 30 22121
FU7UREFACIOTIES
SONMast ES Tank S 1,811 SM 1.000 60)1
Eaabtl ES Tank i 1.359524 0.750 1515
Rental MA ES Tank S 2,0000)0 1250 7.578
Seery HA9he9 Rd ES Tank S 2.099,609 1600 5,061
Mayfield ES Tank f 1,574,902 0750 4515
SUM91al Fulum FaMlSles S 8.81.081 4.750 28266 S 307 10.014 16731 267118
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE S 11,116,455 SAN 50.909 17,085 15.080 18.751 N,N9
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU a f 231
TRAN9MMSIOMEXISTINGFACILITIES m,n
En51aM TralbmMalan f 3325/704 44 940 2215 17,055 5026
SUMMal Eb0aN FaMlllles S 33.2 .704 44 940 22115 S 1.1" 1T,065 5.025 325 2215
FUTVREFACIUTIES'
M.11t-kes Hph Plessule Plane 18,801.936
Maps LUMs- CeMral Pmssm Plane S 4.19009
Malar Lees- West Presame Plane MM5
Malar tees - Sun co, S 8.329.848
Malmo L1nes - R20la1 HM Pmssum Plane S M.701
IAA. TmSmOspn S 5DKkM
MOW FMUR FacNU" S 40.950.0)7 114.730 1.201 S N9 10081 22207 42261
TOTALTRANSMISSION S 71215.671 129670 64.876 17.85 15,00 32,531 1,876
AVENAGEC09TPERNEWDU 1,11
TER TOTAL 3 181,284.530
AVENGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU - $ 3A63
LeleE in Wabs Mean, Plan
lU
FM
TGaLE 1.
WGST EW ATER CIP INVENTORY RED COSTING
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
COHFUU n - Ce Alloul (SUS)
CMI - --ONPPHh aIn E.. Capalry Tow
TREATMENT
f 5,150,5. 11 OR 15075 3 230 %Q,157 - 15015
FUTUREFACILITIES
EXISTING FACNJTIES
72,799
F iG
HSO
S
FiYugWVITPa S 2;12]911 570 234ID 133]] 970
SWoo, ewoo, Fwilb S 22127,9N 570 n{ S WI ISM 9,756 221.125
FUTUREFAC ITIES
S 004000
ISNNIaFpYI^M
Lbe Sphp Eiwpwal S 3MOOO 1.260 5113
BarvCleeF WWTP FXwmRn S 1.500,000 0.260 516
Pian 6anNIWWTP EawMbn f 8,100,060 1560 Sim
Ckrmnon X3Y E:pabn f 1,500,000 0.102 H5 AIL
AVFIUGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU -S Si!
MIRRORSEXISTING 1AGLF7ES
SwpY EaSprp FaoXMa f 5,150,5. 11 OR 15075 3 230 %Q,157 - 15015
FUTUREFACILITIES
4,341 72,799
F iG
6'ary Geek
nV`
il
wnwml S 30ao0 0v2 315
COlanry c401nwPtVnl t 30.00
Gunalnnwl s 320.00
IYeingoll.apwl S 004000
ISNNIaFpYI^M 1'WOOQ
ISNIGoof 1040.10Norv,a7lnmwmlepYulIMWI f 5540.10
OP IFM
PahPNS*U f 50,00 0.115 5.953Noo (N—VIVI. RaY RMUlremavNepaM) f 300.000
S 1.369,775
WIGS
M111R CEPTORS
IX.11NG FAGLITIES
RIENSU• S 115
Soot. Ead., Falkwo 1 1S RS2,TTS 53. a7-9 f WIF 13,573 5,275 4,341 72,799
FUTURE FACII?IES
TOLL er.1.YNU.CI,Racn,
IMF-FITORS
Eery CUR,, S 3.915,14 25.30
5i S
GuauS FN f 4R7197 i
SdN 1. 1252 ] 1391
Gant s 50,111
ToylTiawgars _ 6, 1.151n 1!1.10 I,M2 S 115% 1,.105
OP IFM S 334555
Gam9FIM11 V*O S 1.369,775
NMpe Oau S 25,150
MiW Fwk S 3,016, na
MO1n Fah FM 5 1.211 ,531
WPFak FM S 93"34
PIT wom S 80 .7
SanGa0lWt . S t37btA93 15 TOO
SdMFW, S
Tm VW. 1,357.491
W'MR. 3 I.Sm
WMRaIgIFM2 3 54,221
Nec lMalceaon - S 50 a0
Sww*FWun Fa S 23827.577 1700 33334 S 44 11562 5130" mm
TOTAL INTERCEET-mr' 3 <5,390.353 10.50.1 155735 3351 13,313 131321 Ip,2]3 130,735
AVEAAOECOSTpERNEWSU S AI
WASTEWATER TOTµ5 10.110077
AVERAGE CAPRAL COST PER NEW SU - S 2AS1
TABLE So
WASTEWATER CIE INVENTORY AND COSTING
SOUTH FORK WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA
City of Georgetown, Texas 11
1 R cm
Coo ao.14.n CApxIN Cont ENaEy G'. J. FIT E -Capa4ry Tolal 'i'
Fx11Iry Name Cmt TOLL er.1.YNU.CI,Racn,
IMF-FITORS
5i S 2fi]
SdN 1. 1252 ] 1391
ToylTiawgars _ 6, 1.151n 1!1.10 I,M2 S 115% 1,.105 357 1,.2
City of Georgetown, Texas 11
1 R cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT
For Utilities that charge an impact fee for new or expended service, the new customer generally
pays for capital in two ways:
1. the up -front impact fee that gains the new customer an "equity buy -in" to the system, and
2. monthly utility rate payments, where a portion of rates payments are for debt service.
The recent 77th Texas Legislature amended Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code to
require that either: (1) consideration of a calculated credit for rate payments be reflected in the
fee amount, or (2) a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of the capital
improvements plan be given in calculating the maximum fee amount.
Table 7 characterizes the present value of existing and prospective utility capital costs per SU
that is projected to be supported by the utility rates and attributable to the new, customers. This
analysis considers the full term of existing or future bonds and is calculated using the number of
SUs that would be present in the year 2010 mid -way through the 10 -year planning period.
The South Fork interceptor is expected to be developer -funded with reimbursements made to
those participating developers periodically through collections of the special impact fee for the
watershed's interceptor system. Thus, the City will incur no debt for this project, but residents
hooking on to this line will pay for capital through their utility rates. Thus, a rate credit calculated
for use of the City's interceptor system would be applicable to the South Fork interceptor impact
fee calculation.
texas
FM
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
TABLE 7
EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH UTILITY RATES
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Net Present Value Mid -point
of Debt Payments 2010 Debt Payments
Facility Type In Rates Sus per SU
WATER UTILITY
Supply
Existing Debt $ 3,259,659 24,606 $ 132.48
Series 2005-2015 24,606
Subtotal Water Supply 3,259,659 24,606 132.48
Treatment
Existing Debt 415,665 24,606 16.89
Series 2005-2015 2,741 686 24,606 111A3
Subtotal Water Treatment 3,157,351 24,606 128.32
Pumping
Existing Debt 121,622 24,606 4.94
Series 2005-2015 504,610 24,606 20.51
Subtotal Pumping 626,231 24,606 25.45
Ground Storage
Existing Debt 38,007 24,606 1.54
Series 2005-2015 656.905 24,606 2670
Subtotal Water Storage 694,911 24,606 28.24
Elevated Storage
Existing Debt 64.611 24,606 2.63
Series 2005-2015 625.254 24.606 25.41
Subtotal Water Storage 689,866 24,606 28.04
Transmission
Existing Debt 2,005,804 24,606 81.52
Series 2005-2015 2,894,940 24,606 11765
Subtotal Transmission Lines 4,900,744 24 606 199 17
Total Water
541.70
WASTEWATER UTILITY
Treatment
Existing Debt 1,106,247 23,087 47.92
Series 2005-2015 1,236 284 23,087 53.55
Subtotal WWTP 2,342,530 23,087 101.47
Pumping
Existing Debt 192,427 23,087 8.33
Series 2005-2015 468,072 23,087 20.27
Subtotal WWTP 660,500 23,087 28.61
Interceptors (not including South Fork System)
Existing Debt 244,444 23,087 10.59
Series 2005-2015 1,533,431 23 087 66.42
Subtotal Interceptors 1.777,876 23,087 77.01
Total Wastewater
207.08
Total Water and Wastewater $ 748.78
City of Georgetown, Texas 13
hUR CM
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Table 8 summarizes the unit capital cost of providing new service, the two alternative credit
calculations for new customers, and the maximum fee calculation for each of the rate credit
options. Separately calculated maximum fees are shown for the South Fork Service Area and
the remainder of the City. They differ only with respect to the wastewater interceptor fee
amounts.
TABLE 5
DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Total Walw S
Capkai Cost of Option A-
S 1.931
OpUonB-
S 1.935 $ 3.324
WASTEWATER (outsMa of South Fork SumloiI Arae)
NewSaalm Rata Less 50%(l OUtiorMl Max. Fee Amounts Highest of
ITEM
976 $
per SU Craek
5 874
Cost AElustmeM Option A- -Option B- Option AerIS
WATER
S 716 S 29 S 358 S 687 358
Supply 4% S 132 S 218 S 363 $ 248
Tnaonent 1.435 S 128 S 717 S 1305 $ 717
Pumpmg 300 25 S 150 $ 274 $ 150
CxourM Storage 253 S 28 S 126 S 225 f in
Elevated Storage S 239 28 S 120 $ 211 $ 120
Tnnamiaelon 5 1.141 S 199 S 570 S 911 S 570
Total Walw S 3.8fifi 5 542 S 1.931 3.324 S 1.935 $ 3.324
WASTEWATER (outsMa of South Fork SumloiI Arae)
Treaanent S 976 $ 101 S 488 5 874 S 488
PtxeM S 716 S 29 S 358 S 687 358
Intereeptpra S 391 $ 77 S 195 314 195
Allocated Impact Fee Study Coat S 5 5 S 5 S 5
ToW Wastewater S 2,058 S 749 S 1 041 1.581 S 1.016 S 1,861
WASTEWATER ISoush Posit SoW 1. Ma)
Tnaanent f 976 S 101 S 468 874 f 488
Pumping S 716 S 29 S 358 S 687 S 358
Inl.Ptors S 1.558 S 11 S 779 f 1,547 f 779
Ailecatetl Impact Fee Stutly Cost f 5 5 3 S 5 f 5
Total Wastewater S 3.255 $ 869 S 1.625 f 3.114 S 1.838 S 3,114
TOTAL WATERIWASTEWATER
Ouil of South Fork Servka Area 5.953 S 1,290 S 2,973 S 5205 S 2,11 S 5,205
South Fork Service Ana 7,121 S 1.431 f 3,558 S 6,438 S 3.585 f 6,438
of Georgetown, Texas 14 fm cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
8.0 COMPARABLES
For comparison purposes, the current impact fees of the cities of Round Rock and Austin are as
follows for a new standard residential connection (1 SU):
city Water
Austin
N.E. Preferred Development Zone 700
Western city 1,500
Pflugerville 2,491
Georgetown (current fees) 2,295
Buda 2,721
Cedar Park 2,250
Georgetown (recommended fees)* 2,493
Leander 2,850
San Marcos 2,466
Georgetown (maximum fees)* 3,324
Jonah SUD (water only) 4,125.
Round Rock 4,296
Georgetown (South Fork recommended fees) 2,493
Chisholm Trail SUD (water only) 4,600
Georgetown (South Fork maximum fee) 3,324
Other than South Fork wastewater service area.
Wastewater Total
400 1,100
1,200 2,700
1,362 3,853
1,869 4,164
1,514 4,234
2,000 4,250
1,881 4,374
1,550 4,400
2,185 4,651
1-,881 5,205
n.a.
1,306 5,602
3,114 5,607
n.a.
3,114 6,438
City of Georgetown, Texas 15
Im cm
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes the Advisory Committee activities during the impact fee updating
process:
On 6/9/05, the Committee met to:
Review Chapter 395 Impact Fee process and requirements.
Identify conceptual fee service area
Review methodology for maximum fee calculation
On 8/3/05, the Committee met to:
Review land use and CIP information
Review unit cost calculations
Review maximum fee calculation
Receive draft report for review
Discuss possible fee strategies
On 8/10/05, the Committee met to:
Review suggested changes to the draft report
Consider City financial need information presented by City Staff
Discuss various possible fee levels
Make findings and recommendations
Adopt the Advisory Committee Report to be forwarded to City Council
On 8/16/05, the Committee met to:
Review revisions to final draft report made during the prior meeting
On 8/23/05, the Committee will:
Present its report and recommendations to the City Council
Request that a Public Hearing date be set to receive community input on the fee
updating process.
The Advisory Committee made the follow' g findings and recommendations:
The land use assumptions and Capital Improvements Plans underlying the maximum fee
calculations are consistent with State law and good engineering practices.
A fair balance between utility rate and impact fee support of capital improvements would
be achieved, in the Committee's opinion, with the water impact fee at 75% and
wastewater impact fees at 100% of the maximum fee amount.
Due to the speed and intensity of expected development and the higher capital costs to
be incurred in providing wastewater service to the South Fork service area, a separate
wastewater fee should be established for new or expanded wastewater service that will
use the South Fork sewer facilities. The South Fork fee should be set at 100% of the
maximum fee amount.
For new or expanded wastewater service that does not use the South Fork facilities, the
wastewater impact fee is recommended at the 100% of the maximum amount calculated
for the remainder of the City.
Consistent with the prior Impact Fee Committee's findings to phase in increases toward
the maximum water fee over time, a moderate increase in the existing water fee from
50% to 75% of the maximum fee is recommended.
City of Georgetown, IR
fl
2005 Update of Water and Wastewater
By a unanimous vote, the Advisory Committee forwards to the Georgetown City Council the
following maximum fee calculations and fee recommendations:
MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATIONS
Citywide Fees (outside of South Fork Service Area)
Water Impact Fee per SU $ 3,324
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $1,881
Total Combined Fee per SU $ 5,205
South Fork Service Area
Water Impact Fee per SU $ 3,324
Wastewater Impact Fee per SLI $3,114
Total Combined Fee per SU $ 6,438
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED FEES
Citywide Fees (outside of South Fork Service Area)
Water Impact Fee per SU $ 2,493 ( 75% of maximum fee)
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU 1,881 (100% of maximum fee)
Total Combined Fee per SU $ 4,374
South Fork Service Area
Water Impact Fee per SU
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU
Total Combined Fee per SU
of ueorgetown, Texas
2,493 ( 75% of maximum fee)
3,114 (100% of maximum fee)
5,607
Fees
3
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBLECT
Consideration of an award of the annual bid for water and wastewater pipe and fittings to various
bidders in the estimated amount of $137,153.44.
ITEM SUMMARY
Bids were received for the purchase of water and wastewater pipe and fittings for a one-year
period beginning September 1, 2005. The staff recommendation is to award this bid to the low bidder for
each item, as designated by the star on the attached bid tabulation. For those items grouped into lots, we
are recommending an award be made to the overall low bidder for each lot.
These fittings are stocked in the City warehouse and are used primarily on the maintenance of the
water distribution and wastewater collection systems. Quantities shown on the bid tabulation are
estimates based on prior year usage and are not guaranteed amounts. Material will be ordered on as
needed basis.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This bid was approved by the GUS Board at the August 16, 2005 meeting.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval at the August 16, 2005 meeting. Approved 5-0. Smith and
Brown absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.)
Estimated total for this bid is $137,153.44. Funds for this expenditure were budgeted in Water
Maintenance of Utilities and Wastewater Maintenance accounts.
COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions)
None
ATTACHMENTS (list individually)
1. Bid Tabulation
Submitted By:
Terry Jones, Support Services Director
Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
7 200 4"
SDR -35 PVC PIPE (GASKET JOINT)
8 200 6"
9 200 8"
10 100 10"
SDR -35 (GASKET JOINT)
11 100 12"
12 100 15"
13 100 18"
C900 PVC PIPE
14 500
WATER & WASTEWATER PIPE & FITTINGS
15 500 8" Class 200, DR14
16 200 12" Class 200
17
BID NO 25022
16' Class 234
18 100 18" Ductile Iron
19 100 24" Ductile Iron
August 1, 2005 -July 31, 2006
100 30" Ductile Iron
34-5042 50 SDR -35 4" FEMALE ADAPT. CLEANOUT
34.5043
EST.
SDR -35 6" FPT ADAPT WITH PLUG
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
ITEM # STOCK # QTY. DESCRIPTION ACT FERGUSON B20 NATIONAL TECHLINE
12 SDR 4" SPRING LOADED CLEANOUT CAP
PVC PIPE- (20 FT. LENGTHS)
13.71
1.08 NO BIDNO
1 100 SCHED. 40 - S/W 1/2"
NO BID
0.16 • NO BIOL NO BID NO BID 0.20
2 100 SCHED. 40- S/W 1 1/2"
1. 25101
0.44 • NO BID NOBID NO BID 0.933200SCHED. 40 - PLAIN END 4"
NO BID
1.57 ' NO BID NO BID NO BID 1.93450SCHED. 80 - PLAIN END 1" 0.49 • NO BID NO BID NO BID 0.69
5 200 SCHED. 80- PLAIN END 2" 1.10 ' NO BID NO BID I Mn BID 1.26
SDR -9 CLASS 250 (100' ROLLS ONLY)
Thick Wall)
6 34-5005 100 1. 0.25 0.30 1 NO BID 1 0.26 0.69
7 200 4"
SDR -35 PVC PIPE (GASKET JOINT)
8 200 6"
9 200 8"
10 100 10"
SDR -35 (GASKET JOINT)
11 100 12"
12 100 15"
13 100 18"
C900 PVC PIPE
14 500 6" Class 200, DR14
15 500 8" Class 200, DR14
16 200 12" Class 200
17 100 16' Class 234
18 100 18" Ductile Iron
19 100 24" Ductile Iron
20 100 30" Ductile Iron
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
SDR -35 FITTINGS
34-5028 5 SDR -35 Y 4"X 4" SW
34-5031 5 SDR -35 1/8" BEND 4", SLIP X SLIP
345032 5 SDR -35 1/8" BEND 6', SLIP X SLIP
34-5040 15 SDR -35 1/16" BEND 4", SLIP X SLIP
345055 20 SDR -35 COUPLINGS (SXS) 4-
34-5056 5 SDR -35 CAP S/W 6"
345057 50 SDR -35 SEWER CAP HUB 4"
34-5042 50 SDR -35 4" FEMALE ADAPT. CLEANOUT
34.5043 15 SDR -35 6" FPT ADAPT WITH PLUG
345053 100 4" MIPT DWV PLUG
34.5044 5 SDR -35 6" FEMALE ADAPT. PLUG
34-5045 10 70 VALVE BOX, wA/d
34-5059 5 SDR SLIP RING 35-40 SIZE 4' GLUE FITTING
34-5060 12 SDR 4" SPRING LOADED CLEANOUT CAP
0.79 il i 0.98 1 NO BID 1 0.80 1 10.88
5.28
1.80 2.13 NO BID 1.74 1.88
3.17 1 1 3.82 1 NO BID 1 3.11 • 3.36
4.7al, 1 6.00 1 NO BID 1 4.88 1 1 5.28
4.79 ' 5.94 NO BID 1 4.85 5.28
8.22 10.21 NO BID 8.34 9.06
17.50 ' 21.95 NO BID 17.92 19.49
NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID 29.19
32.65 ' NO BID NO BID 34.72 35.15
52.70 NO BID NO BID 56.27 53.24
NO BID NO BID NO BID 82.47 NO BID
2.47 NO BID NO BID 2.50 2.59
1.36 NO BID NO BID 1.38 1.38
5.34 NO BID NO BID 5.39 5.60
1.49 NO BID NO BID 1.51 1.56
0.92 NO BID NO BID 0.94 0.93
2.87 NO BID NO BID 2.90 3.01
0.78 NO BID NO BID 0.80 0.82
1.79 NO BID NO 810 1.80 1.87
13.89 NO BID NO BID 14.00 13.71
1.08 NO BIDNO BID 1.48 1.04
5.45 NO BID NO BID 5.50 4.92 11
17.50 25.00 NO BID 18.82 1 1NO BID
1. 25101BIDNOBID 1.73 NO BID
3.20 NO BID NO BID 3.24 NO BID
346 2
w screw in plug that goes on female adapter. Automatic release
35 25022w0eterspeafic5ationsSDR SLIP RING 35 - 40 SIZE 6' GLUE FITTING 7.37 ' NO BID NO BID 7.43 NOBID
PACOSCHEDULE 80 FITTINGS
STOCK EST.
ITEM # # QTY. DESCRIPTION
SCHEDULE 40 FITTINGS
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
UNIT ACT B20 FERGUSON NATIONAL TECHLINE
36 345295 6 4" SXSW COUPLING DWV EACH
37 345296 35 4" FEMALE CLEANOUT ADAPTER DWV EACH
SCHEDULE 80 FITTINGS
LOTA
I NO BID
NO BID
TEE'S (TXTXT)
10.3938
D
5 11/2" EACH
39 34-5213 2 1" EACH
40 34-5214 2 11/4 EACH
41 34-5215 2 2" EACH
NO BID NO BID NO BIDI
TOTAL LOT A
2,679.15
LOT B COUPLINGS (TXT)
42 34-5138 2 1" EACH
43 34-5140 2 11/2" EACH
44 34-5141 2 2" EACH
TOTAL LOT B
LOT C COUPLINGS
45 34-5183 5 1/2" FEMALE SXS EACH
46 34-5185 15 1" FEMALE SXS EACH
47 34-5187 5 1 1/2" FEMALE SXS EACH
48 34-5188 300 2" COUPLINGS SXS EACH
49 34-5173 100 3" COUPLING, SXS EACH
TOTAL LOT C
LOT D FEMALE ADAPTER (SXT)
50 34-5176 5 1" EACH
51 34-5178 14 1 1/2" EACH
52 345179 350 2" EACH
53 34-5177 5 21/2' EACH
54 34-5174 500 3" EACH
TOTAL LOT D
NOBIDI I NO BID
NO BID 5.98 10.39
NOBIDI
D NO BID 4.65 8.09MBIDNO
I NOBIDI
NO BID 4.93 8.57
NOBIDI I NOBIDI
NO BID 6.42 11.18
NO BID NO BID
NO BID 61.90 107.63
NOBIDI I NO BID NOBIDI 1.803.13
1.83
NOBIDI I NOBIDI NO BIDI 4.951 1 8.62
NOBIDI I NOBIDI NO BID 1 5.201 1 9.04
NOBIDI I NOBIDI NO BIDI 23.90 41.58
NO DI INO BID NO BID 1.05 1.83
NO BID NO BID NO BID 1 1.461 1 2.54
NO BID1 I NO BID NO BID 2.40 4.18
NOBID NO BID NO BID 2.58 4.48
NO BID NO BID NO BIDI 7.28 12.67
NO BID NO BID NO BIDI 1,541.15 2,679.15
NO BID I NO BID NO BID 2.15 3.74
NO BID NO BIDI NO BIDI 4.291 1 7.44
NO BID NO BIDI NO BIDI 7.46 1 12.98
NO BID NO BID NO BID 11.78 20.49
NO BID NO BIDI NO BIDI 13.261 1 23.08
NO BID NO BIDI NO BIDI 9,370.71 16,308.31
Items listed in these categories will be awared by lots.
25022waterspecifications7/ 14/2005
PAGE 3 &DULE 80 FITTINGS
EST.
ITEM # STOCK # QTY. DESCRIPTION
SCHEDULE 80 FITTINGS (CONT.)
LOT E
NO BIDI
BUSHINGS & REDUCERS
MALE ADAPTER
55 34-5150 10 1' MT X SLIP
56 34.5151 10 1 1/2" MT X SLIP
57 34-5152 60 2" MIPT X SLIP
58 34-5153 1 4" MT X SLIP
NO BID NO BID
MJ ACCESSORY KITS
TOTAL LOT E
LOT F
34-5742 1 4" came with stock #345740
45 -DEGREE ELL'S (SXS)
59 34-5200 6 1"
60
34-5744 1
4 4"
71 1 4" to fit PVC w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket
45 -DEGREE ELL'S (TXT)
61
1
2 1 1/2"
72 1 6" to fit PVC w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket
TOTAL LOT F
LOTG
1 6" to fit DI w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket
90 -DEGREE ELL'S (SXS)
62 345196 5 114"
63 34-5197 2 11/2'
64 34-5198 5 2"
TOTAL LOT G
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
UNIT ACT 820 FERGUSON NATIONAL TECHLINE
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
LOTH
NO BIDI
BUSHINGS & REDUCERS
2.34
65 345181 2 1 1/2" X 1" MPT X FPT EACH
66 345143 2 2"X 1 1/4" MIPT X FIPT EACH
67 345144 2 2"X 1 1/2" MIPT X FIPT EACH
NO BID NO BID
TOTAL LOT H
22.22
NO BID NO BID
MJ ACCESSORY KITS
416.98
68 34-5742 1 4" came with stock #345740 EACH
69 34-5743 1 6" come with stock #345741 EACH
70 34-5744 1 8" come with stock #345745 EACH
71 1 4" to fit PVC w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket EACH
Addendum 1 4" to fit DI w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket EACH
72 1 6" to fit PVC w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket EACH
Addendum 1 6" to fit DI w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket EACH
73 1 8' to fit PVC w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket EACH
Addendum 1 8" to fit DI w/meg lug complete w/bolts, nut, gasket EACH
DUCTILE IRON
NO BIDI NO BIDI NO BIDI 2.34 4.18
NO BIO NO BID1 NO B101 3.94 ' 6.85
NO SIDI I NO SIDI NO BID 5.69 • 9.90
NO BID NO BID NO BID 12.78 • 22.22
NO BID NO BID NO BID 416.98 726.52
29.15 NO BID 30.88 27.63 26.73 '
NO BIDI NO BID NO BID 2.51 • 4.36
40.00
NO BID NO BID NO BID 2.4821139.13
NO BID 36.50 32.64 36.75
NO BID NO BID NO BID 5.58 ' 7.71
NO BID NO BID NO BID 116.141-1 198.10 1 1
NO BID NO BID NO BID 1.60 2.79
NO BID I NO BIDI NO BID 1.72 2.98
NO BIDI I NO 1301 NO BIDI 2.071 1 3.61
NO BIDI I NO BIDI NO BID 21.791-1 37.96
NO BID NO BID NO BID 2.58 • 4.45
NO BID NO BID NO BIDI 3.751-1 6.53
NO SIDI I NO SIDI NO BIDI 3.751-16.
12.54
NO BID NO BID NO BID 20.12 35.02
7.201-1 NO BID 12.00 7.90 8.09
NO BID 15.00 10.16 10.52
10.56 ' NO BID 17.00 12.15 12.54
23.26 NO BID 24.62 22.03 21.31
20.40 NO BID 21.60 19.32 • 21.31
29.15 NO BID 30.88 27.63 26.73 '
24.70 NO BID 26.20 23.42 • 26.73
40.00 NO BID 42.46 37.99 36.75
34.40 NO BID 36.50 32.64 36.75
DI TEE'S (MJ X MJ) WITH ACCESSORIES
74 34-5123 1 6"X 6" EACH 88.70 1 1 NO BID 126.00 84.00 1 1 61.89
75 1 8"x8"x6"MJ EACH 118.20 NO BID 168.00 112.00 68.99
Itee 22ste¢spett8tse ma p will be awarded by lots.
PAGE 4 MPS AND SADDLES
ITEM S VCK EST.
QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT
FULL CIRCLE WIDE CLAMP MUST FIT PVC, DI & C900
LOTI
NO BID 34.53
TAPPING SADDLES (100% STAINLESS
26.97
76 345224 20 2" X 8", Single Band, F1-263.7.5 EACH
77 34-5225 10 2- X 12", Single Band, F1-263-12.5 EACH
78 345221 5 8" X 12" Single Band, O.D. 8.99.9.39, F1-939-12.5 EACH
79 345228 2 8" X 12 1/2', Dbl. Band, OD 8.62-9.42
96 345605 5 8"X 2" IP EACH
Ford F2-942-12.5 EACH
80 345222 2 4'x 7 1/2", Dbl. Band, OD 4.44-5.24
4 10"X 2" IP EACH
99 34-5608
Ford, F2-524-7.5 EACH
81 345226 1 4"x 12', Dbl. Band, OD 4.44-5.24
98.24
NO BID 170.00
Ford F2-524-12.5 EACH
82 345223 10 6" x 7 1/2", Dbl. Band, OD 6.62-7.42
324.61
NO BID 380.00
Ford, F2-742-7.5 EACH
83 34-5227 5 6" X 12 1/2', Dbl. Band, OD 6.62-7.42
362.58
1223.85
NO BID 582.00
Ford, F2-742-12.5 EACH
84 34-5232 1 10'x12" SS Repair Clamp 101 11.02-11.44 EACH
85 345233 1 12"x12" SS Repair Clamp 101 13.10-13.50 OD EACH
86 345234 1 16'x12" SS Repair Clamp 102 17.20-18.20 OD EACH
87 34-5235 1 18"x12' SS Repair Clamp 102 19.40-20.40 OD EACH
88 345236 1 20"x12"SS Repair Clamp 102 21.40.22.40 OD EACH
89 345237 1 24"X12"SS Repair Clamp, DI or C900 EACH
90 2 16"X 12.5 Dbl. Band, OD 17.15-17.90 EACH
91 2 18" x 12.5" Dbl. Band, OD 19.23-19.98 EACH
92 2 30" x12.5 Uouble Band, UI or t;90U EACH
TOTALLOTI
LOT J
NO BID 34.53
TAPPING SADDLES (100% STAINLESS
26.97
43.95 ' NO BID
STEEL W/EXCEPT. OF GASKET) ROCKWELL,
43.51 45.60
77.55 '
POWER SEAL OR APPROVED EQUAL ONLY'
93 34-5600 2 6"X VIP EACH
94 34-5601 15 6"X 2" IP EACH
95 34-5604 1 8'X VIP EACH
96 345605 5 8"X 2" IP EACH
97 34-5606 5 2' X VIP EACH
98 34-5607 4 10"X 2" IP EACH
99 34-5608 4 12"X 2" IP EACH
NO BID 145.00
TOTAL LOT J
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
approved equal determined by City of Georgetown Water Department representative
25022waterspecificabons7/14/2005
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
ACT 820 Ferguson NATIONAL TECHLINE
26.57 ' NO BID 34.53 24.52 26.97
43.95 ' NO BID 49.20 43.51 45.60
77.55 ' NO BID 101.14 74.85 82.85
100.54 NO BID 121.50 88.55 115.59
51.92 NO BID 62.80 45.37 59.22
81.07 ' NO BID 96.90 71.74 93.66
80,67 NO BID 72.75 52.81 69.16
89.27 NO BID 108.70 78.92 103.02
NO BID 145.00 88.38 98.24
NO BID 170.00 103.28 116.44
NO BID 335.00 287.94 324.61
NO BID 380.00 303.82 42.52
NO BID 390.50 321.63 362.58
1223.85
NO BID 582.00 549.79 609.18
NO BID 335.00 287.324.61
NO BID 360.00 303.82 342.51
NO BID NO BID 596.78 668.41
NO BID NO BID 6,593.95 1 1 7,284.26
NO BID NO BID 54.85 32.96 ' 47.68
NO BID NO BID 60.35 47.08 ' 80.04
NO BID NO BID 65.25 33.44 " 48.37
NO BID NO BID 69.65 48.69 ' 82.38
NO BID NO BID 47.55 38.93 ' 55.00
NO BID NO BID 85.00 51.18 ' 106.32
NO BID NO BID 98.45 54.06 " 107.26
NO BID NO BID 2,400.00 1,664.62 - 2,885.55
PAGE.5 -PING SADDLES, DRESSERS AND BRASS FITTINGS .
EST.
ITEM # STOCK # QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT
TAPPING SADDLE /SEWER LINES
100 34-5069 5 100% RUBBER TO FIT 6", 8", 10"& 12" PIPE
ATTACHED BY 2 STAINLESS STEEL BANDS
WITH 4" BASE EACH
LOT L
NO BID 20.60
DRESSERS, STEEL BODIED, BOLTED
15.10
LOT K
34-5751 2 EACF
101 345246 10 1' EACF
102 345247 5 11/4" EACF
103 345248 7 11/2" EACF
104 34-5249 50 2" O.D. 2.30 TO 2.63 EACF
105 34-5250 5 21/2" EACF
106 34-5252 5 8" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around, standard length EACF
107 34-5253 2 10" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around, standard length EACH
108 345254 2 12" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around, standard length EACH
109 345256 1 16" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around, standard length EACH
110 34-5257 1 18" for ductile pipe/C900,wrap around standard length EACH
111 345259 1 20" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around standard length EACH
112
NO BID
1 24" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around standard length EACH
113
345770
1 30" for ductile pipe/C900, wrap around standard length EACH
114 345260 2 6" O.D. 6.54 -7.65 12" sleeve length EACH
128 34-5773 5
TOTAL LOT K
EACH
BRASS
LOT L
NO BID 20.60
BRASS NIPPLES IT X T)
15.10
115 34-5751 2 1"X 6" EACF
116 34-5753 15 1 1/2"X 6" EACF
117 345754 60 2X6" EACF
118 345755 12 3/4" X 3" EACF
119 34-5768 20 1 112"X 3" EACF
120 345759 80 2" X 3" EACH
121 345761 2 1"X CLOSE EACH
122 345763 20 1 1/2"X CLOSE EACH
123 345764 16 2'X CLOSE EACH
124 345765 2 2 1/2"X 6' EACH
125
NO BID
5 2 1/7 X 3" EACH
1,557.00 NO BID NO BID
TOTAL LOT L
550.00
LOT M
NO BID 160.00
BRASS 45 -DEGREE ELL'S (T X T)
54.51
126 345770 2 1" EACH
127 345772 5 2" EACH
128 34-5773 5 11/2' EACH
TOTAL LOT M
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit •
ACT B20 FERGUSON NATIONAL TECHLINE
1-[--- 23.85 1 NO BID 1 25.00 1 18.18
13.20 NO BID 20.60 13.49 ` 15.10
14.30 NO BID 22.00 14.09 ' 15.81
16.50 NO BID 25.60 16.85 ' 18.87
17.60 NO BID 31.00 17.79 ' 19.70
24.201 NO BID 47.00 23.00 ' 33.04
63.80 NO BID 95.00 46.74 ' 62.90
88.00 NO BID 138.00 56.90 ' 87.33
105.60 NO BID 163.00 64.17 ` 99.76
231.00 NO BID 330.00 200.22 ' 216.09
288.20 NO BID 478.00 211.02 ` 228.80
396.00 NO BID 575.00 223.10 ' 279.64
451.00 NO BID 950.00 382.02 ' 349.56
1,557.00 NO BID NO BID 419.26 ' 550.00
104.00 NO BID 160.00 109.58 54.51
5,157.40 NO BID I NO BID 1 3.458.42 ' 3934.13
3.43 NO BID NO BID 3.17 ' 4.01
6.16 NO BID NO BID 5.59 ' 7.07
7.75 NO BID NO BID 7.18 ' 9.08
1.25 NO BID NO BID 1.14 ' 1.45
3.13 NO BID NO BID 2.90 ' 3.67
4.01 NO BID NO BID 3.72 ' 4.70
1.08 NO BID NO BID 1.00 ' 0.85
2.11 NO BIDI NO BIDI 1.95 *1 2.48
3.21 NO BID NO BID 2.99 ' 3.77
15.56 NO BID NO BID 14.43 ' 18.25
M. NO BID 8.24 ' 1
1,133.90 NO BID NO BID 1,049.17 ` 1325.84
1.96 NO BID NO BID 1.83 ' 2.06
6.35 NO BID NO BID 5.93 ` 6.67
N ID ID 3.66 4.11
57.071 NO BID I NO 13101 51.611-158.02
r^l o -0R 0 r1I 11nR
ITEM JOK EST.
0 QTY.
LOT N
129
130
131
LOT O
132
133
134
135
DESCRIPTION
BRASS 90 -DEGREE ELL (TXT)
34-5776 5 1"
345778 5 11/2"
345779 2 2"
EACH
137
TOTAL LOT N
15 1 1/2" X 1" MPT X FPT threaded bushing
BRASS TEE'S (TXTXT)
34.5785 7 1"
34-5788 2 1 1/2"
34-5787 150 2
34.5789 2 212"
2
TOTAL LOT P
TOTAL LOT 0
UNIT
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
LOT P
NO BID NO BID
BRASS BUSHINGS
1.87
136 345791 20 1 12" X 3/4" MtPT X FIPT EACH
137 34-5792 15 1 1/2" X 1" MPT X FPT threaded bushing EACH
138 345793 250 2"X 1" MIPT X FIPT EACH
139 34-5795 15 2" X 1 1/2" MIPT X FIPT EACH
1300 METER ADAPTER, 3/4" X 1", FD A34 EACH
2
TOTAL LOT P
TOTAL LOT S
LOTO
345326 10
BRASS COUPLINGS (TXT)
EACH
140 345796 25 1" EACH
141 345797 6 11/4" EACH
142 345798 5 112' EACH
143 34-5799 5 2" EACH
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
TOTAL LOT Q
Unit t Unit Unit Unit
ACT FERGUSON NATIONAL TECHLINE
2.03 NO BID NO BID 1.67 ' 1.87
3.83 NO BID NO BID 3.31 6.06
6.09 NO BIO NO BID 5.39 3.72
41.48 NO BID NO BID 35.68 ' 47.09
2.73 1 NO BID NO BIDI 2.361*1 2.66
5.16 NO BID NO BID 4.56 ' 5.13
8.35 NO BID NO BID 7.47 ' 8.39
16.20 NO BID NO BID 14.511-1 16.81
1,314.33 NO BID NO BIDI 1,175.16 *1 1.321.00
2.69 NO BID I NO BIDI 2.47 1 2.77
2.20 L NO BID I NO BID 2.02 2.26
3.93 NO BID I NO BIDI 3.597 4.03
3.25 NO BID NO BID 2.991 3.36
1,118.05 NO BID NO BIDI 1,022.5 1,147.2
1.54 1 NO BID I NO BID 1.41 ' 1.57
2.40 1 NOBID NO BID 2.19 ' 2.47
3.33 NO BID NO BID 2.99 3.36
5.36 NO BID NO BID 4.91 ' 5.52
96.35 NO BID NO BID 87.89
34-5653
LOT R BRASS DRESSERS, 3 -PART COMP (MUST BE FORD)
144 34.5255 75 1", Ford C44 -44-G EACH I NO BID I I NO BID
1 8.04 6.92 ' 7.67
TOTAL LOT R I NO BID I I NO BID 1 603.001 519.00 575.25
LOT S
NO BID
BRASS METER SPUDS (MUST BE FORD)
145 34-5511 2 3/4'X 3", C38-23.3 EACH
146 34-5508 1000 3/4'X 8 1/2", C38.2-3.8.5 EACH
147 345327 5 3/4"X 1 1/2", C38-23-1.5 EACH
148 34-5328 40 1" X 3", C38.44-2.62 EACH
149 345332 30 1" X 8 12", C38.44-8.5 EACH
150 34-5653 1300 METER ADAPTER, 3/4" X 1", FD A34 EACH
2 1 12" MT X 1 1/2" COMP, C84-66-6
TOTAL LOT S
156
LOT T
NO BID 4.55
BRASS ADAPTERS (MUST BE FORD)
NO BID
151 34-5307 10 3/4' MPT X COMP., C84-33-6 EACH
152 34-5308 20 1' MT X 1" COMP C84-44 EACH
153 34-5309 15 1" FT X 1" COMP, C14-446 EACH
154 34.5310 1 1 12" FPT X COMP, C14.66-6 EACH
155 345311 2 1 12" MT X 1 1/2" COMP, C84-66-6 EACH
156 345326 10 3/4" FEMALE ADAPT. X COMP, C14-33.6 EACH
157 345322 100 1"X 1" MIPT BY CTS GRIP JOINT
23.78
NO BID NO BID 1,540.35
FORD CATALOG L84 -44-G EACH
158 345622 2 2" MALE ADAPTER z COMP EACH
TOTAL LOT T
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
NO BID NO BID 4.55 3.91 ' NO BID
NO BID NO BID 9.65 8.31 ` NO BID
NO BID NO BID 4.26 3.67 ' NO BID
NO BID NO BID 5.75 4.97 • NO BID
NO BID NO BID 13.05 11.25 ' NO BID
NO BID NO BID 3.68 3.17 ' NO BID
NO BID NO BID 15,079.40 12,993.47 NO BID
NO BID NO BID 5.76 4.97 • 5.50
NO BID NO BID 6.83 5.89 ' 6.52
NO BID NO BID 8.25 7.09 • 7.85
NO BID NO BID 1.90'2 20.88
NO BID NO BID 17.25 14.74 ' 16.32
NO BID NO BID 6.10 5.22 5.78
NO BID NO BID 10.55 9.06 • 10.02
NOBID NO BID 25.00 21.48 23.78
NO BID NO BID 1,540.35 1,323.34 1 11,464.03
PAGE 7 &S
ITEM STOCK EST.
QTY. DESCRIPTION
Unit Unit
UNIT ACT B20
LOT U HOSE BIBS
159 34-5700 2 1/2" ROUGH BRASS, MALE THREAD EACH
160 34-5701 5 3/4" ROUGH BRASS, MALE THREAD EACH
TOTAL LOT U
Unit Unit
FERGUSON NATIONAL
Unit
TECHLINE
NO BID
IN
BID 3.50 3.47 1.24
NO BID NO BID 3.50 3.731 1 1.341-
24.501 25.591 1 9.181*
172 10 GATE VALVE, 1" HAMMOND
173 345316 20 BRASS GATE VALVE, 2" WHEEL TYPE
174 34-5313 40 BRASS VALVE ADAPTER, FORD MCDONALD
6122, OT67
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
approved equal will be determined by City of Georgetown Water Dept. representative
25022waterspecifications7/14/2005
EACH 1 44.751 NO 810 45.001 33.52 NO BID
EACH 1 7.301 NO BIDI 7.101 6.091-1 NO BID
BRASS FITTINGS
ALL TO BE BALL VALVE CONFIGURATION EXCEPT ANGLE STOPS)
ALL CURB STOPS STRAIGHT OR ANGLE WILL HAVE LOCKING WINGS)
ALL MUST BE BY COMPRESSION)
ALL COMPRESSION CONNECTIONS MUST BE FORD OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
161 34-5300 120 1" ANGLE STOP (FORD KV43-444-W-G) COMP X
METER NUT, FORD BRAND ONLY EACH NO BID NO SIDI 20.961 18.06 17.69 '
162 345324 200 1" STRAIGHT CURB STOP (FORD B43 -444 -W -G )
COMP X METER NUT, FORD BRAND ONLY EACH I NO BIDI NO BID 39.231 33.791 133.37
163 345325 40 1" STRAIGHT CURB STOP (FORD B11 -444W)
FPT X FPT, FORD BRAND ONLY EACH I NO BIDI NO BiDI 31.601 27.211 1 23.67 '
164 34-5660 5 1" CORP COCK CCTHD W/BALL VALVE X
COMP, FORD F1000, FORD BRAND ONLY EACHI NO BIDI NO BID 1 24.501 16.80 ' 20.07
165 34-5661 5 2" CORP COCK IPTHD W/BALL VALVE X COMP.
WITHOUT HANDLE, FORD F1100 EACH NO BID NO BID 83.00 71.48 ' NO BID
166 345301 10 1" BALL VALVE COMP CTS X FIPT, FORD BRAND ONLY EACH I NO BIDI NO BID 1 34.351 30.301•1 NO BID
167 34-5302 50 1" CORP STOP MPT X COMP. EACH I NO BIDI NO BID 24,501 16.801-1 20.07
168 345318 2 1 1/4" SCRWD STRAIGHT CURB STOP WITHOUT HANDLE
FORD B11 -555-W ) EACH NO BID NO BIDI 52.00 40-20T-F--35.73
169 345319 5 1 1/2" SCRWD STRAIGHT CURB STOP LEVER HANDLE
WITHOUT HANDLE BRASS (FORD B11 -666-W) EACH NO BID NO BIDI 58.451 50.35 49.70 '
170 345320 50 2" FXF BRASS BALL VALVE, JONES 1900 OR
FORD 011-777-W EACH I NO BIDI NO BID 85.101 73.301 1 72.38 '
171 345317 10 GATE VALVE, 3/4" HAMMOND
172 10 GATE VALVE, 1" HAMMOND
173 345316 20 BRASS GATE VALVE, 2" WHEEL TYPE
174 34-5313 40 BRASS VALVE ADAPTER, FORD MCDONALD
6122, OT67
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
approved equal will be determined by City of Georgetown Water Dept. representative
25022waterspecifications7/14/2005
EACH 1 44.751 NO 810 45.001 33.52 NO BID
EACH 1 7.301 NO BIDI 7.101 6.091-1 NO BID
PAGE 8 -
CK EST. St Unit Unit Unit
ITEM # # QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT ACT B20 FERGUSON NATIONAL
WEDGE GATE VALVES W/ GLANDS & GASKETS WITH ACCESSORY KITS, WATEROUS 500 OR APPROVED EQUAL ONLY
175 345740 1 4" includes accessory kit (MJxMJ) EACH
176 34-5741 1 6" includes accessory kit (MJxMJ) EACH
177 34-5745 1 8" includes accessory kit (MJxMJ) EACH
178
6
1 10" Includes accessory kit (MJxMJ) EACH
179
FIRE HYDRANT BREAKABLE KIT,
1 12" Includes accessory kit (MJxMJ) EACH
180
198
1 6" Includes accessory kit - MJ x FLG EACH
6.65
11.22
FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS
199
181 345067 5 4" CLAY X 4" PVC (Rex Reel Adjustable) EACH
182 345070 6 6" CLAY X 6" PVC/Cl Repair Coupling EACH
183 345071 2 4" PVCICI X 4' PVC/CI Repair Coupling EACH
184 345072 10 6" CI/PVC X 6• CI/PVC (Rex Reel Adjustable) EACH
185 345068 1 6" CLAY X 4" CI/PVC Repair Coupling EACH
186 345080 4 8" Cl/PVC X 8• Cl/PVC COUP (Rex Reel Adjustable) EACH
187 34-5081 1 8" CLAY X 8" CI/PVC Repair Coupling EACH
188 1 10" CLAY X 10"CI/PVC Repair Coupling EACH
LOT V RUBBER WATER METER WASHERS
0 34-5505 25 314" X tlt6" , 100/PKG EACH
190 345506 15 3/4" X 1/8", 100/PKG EACH
191 345507 25 1" X 1/8", 100/PKG EACH
TOTAL LOT V
FIRE HYDRANTS
MUST BE AMERICAN DARLING, KENNEDY OR CLOW ONLY
ALL FIRE HYDRANTS MUST BE FACTORY
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
Unke
TECHLINE
NO BID
AND PRIMED AND PAINTED SILVER
192 2 3 1/2' BURY
193 12 4' BURY, AMERICAN DARLING B84B, SILVER
194 8 FIRE HYDRANT METERS W/ 2" VALVE
195 6 HYDRANT BACKFLOW PREVENTER
196 5 FIRE HYDRANT BREAKABLE KIT,
197
746.48
HYDRANT B84, PART 84-29-45, AMERICAN DARLING
198 5 FIRE HYDRANT BREAKABLE KIT,
6.65
11.22
HYDRANT B26, PART 62-29-15, AMERICAN DARLING
199 5 FIRE HYDRANT BREAKABLE KIT
11.22 NO BID
HYDRANT, KB1D, Part K-8149 KENNEDY
200 2 4' CLOW MEDALLION Hydrant
201 2 FIRE HYDRANT BREAKABLE KIT,
13.08
For 4' CLOW MEDALLION
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
Unke
TECHLINE
3.41 1
NO BID 245.00 239.79 241.02
7.28NO
NO BID 317.00 309.01 307.91 ' M79O.00
NO BID 495.00 485.08 482.68
7.28
NO BID 768.00 746.64 746.48
7.93
NO BID 970.00 94339
6.65
11.22
NO BID 315.00 299.45 307.91
3.41 1 NO BID NO BID 2.39 2.86
7.28NO BID NO BID 5.15 6.11
3.41 NO BID NO BID 2.41 2.86
7.28 NO BID NO BID 5.15 6.11
7.93 NO BID NO BID 5.60 6.65
11.22 NO BID NO BID 7.92 9.41
11.22 NO BID NO BID 7.92 9.41
15.60 NO BID NO BID 10.73 13.08
13.501 10.001 1 2.50 7.00 NO BID
13.501 Ji 10.001 11.80 f 1 8.0011 NO BID
23.001 1 12.0011 3.75 11.00 NO BID
1,115.001 1 700.00 1 1 183.25 t 1 570.00 NO BID
999.001 1 NO BID 1 1 995.00 938.68 999.00
NO BID -FT NO BID 1,050.00 960.06 1,015.00
640.00 485.00 r 1 680 881 1 583.00
359.00 NO BID NO BIO 1 1 229.40 r I NO BID
EACH 1 82.00 NO BID I I NO BID 1 1 106.45 1NO BID
EACH 1
50 PVC CEMENT (PINTS ONLY) PINT
203 345722
90.00 NO BID I I NO BID 1 1 119.41 1NO BID
EACHI 93.00 t I NO BID I I NO BID -T I NO BID I INO BID
2.50NO BID NO BID
MISCELLANEOUS
4.11
202 34-5720 50 PVC CEMENT (PINTS ONLY) PINT
203 345722 50 PVC CLEANER (PINTS ONLY) PINT
204 345723 60 PVC PRIMER (PINTS ONLY) PINT
205 345724 250 PVC'HOT GLUE', RETRO SEAL HOT 203 OR EQUAL PINT
206 345719 35 PIPE COMPOUND, RECTOR SEAL PINT
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots
2.50NO BID NO BID 4.25 4.11
45 NO BID NO BID 2.47 3.45
45J2.
50
NO BID 5.50 3.23 4.
2411
50 NO BID 5.50 3.99
NO BID I I 12.00 10.57 9.01
0
Page 9 - MISC.
STOCK EST. Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
ITEM # # QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT ACT B20 FERGUSON NATIONAL TECHLINE
MISCELLANEOUS
207 100 ALLIANCE SERIES PLASTIC METER BOX W/LID
21 5/16"X15 13/16 FOR ITRON ERTS W/AMR LOCATOR
ON SOLID PLASTIC LIDS, MODEL 1200 SBAMR
208 34-5800 1700 PLASTIC LID FOR 1200 ALLIANCE SERIES FOR
ITRON ERTS W/AMR LOCATOR ON SOLID PLASTIC
LIDS, MODEL 1200SBAMR.LID
209 34.5801 85 PLASTIC BOX FOR 1200 ALLIANCE SERIES
MODEL 1200
210 30 DFW PLASTICS 12 3/8" ROUND LID FOR ITRON
ERTS W/AMR LOCATOR SLOT ON SOLID PLASTIC
LID, MODEL DFW-18 AMR -LID
211 30 DFW PLASTICS 16"X11" CEMENT BOX REPLACEMENT
LID FOR ITRON ERTS W/AMR LOCATOR SLOT
ON SOLID PLASTIC LIDS, MODEL DFW36SBSM-LID
212 25 ALLIANCE SERIES PLASTIC METER BOX W/UD
25 1/4 X 19 3/8" FOR ITRON ERTS W/AMR LOCATOR
ON SOLID PLASTIC LIDS, MODEL 1500.SBAMR
213 10 PLASTIC LID FOR 1500 ALLIANCE SERIES FOR ITRON
ERTS W/AMR LOCATOR ON SOLID PLASTIC LIDS,
MODEL 1500.SBAMR.LID
214 15 DFW PLASTICS 20" ROUND LID FOR ITRON ERTS W/
AMR LOCATOR SLOT ON SOLID PLASTIC LIDS
DFW-20-AMR-LID
215 10 PLASTIC BOX FOR 1500 ALLIANCE SERIES
216 100 MUSHROOM VALVE CAPS, 6"
217 20 JUMBO DOUBLE METER BOX, 1500 for dbl serv, w/lids covers for Itron ERTS
218 34-5900 30 HAND PUMP, BECKSON 136PF-6
Items listed in these categories will be awarded by lots.
Any "No Bid" within a lot is considered a "No Bid" for the entire lot.
Awarded Vendor
NO BID
Hughes Supply
NO RESPONSE
Master Meter
World Pipe, Inc.
EACH 1 13.101 NOBIDI 1 13.801 12.321 1 11.63
EACH 6.70 1 NO BID 1 1 7.50 1 5.971 1 5.90
EACH 8.10 1 NO BID 1 1 8.50 1 6.181 1 5.90
EACH 1 15.50 1 NO BID I I NO BID 1 14.93 14.09
EACH 1 17.90 1 NO BID I I NO BID 1 15.89 11
EACH 1 21.90 1 NO BID 1 1 25.00 1 20.51 1 1 19.36 1*1
EACH 1 25.95 1 NO BID 1 1 13.001 8.641 1 8.25
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
38.75 NO BID NO BID 30.36 28.65
12.90 NO BID 17.50 12.08 11.50
11.30 NO BID 12.50 10.00 11.24
21.90 NO BID 25.00 20.51 19.36
31.50 26.95 30.00 31.00 NO BID
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL WATER/WASTEWATER PARTS $137,153.44
25022waterspecifications7/14/2005
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No.
Pd.2-576&
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and approval of a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and
Steger and Bizzell Engineering Incorporated for professional services relating to the Georgetown
South and Georgetown East Substation projects.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Funding for construction of the Georgetown -South and Georgetown -East Electric
Substations is budgeted in the 2005-2007 Electric CII'. These projects are being staged in succession
so as to optimize construction and material prices. As part of the process to site these facilities, land
surveying, development of water pollution abatement plans, storm water pollution prevention
plans, and the development of civil engineering site construction plans will be needed for both of
these substation sites. Engineering estimates for this scope of work is $50,000
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval to Council at its August 16, 2005 meeting. Approved 5-
0. Smith and Brown absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a contract amendmentbetween the City of Georgetown and
Steger and Bizzell Engineering Incorporated for professional services relating to the Georgetown -
South and Georgetown -East Substation projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding will be from the Electric Capital account 611-101-6619
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Scope of Work
Submitted By:
Services
For Utility
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. Consulting Engineers Surveyors
1978 South Austin Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
July 12, 2005
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 1458
Georgetown, Tx 78627
Attn.: Jim Briggs, P.E.
Assistant City Manager
Re: Proposed Substations
Kelley Trust property
Williamson County property - SE Inner Loop
Dear Mr. Briggs,
Telephone: (512) 9309412
Facsimile: (512) 9309416
We appreciate your consideration of Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. for your
civil engineering needs on these projects.
It is my understanding that Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. ("Engineer") wouldberesponsibleforthefollowingservices:
1. Engineer will assist with developmental meetings with the currentlandowners.
2. Engineer will provide land surveying services to the City of
Georgetown for the acquisition of the two tracts of land. 3. Engineer will survey the limits of construction for both sites and
prepare a drawing showing existing elevation contours. A permanent
benchmark will be set on each site. We will survey and prepare a tree
survey for both sites. The tree survey shall graphically identify all treesof12inchescaliperorgreater, protected trees and significant stands oftrees.
4. Engineer will prepare a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) for
submittal to the TCEQ for the Kelley Trust site and the East Substation
site.
5. Engineer will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for both
sites.
Member: NSPE TSPE TSPS ASCE
Effective May 26, 2004
All Rates Per Hour)
Engineer (Principal)
Engineer (P.E.)
Registered Surveyor
Project Specialist
Project Manager
GIS Technician
Senior Technician
Engineer in Training (E.I.T.)
Graduate Engineer
Surveyor in Training (S.I.T.)
Geologist
CADD Technician/Draftsman
Clerical
Field Inspector
148.00
110.00
100.00
99.00
95.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
85.00
80.00
75.00
75.00
60.00
50.00
2 Man Survey Party $100.00
3 Man Survey Party $120.00
4 Man Survey Party $140.00
GPS Survey Party $150.00
NOTE: Expert Witness Fee is charged at 1.5 times hourly rate.
Mileage (when appropriate) 36.5¢/mile
11 COPY COSTS
Type Per Each
Photo/Xerox 10
Blackline:
18 x 24 2.00
24 x 36 3.00
all other sizes 1.67 sq. ft.
Mylar:
18 x 24 6.00
24 x 36 10.00
S. UimlProposalslaa RATE SCIIEDULEJUN 1004.DOC
6. Engineer will prepare construction plans for both sites. The
construction plans will include, but may not be limited to the following
sheets:
a. Site Plan
b. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
c. Grading and Drainage Plan
d. Fencing Plan
e. Landscaping Plan
f. Miscellaneous Details
7. Engineer will prepare bid documents and perform bid evaluations.
8. Engineer will perform three construction site inspections on each site.
Engineer will not be providing the following services:
1. Geotechnical engineering
2. Structural engineering
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. will complete the preparation of the above
referenced plans within 60 days of notice to proceed.
Our fees are derived from our billable time spent preparing your project and are
based on our published hourly rates in effect on the date that the work was
performed. Our published hourly rates are subject to change without notice;
however, we try to make every effort to inform Client of any change in our billing
rates. For budgeting purposes only, I would estimate that Engineer's fees for the
scope of services should be approximately $50,000. This estimate is not a
guaranteed maximum and Engineer's fees may go above this amount due to
unforeseen circumstances discovered during the project.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
mc
Enclosure: Rate Schedule
Cc: File
Agenda Item Check List
N
Financial Impact
Agenda Item: Steger and Bizzell Engineering Services
Agenda Item Subject: Contract Amendment for Steger and Bizzell
Is this a Capital Improvement • Yes No
Project:
Council Date: 08/23/2005
link to Agenda database => Q
Need Help?
Was it budgeted? 0 Yes No
Is it within the approved budgeted amount? Yes No
If not, where is the money coming from?
G/L Account Number 611 Budget
Amount Going to Council $ 50,000.00
Is there something (budgeted) that won't get Yes 0 No
done because you are spending these funds?
If so, please explain.
Will this have an impact on the next year's
budget?
If so, please explain.
Does this project have future revenue
impact?
Year: 2006 and beyond
If so, how?
Yes • No
Yes No
Department: Georgetown Utility Systems
City owned substations, will not be subject to
transformation charges with current transmission
G
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005
Item No.y"
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to award the bid for an annual Street Rehabilitation -Concrete
contract to J&A Construction Company for $253,734.20.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were received to cover Concrete curbing, rip -rap and flat work on Scheduled and
unscheduled street maintenance for (1) year. Concrete installation and repair will be done on an as needed
basis. The bid price was for estimated amounts. The actual cost for concrete work will be determined by
the amount of work completed using unit prices bid. This contract will promote a more timely response
to concrete repair tickets when the in-house crews have a backlog. Curbs can be added to streets where
point repairs are needed to prevent farther road deterioration. The contractor can be used in conjunction
with in house projects to increase productivity.
J&A construction has previously performed satisfactory work for the City of Georgetown. The
latest example being the Curbs installed on the new Main Street Parking Lot. Therefore, staff requests a
GUS Board recommendation to award the annual bid for the Street Rehabilitation -Asphalt contract to J&A
Construction Company for an amount not to exceed $253,734.20.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this contract service will come out of the Capital funds relating to Street repairs as
needed. These may include Account Numbers
1345801-00 Unscheduled street maintenance
1345801 -RF Scheduled Road Failures
134580400 Overlay
134 -5801 -CR Curb repair/replacement
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION
GUS Board recommended approval at the August 16, 2005 meeting. Approved 5-0. Smith and
Brown absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
COMMENTS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Engineers Letter of recommendation
2. Bid tab
Submitted By: Mark Miller Jim
Transportation Services Manager Ass Utilities
a
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No.t
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to award the bid for an annual Street Rehabilitation -Asphalt
contract to H. Deck Construction Co. for $333,067.50.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were received to cover asphalt patching and overlay work on scheduled and unscheduled
street maintenance for (1) year on an as -needed basis. The bid price was for estimated amounts. The
actual cost for asphalt work will be determined by the amount of work completed using unit prices bid.
This contract will promote a more timely response to patch tickets when the in-house crews have a
backlog of repair tickets. Overlays can be performed on roads that are too large to be done with in-house
services or on roads requiring a better ride quality than the City equipment can provide. The contractor
can be used in conjunction with inhouse projects to increase productivity.
H. Deck has previously performed satisfactory work for the City of Georgetown and is presently
working on the City s 2005 Street Overlays Project. Therefore, staff requests a GUS Board
recommendation to award the bid for the Street Rehabilitation -Asphalt contract to H. Deck Construction
Company for an amount not to exceed $333,067.50
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval at the August 16, 2005 meeting. Approved 5-0. Smith and
Brown absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this contract service will come out of the Capital funds relating to Street repairs as
needed. These may include Account Numbers
1345801-00 Unscheduled street maintenance
1345801-00 Scheduled Road Failures
134580400 Overlay
1345805-00 Seal coat
COMMENTS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Engineers Letter of recommendation
2. Bid tab
Submitted By: Mark Miller Jimggs
Transportation Services Manager Assis qty IvQk for Utilities
KAKASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773.6667 maa®kpaengineers.com
RICK N. KASBERG. P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E.
August 10, 2005
Mr. Mark Miller
Manager of Transportation Systems
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: City of Georgetown
2005 General Services - Asphalt
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Miller:
Attached are the Bid Tabulation Sheets for the bids received at 2:00 PM on Thursday, August 4
2005 for the above referenced project.
Three bids were received for the contract, with H. Deck Construction Company the low bidder.
H. Deck Construction Company has completed numerous projects satisfactorily for the City of
Georgetown. Many of these projects have involved work very similar to this contract. As you are
aware, this contract is for general services to be authorized by the City of Georgetown on an as
needed basis.
We have reviewed the current workload and construction history of H. Deck Construction Company
as well as contacted several references. As a result of our findings and the fact that they have
satisfactorily completed a number of projects for the City of Georgetown, we recommend that a
contract be awarded to H. Deck Construction Company for the budget amount that you desire.
The unit prices bid for the contract will be used for establishing the cost of each individual work
order for the City of Georgetown. If you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/rdp
2005-123-30
BID TABULATION "A35-l23,Al
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
STREET REHABILITATION - ASPHALT
August 4, 2005 2:00 PM
ASPHALT WORK
H. Deck Comlruclion Co.
1601 Oxford Blvd
Round Rock, TX 78664
BIDDER A
Rmnming Paving Company Lid
16409 Bntwn Lane
Austin, TX 76728
Wheeler Coatings Asphalt, Inc.
3099 N. 1H 35
Round R. TX 78664
ItemNo. Fstimnted Unir Bid Dam
D,,c,,ruvn
Um't
Price
Everted
Amount
Unit
Price
Exten4d
Amaou UnitPrice ExtendedAmouru
I 12 Polallunation, Bonds and Insurance000.00 E 12,000.00 S 2,000.00 S 24,000.00 1.750.00 S 21,000.00
2 20 LF Install. Maintain and Remove Rork Berm 40.00 8110.00 50.00 1000.00 90.00 1.800.00
3 7 EA Install, Mainnain and Remove laic Protection 150.00 1 050.00 100.00 700.00 700.00 1.400.00
4 100% LS Barricades and Traffic Control Plan Irrarilementation 10,000.00 109000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
5 100% LS Administer & Implerrcu Sto mwater Pollution Plan, ImIuding Submlulon to and
Receiving Penni ie. Notice of Intent from TCE
2,000.00 2,000.00 2.000.00 2.000.00 2.000.00 2,000.00
6 1,170 LF Saw Cut Asphalt 1.00 1.170.00 3.00 3.510.00 2.21 2,632.50
7 345 SY Roadwa Sub de Rdubilirsdon According to Specifications 5.50 12,247.50 30.00 10 50.00 98.90 34,120.50
8 31,300 SY 2 -inch T 'D' HMAC Oveda 8.50 266,050.00 7.50 234,750.00 8.65 270.74S 00
9 65 EA lAdjumU Existing water Valves to Oradt 250.00 16 250.00 500.00 32,500.00 400.00 26.000.00
10 30 EA JAjdusa F=ing Manholes to Final Grade 1 350.00 10,500.00 1.500.00 45 000.00 1,300.0033,000M
Le annengve Wit ettwum W 2 . 3.00 600.00
TOTAL BID AMOUNT ASPHALT WORK (Items I. 11) S 333,067.50 1 S367,81000 S 403,298.00
Did Bidder Acknowledge Addenda No. 17 YES YES I YES I
Did Bidder mvide secuni .
I hereby cenify that this is a correct and tme tabulation of all bids received.
Kasberg, Patrick & Associues, LLP
impact?
Year:
If so, howl
Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance,
annual maintenance fees, licenses,
operational costs, etc...).
Estimated staff hours:
Department:
Cross -divisional impact: Yes 9 No
If so, what division(s)?
Prepared by: Mark Miller Date: 08/17/2005
Agenda Item Checklist. Approved on 08/17/2005
Approvers rritle ssigned Notified JRecelved IStatusChanned Status
Jim Briggs Assistant City 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 Approved
Jose Lara Manager 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 Approved
Utility Financial
Analyst
Approval Cycle Settings
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the offsite utility construction cost sharing agreement
between the City and San Gabriel Harvard, LP.
ITEM SUMMARY:
San Gabriel Harvard, L.P. is the developer for Shadow Canyon, a 1,105 -unit subdivision consisting of 675
single family units and 430 multi family units, which received preliminary plat approval December 14, 2004.
The developer will need to construct offsite wastewater improvements to provide service to the development.
The Line Extension Policy (Section 13.09.030 of the UDC) requires that developers install water and
wastewater lines that meet the current master plans for each utility. The policy also provides for potential cost
participation by the City if the lines are larger than that which would be needed to serve the development alone
oversized). The City and developer are negotiating terms of a cost participation agreement that would require
that:
1) The City applies and the Developer accepts the new Wastewater Impact Fee (currently under
review and scheduled for adoption during October, 2005) as the impact fee effective for all units in
the development.
2) The Developer builds the oversized infrastructure.
3) The City will provide impact fee credit for infrastructure that is included in its new 10 -year CII' for
all connections made in the development.
4) The City will provide an annual reimbursement to the developer from Wastewater Impact Fees
collected from other connections to the offsite infrastructure over a ten year period.
The total cost of off-site improvements is estimated to be $1,900,427.00 with the City reimbursing a
maximum of $1,473,111.00 over a multi-year period.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Agreement will only be effective if new Impact Fees that include the offsite infrastructure are enacted.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds will come from the Wastewater Impact Fees.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval at the June 9, 2005 meeting. Approved 6-1. Smith opposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
COMMENTS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Deal Points
Contract
Submitted By: Glenn W. Dishong
Water Services Manage;/ Assistant City NIk4gAFor Utilities
r
SHADOW CANYON AGREEMENT
DEAL POINTS
Shadow Canyon will receive wastewater service from City of Georgetown
Shadow Canyon will construct Offsite improvements (South San Gabriel
Interceptor)
o Single 21” line
o From Wolf Ranch to western extent of development
Shadow Canyon will be assessed the new impact fee adopted on Oct 1, 2005
Shadow Canyon will receive an impact fee credit for the construction of the
Offsite Improvements
o If new impact fee includes the cost of the improvements
o For all connections in the development
Shadow Canyon will receive cost reimbursement for the construction of the
Offsite Improvements
o If new impact fee includes the cost of the improvements
o For all connections using the Offsite Improvement, outside the
development for a 10 year period
Shadow Canyon Cost Reimbursement Agreement
Exhibit "B"
Construction Estimate and Cost Reimbursement Calculation
Project: Shadow Canyon Wastewater
Description Unit Price Quantity Total
Construction
21" SDR 26 Piping_ 120.001 12,100 1,452,000
Trench Safety 1.00 12,100 12,100
Standard Manhole 4,200.00 28 117,600
Extra Depth for Manholes 150.00 100 15,000
Sift Fence 2.00 12,100 24,200
Restoration 0.75 7,500 5,625
Contingency (10%) 162,653
Design
Engineering & Environmental 73,250
Design Survey 24,000
Permitting 14,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE 1,900,428
Total Cost Estimate: 1,900,427
Flaw (g/day)
Master Plan Pipe Size: 21 5,320,969
Pipe needed for Property: 12 1,196,435
Maximum Reimbursible Proportional Cost (estimate): 1,473,111
Remaining flow available: 4,124,534
Gallons per connection: 280
Peaking factor: 4.0
Total Service Units available: 3,683
Cost Reimbursement per Service Unit (estimate): 400
STATE OF TEXAS § OFFSITE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
COST REIMBURSEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON 4 AGREEMENT FOR SHADOW CANYON
1. The parties to this Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement for
Shadow Canyon (the "Agreement") are the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas Home
Rule Municipal Corporation (the "City"); and San Gabriel Harvard, L.P., an Arizona
limited partnership ("Developer").
Recitals
2. WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of the property consisting of approximately 306
acres (+/-) for which the City Council approved a Preliminary Plat for the project to be
known as Shadow Canyon (the "Property") on December 14, 2004, a copy of which
preliminary plat is attached hereto as Exhibit "A "; and
3. WHEREAS, the City's Unified Development Code ("Code") requires that the Developer
extend wastewater lines that satisfy the current Wastewater Master Plan and the needs for
the Property at Developer's expense; and
4. WHEREAS, Section 13.09.030(C )(1) of the Code also provides that: "The City may, at
its sole discretion, participate with the sub -divider in the cost of oversized facilities based
upon, but not limited to the following factors: (1) the approved utility budget for the
current year, (2) the ability of the specific utility to fund any future costs, (3) the degree
to which the project conforms to and accomplishes the utility 5 -year CIP priorities (4) the
degree to which the project accomplishes the utility Master Plan, and (5) the impact to
system operations;" and
WHEREAS, Section 13.09.030(D) of the Code also states, "When the sub -divider
constructs line extensions included in the ten-year Impact Fee CIP, the sub -divider may
be eligible for an Impact Fee Credit on the fee assessment for each lot in the planned
development. Impact Fee Credit shall be calculate based upon the number and size of
service connections and the allocation of costs in the most recent Impact Fee
Calculation;" and
6. WHEREAS, a 12" wastewater line is necessary to serve the Property, and the City's
current Wastewater Master Plan requires the installation of a 21" wastewater gravity
collection main from IH -35 to the Property and beyond (the "South San Gabriel
Interceptor"); and
WHEREAS, the portion of the South San Gabriel Interceptor from its inception at the
Lift Station west of IH -35 to the westemmost edge of the property being developed as the
Wolf Ranch shopping center is currently under construction pursuant to the terms of that
certain Development Agreement between the City and Forestville Associates; and
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 1 of 13
8. WHEREAS, the City's current 10 -year Impact Fee CIP provides for the extension of the
South San Gabriel Interceptor to the Property some time after 2010, but the City staff is
currently in the process of updating the Impact Fee CIP and anticipates that the extension
will be included in the new 10 -year Impact Fee CII' and Impact Fee amount that is
expected to be presented to the City Council in time for possible adoption by October 1,
2005; and
9. WHEREAS, Developer has agreed to construct the extension of the 21" South San
Gabriel Interceptor beginning at the westernmost edge of the Wolf Ranch shopping mall
property and ending at the westernmost edge of the Property (such extension being
hereinafter referred to as the "Offsite Wastewater Improvement") to service the needs
of the development on the Property as well as the surrounding area and to finance the
design and construction of such improvement in accordance with this Agreement; and
10. WHEREAS, in order to obtain approval for City wastewater utility service to the
Property, Developer has requested the approval of wastewater utility service extensions
necessary to connect the Property to existing City wastewater utility facilities with
reimbursement for the wastewater lines included in the City's Impact Fee calculation;
and
11. WHEREAS, if the City Council approves a New Wastewater Impact Fee as described in
Paragraph 23 below, and after considering the factors set forth in Section 13.09 of the
Code, the City Council finds and determines that it would be appropriate to reimburse
Developer for utility line costs in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and
12. WHEREAS, the City and Developer are entering into this Agreement to more
particularly set forth the rights and obligations of the City and Developer with respect to
the design, construction, and payment for the Offsite Wastewater Improvement; and
13. WHEREAS, this Agreement is necessary to protect the health, safety, and general
welfare of the community and to limit the harmful effects of substandard subdivisions; to
facilitate Developer's construction of the offsite wastewater facilities; and to protect the
City from bearing any unnecessary expense of constructing or completing subdivision
improvements; and
14. WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by and consistent with state law and the City's
other ordinances, regulations, and other requirements governing development of
subdivisions and provision of utility services to customers of Georgetown Utility
Systems.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and the mutual
covenants, promises, and obligations by the parties set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree
as follows:
Design and Construction
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 2 of 13
15. Developer agrees to arrange for a professional engineer registered in the State of Texas to
prepare design drawings and bid documents for the construction and installation of the
Offsite Wastewater Improvement. Except as otherwise provided herein or agreed upon
by the City and Developer, the Offsite Wastewater Improvement shall be designed in
conformance with the City's design criteria, construction standards, and specifications for
utility construction (including, without limitation, environmental protection requirements
such as erosion controls and site restoration). The City shall be authorized to review and
approve the design drawings (which approval shall not be unreasonably conditioned,
withheld or delayed).
16. Developer shall diligently attempt to obtain all easements necessary for the construction
of the Off-site Wastewater Improvement at Developer's expense, except that the City will
make available, at no cost to Developer, the right to use any rights of way or easements
held by the City. If Developer is unable to obtain all required off-site easements, the City
shall attempt to acquire the easements, using its powers of eminent domain if necessary,
at Developer's sole expense; provided specifically that such expenses shall include but
not be limited to City staff time for oversight and project management; attorneys' fees;
survey fees and expenses; appraisal fees and expenses; expert fees and expenses, and all
other fees, costs and expenses associated with the acquisition.
17. Developer shall competitively bid the project in accordance with all applicable City
procedures. Developer shall enter into a contract for the construction of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement
and with the approved construction plans. Any and all change orders shall be jointly
agreed to by the City and the Developer.
18. Developer shall exercise reasonable diligence to assure the substantial completion of the
Offsite Wastewater Improvement and acceptance of the improvement(s) by the City
occurs on or before October 1. 2008.
19. The City shall have the right to inspect the construction of the Offsite Wastewater
Improvement, and, upon completion of the final stage of construction in accordance with
all applicable City, state and federal standards, Developer may request that City finally
accept the improvements.
Fiscal Surety
20. Developer shall post fiscal security in the form of an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the
amount of 110% of the estimated cost for design and construction of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement to secure the proper design and actual completion of the
Offsite Wastewater Improvement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Developer agrees to post such fiscal security within ten (10) days of the Effective Date of
this Agreement.
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 3 of 13
21. If the construction of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement proceeds in discrete phases
as defined in the approved Plans and Specifications and the construction contract), the
fiscal security may be reduced by an amount equal to the cost of the completed work for
each defined phase of construction, at the written request of the Developer (such requests
to be made no more frequently than once every three (3) months) and if Developer is not
then in Default under this Agreement or the letter of credit or other obligations relating to
the project.
22. If at any time during the course of the work on the Offsite Wastewater Improvement the
cost estimate for the remaining work exceeds, or is expected to exceed, the amount of the
Letter of Credit, the City shall so advise Developer in writing, and Developer shall remit,
within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice, a new or replacement Letter of Credit
for the required amount.
Impact Fees
23. Impact Fees associated with development on the Property shall be those newly revised
impact fees adopted by the City Council in 2005, except that the Wastewater Impact Fee
shall be reduced by an Impact Fee Credit, currently estimated at $400 per service unit as
shown in "Exhibit B".
Construction Cost Reimbursement
24. The City and the Developer have estimated the actual design and construction costs for
the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, (excluding items such as, but not limited to,
financing, interest, fiscal security, accounting, project management, inspections, permits,
and legal services) to be $1,900,427.00 as shown on "Exhibit B." The parties
acknowledge that the actual costs may be greater or less than $1,900,427.00 and further
agree that such cost underages or overages shall be addressed as provided for herein.
25. Developer will pay all costs associated with the design and construction of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement, subject to the reimbursement rights provided herein. The
City's reimbursement obligations will extend only to the Proportional Cost associated
with the capacity of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement not attributed to the Property
and subject to the terms of this Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, the terns
Proportional Cost" as used herein shall mean the product of the actual construction cost
of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement and one minus the percentage obtained by
dividing the maximum flow of a pipe sized for the Property by the maximum flow of
Offsite Wastewater Improvement as shown in "Exhibit B."
26. Based upon the cost estimate shown in "Exhibit B," the Proportional Cost of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement, and the maximum amount subject to reimbursement under this
agreement, is $1,473,111.00. In the event the costs of the Offsite Wastewater
Improvement are greater or less than the estimated amounts shown on "Exhibit B," the
City's reimbursement obligation to Developer will be the lesser of the actual proportional
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 4 of 13
cost of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement or the proportional cost of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement included in the wastewater Impact Fee(s).
27. The City shall not be obligated to reimburse any sums for "Contingency" shown on
Exhibit B" unless and until the Developer submits a change order describing the need
for the expenditure of such contingency funds, and the City's Utility System Engineering
Department issues its written approval of the actual expenses shown on the change order.
28. If Developer allows work to commence on any change order before receiving City
approval as required under this Paragraph , any costs incurred on that change order that
are not approved by the City are not eligible for reimbursement.
29. Provided that the Developer has constructed the Offsite Wastewater Improvement and
complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and provided further that the
City has accepted the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, then City shall pay to Developer
on an annual basis, but in any event not later than January 30 of the following year, an
amount based upon the Wastewater Impact Fees received by the City in that year that are
specifically associated with the Offsite Wastewater Improvement from new wastewater
connections served by the Offsite Wastewater Improvement off the Property. The
payments to be made to Developer by the City shall be payable, if paid,'solely from
annual Wastewater Impact Fees received by the City and specifically associated with the
Off -Site Wastewater Improvement. The City's obligation to make payments to Developer
for the Offsite Wastewater Improvement shall expire upon the earlier of (i) payment to
Developer of $1,473,111.00 or the sum calculated pursuant to Paragraph 28 of this
Agreement, whichever is less, and shall not include interest; or (ii) the date that is 10
years following the date of the first payment made pursuant to this Paragraph. Any
payments yet to be paid after the end of the 10 year term described in this Paragraph shall
be deemed unearned and the City shall have no further obligation to Developer for same.
30. Within thirty (30) days of final acceptance by the City of the Offsite Wastewater
Improvement, Developer must submit a report to the City of the total costs of the project
that includes the supporting information.
31. The obligations of the City under this Agreement to make payments in any fiscal year
shall constitute a current expense for that fiscal year payable solely from the revenues of
the Wastewater Capital Fund for that fiscal year. The obligation of the City to make
payments does not constitute a general obligation or indebtedness of the City for which
the City is obligated to levy or pledge any form of taxation.
Default and Termination
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement I Shadow Canyon
Page 5 of 13
32. Developer shall be in default under this Agreement upon the occurrence of one or more
of the following events (an "Event of Default"):
a. Developer fails to commence or complete design or construction of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement as provided herein; or
b. Developer fails to post the required fiscal security or to increase the amount of
fiscal security when requested to do so by the City under this Agreement; or
C. Developer transfers or conveys the Property or a portion of the Property through
foreclosure or an assignment or conveyance in lieu of foreclosure.
33. Anything in Paragraph 32 to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be an Event of Default
in the event Developer does not cure a failure described in Paragraph 32 above within
fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notice thereof from the City.
34. At any time following the occurrence of an Event of Default and Developer's continued
failure to cure the same, the City may provide one or more notices to Developer stating
that the City intends to perform none, some or all of Developer's outstanding obligations
under this Agreement for construction of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement.
35. If after notice and an opportunity to cure as provided for in Paragraph 33 of this
Agreement, Developer does not commence work on the Offsite Wastewater
Improvement, or commences but does not complete such work as required by the terms
of this Agreement, the Developer shall be in default of this Agreement and the City shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to draw on the fiscal security posted by the
Developer and complete some, none, or all of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement. The
City may draw on the Letter of Credit following an Event of Default to pay for the costs
and expenses incurred by the City in the completion of Offsite Wastewater Improvement
or to correct defects in the Offsite Wastewater Improvement. The City may perform such
construction and repairs itself, or engage a third party to complete such construction and
repairs on behalf of the City.
36. If the City elects to complete the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, Developer agrees to
provide all plans, designs, easements, and other documents related to the design and
construction of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement to the City within five (5) business
days of the date that the City requests same. If the City elects to complete the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement as allowed by this Agreement, the City will have no obligation
to provide, and Developer shall not be entitled to receive, reimbursement for any costs or
expenses incurred with regard to the Wastewater Utility Improvement.
37. If Developer does not commence or complete construction of the Wastewater
Improvement as required by this Agreement, and if the City elects not to draw on the
fiscal security in order to complete the Wastewater Improvement, the City will have the
right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 6 of 13
38. If the City elects to terminate this Agreement for reasons allowed by Paragraph 37 of this
Agreement, or if this Agreement expires on its own terms before completion or
acceptance of any portion of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, the City will have no
obligation to provide wastewater service to the Property and Developer shall not be
entitled to reimbursement for any costs or expenses incurred with regard to the
Wastewater Utility Improvement.
39. The measure of damages for breach of this Agreement by Developer is the reasonable
cost of completing the Offsite Wastewater Improvement in conformance with the City's
requirements, procedures, and specifications set forth herein, including without
limitation, any and all associated administrative expenses, less the City's share of the
costs as set out herein. For work on the Offsite Wastewater Improvement upon which
construction has not begun, the estimated cost of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement
shown in the bid documents will be prima facie evidence of the minimum cost of
completion; however, that amount does not establish the maximum amount of
Developer's liability.
Ownership of Facilities
40. From and after the time of final completion and acceptance of the Offsite Wastewater
Improvement by the City, the City shall own, operate and maintain the same. Developer
agrees to execute and deliver to the City within 30 days after the time of final completion
and acceptance of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement such bills of sale, assignments, or
other instruments of transfer as may be deemed reasonably necessary by the City.
Developer will also deliver all warranties secured for construction of the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement. Upon execution and delivery of such instruments, Developer
will have no further obligations or responsibility for the Offsite Wastewater
Improvement. Within said thirty (30) day period, Developer shall also deliver to the City
all bonds, warranties, guarantees, an other assurances of performance, record drawings,
easements, project manuals, and all other documentation related to the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement.
41. Developer agrees that the City will not accept any Offsite Wastewater Improvement
burdened by any lien or any other encumbrance.
Provision of Utility Service
42. The parties agree and acknowledge that from and after the time of final acceptance by the
City of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, the City, as owner of them, will operate and
maintain said improvements and will provide wastewater utility service to customers
within the Property subject to the conditions stated in this Agreement and according to
the City's policies and ordinances, as amended from time to time. Nothing in this
Agreement will be construed to limit, restrict, modify, or abrogate the City's
governmental authority or ordinances respecting the operation and maintenance of its
wastewater systems nor its duty to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare in
the operation and maintenance of the same.
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 7 of 13
43. Upon final acceptance of the Offsite Wastewater Improvement by the City, the City
agrees that Developer may after that apply for wastewater service following applicable
City policies and ordinances, provided, however, that:
a) This Agreement will not be construed to guarantee wastewater service to the
Property; such service may be guaranteed only upon the City's approval of the
Final Plat and the recording of same in the Final Plat records of Williamson
County in accordance with the requirements of the Code;
b) This Agreement in no way obligates the City to approve service extension
requests not conforming to the requirements of the City's policies and ordinances
nor otherwise binds the governmental powers of the City with respect to the
approval or denial of the same;
c) This Agreement does not exempt Developer, or its successors and assigns, from
the requirements of any ordinance applicable to development within the acreage
covered by the service extension requests;
d) This Agreement does not guarantee approval of the final plat of Shadow Canyon
or the approval of any other applications or permits related to the project;
e) This Agreement will not be construed to create or confer upon Developer, or its
successors and assigns, any ownership rights in or monopoly regarding capacity
in the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, whether total or partial, after final
acceptance of the project by the City;
f) This Agreement will not be construed to create or confer upon Developer, or its
successors or assigns, any manner of legal title to, equitable interest in or other
claim of joint ownership with respect to property, whether real, personal or mixed
comprising the Offsite Wastewater Improvement, after final acceptance of the
project by the City; and
g) This Agreement will not be construed to guarantee any particular level of service
to the Property.
General Provisions
44. Other Infrastructure Improvements. Developer agrees that it shall construct all other
infrastructure improvements required for the project and/or the Property at its sole
expense and in conformance with the Code and all other applicable City standards and
requirements.
45. Remedies. The remedies available under this Agreement and the laws of Texas are
cumulative in nature.
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 8 of 13
46. Third Party Rights. No person or entity who or which is not a party to this Agreement
shall have any right of action under this Agreement, nor shall any such person or entity
other than the City (including without limitation a trustee in bankruptcy) have any
interest in or claim to the funds described in Paragraph 20 of this Agreement.
47. By submitting plans or specifications for the City for review, the DEVELOPER
PARTIES (as that term is defined below) each agree to waive all claims, fully release,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and all of its officials, officers, agents,
consultants, employees, attorneys, and invitees in both their public and private capacities
collectively, the "CITY PARTIES") from any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, demands
or causes of action, including all expenses of litigation and/or settlement which may arise
by injury to property or person occasioned by error, omission, intentional, or negligent
act of the Developer, its officers, agents, engineers, consultants, employees or invitees
collectively, the "DEVELOPER PARTIES") arising out of or in connection with
submission of drainage plans, construction plans, or any other plans or specifications
submitted to the City. The DEVELOPER PARTIES further agree that they each will, at
their own cost and at their own expense, defend and protect the CITY PARTIES from
any and all such claims, losses, damages, causes of action, suits, and liability of any kind,
including all expenses of litigation, court costs and attorneys' fees for injury to or death
of any person or for any damage to any property arising out of or in connection with the
error, omission, intentional or negligent acts of any of the DEVELOPER PARTIES.
Nothing in this provision shall waive the City's defenses or immunities under Section
101.001 et. seq. of the Texas City Practice & Remedies Code or any other applicable
statutory or common law.
Approval of the City Engineer or any other of the CITY PARTIES of any plans, designs
or specifications submitted pursuant to the requirements of the Unified Development
Code or any other provision of the City Code of Ordinances or technical manuals shall
not constitute or be deemed to be a release of the responsibility and liability of any of the
DEVELOPER PARTIES (as defined above) for the accuracy and competency of their
designs or specifications. Such approval shall not be deemed to be an assumption of such
responsibility or liability by the City for any defect in the design or specifications
prepared by any of the DEVELOPER PARTIES. Approval by the City Engineer or any
other of the CITY PARTIES signifies the City approval of only the general design
concept of the improvements to be constructed or the drainage plan to be implemented.
In this connection, the DEVELOPER PARTIES shall each indemnify and hold harmless
the CITY PARTIES from any loss damage, liability or expense on account of damage to
property and injuries, including death, to any and all persons which may arise out of any
defect, deficiency or negligence of any of the DEVELOPER PARTIES designs and
specifications to the extent prepared or caused to be prepared by any of the
DEVELOPER PARTIES and incorporated into any improvements constructed in
accordance therewith, or plans implemented thereby, and the DEVELOPER PARTIES
shall defend at their own expense any suits or proceedings brought against any of the
CITY PARTIES on account hereof, and to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgments
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 9 of 13
which may be incurred by or rendered against them, collectively or individually,
personally or in their official capacity in connection herewith.
48. In addition to the foregoing Release and Indemnity, in further consideration for the City's
agreement to reimburse Developer in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and
other promises herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
Developer agrees to fully and completely release and forever discharge the City, its
employees attorneys and officers, in both their individual and official capacities, and its
successors, agents, representatives, servants, and any other related or affiliated persons,
natural or corporate, in privity with them from any and all possible claims, demands,
actions, causes of action, costs, expenses, obligations, liabilities, suits, and damages of
every kind and character whatsoever, now existing or that may arise hereafter, whether
known or unknown, at law or equity, however, whenever, and by whomever caused,
whether solely, jointly, or otherwise, including, without limitation, any and all causes of
action directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or attributable to the Offsite
Wastewater Improvement that the Developer is required to construct by the terms of the
Code and this Agreement.
49. No Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement will be deemed or constitute a
waiver of any other provision, nor will it be deemed or constitute a continuing waiver
unless expressly provided for by a written amendment to this Agreement; nor will the
waiver of any default under this Agreement be deemed a waiver of any subsequent
defaults of the same type. The failure at any time to enforce this Agreement or covenant
by the City, Developer, or their respective heirs, successors or assigns, whether any
violations thereof are known or not, shall not constitute a waiver or estoppels of the right
to do so.
50. Assignability. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement is binding upon
Developer, and the successors and assigns of Developer. Developer's obligations under
this Agreement may not be assigned without the express written approval of the City,
which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. An assignment shall not be
construed as releasing Developer from Developer's obligations under this Agreement,
and Developer's obligations hereunder shall continue notwithstanding any assignment
approved pursuant to this Paragraph, unless and until the City executes and delivers to
Developer a written release of Developer from the obligations imposed by this
Agreement.
51. Notice. Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement is effective when personally
delivered in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service, postage prepaid, certified with return receipt requested, and addressed as
follows:
If to Developer: Harvard Investments, Inc.
Mr. Christopher J. Cacheris
17700 North Pacesetter Way
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 10 of 13
If to City: City Manager
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
52. Change of Address for Notice. The parties may, from time to time, change their
respective addresses listed above to any other location in the United States for the
purpose of notice under this Agreement. A party's change of address shall be effective
when notice of the change is provided to the other party in accordance with the
provisions of Paragraph 32, above.
53. Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by the courts to be
illegal, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability
shall not affect the validity of any other party, term, or provision, and the rights of the
parties will be construed as if the part, term, or provision was never part of this
Agreement.
54. Personal Jurisdiction and Venue. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action
commenced by any party to this Agreement, whether arising out of or relating to the
Agreement or the Security, will be deemed to be proper only if such action is commenced
in District Court for Williamson County, Texas, or the United States District Court for
the Wester District of Texas, Austin Division.
55. Captions Immaterial. The numbering, order, and captions or headings of the paragraphs
of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in construing this
Agreement.
56. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties
and correctly sets forth the rights, duties, and obligations of each to the other as of the
Effective Date. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this Agreement
shall be of no force or effect excepting a subsequent written modification executed by
both parties.
57. Binding Agreement. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance
of the transactions contemplated thereby have been duly authorized by all necessary
corporate and governmental action of the City. This Agreement, when duly executed and
delivered by each party, constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of each party
enforceable in accordance with the terms as of the Effective Date.
58. Recording. The parties agree that this Agreement may be recorded in the Real Property
Records of Williamson County, Texas at the expense of Developer.
59. Further Assurances. The City and Developer agree to take such actions and execute and
deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effect the
provisions of this Agreement.
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 11 of 13
60. Term. Unless sooner terminated under the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall expire of its own terms and without fiuther notice .upon the earlier of (i) payment to
Developer of $1,473,111.00 or the sum calculated pursuant to Paragraph 28 of this
Agreement, whichever is less, and shall not include interest; or (ii) the date that is 10
years following the date of the first payment made pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 29.
61. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective on the later of either (i) the latest date
accompanying the signature lines below; or (ii) the date that the City Council finally
adopts impact fee schedules or other funding mechanisms necessary to reimburse
Developer in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
EXECUTED by the parties on the dates indicated below:
CITYOF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
CITY")
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney
Brown & Carls, LLP
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
SAN GABRIEL HARVARD, L.P.
DEVELOPER-)
By:
Printed Name:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of ,
2005, by Gary Nelon, Mayor, City of Georgetown, a Texas home rule municipal corporation, on
behalf of said City.
Notary Public in and for
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Reimbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 12 of 13
the State of Texas
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of ,
2005, by Christopher J. Cacheris, Vice President, of Harvard Investments, Inc., the manager of
Georgetown 308, L.L.C., the General Partner of San Gabriel Harvard L.P.
Notary Public in and for
the State of Arizona
Offsite Utility Construction Cost Rennbursement Agreement / Shadow Canyon
Page 13 of 13
Agenda Item Check List
S
Financial Impact
Agenda Item: Shadow Canyon Cost Sharing Agreement
Agenda Item Subject: Consideration and possible action to approve the offsite utility
construction cost sharing agreement between the City and San
Gabriel Harvard, LLC.
Is this a Capital Improvement • Yes 1 No
Project:
Council Date: A Y42imos— VA-Vo5
link to Agenda database => 46
Need Help?
Was it budgeted?
Is it within the approved budgeted amount?
If not, where is the money coming from?
G/L Account Number
Amount Going to Council
Is there something (budgeted) that won't get
done because you are spending these funds?
If so, please explain.
Will this have an impact on the next year's
budget?
If so, please explain.
Does this project have future revenue
impact?
Yes • No
Yes • No
Future impact fees collected specifically for the
construction of the South San Gabriel Interceptor.
No impact to current budget.
Yes • No
Yes • No
Yes i No
Year: FY 06/07 to FY 15/16 Department: Georgetown Utility Systems
If so, how? Impact Fee credit and reimbursment from
impact fees collected for connections served by
the improvment
Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance,
annual maintenance fees, licenses,
operational costs, etc...).
Estimated staff hours:
Cross -divisional impact:
If so, what division(s)?
Yes No
Finance and Administration
Prepared by: Glenn Dishong Date: 06/30/2005
Agenda Item Checklist., ;i p oved o 07/06/2005
Approvers Title Assigned Notified Received Status Changed Status
Jim Briggs Assistant City 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 07/05/2005 07/05/2005 Approved
Laurie Brewer Manager 07/05/2005 07/05/2005 07/06/2005 07/06/2005 Approved
Mick! Rundell Controller 07/06/2005 07/06/2005 07/06/2005 07/06/2005 Approved
Director of Finance
and Administration
Approver Comments
Approval Cycle Settings
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to amend the contract between the City of Georgetown and
Operations Management International (OMI) to increase the repairs budget to make repairs to the Lake
Georgetown Water Treatment Plant (LWTP) for an additional $100,000.00.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The contract between the City and OMI provides for the maintenance and repair of the City's water plants
using a repair budget of $50,000 for the current fiscal year. OMI is authorized to make all repairs to the plants so
long as the repairs will not cause the contract budget to be exceeded, and prior authorization is obtained for all
repairs that are expected to exceed $2,000.00.
Earlier this summer, OMI reported the need to repair the under drain of one filter in the original process
structure of the LWTP. A second filter is showing signs of a similar problem. OMI has also requested the
replacement of the recycle pumps with submersible type pumps due to fouling problems experienced with the
original vertical turbines type pumps. These repairs should be done as soon as possible to maintain plant reliability
during the upcoming peak demand period.
The City and OMI have obtained the assistance of Camp, Dresser, and McKee, the engineer of the recent
plant expansions, and Leopold, Inc., the manufacturer of the under drains, to evaluate the maintenance problems
and recommend a repair of the filters and the pumps. OMI has recommended the use of CCA, Inc., the construction
contractor that completed the most recent plant expansion to perform the work. CDM has evaluated the costs of the
repair and believes them to be reasonable.
The contract amendment increases the total dollar amount available for maintenance and repairs from
50,000.00 to $150,000.00 for the current fiscal year. This is an increase of $100,000.00. The actual repair cost will be
paid by the City during the end of contract year reconciliation process.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended approval at the August 16, 2005 meeting. Approved 5-0. Smith and Brown
absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds will come from the Water Operations Fund.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
OMI Contract Amendment
CDM Letter
Submitted By: Glenn W. DishongJ Jim B 'ggs,
Water Services Manager/ Assistant Ci ger For Utilities
12357-A Biata Trace Parkway, Suite 210
Austin,Texas 78727
tel: 512346-1100
fax: 512 345-1483
August 4, 2005
Mr. Glenn Dishong
Water Services Manager
Georgetown Utility System
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Blvd.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Subject: Lake Water Treatment Plant
Filter Repair
Dear Mr. Dishong:
At the request of OMI, we have reviewed the cost proposal prepared by Cunningham
Constructors and Associates for the filter work at the Lake Water Treatment Plant. Based on
our review and comparing the proposed price to other similar work, we believe that the
prices offered by Cunningham to repair the filters is a reasonable price for the work
contemplated.
S' erelt
Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
cc: Greg Swoboda
P1City of Georgetown\Lake VVTP Filter Iss 'ItL _GOishongynceproposel a- s,doc
consulting -engineering -construction -operations
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
to
AGREEMENT
for
MUNICIPAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE
AND
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
for the
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
This "Amendment Number Two to Agreement for Municipal Water Treatment Plant
Operations, Maintenance, and Management Services for the City of Georgetown" (the
Second Amendment") is made to be effective on the day of
2005, between the City of Georgetown, Texas (hereinafter "City"), a Texas home rule
municipality, the Operations Management International, Inc., (hereinafter "OMI"), a
California corporation. City and OMI are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties."
WHEREAS, City is the owner of a municipal water treatment system that presently
consists of four water treatment plants and the associated appurtenances; and
WHEREAS, City selected OMI to operate, manage, maintain and repair City's
municipal water treatment system; and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the "Agreement for Municipal Water
Treatment Plant Operations, Maintenance and Management Services for the City of
Georgetown, Texas", effective October 1, 2003, (hereinafter "Original Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain "Amendment Number One to the
Agreement for Municipal Water Treatment Plant Operations, Maintenance and
Management Services for the City of Georgetown, Texas" effective on October 1, 2004
hereinafter the "First Amendment') in order to increase the scope of the Original
Agreement to include the operation and maintenance of the intake structure and wells that
provide raw water to the water treatment plants; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement provides in Section 4.1.3 that the City shall
pay to OMI annually a Repairs Budget for the benefit of the City's Facilities, which
Repairs Budget shall not exceed $50,000; however, Section 4.1.3(d) also provides that if
the Cost of Repairs is projected to exceed the Repairs Budget, the parties shall negotiate an
amendment to provide for that exceedence; and
WHEREAS, the City and OMI desire to amend the Original Agreement, as
amended by the First Amendment, for the current Contract Year (as that term is defined in
the Original Agreement) because the total maintenance expenses for the current Contract
Year are expected to exceed the Repairs Budget due to major repairs at the Lake
Georgetown Water Treatment Plant.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set
forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:
GENERAL:
1.1 This Agreement is an Amendment of the Original Agreement, as amended
by the First Amendment. Except as expressly modified herein, the terms of
the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, shall remain
in full force and effect.
1.2 Throughout this Second Amendment, the words and phrases contained in
this Second Amendment shall have the same meanings as set forth in the
Original Agreement, unless a different definition is set forth herein.
2. Article 4.1.3 (a) of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
4.1.3 Repairs Budget. The City shall pay to OMI annually a Repairs Budget for the
benefit of the City's Facilities. The total amount OMI shall be required to pay for
Repairs Costs shall not exceed the annual Repairs Budget.
a. The Repairs Budget for the contract year ending September 30, 2005 shall
be One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($150,000.00),
payable as follows: Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) shall be paid in
accordance with paragraph 4.2.3 of this Agreement; and One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000), less any amount due to be refunded to the
City in accordance with the reconciliation process described in paragraph
4.1.3(c), shall be paid by December 31, 2005.
Both parties indicate their approval of this Second Amendment to the Original Agreement,
as amended by the First Amendment, by the signatures of their duly authorized
representatives below.
Authorized signature:
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Name: Roger B. Quayle
Authorized signature:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Name: Gary Nelon
Title: Senior Vice President
Attest: City of Georgetown
Name: Sandra Lee
Title: City Secretary
Title: Mayor
Date:
Name: Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP
Title: City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _ day of
2005, by Gary Nelon, a person known to me in his capacity as Mayor of
the City of Georgetown, on behalf of the City of Georgetown.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
STATE OF COLORADO §
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _ day of
2005, by Roger B. Quayle, a person known to me in his capacity as
Senior Vice President of Operations Management International, Inc.
Notary Public in and for the State of Colorado
4
Agenda Item Check List
rr
Financial Impact
Agenda Item: OMI Contract Amendment for LWTP Repairs
Agenda Item Subject: Consideration and possible action to amend the contract between the
City of Georgetown and Operations Management International (OMI)
to increase the repairs budget to make repairs to the Lake
Georgetown Water Treatment Plant (LWTP) for an additional
100,000.00.
Is this a Capital Improvement
Project:
Council Date:
Yes 0 No
08123/2005
link to Agenda database => Q
Need Help?
Was it budgeted? _. Yes 0 No
Is it within the approved budgeted amount? Yes 0 No
If not, where is the money coming from? Water Plant Operations Fund
GIL Account Number 660-109-5302-00
Amount Going to Council $ 100,000.00
Is there something (budgeted) that won't get Yes 9 No
done because you are spending these funds?
If so, please explain.
Will this have an impact on the next year's Yes • No
budget?
If so, please explain.
Does this project have future revenue Yes 0 No
impact?
Year: Department:
If so, how?
Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance,
annual maintenance fees, licenses,
operational costs, etc...).
Estimated staff hours:
Cross -divisional impact: Yes 0 No
If so, what division(s)?
Prepared by: Glenn Dishong Date: 08/08/2005
Agenda Item Checklist:; Approved on 0811512005
Approvers Title Assigned Notified Received Status Changed Status
Jim Briggs Assistant City 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 Approved
Laurie Brewer Manager 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 Approved
Micki Rundell Controller 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 Approved
Director of Finance
and Administration
Approval Cycle Settings
Council Meeting Date: August 23, 2005 Item No. W
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUB ECT:
Consideration and possible action to award bid for the construction of Sudduth Drive to
Chasco Contracting for $186,338.68 and a project budget of $192,000.00.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Sudduth Drive will be a new roadway connecting Inner Loop to Industrial Park Circle.
When the County completes the section of Inner Loop between Austin Avenue and County Road
151, the small two-way section of the North bound frontage road will become one-way. This
roadway will provide additional access to the businesses in this industrial complex that would
otherwise be forced to take the one-way frontage road north to the SH130 interchange.
Bids were accepted on Tuesday, August 9, 2005, for the Sudduth Drive construction project.
There were two bidders for this project with Chasco Contracting the low bidder.
Chasco Contracting has done satisfactory work for Georgetown in the past, and Staff is
recommending to award the bid for construction of Sudduth Drive to Chasco Contracting for
186,338.68 and set a project budget of $192,000.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GTEC Board recommended approval at the August 17, 2005 meeting. Approved 6-0.
Sansing absent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for construction will be from account 1!400-101-6020-00 in the amount of $192,000.00.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Bid tabulation
2. Engineer's Letter of Recommendation
Submitted By: Mark Miller,
Transportation Services Assistant C
Manager for Utilities
Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
Consulting Engineers Surveyors
1978 South Austin Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Aueust 10, 2005
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Attn.: Tom Benz
Georgetown Utility Systems
Systems Engineering Manager
Re: Road Project
Sudduth Drive
Contract Award
Dear Mr. Benz:
Telephone: (512) 930-9412
Faoeimile:(512) 930-9416
Bids for this project were received on August 9, 2005, opened and read aloud. The low
bidder was Chasco Constructors with a bid of $186,338.68. I have reviewed all bids
received and confirm Chasco Constructors is the low bidder. Chasco Constructors has
the experience and manpower for this type of work. They have recently successfully
completed other road projects in the area. I hereby recommend the contract be awarded
to them.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
cc: Mark Miller
Joel Weaver
AC.Steg E.
Member: NSPE TSPE TSPS ASCE
TOTAL BID AMOUNT ' $ (4o/ 33 " (o 8 Il
BID AMOUNT $
a
figures)
Si h T74o-)fa.noC
r}7_L i jj %f- 00 l la. S and i Y.f%
words)
E 15 kf- Ceti .
BIDDER agrees that all Work will be substantially complete and ready for final paymentbythedatesindicatedinParagraph15oftheAgreement. BIDDER accepts the provisionsoftheAgreementastoliquidateddamagesintheeventoffailuretocompletetheWorkontime.
BIDDER must answer the following questions (refer to INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERSfordefinitions):
A. Is the bidder that is making and submitting this bid a "RESIDENT BIDDER" or aNONRESIDENTBIDDER"?
Answer: Resident Bidder
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 aNonresidentBidderofthatStatetobidacertainamountorpercentageunderthebidofaResidentBidderofthatStateinorderfortheNonresidentBidderofthatStatetobeawardedacontractonhisbidinsuchState?
Answer: N/A
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 ordertobeawardedacontractonsuchbidinsaidState?
Answer: NSA
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 basebidpriceandintheformofcertifiedcheckofaBidBond.
Communications concerning this Bid shall be addressed to:
i q,dic( 5c,1'troeo(jt,,i Zyy -0(000
9. The terms used in this Bid which are defined in the General Conditions of the ConstructionContractincludedaspartoftheContractDocumentshavethemeaningsassignedtothemintheGeneralConditions.
SUBMITTED ON August 2005.
00.120
00120-8
HAM
BID AMOUNT $_ Z a 2 3 1 5. y y
words)
5. BIDDER agrees that all Work will be substantially complete and ready for final paymentbythedatesindicatedinparagraph15oftheAgreement. BIDDER accepts the provisionsoftheAgreementastoliquidateddamagesintheeventoffailuretocompletetheWorkontime.
6. BIDDER must answer the following questions (refer to INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERSfordefinitions):
A. Is the bidder that is making and submitting this bid a "RESIDENT BIDDER" or aNONRESIDENTBIDDER"?
Answer: T\ gp;
B. If the bidder is a "NONRESIDENT BIDDER% does the State in which theNonresidentBidder's principal place of business is located have a law requirinNonresidentBidderofthatStatetobidacertainamountor
percentagg
a
e under thebidofaResidentBidderofthatStateinorderfortheNonresidentBidderofthatStatetobeawardedacontractonhisbidinsuchState?
Answer:
C. If the answer to Question B above is "yes", then what amount or percentage must aTexasResidentBidderbidunderthebidofaResidentBidderofthatStateinordertobeawardedacontractonsuchbidinsaidState?
Answer:
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 basebidpriceandintheformofcertifiedcheckofaBidBond.
Communications concerning this Bid shall be addressed to:
A1- Jec A -e
j?ljo.
Tx M 6 y
9. The terms used in this Bid which are defined in the General Conditions of the ConstructionContractincludedaspartoftheContractDocumentshavethemeaningsassignedtothemintheGeneralConditions.
SUBMITTED ON 2005
00.120
00120-8
Agenda Item Check List
Financial Impact
Agenda Item:
Agenda Item Subject:
Is this a Capital Improvement
Project:
Council Date:
Sudduth Drive Construction bid award
Consideration and possible action to award bid for the construction of
Sudduth Drive to Chasco Contracting for $186,338.68.00 and a project
budget of $192,000.00.
Yes No
08/23/2005
link to Agenda database => 40
Need Help?
Was it budgeted? to Yes ? No
Is it within the approved budgeted amount? • Yes No
If not, where is the money coming from?
G/L Account Number 400-101-6020-00
Amount Going to Council $ 192,000.00
Is there something (budgeted) that won't get Yes • No
done because you are spending these funds?
If so, please explain.
Will this have an impact on the next year's Yes 0 No
budget?
If so, please explain.
Does this project have future revenue Yes 0 No
impact?
Year: Department:
If so, how?
Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance,
annual maintenance fees, licenses,
operational costs, etc...).
Estimated staff hours:
Cross -divisional impact: Yes No
If so, what division(s)?
Prepared by: Mark Miller Date: 08/17/2005
Agenda Item Checklist., Approved on 0811712005
Approvers Tide ssigned Notified Received tatus Changed Status
Jim Briggs Assistant City 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 8/17/2005 08/17/2005 Approved
Jose Lara Manager 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 8/17/2005 08/17/2005 Approved
Utility Financial
Analyst
Approval Cycle Settings