Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 04.24.2006 WorkshopCouncil Meeting Date: April 24, 2006 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECT: Item No. Consideration and recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to LCRA notifying the Authority of the intent to begin negotiations as a Wholesale Power Alliance aggregation group. ITEM SUMMARY: A PowerPoint presentation will be presented covering the progress of our efforts in renegotiation of the 2016 Wholesale Power Contract. Attached to this item you will find a copy of that presentation, an outline of the positions to be taken in the negotiations and discussion items. I hope to be able to more accurately describe the operational strategies and efficiencies gained by implementation of the recommendations of our consultants, Ashby Consulting and Enervision. McCord Engineering and staff will be available to answer questions that you may have, as well as, provide recommended actions from the Board to City Council. Staff is recommending that the Board move the City Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the Board of LCRA indicating The City of Georgetown will begin negotiations, along with the members of the Wholesale Power Alliance, utilizing the consultants of Ashby Consulting and Enervision as our negotiation team for the Alliance. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT: Costs for the work related to this negotiation will be paid out of the Electric Contracts Budget and based on the percent load ratio share of our partnership. Currently that share is 6.7% of the total cost. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was recommended by the GUS Board for Council approval at the April 18, 2006 GUS Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the Board of LCRA indicating The City of Georgetown will begin negotiations, along with the members of the Wholesale Power Alliance, utilizing the consultants of Ashby Consulting and Enervision as our negotiation team for the Alliance. COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Position Statements Submitted By: Mike Mayben, un Br gs, Energy Services Manager . ant"ager ager for Utilities [letterhead] May 17, 2006 Board of Directors Lower Colorado River Authority 3700 Lake Austin Boulevard Austin, TX 78703 Dear Chairman Wilkerson and LCRA Board of Directors: This letter has been sent to you on behalf of eleven of your wholesale electric customers representing approximately 43% of your electric sales. As you know, about a year and a half ago, LCRA made the decision to begin discussions with its wholesale electric customers regarding our future business relationships. Since then, these eleven customers have been working diligently to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to their respective organizations by researching various wholesale power relationships currently in place throughout the United States, in order to formulate strategies that would best represent and serve their retail customers into the future. After months of independent research, the City of Yoakum, Kerrville Public Utility Board, the City of Boerne, San Bernard Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, the City of Georgetown, Bandera Electric Cooperative, the City of Seguin, New Braunfels Utilities, Fayette Electric Cooperative, and the Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, began to band together and share the research they had gathered. These customers have since entered into a formal agreement for the purposes of formulating strategies and molding a wholesale power relationship that is fair and equitable to all concerned. This Wholesale Power Alliance has spent a considerable amount of time and resources formally drafting what it considers the best wholesale power arrangement for the future. As you can tell from the customers listed above, there are systems of all sizes, load characteristics, and risk tolerance profiles. For this reason, the interests of the diverse LCRA customer base have been taken into consideration as these concepts have been developed. Also, we believe that the proposed concepts will fully allow the LCRA to maintain its financial and operational objectives now, and into the future. The concepts that have been adopted by this Alliance are fundamentally different than those in existence today. They are also fundamentally different than any options the CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Wholesale Power Alliance — Summary of Progress Prepared by: Steve Moffitt McCord Engineering, Inc. 916 Southwest Parkway East College Station, Texas 77845 Georgetown Utility Systems Board Meeting City of Georgetown, Texas April , 2006 FO RG LJON T!: X AS Historical Timeline • Wholesale power alliance (WPA) began meeting in summer of 2005 and was open to all of the wholesale customers of LCRA • WPA final group was solidified in December of 2005 with the following members: ■ Bandera Electric Coop. ■ Central Texas Electric Coop. ■ Fayette Electric Coop. ■ Guadalupe Valley Electric Coop. ■ San Bernard Electric Coop. ■ City of Yoakum ■ City of Seguin • City of New Braunfels ■ City of Kerrville ■ City of Georgetown • City of Boerne • WPA hired consulting firm of Enervision, Inc. in January of 2006 to represent the group in developing a proposal to present to LCRA • Enervision, Inc. presented the proposal structure to the WPA on March 29-30 of 2006 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 2 Proposal Structure — Generation Resources ■ Proposal is a fixed resource allocation structure a GUS will be assigned its share of existing LCRA generation resources (power plants) based on its percentage of load (nearly 3%) in the LCRA system • GUS would be obligated to pay fixed and variable costs of each generation facility according to its assigned percentage of load o These costs would be designated contractually through negotiation with LCRA o GUS would not be charged for any costs not directly related to those specific generation resources 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 3 Proposal Structure — Additional Wholesale Requirements ■ Under the current contract LCRA does not have adequate generation to meet the requirements of all wholesale customers Lj LCRA buys electricity in the market to supplement its generation and meet the requirements of its customers ■ Under the new arrangement, the WPA or each individual alliance member would be responsible for acquiring any additional requirements beyond its fixed resource allocations 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 4 Proposal Structure Scheduling • Each utility is required to submit daily schedules for electricity usage to ERCOT to make sure their requirements are met and the state transmission system stays in balance ■ LCRA currently performs that operation for its customers, acting as the Qualified Scheduling Entity (QSE) ■ Under the new arrangement, an independent QSE would perform this operation, ensuring that GUS's daily power requirements were met and all ERCOT procedures were followed 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 5 How Is This Different? ■ In the current agreement LCRA determines its necessary operating requirements, including costs for generation, costs for projects, etc. Li These costs are massed together and divided by the total kilowatt hour sales to determine prices to customers — called system average pricing ■ Under the new arrangement customers would pay only costs associated with each generation resource according to their assigned percentage u Costs for projects and other revenue requirements would not be associated with the generation resources Li Costs assigned to the customers would be designated in the contract 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 6 How Is This Better? ■ Utility has complete control over how its dollars are spent for wholesale power ❑ Other projects and revenue requirements by LCRA will not be contributed to by each utility except as contractually determined to be related to wholesale power activities or voluntarily ■ With an independent QSE the utility will have the following benefits: ❑ More equitable cost allocation ❑ Ability to more efficiently utilize LCRA resources according to the load characteristics ❑ An independent QSE can take advantage of opportunities in the market to save money in power purchases for the utility ■ Overall costs savings ❑ Conservative estimates based on current market conditions would save GUS ratepayers over $800,000 annually 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 7 Any Drawbacks? Utility assumes all the risk of wholesale market conditions Fixed costs of generation resources are determined contractually but variable costs and additional power requirements costs will change with market conditions ® Utility is contractually assigned to its share of fixed costs in the LCRA generation resources If load were to leave the utility's system, the utility would still be contractually obligated to those costs even though its load was reduced Solution: among the WPA customers could trade or sell their assignments as needed 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 8 What Is the Next Step? ® A letter to the LCRA board announcing the Wholesale Power Alliance's intent to negotiate, "as a power group", a new wholesale arrangement with LCRA is before you for approval ® If approved by all members and signed by Board Chairmen and Mayors, this letter will be presented to the LCRA board at the regular meeting on May 17 ® Following the presentation of this letter, the Wholesale Power Alliance will begin negotiations with LCRA regarding a new wholesale arrangement utilizing Ashby Consulting as the negotiation team. ® Questions and discussion 4/11/2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 9 Wholesale Power Alliance Positions with LCRA Sub' ect Position General 1. Group negotiations 2. Separate individual contracts 3. Term length related to specific LCRA assets and associated debt LCRA planning functions 1. LCRA not obligated to plan, procure nor provide for load QSE functions 1. Independent QSE can pseudo - schedule LCRA resources and other resources to meet 100% of Customer's load 2. LCRA's QSE services should be spun off into separate entity, and costs related to QSE services assigned to the separate entity. Customers can choose to contract with LCRA QSE for QSE services 3. LCRA QSE should be independent from LCRA Generator Transmission functions 1. Customer responsible for obtaining transmission service 2. LCRA ancillary services should be unbundled 3. Customer share of ancillary services directly attributable to existing LCRA resources Existing LCRA resources 1. Customer has fixed capacity (and any pseudo -scheduled energy) allocation of each existing resource 2. Proposed allocation methodology: use average of 2003-2005 interval share of plant output (by unit) to determine Customer share of existing LCRA resources 3. Customer opts to participate in any discretionary resource modification 4. Customers can trade allocated share of owned facilities 5. Customer receives proportionate share of credits from revenue generated from any existing resources (i.e., renewable energy credits, emission allowance sales, ancillary services, congestion CONFIDENTIAL 1 of 3 03/29/06 Wholesale Power Alliance Positions with LCRA CONFIDENTIAL 2 of 3 03/29/06 revenue rights, etc. Future LCRA resources 1. Customer can opt to participate in any future LCRA resource 2. LCRA provides data with sufficient lead time (at least 90 days) so that Customer may evaluate economics 3. If Customer elects to participate, a Participation Agreement exists for the future resource which outlines capacity and energy costs, operating characteristics, scheduling rovisions, etc. GenTex resource 1. Customer maintains ability to pseudo -schedule 2. Customer pays its fixed allocated share of GenTex resource LCRA budgetinglaccounting 1. Customer only responsible for costs associated with existing resources for which it is paying: a. Fixed costs include debt and fixed O&M per existing resource b. Variable costs is based on heat rate of resource times actual fuel costs plus variable O&M c. Indirect costs including A&G directly attributable to existing resources 2. LCRA is obligated to provide a line -item annual budget (by month) and a line -item 10 -year forecast (by ear) of power costs Core Fund 1. Costs associated with Core Fund are recovered as a separate line item on the power bill 2. Customer's obligation to Core Fund is ratio of either 1) Customer load served by LCRA to total LCRA load or 2) LCRA resources committed by Customer to total LCRA resources 3. Core Fund is itemized by projects and capped by budgeted projects CONFIDENTIAL 2 of 3 03/29/06 Wholesale Power Alliance Positions with LCRA Audit provisions 1. Customer, at its own expense, can examine LCRA records to verify accuracy and reasonableness of charges 2. LCRA has obligation to provide Customer access to records Dispute resolution 1. Binding arbitration 2. Individual Customer can arbitrate (no group mass required) 3. Each Party bears own cost of arbitration. Customer does not pay a portion of LCRA's costs 4. Any eligible costs can be disputed 5. Implementation of any contractual provision can be disputed Most Favored Nations clause 1. Provision allows Customer to select any other Customer's contract in its entirety 2. Provision allows for any single section from any other Customer's contract, with the following limitation: sections addressing Pricing, Load Requirements and LCRA Resources are one single section CONFIDENTIAL 3 of 3 03/29/06 Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, April 24, 2006 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Monday, April 24, 2006 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 Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager B Discussion regarding the (Computer Aided Dispatch) CADmine Incident Reporting and Analysis Software — David Morgan, Police Chief C Presentation regarding Charitable Bingo Facilities -- Paul Brandenburg, City Manager 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 - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Consideration and possible action to approve a letter to be signed by the Mayor regarding opposition to the Communiciations, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006—Paul E. Brandenburg - Henderson v. City of Georgetown and Bishop Gregory Aymond for the Dioceses of Austin , Cause No. A06CA082 SS; United States District Court, Western District of Texas - Transamerican Underground vs. Arch Insurance Co., C . Carleton Industries, and Third Party Defendant the City or Georgetown , Cause No. 06-121-C277, District Court of Williamson County, 277th Judicial District E Sec.551.072: Deliberations Regarding Real Property - Discussion and possible action regarding the acquisition of 3.83 acres located on CR 116 from W.D. Kelley Foundation for use as future electric substation. — Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Mike Mayben, Energy Services Manager - Discussion and possible action regarding prospective acquisition of 5.107 acres located at FM 1460 and Industrial Avenue from Bobby Ray Guthrie, Trustee, for possible use as future City facilities. — Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations - Consideration and possible action concerning right-of-way and easement acquisition from Lloyd D. Trainer in connection with the SH 29 West widening project — Patricia E. Carts, City Attorney F Sec.551.086 - Competitive Matters - Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to Sign a letter to LCRA notifying the Authority of the intent to begin negotiations as a Wholesale Power Alliance aggregation group. — Michael W. Mayben, Energy Services Manager, Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations Certificate of Posting I, Sandra Lee, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2006, 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/Monday, April 24, 2006 Page 1 of 1 Page Council Meeting Date: April 24, 2006 Item No. EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action regarding the acquisition of 3.83 acres located on CR 116 from W.D. Kelley Foundation for use as future electric substation. ITEM SUMMARY: Per the GUS Advisory Board's October 2005 recommendation, on October 24, 2005, Council authorized staff to extend an offer to purchase ±3.83 acres (the "Property") out of a 34.118 - acre tract of land located on CR 116 from the W.D. Kelley Foundation ("Landowner") for purposes of construction an electric substation based on an independent appraisal of the Property. On November 23, 2005, an initial offer to purchase the property was tendered to the Landowner based on an appraisal performed by Mark Smith of Ezell & Smith, Inc. On January 10, 2006, Council authorized entering into a Possession and Use Agreement with the Landowner in order for the City to proceed with the project on schedule. On March 16, 2006, the landowner submitted the attached counter offer. Also attached is a memo from Kent Alan Sick outlining his and Mark Smith's analysis thereof. Staff concurs with the opinions of Mr. Sick and Mr. Smith and recommends acceptance of the Landowner's March 161hproposal. Accordingly, staff requests Council's authorization to purchase the property for not to exceed $350,000.00, plus related closing costs, and accept conveyance of the two detention ponds in Pleasant Valley Subdivision described in the deed included with the proposal. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: This project is funded out of the following electric capital account: South Substation Site Account No. 611-101-6619-00 ATTACHMENTS: Survey sketch of proposed South Substation Site Landowner's March 16, 2006 counter proposal Memo from Kent Sick Submitted By: i n B ggAus!ty ant City Patricia E. Carts, Brown & Carls, LLP LN,ialrfag Operations City Attorney 2—uu z' , 36. )"W 363.00') 1 00 fV ° Chain Link cor.post 0 3 0 in a ' 0 in b N N Z 7- 0 0 /Fire Hydrant Nap Found O Fence corner _0 0— 363.00') (N69'00'30 -E Hydrant 0 C: — 26.98' -Spindle set O Q D- -Tele. pole \ S21 '23'E 235.69' z O KNOW ALL MEN 8Y THE COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON { I, Brian F. Petemon,Registered Professional Land Survey the plat shown hereon accurately represents the proper on—the—ground survey made under my direction and st of Sept., 2005, of the property legally described hereor are no apparent discrepancies, conflicts, shortages in c conflicts, encroachments, overlapping of improvements, in place, except as shown hereon. TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS my hand and s al at Geor County, Texas, this the Z7�/,d� i ,2005 Edge of Asphalt Tele. pole S1OrIS 0'W 49.43' Land Surveyor, No.3967 ��Qftx 18' CMP 220.04') Survey For S691 City of Georgeto, 21 A Portion of th W. D. Kelley Foundati, Francis A. Hudson Abstract No. 2S — E — Williamson County, I1 494, Company easements have inadequate descriptions . f IL Steger & Bizzell Engine i 494, Volume 338, Page 384, and Volume 428, Page 130, oft J 1, g g Williamson County, Texas. Consulting Engineers W. D. KELLEY FOUNDATION LOCAL 512/863-2575 707 ROCK STREET AUSTIN 512/930-5012 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626-5718 FAX: 5 1 21863-25 76 dale@dale-illig.com March 16, 2006 Terri Glasby Calhoun, Paralegal Georgetown Utility Systems City of Georgetown 300 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 Re: Response to the City of Georgetown proposed site for an electric substation being the acquisition of 3.83 acres from land owned by the W.D. Kelley Foundation located between IH 35 and CR 116 in Williamson County, Texas. Dear Terri: The W.D. Kelley Foundation ("Foundation") has considered your offer of $269,150 for ±3.83 acres located on CR 116. This proposed acquisition for an electric substation site is out of 117 contiguous acres owned by the Foundation. The $269,150 offer is based on an appraisal with an effective date of November 11, 2005 prepared by Ezell & Smith, Inc. The Foundation is of the opinion that $269,150 is inadequate for the reasons outlined in this letter. 1. The $1.60/SF appraised value is below market value for the acquisition of 3.83 acres. 2. The appraiser makes no analysis of, and has no allocation for, damages to our remaining land. We feel damages occur because: a) The construction of a proposed electric substation will adversely impact our remaining contiguous land. b) The loss of width along CR 116 will require our planned future street to be single loaded after the acquisition versus the planned double loaded street on a before basis (shown as "B Street' on Concept Plan). Letter to Calhoun December 29, 2005 Page 2 Appraised Value - Your appraiser utilized five (5) comparisons to arrive at the value estimate of $1.60/SF. Sale 1, 2 and 3 (combined as one sale) was the most recent sale (9-05), selling at $2.96/SF for 7.35 acres. The appraiser makes several large adjustments which are not justified which reduce the price 46% to the $1.60/SF offer. He makes similar analyses on several other sales which we take exception to, including use of Sale 5 which had approximately 30% of its area within a flood plain while only adjusting the price upward 5%. It is noted that the oldest sale, and closest in proximity to our property, indicated $1.80/SF although the appraiser makes no reference to past fill placed on the land. It is noted that a recent sale behind the Hewlett car dealership of 19.49 acres sold on September 16, 2005 at $3.00/SF. The appraiser was aware of this sale but was unable to confirm the price. Larry Kokel's office was able to confirm the sale with the buyer at $3.00/SF. We feel this sale justifies a higher value conclusion than $1.60/SF and believe a price of $2.00 to $2.50/SF is more appropriate for the Foundation's 3.83 acres. Damages - The Foundation has significant concerns relative to a substation being located on the 3.83 acres. The Foundation would have preferred the substation to be located elsewhere, allowing the Foundation to more appropriately select a use which would have complimented and added value to our 113 remaining acres. The appraisal report makes no analysis of the impact of the part to be taken as it relates to the Foundation's remaining land. It is our opinion that the appraiser did not conduct proper analysis for a governmental acquisition. Texas law dictates an analysis of damages to the remaining adjacent land. We do not advocate damages over the entire 117 acres but certainly believe the adjacent 6.6 acres will suffer proximity damages as it relates to visual non -compatibility from an electric substation and issues related to the unknown impact from Electric Magnetic Field (EMF). Typically appraisers conclude that damages occur to land adjacent to an electric substation. A 10% value reduction on 6.6 acres at $2.00/SF results in damages of $57,500.00. Of additional concern to the Foundation is that, without the acquisition, future development would have benefitted from using both sides of our planned street from IH 35 to CR 116. The acquisition of the substation and a desire to buffer uses away from the substation appear to require the street to run against the substation site with the Foundation paying 100% of the cost to build the road while being able to use only one side along your proposed acquisition. In our opinion, this results in a loss of ±$60,000.00. Based on this logic, we believe a more appropriate compensation to be $334,000.00 for the land ($2.00/SF) plus $117,500.00 in damages for a total of $451,500.00. On January 20, 2006, we received compensation in the amount of $269,150.00 and executed a Possession and Use Agreement to the City of Georgetown. Letter to Calhoun December 29, 2005 Page 3 As an accommodation to avoid litigation we would offer the following settlement: 1. $350,000.00, i.e. an additional $80,850.00 in compensation. 2. Acceptance of the enclosed deed to two detention ponds in Pleasant Valley Subdivision. We appreciate your continued cooperation and hope we can resolve these issues amicably. Sincerely yours, Dale II g P esid Dl:jc NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. Special Warranty Deed Date: March 16, 2006 Grantor: W. D. Kelley Foundation, a Texas corporation, and The William D. Kelley Trust, Dale Illig, Trustee Grantor's Mailing Address: W. D. Kelley Foundation et al 707 Rock Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Williamson County Grantee: City of Georgetown Grantee's Mailing Address: City of Georgetown, Texas P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 Williamson County Consideration: TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration. Property (including any improvements): Lot 1, Block "A" and Lot 4, Block B, Pleasant Valley, a subdivision in Williamson County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet I, Slides 32-33, Plat Records, Williamson County, Texas. Reservations from Conveyance: None Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty: Validly existing easements, rights-of-way, and prescriptive rights, whether of record or not; all presently recorded and validly existing instruments, other than conveyances of the surface fee estate, that affect the Property; and taxes for 2006, which Grantee assumes and agrees to pay, and subsequent assessments for that and prior years due to change in land usage, ownership, or both, the payment of which Grantee assumes. Grantor, for the Consideration and subject to the Reservations from Conveyance and the Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty, grants, sells, and conveys to Grantee the Property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anyway belonging, to have and to hold it to Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors, and assigns forever. Grantor binds Grantor and Grantor's heirs and successors to warrant and forever defend all and singular the Property to Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors, and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof when the claim is by, through, or under Grantor but not otherwise, except as to the Reservations from Conveyance and the Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty. As a material part of the Consideration for this deed, Grantor and Grantee agree that Grantee is taking the Property "AS IS" with any and all latent and patent defects and that there is no warranty by Grantor that the Property has a particular financial value or is fit for a particular purpose. Grantee acknowledges and stipulates that Grantee is not relying on any representation, statement, or other assertion with respect to the Property condition but is relying on Grantee's examination of the Property. Grantee takes the Property with the express understanding and stipulation that there are no express or implied warranties except for limited warranties of title set forth in this deed. As part of the consideration for this deed, Grantor and Grantee agree that, as between Grantor and Grantee, the risk of liability or expense for environmental problems, even if arising from events before closing, is the sole responsibility of Grantee, regardless of whether the environmental problems were known or unknown at closing. Grantee indemnifies, holds harmless, and releases Grantor from liability for any latent defects and from any liability for environmental problems affecting the property, including liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, or the Texas Water Code. Grantee indemnifies, holds harmless, and releases Grantor from any liability for environmental problems affecting the property arising as the result of Grantor's own negligence or the negligence of Grantor's representatives. Grantee indemnifies, holds harmless, and releases Grantor from any liability for environmental problems affecting the property arising as the result of theories of products liability and strict liability, or under new laws or changes to existing laws enacted afterthe effective date that would otherwise impose on Grantor in this type of transaction new liabilities for environmental problems affecting the property. When the context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural. W. D. Kelley Foundation, a Texas corporation, By. Dale Illig, Presid t The William D. Kelley Trust, Dale Illig, Trustee By: A -�Z Dale Illig, Trustee STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on� l G r , 2006, by Dale Illig, as the President of W. D. Kelley Fndation, a Texas corporation, on behalf of said corporation and as Trustee of The Willi;D. Kelley Trust, o� be of said entity. PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: LAW OFFICE OF DALE ILLIG, P.C. 707 ROCK STREET GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: exas commisAion expires: JEANNIE C. COFFMAN N=y Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires February 02, 2008 PRIVELEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS TO: Georgetown City Council, Trish Carls FROM: Kent A. Sick DATE: April 19, 2006 RE: Acquisition of 3.83 acres from W.D. Kelley Foundation; landowner counteroffer As you know, the City desires to acquire 3.83 acres (166,834 sf) from the W.D. Kelley Foundation ("Kelley") for construction of a new electrical substation. The property is located along the west side of CRI 16 at Clearview Drive, about %Z mile north of Westinghouse Road (see attached aerial photo). Dale Illig is the trustee for Kelley, and Larry Kokel is Kelley's representative. City's appraisal. The City hired Mark Smith, an experienced litigation appraiser, to perform an appraisal for purposes of making an offer to Kelley. Although the property is a part of a larger 88.64 acre parcel, Smith found that the property taken would stand alone as a separate economic unit, and appraised the 3.83 acre part taken with a highest and best use of light industrial. Given this highest and best use conclusion, Smith did not believe that there would be any reduction in value to Kelley's remaining property as a result of the taking or the City's project. Smith's market data. Smith's five unadjusted comparables range from $3.50/sf in September 2005 to $0.65/sf in May of 2004; the mean is $1.64/sf and the median is $1.53/sf. Importantly, Smith's appraisal also includes two listings for industrial property lots in the immediate area of $1.75/sf and $2.00/sf, respectively. At the time of Smith's appraisal, he was generally aware of a 19.49 acre sale just behind the Hewlett car I dealership in the Kelley property's neighborhood at $3.00/sf but was unable to confirm the details of that transaction and so did not include it in his analysis. Smith's final value conclusion upon which the City made an offer to Kelley was $1.60/sf, or a total of $269,150. In the wake of the City's offer, Kelley executed a Possession and Use Agreement in the City's favor at the amount of Smith's appraisal. Kelley counteroffer. After review, Kelley has responded to the City's purchase offer with a counteroffer from Dale Illig of $350,000, or approximately $2.09/sf. This represents an increase of $80,850, or 30% over Smith's appraisal. In addition, the counteroffer also requires the City to accept fee simple title to two detention ponds that are apparently unrelated to this acquisition. I will address the dollar offer first. Dale Illig's arguments are primarily that (a) Smith's comparable sale adjustments are excessive, (b) that the 19.49 acre sale at $3.00/sf near the property (which since has been confirmed by Larry Kokel's office) indicates a much higher value for the property, and (c) that Kelley's remaining property is damaged by its proximity to an electrical substation. I reviewed Smith's appraisal, met with Smith, and talked to Kokel. In short, it is Mark Smith's opinion that had he been able to confirm the 19.49 acre sale at 3.00/sf his value conclusion would likely have been higher, and that while he personally did not believe the value of Kelley's remaining property was diminished, he could certainly argue the issue either way. Kokel told me that his professional opinion and advice to Dale Illig was that the property was worth much more than Dale put in his settlement proposal, and that he (Kokel) believed that the highest and best use was something other than light industrial such that the remainder property was obviously damaged. 2 In my opinion, Smith's value conclusion is well -supported if the highest and best use is indeed light industrial. Two nearby light industrial tracts are available for sale at $1.75/sf and $2.00/sf. Although real estate listings are not technically legally admissible, in my view they can be a useful indicator of the upper limit of value for a particular property type if they are similar enough to the property being appraised. Larry Kokel, however, would be a particularly effective witness for the Kelley Foundation. He is a very knowledgeable and well-respected appraiser, and in my experience usually given a fair amount of deference by Williamson County Special Commissioners. If the Kelley Foundation (through Kokel) convinced a set of Special Commissioners that the highest and best use was something more intense than light industrial, and/or that some significant portion of the Kelley remainder was damaged, the City's exposure would likely far exceed the counteroffer amount proposed in Dale Blig's letter. Considering this fact, as well as the City's litigation expense, I recommend that the City authorize settlement up to the full amount of Dale Illig's proposal. Nevertheless, the market reality of those two nearby listings remains, along with what they mean for the value of the Kelley property as industrial land. I asked Kokel whether the Kelley Foundation had any flexibility in their number and he indicated they did not. In my opinion, though, it would be worthwhile to approach Illig with an offer of something less (say $1.80/sf or $2.00/sf) based upon those listings in an effort to reduce the cost of this acquisition. Even at $2.00/sf, that total would be some $15,000 less than Illig's current offer. Detention ponds. After talking with Larry Kokel and City staff, I understand that the transfer of these two unrelated detention ponds into the City's fee simple ownership 3 has long been contemplated, and the City has already been maintaining these ponds for r„ some time. According to Kokel, Dale Illig just wants to use the impetus of this acquisition to clear the matter up and finally get the ponds out of the Kelley Foundation's name to end whatever tax liability they have. I do not have an opinion as to whether accepting fee simple title to these ponds creates any particular liability for the City. Strictly from the perspective of this real property acquisition, though, should the City elect to do so it may create some leverage to use in lowering Kelley's monetary demand. 4 G Presentation of Proclamation Honoring National Preservation Month H Announcements and Comments from City Manager I Public Wishing to Address Council - Sandra Taylor from Pedernales Elecric regarding an update on the Cooperative's activities in the Georgetown area. J Action from Executive Session Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. K Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop on Monday, April 10, and the Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 -- Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary L Consideration and possible action to approve the award of bid for cold pour crack sealer to Allstates Coatings in the estimated amount of $34,650.00 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager M Consideration and possible action to designate the Festival of the Arts a City -sponsored Special Event -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager N Consideration and possible action to approve a Project Agreement between the City and GTEC — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration 0 Consideration and possible action to approve a Sales Tax Remittance Agreement between the City and GTEC — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration P Consideration and possible action to approve an amended interlocal agreement with the City of Round Rock for Electric Utility Services -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Q Consideration to approve the First Amendment to the Wolf Ranch Development Agreement regarding the Public Improvement District (PID) assessment payment — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration R Consideration and possible action to accept the Citys Quarterly Investment Report for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Legislative Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: S Consideration and possible action regarding the recommendation by the Convention and Visitors Bureau Board for the approval of the corrected Convention and Visitors Bureau Board Bylaws -- Rob Hardy, CVB Chair; Shelly Hargrove, Tourism Director; and Randy Morrow, Director of Community Services T Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of an asphalt paver from Conley -Lott Nichols through the Texas Local Government Cooperative contract in the amount of $99,716.00 — Marsha Iwers, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration U Consideration and possible action to renew the Fire Billing for Services Contract with ICProcess.com -- Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief V Consideration and possible action to amend Resolution 021406 -HH Calling the General Election on May 13, 2006, to revise the list of early voting and election day polling locations — Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary and Patricia E. Carts, City Attorney W Consideration and possible action to approve a letter to be signed by the Mayor regarding opposition to the Communiciatlons, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 — Paul E. City Council Agenda/Monday, April 24, 2006 Page 2 of 6 Pages Brandenburg X Consideration and possible action to approve the Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Master Plan and to direct staff to take the necessary steps to begin its implementation — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager Y Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution expressing official intent to reimburse partial cost of the airport control tower, not to exceed $250,000 with proceeds from bonds that will be issued at a later time -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Z Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute a construction contract with Fazzone Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $1,670,400.00 for the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC) at the Georgetown Municipal Airport — Travis McLain, Airport Manager and Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager AA Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 10.324 acres in the C. Joyner Survey and J. Sutherland Survey, to be known as Estates of Westlake, Phase 4B, located on Portafino Lane, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations -- Carla J. Benton, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development BB Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 155.24 acres in the Burell Eaves Survey to be known as Shady Oaks Estates, Section Four, Phases 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, located off Buena Vista Drive — Mclissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development CC Consideration and possible action regarding a request to approve the allocation of funds to assist in making the sidewalks ADA compliant along West 7th Street in front of the former Gold's Department Store — Rebecca Rowe, Historic District Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development DD Consideration and possible action to approve the Park Central Boulevard • Street Upgrade Performance Agreement — Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director and Patricia E. Carts, City Attorney EE Consideration and possible action to approve the Vista Solutions, LP Performance Agreement — Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director and Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney FF Consideration and Possible Action to extend the filing requirements of H.B. 914 and Chapter 176, Local Government Code to include Assistant City Managers, department heads and other City employees whose employment includes providing contract review and advice -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager GG Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of Van Chandler to the Airport Advisory to fill the recently vacated position that expires in February, 2007 — Mayor Gary Nelon HH 2006 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program 1. Public Hearing on the City of Georgetown's 2006 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program project nominations -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager 2. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution of funding and support for the City of Georgetown's 2006 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program project nominations — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager 3. Consideration and possible action to provide a priority ranking to the 2006 City of Georgetown Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program project nominations — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager Items forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Board 1. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc (CDM) for professional services related to the design of Rabbit Hill Pump Station for $167,200.00 — Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager, Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations 2. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. (CDM) for professional services related to the design of the Southside Water Treatment Plant Upgrade for $18,600.00 — Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager, City Council Agenda/Monday, April 24, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Pages Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations 3. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to McLean Construction, Ltd. of Killeen, Texas for the construction of the Pecan Branch Interceptor Phase III and to establish a project budget of $515,000.00 — Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager, Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations JJ Second Readings 1. Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 8.04.090 of the Code of Ordinances regarding open burning under certain circumstances in accordance with State laws and local regulations — Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief 2. Second Reading of an ordinance amending Tide 2 of the Code of Ordinances entitled "Administration" to establish the Housing Advisory Board — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager 3. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning Lots 8 and 9 of the Anderson Addition from RS, Residential Single-family to Planned Unit Development (PUD), (to be included into the Southwestern University PUD), located at 1105 and 1107 E. Eighth Street — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development KK First and Only Reading 1. First and Only Reading of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City of Georgetown, Texas Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, in an amount not to exceed $8,710,000, approving an offticial statement and other matters related to the issuance of the bonds — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration 2. First and Only Reading of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City of Georgetown, Texas Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2006A, approving the official statement and other matters related to the issuance of the bonds — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration 3. First and Only Reading of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City of Georgetown, Texas Limited Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2006, in an amount not to exceed $7,790,000, approving an official statement and other matters related thereto — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration 4. First and Only Reading of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Utility System Limited Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2006, in an amount of $5,395,000, approving an official statement and other matters related thereto — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration LL First Readings 1. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.100 of the Code of Ordinances repealing provisions relating to the Economic Development Commission and establishing a new Economic Development Advisory Board; stating the number, term and qualifications of board members; requiring an operating plan; stating the purpose of the Board; describing the reporting structure for the Board; and approving the Board's 2006 Operating Plan — Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager 2. First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 12.40. of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown entitled City Cemeteries — Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager 3. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.32 of the Code of Ordinances Relating to Smoking in Public Places to Exempt Charitable Bingo Facilities — Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager 4. First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 10 of the Code of Ordinances relating to vehicles, adding a new subsection 10.04.080 tided Vehicle Idling — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager 5. First Reading of an Ordinance on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 1222.6 acres in the Fredrick Foy and Lewis P. Dyches Surveys to be known as the Cowan Springs development, located north and west of Sun City Georgetown, to amend the Future Land Use Plan for 213.4 acres from Residential to Office/Retail/Commercial use, 60.0 acres from Residential to Mixed Use and 15.0 acres of Williams Drive Mixed Use and 19.4 acres of Industrial to Residential, and to amend the Intensity Plan from Level 1 and Level 2 to 757.5 acres at Level 3, 60.0 acres at Level 4, and 213.4 acres at Level 6 — City Council Agenda/Monday, April 24, 2006 Page 4 of 6 Pages Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 6. First Reading of an Ordinance on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use from Commercial, Mixed, and Residential to TOD Mixed Use Area for portions of several properties in the William Addison Survey and L.J. Dyches Survey to be known as the TOD Mixed Use Area, located around the Intersection of Inner Loop and Maple Street and change the Thoroughfare Plan to add a light rail line along Maple Street for several properties in the William Addison Survey, J. Robertson Survey, and J. Mott Survey, located along the proposed Maple Street Extension south of Inner Loop to the southernmost limit of the Georgetown ETJ — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development MM Consideration and possible action to direct staff to add an amendment to the current cycle of UDC amendments related to building height in the Downtown Overlay District — Doug Smith, District 3 Councilmember NN Public Hearings/First Readings 1. Public Hearing to Consider the following Amendments to the Unified Development Code: 1.03.C. - "Applicability", 1.03.D. -"Applicability", Table 1.04.040 -"Zoning District Names and Standards Changes", Table 2.01.020 - "Summary of Review Authority", 2.02.010.B.t.d. — "Director of Planning and Development Services", 2.02.010.B.1.e. —"Director of Planning and Development Services", 2.02.040.B. —"Building Official", 3.09.070 —"Site Plan Review, 3.12.040 —"Master Sign Plan", 3.13.010 —"Certificate of Design Compliance", 3.13.020 — —Certificate of Design Compliance", Table 4.01.010 —"Zoning Districts", 4.04.020.C. — "Non -Residential Districts", 4.04.020.H. —"Non -Residential Districts, 4.04.020.1. -"Non-Residential Districts, 4.04.030.A.6.a. —"Special Districts", 4.05.040.D.11 — "SP Standards for Williams Drive (F.M. 2338), 4.06.010.F. —"Downtown Overlay District Standards", Table 5.01.020 —Types of Uses", 6.02.010 —'Residential Development Standards", Table 6.02.030 — "Housing Type Dimensional Standards", Table 6.03.020 —"Non -Residential Dimensional Standards", 6.03.040.8.1. —"Non -Residential Lot Dimensions Interpretations and Exceptions", 7.03.020.E.1. — Requirements for Residential Housing Types", 7.03.060 —"Boundary Walls for Residential Subdivisions", Table 9.02.030.A. —"Off Street Parking Requirements", 9.02.060.H. —'Alternative Parking Plans in the Downtown Overlay District", 10.03.010.A. —"Exempt Signs", 10.03.020.H.- "Provisionally 0.03.020.H:"Provisionally Exempt Signs", Table 10.06.010 —"Sign Dimensional Standards", 10.07.010 —"Private Property", 11.02.010.A. —"Impervious Cover Limitation Established", 12.02.020.1. —"General Requirements", 13.01.050 —"Subdivision Development Exemption", 13.04.070 —'Utilities in Rural Subdivision", 13.06.030 —"Sanitary Sewer System", 14.04.010 —"Compliance for Nonconforming Structures", 16.03.050.F. —"Commercial Use Categories", and 16.04 —'Definition of Uses" — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 2. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the following Sections of the Unified Development Code: 1.03.C. - "Applicability", 1.03.D. -"Applicability", Table 1.04.040 - "Zoning District Names and Standards Changes", Table 2.01.020 -"Summary of Review Authority", 2.02.010.B.1.d. —"Director of Planning and Development Services", 2.02.010.B.1.e. —"Director of Planning and Development Services", 2.02.040.8. —"Building Official", 3.09.070 —"Site Plan Review", 3.12.040 —"Master Sign Plan", 3.13.010 —"Certificate of Design Compliance", 3.13,020 — —Certificate of Design Compliance", Table 4.01.010 —"Zoning Districts", 4.04.020.C. —"Non -Residential Districts", 4.04.020.H. —"Non - Residential Districts, 4.04.020.1. - "Non -Residential Districts, 4.04.030.A.6.a. — "Special Districts", 4.05.040.D.11 —"SP Standards for Williams Drive (F.M. 2338), 4.06.010.F. —"Downtown Overlay District Standards", Table 5.01.020 — "Types of Uses", 6.02.010 — "Residential Development Standards", Table 6.02.030 —"Housing Type Dimensional Standards", Table 6.03.020 — "Non - Residential Dimensional Standards", 6.03.040.8.1. —"Non -Residential Lot Dimensions Interpretations and Exceptions", 7.03.020.E.1. —Requirements for Residential Housing Types", 7.03.060 —'Boundary Walls for Residential Subdivisions", Table 9.02.030.A. —"Off Street Parking Requirements", 9.02.060.H. —"Alternative Parking Plans in the Downtown Overlay District", 10.03.010.A. —"Exempt Signs", 10.03.020.H: "Provisionally Exempt Signs", Table 10.06.010 —"Sign Dimensional Standards", 10.07.010 —"Private Property", 11.02.010.A. —'Impervious Cover Limitation Established% 12.02.020.1. —"General Requirements", 13.01.050 —'Subdivision Development Exemption", 13.04.070 — "Utilitles in Rural Subdivision", 13.06.030 —"Sanitary Sewer System", 14.04.010 —"Compliance for Nonconforming Structures", 16.03.050.F. —"Commercial Use Categories", and 16.04 —"Definition of Uses" — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 3. Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to "Landscaping and Buffering" — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development City Council Agenda/Monday, April 24, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Pages 4. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to "Landscaping and Buffering" — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 5. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning of 24.74 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract No. 235, from AG, Agriculture to G1, Local Commercial located at the northeast comer of North Austin Avenue and County Road 151 — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 6. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 24.74 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract No. 235, from AG, Agriculture to C-1, Local Commercial located at the northeast comer of North Austin Avenue and County Road 151 — Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 7. Public Hearing to consider a Rezoning from AG — Agricultural to PUD - Planned Unit Development for 22.537 acres in the Fredrick Foy Survey to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Forty -Two, located north of Neighborhood 44 and Dry Creek Boulevard, west of Sun City Boulevard — Mclissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 8. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from AG — Agricultural to PUD - Planned Unit Development for 22.537 acres in the Fredrick Foy Survey to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Forty -Two, located north of Neighborhood 44 and Dry Creek Boulevard, west of Sun City Boulevard -- Melissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 9. Public Hearing to consider a Rezoning from AG —Agricultural to PUD - Planned Unit Development for 34.846 acres in the Fredrick Foy Survey to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Forty -Three, located north of Neighborhood 44 and Dry Creek Boulevard, west of Neighborhood Forty -Two — Melissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 10. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from AG — Agricultural to PUD - Planned Unit Development for 34.846 acres in the Fredrick Foy Survey to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Forty -Three, located north of Neighborhood 44 and Dry Creek Boulevard, west of Neighborhood Forty -Two — Melissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 11. Public Hearing to consider a Rezoning from AG —Agricultural to PUD - Planned Unit Development for 46.705 acres in the Fredrick Foy Survey to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Forty -Six, located west of Neighborhood Forty -Three, north of Dry Creek Boulevard, and west of Sun City Boulevard -- Melissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development 12. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from AG — Agricultural to PUD - Planned Unit Development for 46.705 acres in the Fredrick Foy Survey to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Forty -Six, located west of Neighborhood Forty -Three, north of Dry Creek Boulevard, and west of Sun City Boulevard — Melissa McCollum, AICP, Development Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development Certificate of Posting I, Sandra Lee, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the_ day of , 2006, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Lee, City Secretary City Council Agenda/Monday, April 24, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Pages Council Meeting Date: April 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No. SUBJECT Consideration of award of the annual bid for Cold Pour Crack Sealer to Allstates Coatings the estimated amount of $34,650.00. ITEM SUMMARY Bids were received to provide the City with cold pour crack sealer for a one-year period beginning May, 2006.The staff recommendation is to award this bid to the low bidder responding, Allstates Coatings of Gladewater, Texas. This cold pour crack sealant will be used asphalt street repair and is ordered in 150 pound drums on an as needed basis. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS None FINANCIAL IMPACT Total estimated amount of this bid is $34,650.00. Funds were budgeted for this expenditure in Maintenance -Streets and Overlay-CIP. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: N/A COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS 1. Bid Tabulation Submitted By: Kfark Miller Jim Priwgjs / Transportation Services Assis ant City Mac Manager for Utility Operations BID TABULATION SHEET BID NO. 26018 — COLD POUR CRACK SEALER April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007 ALT -651 Flex Crack Cold Pour Crack Sealer or approved equal' in 55 gal. Drums TOTAL FOR 150 DRUMS (8250 GALS) No response Pavement Tool Manufacturing Gregg Tex Meggison Enterprises Ramming Paving 'Any other product bid must meet or exceed the attached specifications equality of product will be determined by a City of Georgetown agent Approx Allstates EZ Seal CityUnit Price Unit Price 150 Drums $231.00 $264.64 $34,650.00 $39,696.00 Council Meeting Date: April 25, 2006 Item No. T- L AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. for professional services related to the design of the Rabbit Hill Pump Station for $167,200.00. ITEM SUMMARY: This contract amendment provides for the necessary design, engineering, construction management, surveying, geotechnical, and regulatory submittals for the installation of an upgraded pumping station at Rabbit Hill to provide a service level improvement for pressure and fire flows in an area currently served by a small pump station designed to provide domestic water service to a small number of residential dwellings. Total cost for services is $167,200.00. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: _ne FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds will come from the Water Capital Fund 661-101-6364-00. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: GUS Board recommended approval at the April 18, 2006 Meeting. Approved 6-0 with Gavumik absent STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the contract amendment for engineering services by CDM. COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Systems Engineering Memorandum Proposal for engine,pring fron3.gMp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. Submitted By: Glenn Dishong I /Jim Water Services / �Ayista t t Manager Manager / for Utili ie SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM TO: GLENN DISHONG, WATER SERVICE MANAGER FROM: THOMAS R. BENZ, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGER - 4 13. Q b SUBJECT: CDM AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE RABBIT HILL PUMP STATION DATE: 4/13/2006 CC: MICHAEL HALLMARK, CIP CORDINATOR The Rabbit Hill Pump station is currently capable of pumping approximately 120 gpm. Population projections indicate that a pump station capable of pumping over 5,000 gpm will be required for this service area. The project consists of the design of a four pump vertical turbine pump station with electrical building and instrumentation improvements, including VFD. The pump station will initially be equipped with one 150 gpm pump and three 1850 gpm pumps. Depending on growth in the service area, the proposed project should be able to serve the area for several years or approximately 2000 connections, before needing to be expanded with an elevated storage tank and pump. As discussed and decided in our meeting with Finance, Michael Hallmark, and Jim Briggs we will contract for engineering and design of this project in this FY (2005/2006) and award the construction contract at the start of the next FY (2006/07). Attached is the CDM Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services for the Rabbit Hill Pump Station. CDM prepared the cities 2005 Water Distribution System Master Plan, which includes the water system model, and their overall knowledgeable of Georgetown water system make them the most qualified firm to perform this work. The scope and fee is reasonable and I recommend taking this Amendment to GUS Advisory Board and City Council for approval. Once approved by City Council Systems Engineering will have the Amendment signed and issue a notice to proceed to CDM. Please let me know if you have any questions. L I " 12357-A Plata Trace Parkway, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78727 tel: 512 3461100 fax 51234S-1483 March 1, 2006 Mr. Tom Benz, P.E. City of Georgetown Georgetown Utility Systems 300 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 Subject: City of Georgetown/ Rabbit Hill Pump Station Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services Dear Mr. Benz: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) is pleased to submit this Amendment to the City of Georgetown to design the new Rabbit Hill Pump Station. The Amendment includes a scope of work and fee for the design of the improvements. Please review this Amendment to determine if its scope of work and costs are acceptable. The proposed scope of services for this design can be completed within the schedule discussed previously. Thank you for the opportunity to perform these services for the City of Georgetown. Please feel free to contact me to at (512) 346-1100 to discuss any questions you may have. Sincerely, % :Allen D. woelke, P.E. Vice President Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. ENCLOSURES W:1City, of GewgetmnlAmenomenlslGtvm_Amwdmenl-Bouts de Wfp Pipirp_Br.dm consulting - engineering construction operations AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RABBIT HILL PUMP STATION The General Services Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER last authorized on November 26, 1991, is hereby amended as follows: The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The fee for the work in this Amendment is to be paid on a lump sum basis. Your signature below will constitute your acceptance of this Amendment. EXECUTED in duplicate original this _ day of , 2006 at Georgetown, Texas, where this contract is performable and enforceable. Approved as to form: City Attorney Party of the Second Part: CAhff DRESSE & Mc E IN . By: Allen D. Woelke, P.E. Vice President STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS Party of the First Part: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Gary Nelon Mayor Attest: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary Y 1A This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the r'� day of f a& 2006, by Mr. Allen D. Woelke in his capacity as Vice President of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Printed name: ✓-&o �,, DCII Commission Expires: KAREN HUTZLER RAKER Notary Public, State M Texas My Commission Expires Page 1 of 1 August 10, 200E W.*Tity of Georgeto"V mmdments\ mm—Amendmeot-Rabbit Hill PS.doc E7H1131T 1 SCOPE OF WORK Project Need: The Rabbit Hill Pump Station is currently capable of pumping approximately 120 gpm. Population projections indicate that a pump station capable of pumping over 5,000 gpm will be required for this service area. As the Rabbit Hill Pump Station service area, near IH -35 and Westinghouse Road, grows the pump station needs to be expanded to serve the water needs in the service area. Project Description: The project consists of the design of a four pump vertical turbine pump station with electrical building and electrical and instrumentation improvements including one VFD. The pump station will initially be equipped with one 150 gpm pump and three, 1850 gpm pumps. Preliminary Engineering Phase. This phase involves determination of project scope and economic and technical evaluation of feasible alternatives. Services during this phase include: 1) Reviewing available data and consulting with the OWNER to clarify and define the OWNERts requirements for the project. 2) Advising the OWNER as to the necessity of providing or obtaining from others additional data or services. These additional services may include photogrammetry, reconnaissance surveys, property surveys, topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations and consultations, compilation of hydrological data, traffic studies, materials engineering, assembly of zoning, deed, and other restrictive land use information, and environmental assessments and impact statements. The project budget includes the following special services: a) Topographic Surveying b) Geotechnical Analysis c) Construction Materials Testing d) WPAP Application Preparation and TCEQ Fee 3) Identifying and analyzing requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve the design of the project, and participating in consultations with such authorities. 4) Providing analyses of the OWNEWs needs, planning surveys, and comparative evaluations of prospective sites and solutions. 5) Consulting with the OWNER, reviewing preliminary reports, clarifying and defining the Project requirements, reviewing available data, and discussing general scheduling. Conferences may also be required with approving and regulatory governmental agencies and affected utilities. Page 1 of 3 W:\City of Georgetown\Amendments\Gtown Amendment -Rabbit MH PSA. 6) Advising the OWNER as to whether additional data or services are required, and assisting the OWNER in obtaining such data and services. 7) Preparing preliminary design documents consisting of final design criteria, preliminary drawings, outline of specifications, and written descriptions of the project. A maximum of five copies will be provided to the OWNER. 8) Preparing revised opinions of probable total project costs. Final Design Phase. This phase of project development is undertaken only after the OWNER has approved the preliminary engineering phase material. The basic services for the final design phase includes: 1) Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent of the project based on the accepted preliminary engineering documents. 2) Preparing and fiunishing to the OWNER a revised opinion of probable total project costs based on the final drawings and specifications. 3) Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits from local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not include detailed applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or planning grants that would be fiunished as additional services. 4) Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval by the OWNER (and the OWNERts legal and other advisors). These may include contract agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid, instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other contract -related documents. 5) Furnishing to the OWNER a maximum of five copies of drawings, specifications, and other contract documents. Bidding Phase. Services under this phase include: 1) Assisting the OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and processing deposits for bidding documents. 2) Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents. 3) Assisting the OWNER in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective constructors, subcontractors, and suppliers. 4) When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents, Page 2 of 3 WACity of Georgetown\Amendments\Gtown_Amendmmt-Rabbit Hilt PS.doo consultation with and advising the OWNER as to the acceptability of alternate materials and equipment proposed by the prospective constructors. 5) Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets, and providing assistance to the OWNER in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for construction, materials, equipment, and services. Construction Phase. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the OWNER during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the OWNERts representative. Such services comprise: 1) Preparing for and conducting a preconstruction conference and issuing a Notice to Proceed on behalf of the OWNER. 2) Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance with design concepts. 3) Reviewing laboratory, shop, and mill test reports on materials and equipment. 4) Visiting the project site monthly as construction proceeds to observe and report on the progress and the quality of the executed work. 5) Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing change orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making recommendations as to the acceptability of the work. 6) Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered 7) Determining amounts of progress payments due, based on degree of completion of the work, and recommending issuance of such payments by the OWNER. 8) Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the CONTRACTOR. 9) Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including recommendations concerning final payments to constructors and release of retained percentages. Page 3 of 3 W.\City of GWrgetowo\AmendmenU\Grown Amendment -Rabbit Hill PS.doc CITY OF GEORGETOWN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO DESIGN RAPROVEMENTS TO THE RABBIT HILL PUMP STATION ■ Preliminary Engineering Phase: $17,710 ■ Design Phase: $70,840 ■ Bid Phase: $7,500 ■ General Services During Construction Phase: $35,650 ■ Other Direct Costs, including: $6,000 Travel Telephone Copying/bluelines Postage/facsimile Total Basic Engineering Services Surveying $8,000 Geotechnical $3,000 Construction Materials Testing $4,000 WPAP Preparation $6,500 WPAP Fee $5,000 Geologic Assessment IMN Total Special Services TOTAL $137,700 $29,500 $167,200 Page 1 of 1 WACity of GeorgetowntAmendmenb\Gto Amendment -Rabbit Hill PS.da Council Meeting Date: April 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Item No. �r 1: Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. for professional services related to the design of the Southside Water Treatment Plant Upgrade for $18,600.00. ITEM SU14MARY : This contract amendment provides for the necessary design, engineering, and construction management for the replacement of the existing PVC backwash and feedwater piping with stainless steel. The replacement of the piping with stainless steel will enhance plant reliability and address recurring maintenance problems encountered with the PVC piping. Total cost for services is $18,600.00. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds will come from the Water Capital Fund 661-101-6369-01. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: GUS Board recommended approval at the April 18, 2006 meeting. Approved 6-0 with Gavurnik absent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the contract amendment for engineering services by CDM. COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Systems Engineering Memorandum Proposal for engineering from Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. Submitted By: Water Services Manager for Ut ty Manager SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM TO: GLENN DISHONG, WATER SERVICE MANAGER1/'�►.,/ /nom FROM: THOMAS R. BENZ, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGER �'�J 2) "'3�6 SUBJECT: CDM AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATE: 4/13/2006 CC: MICHAEL HALLMARK, CIP CORDINATOR Attached is the CDM Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services for the Southside Water Treatment Plant. The original scope of work was to design the replacement of plastic piping with stainless steel piping, to install a new stand pipe for the backwash and, for the relocation of the control panels. The new revised scope will be for the design of replacement plastic piping with 12 - inch stainless steel for the backwash supply piping and feed water piping. CDM is the most qualified firm to perform this engineering work since they designed this water treatment plant. The new scope and fee is reasonable and I recommend taking this Amendment to City Council for approval. Once approved by City Council, Systems Engineering will have the Amendment signed and issue a notice to proceed to CDM. 12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 210 Austin,Texas 78727 tel: 512346-1100 fax: 512 345-1483 March 1, 2006 Mr. Tom Benz, P.E. City of Georgetown Georgetown Utility Systems 300 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 Subject City of Georgetown/Southside Water Treatment Plant Piping Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services Dear Mr. Benz: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) is pleased to submit this revised Amendment to the City of Georgetown to design piping improvements at the Southside Water Treatment Plant. The Amendment includes a scope of work and fee for the design of the improvements. Please review this Amendment to determine if its scope of work and costs are acceptable. The proposed scope of services for this design can be completed within the schedule discussed previously. Thank you for the opportunity to perform these services for the City of Georgetown. Please feel free to contact me to at (512) 346-1100 to discuss any questions you may have. Sincerely, Allen D. Woelke, P.E. Vice President Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. ENCLOSURES W'.\City o1 GaorPti %A nendmenls\Gloom Amendment -Southside WTP Piping Hr. doe consulting - engineering • construction -operations AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO DESIGN IMTROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTHSIDE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PIPING The General Services Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER last authorized on November 26, 1991, is hereby amended as follows: The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The fee for the work in this Amendment is to be paid on a lump sum basis. Your signature below will constitute your acceptance of this Amendment. EXECUTED in duplicate original this _ day of 2006 at Georgetown, Texas, where this contract is performable and enforceable. Approved as to form: City Attorney Party of the Second Part: i=r By: Allen D. Woelke, P.E. Vice President STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS Party of the First Part: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS GaryNelon Mayor Attest: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the 5% day of JU21a 2006, by Mr. Allen D. Woelke in his capacity as Vice President of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Printed name: Notary Publ c State of Texas Commission Expires: -10-0 sw� KAREN HOMER BAKER page 1 of 1 Notary Public, State of Texas Is My CofllmlNion ExpiresW:�City ofGmrgetownWnendmmistGto Ammdment-Southside WTP Piping.doc,A W 10, 2008 EXHIBIT 1 SCOPE OF WORK Project Need: The Southside Water Treatment Plant provides 3.25 MGD of treated groundwater from the Edwards Aquifer. Pipe breaks and normal wear and tear on the plastic pipe results in the plant being taken offline with resulting loss of treatment capacity. This project will replace the plastic pipe that has experienced the most wear and breaks with stainless steel pipe. Project Description: The project consists of the design of replacement 12 -inch stainless steel backwash supply piping and feed water piping. Final Design Phase. The basic services for the final design phase includes: 1) Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent of the project based on the accepted preliminary engineering documents. 2) Preparing and furnishing to the OWNER a revised opinion of probable total project costs based on the final drawings and specifications. 3) Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits from local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not include detailed applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or planning grants that would be furnished as additional services. 4) Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval by the OWNER (and the OWNER's legal and other advisors). These may include contract agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid, instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other contract -related documents. 5) Furnishing to the OWNER a maximum of five copies of drawings, specifications, and other contract documents. Bidding Phase. Services under this phase include: 1) Assisting the OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and processing deposits for bidding documents. 2) Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents. 3) Assisting the OWNER in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective constructors, subcontractors, and suppliers. Page 1 of 2 W 1City of Geotgeto"\Amendmcnm\Gtown_Amendment-Southside WfP Rping.dm 4) When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents, consultation with and advising the OWNER as to the acceptability of alternate materials and equipment proposed by the prospective constructors. 5) Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets, and providing assistance to the OWNER in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for construction, materials, equipment, and services. Construction Phase. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the OWNER during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the OWNER's representative. Such services comprise: 1) Preparing for and conducting a preconstruction conference and issuing a Notice to Proceed on behalf of the OWNER. 2) Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance with design concepts. 3) Reviewing laboratory, shop, and mill test reports on materials and equipment. 4) Visiting the project site monthly as construction proceeds to observe and report on the progress and the quality of the executed work. 5) Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing change orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making recommendations as to the acceptability of the work. 6) Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered. 7) Determining amounts of progress payments due, based on degree of completion of the work, and recommending issuance of such payments by the OWNER. 8) Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the CONTRACTOR. 9) Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including recommendations concerning final payments to constructors and release of retained percentages. Page 2 of 2 W:" of Gemget m\Amendment ,Gtowm Amendment -Southside WTP Piping doc CITY OF GEORGETOWN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTHSIDE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PIPING ■ Design Phase: $13,975 ■ Bid Phase and General Services During Construction Phase: $4,375 ■ Other Direct Costs, including: Travel Telephone Copying/bluelines Postage/facsimile Computer time Total Basic Engineering Services Total Special Services TOTAL $250 $18,600 $0 $18,600 Page 1 of I WACity ofGemgetov \A endm U\Gto Amendment -Southside WIP Piping. dm Council Board Meeting Date: April 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No�iz SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to award a contract to McLean Construction, Ltd. of Killeen, Texas for the construction of the Pecan Branch Interceptor Phase III and to establish a project budget of $515,000.00. ITEM SUMMARY: This item replaces an existing 8" wastewater collection main with an 18" collection main that completes the Pecan Branch Interceptor from its inception on Shell Road to its terminal point at the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. The engineering firm responsible to review the bids, Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates (KPA), has recommended the award of the bid to the low bidder, McLean Construction, Ltd. of Killeen, Texas for the bid of $492,492.00. Staff recommends establishing a project budget of $515,000.00. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT: This project will be funded out of the Wastewater Capital Improvements Fund 650-101-6601-01. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: GUS Board recommended approval at the April 18, 2006 meeting. Approved 6-0 with Gavurnik absent. COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS: Letter of recommendation for Kasber& Patrick & Associates, LP Bid Tabulation. Submitted by: Glean Dishong Jim Water Services Mana&r For Utility Operations KAKASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS One South Main Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773-6667 mail@kpaengimers.com RICK N. KASBERG, P.E. R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E. THOMAS D. VALLE, P.E. April 12, 2006 Mr. Michael Hallmark CIP Coordinator City of Georgetown 300 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 Re: City of Georgetown Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor Dear Mr. Hallmark: Bids were received by the City of Georgetown until 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 for the above referenced project. There were six bids received and a detailed bid tabulation of these bids is attached. The bids received included a Base Bid and Deductive Alternate Bids A and B. Alternate Bids A and B consisted of a deductive unit price for substituting pipe materials due to the possibility of elevated costs of large diameter SDR 26 PVC pipe. The low, successful bidder is McLean Construction, Ltd. with a total base bid of $492,492.00. The opinion of probable cost for this project was $575,000.00. McLean Construction, Ltd, was also the low bidder for both Alternate Bids A and B with respective deducts of $43,265.00 and 18,833.00. We have reviewed the current workload and construction history of McLean Construction as well as checked references. In addition, McLean Construction has successfully completed similar construction projects for both KPA Engineers and the City of Georgetown in the past. As a result of our findings and previous experiences and with the submitted bid being within the Engineer's estimate and City's budget, we recommend that a contract be awarded to McLean Construction, Ltd. for the total base bid in the amount of $492,492.00. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Thomas D. Valle, P.E. TDV/ xc: Mr. Thomas R, Benz, P.E., City of Georgetown B] TMATION 004-14240 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor April ll, 2006 2:00 PM 300 Industrial Averme, Ce rgeto TX 78626 BMDBB IN BMATIO Mclean Coostmebon R Deck Coosbncden levels Contnrlom Ine P.O. Bax 10759 1601 Oxford Blvd P.O. Box 1623 BASBBm Moon, Texas 76547 Round Rock, Texas 78664 Bertram, Tws 79605 !rem BarhnntedJLFS.. B Data UnB Fatmidad Uoil Farmdd U0 FXmded No. Dani rlon Price Amount Price Amoum Prim Amoum I 100% isbilbmi Boads&Insnoutex 23970.00 5 27 70.00 S 3000.00 5 30000.00 S 12500.00 S 12,500.00 2 3111 videlbor in me 4w]s& ervisimmm tete amtioaof ROW 1482.0 45942.M 90.0 27,90.0 650.0 13,9i0A0 1 3.110 vide G & F.] Gndm sloe Find Ime Room 2.40 7464.00 3.00 9 30.00 1.00 J 110.00 4 100% aisb all material tools and labor for leap IIM.M 1!03.0 6000.0 6,000.0 2,000.00 2,000.00 5 100% tishA ou mob and labor for Deflection tastin 5 45.0 5 .0 5000.0 500.0 1,20.0 1,200.0 6 10096 are Tremh Sof Platt in Cwformmce with Stull law and OSHA 900.0 900.0 90,00 90.0 950.0 950.0 7 3,0D0 ch Safe lemmtefion ' 0.80 40.0 1.0 J 00.0 1.0 3 00.00 8 6500 ch Saf Im lemmntioo enholadil mPin 0.80 5 0.0 0.50 3,250.0 025 19 100% =& Submit a Notice of Into t(NOI) m TCEQ fm oompiimx with Sbnmwam e R tions10 3,241.0 3,20!.00 330.0 1,300.0 50.0 50.0h. 100% brriade, ori &tall¢ bnvehkuhr& 351.0 353.0 700.0 lO00.00 1too01100.00II 10091 uomt& sd0000mr bebkadk &b-fk velimW& 276.00 276.0 300.0 3MO.M 1 M.0 1 nom 12 100% ide record dnwin As Balis 838.00 838,0 1=00 1000.0 500.0 SWIM 13 10000 I LS lVidI,o 'em ' e before the amt ofmtoto odor m d. 'am 776.0 776.00 900.00 90D.00 900.0 900.0 l4 350 LF Provide &instal 111' diem. Do idle boo Westewam Pipe with Pr to 401 Cotaog, ind du emb dmt w 73.40 25,690.0 10.0 75,000.0 114. 0 39.9.00 0 IS 220 Provide & 1-1120- diem Duclflc bon Wasmwesxr Fipe wilt Pro -to 401 Coag, LF and dm embedment 80.10 17.622.0 107.0 23,540.0 123.0 0 27.0.00 11 20 LF vide & Insn116" diem SDR 26 PVC Wasbwater Pipe, indtulaB evdiedment g Cooncction m nistin 6' Wutawam L,,. 4330 866.00 37.0 740.0 30.0 60.0 17 2.375 1F Proms & Install 2l' di. SDR 26 PVC Waatewem Pipe 0' In 15, including mibedmmt $0.00 190,000.00 75.00 178,125.00 102.0 242,250.00 Ig 170 LF Provide & Install 21' di. SDR 26 PVC Wesmvater Pipe, gram dorm IS, ---ding embedment 8930 15,213.00 107.00 18,190.00 N0.0 23,80.00 19 135 LF Provide & Install 36' Steel Eorasment & Road Bort w/Crum 5 cern 390.00 52 650.0 570.0 76,950.00 500.0 67 M.M Reomve noting Manhole at STA I+00 & Ptam 6'-0' Manhole in accordance with 20 1 EA ech Spec. W W I, 1ncludm9'ePbem6 me Fent joint of xsm ttx Lin,, form inch 3,664.00 3,664.00 9,000.0 9,000.0 18,000.0 13,000.00 Ie Penetration & xonli.ble coosauctim 21 7 EA Furnish&WWI New 4'-0' Bolted Mmhole in Acoordmm w/Toob Spec WWI 2,794.00 19 58.0 4AN.00 28000.00 6.250.001 43,750.00 22 2 FA umbh&rmrall New WB,l Vend Manhole to aewdmm w Tech SM WW1 4 .0 11,126.041 7,000.0 14,00.M 7,00.00 1 14,".00 23 100% LS Fmnisb & IneWl Mt mntdq EquWmmt. Tool, & labor Nw s�y for Vacmw T ' New Mx h lm 1,103.001,103.00 2,30.0 2,300.0 1,01,000.001,0.I,O. C000ccWg Proposrd IB' Wimumn er Line to Exiativg Manhole et STA 31+10, 24 10% IS mdudmg core drilling misting nmmhok& insulting lkxsble boot in accordmx with 2,105.0 2,105.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 2,500.00 2,500.00 eeb st,ec WW] 25 I0% 1.5 Plugging Existing 10' Weetewem Lim "ting Existing Maohole at SrA 31+10, after sed mttxc for line o Csted & onexxtional 1,244.00 1,244.0 SM.m 500.00 50.0 500.00 26 100% IS PIN --don Mammk adjacent In STA 0+60 in pla in accordace nwidl Tch 623.00 623.00 90.00 90.00 1300.00 1,300.00 27 10094 LS Abandon ExMn, Lift Statim in Plmx, in amordmce with Sheet W W07 623.0 623.0 5,031100 5,000.0 13,00040 13,00.00 28 15 VF G la Como Madnle lmaior wim lexmIodm 277.0 415540 10.0 130.0 103.0 1,575.M 29 12,W0 SV Placin unnovix &Seedm .1odio .min to min wen 1.10 13,20.0 3.0 36000.0 1.00 12,000.00 30 BM LF Places Concreee Enceummt in aecordaooe wiW rhe Snmdud Demo 18.0 14 .0 25.0 20 00.0 40.00 32,000.00 11 70 CY Mbalboeom Clasa'A'Coonen 68.00 680.0 350.0 350m.00 130.0 1300.W 32 SY 6 -inch Think Cox xIoe 11.00 1650.0 43.0 6,750M 0.0 900.00 33 LF haltR bcemmt amch width in accardava wiW the S<mderd Dem% 63.0 1 890.0 57.0 1 710.00 1200 3 60.0034 :30 LF F mem!, Maintain& Rennove Sik Fence I.0 240.0 20 3000.0 240 Jm0.M35 LF Fmvi instal Mintain & Rve Rok Been 15.00 l0 0.00 18.0 12 600.0 20.014 000.0TAL BB/D /I4mr I -35) 4 62 BIJ -)I.ATION CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor Apra 11, 2006 2:00 PM 300 Industrial Av .a Geon d-., T%78626 -------------- Iren Erdmamd Univ---- - Did Dara 350 CR 260 P.O. Box 122 P.O. Box 342349 DEDUCTIVE ALTERNA TE DID A Ube HBI, Texas 78642 Ceo down, Tena 78627 Auaan, Teus 76134 Iran Esr6wr UNr aid Dara Unir Eaended (in" Unit Eaendd No. Dam tion Paye Amount Pn'ce Amount Pace Amount Provide Profile WaB Pipe (U]Rib) vuou .Uc d m accord.. with ASTM F 794 A-1 2,545 LF S 12.00 1 $ 10,540.00 1 S 10.001$ 25,450.00 1 S 20.00 I S 50,900.00 -------------- Iren Erdmamd Univ---- - Did Dara U ft Ea "M d Unit EVended U hr E eded N. uant' a=ti. tion PAce Amcunr Prir< Amount Pdce Amown Provide Cloud Pmfde WaBPipe(L�Vyloo)maou6chaedmaccaducewi0 S S S f - S - S - B -I 1 2,545 LF 803 igd.fSDR 26 fgBi - - TOTAL DID AMOUNT (11ein D 1) Did Bidda Acknowkd c Addenda No. 17 ==7YES YES YES Did Bidder Acknowlcd Addenda No. 27 YES YES YES Did Biddy include the CaOfute of Reaohr0on avd Authuri l YES YES YES low Md Mm b.tyl YES YES Resbag, Patrick & Associams, IP 104 14240 elrllo I -. s$ Apfl I 7 .e !N"to THOMAS D. ....w VALLE�.s .. Tbomu, D. Vilic, P. E. Dam _`3 _.._92791 /Wi tQ� ' SS`s/ONAL F'�� iNs BII 'MATION 104.14240 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor April 11, 2006 2:00 PM 300 industrial Avenue, Ceorgeto sin, TX 78626 BASE BID Royal Vista, Inc 350 CR 260 W HILI, Texas 78642 BlDD R INFORAfATION FT Woods P.O. Bax 122 Geo etow Texas 78627 Austin Engineering Co., Inc P.O. Box 342349 Austin, Texas 78734 It. Na.Des FneundUSTALb-, Bid Daro tion Un0 Pries Enended Amaunr Unit Price Extended Axa osu Unit Price Extended Anemm 1 100% umc q Binds & Insurance 30000.00 S 30000.00 f 3 00.00 S 35 500.00 S 30,000.00 S 30,000.00 2 31 delabor, mob &S m Complete efROW 500.00 15500.00 500.00 15500.00 700.00 21700.00 3 3,110 de & Find ' don Prod lme Rome 4.00 12 .00 6.00 18,660.00 2.00 6 DAO4 100% sh dl ores materials tools and labor for testio 3000.00 1000.00 17000.00 17000.00 7,000.00 3,000.00 5 100% aB mals and labor for Deflection 7 00 7500.00 10000.00 10,000.00 7000.00 3,000.00 6 100% Trench Saf Plan m Conformance with Sure law and OSHA 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 ]000.00 1.500.00 1,500.07 3W0 h Sof ksmulim 4.00 12000.00 1.50 4500.00 1.00 3000.00 8 600 h Saf Ienaataam anhlem-Pib 0.50 3 0.00 1.50 9 750.00 1.00 6,500.00 9 100% & Submits Notice of In ot(NOI) w TCEQ fm compliance with Smmwater ar Re 'ons 2,500.00 MOO.00 4,000.W 4,000.00 2,000.00 2.WOOO 10 100% LS 11hopere hemi m & traffic safiety plan vehicular & 1,200.00 1,200.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 3,800.00 3,300. 11 100% LS thoplemunt &sicameer tamficade, iltsbg &aa®s x4cry plan w.hxmaa& 5,000,00 5000.00 8500.00 8 .00 6000.00 6,000.00 12 100% IS I mvide,ecced dnwin As Bulb 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 1 00.00 200.00 200.00 13 100% LS idco a 'cad sbefom the surf of ematrmtienmthe 'em 1000.01) 1000.00 1,500.00 ISOO.W 1400.00 1,400.00 14 350 LF vide & imu0 18" dim . Ductile imn Wastewater Pale with Pro ex m 401 Coating, includ.n embedment 115.00 40,250.00 88.00 30,800.00 113.00 39,550.00 15 220 LF Provide & ism il20' diem. Ductile iron Wastewater Pipe with Pmtecen 401 Coating, including embcdvmt 125.00 27,500.00 98.00 21,560.00 123.00 27,060.00 16 20 LF Provide & hun0 O dimn. SDR 26 PVC Wntexroer Pipe, including embedment & Covvmtion m uimb 6' Weslewa Lme 50.00 1,000.00 72.00 640.00 70.00 1,400.00 17 2,375 LF h°�de&msW121' dims. SDR 26 PVC Wastasamer Pipe 0' m 15', bluclmg 95.00 225,625.00 92.00 218,500.00 100.00 237.500.00 18 170 LF �bInstall 21' diem SDR 26 PVC Wasanner Pipe, greater than 15', includmg 110.00 18,700.00 135.00 22,950.0 132.00 22,440.00 19 135 LF provide& Insall 36' Steel Eneasemmt&Road Bore w/Cam Spectra 485.00 65475.00 630.00 85050.00 620.00 83700.00 20 1 EA Remove existing Manhole at STA I+00 & Plan 6-0' Manhole in accordance with Tech Spm. WW I, including replacing the fust Joint of Wastewatn Line from tach Manhole Pmemadm & applicable byruss, mountduring consmctiom 12,500.00 12,500.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 21 7 EA Finnish & hntaB New 4'-0" Bolted Manhole in Accordance watch SW WW 1 5,250.00 36 750.00 6,500.00 45 00.00 4,200.00 29,400.00 22 2 EA Furvisb&harm New 4•-0'BomW Vrnud MWok in aunNan ea Tech SW Wali 6750.00 13500.00 SOOO.W 10000.00 5 .W 11,000.00 23 100% LS Furnish & iomall Mabuid% Equipecom. Tools & Labor Necessary for Vammn Tcmiq New Manholes 3,OOO.W 3,000.00 10,500.00 IO,SW.00 900.00 900. W 24 10096 LS Connecting Proposed 18" Wastawater Lime m Existing Manhula at STA 31+10, including ewe drilling existing manhole & bantling flexible bout in accordance with cnh5 WW1 3,000.00 3,000.00 2.500.00 2.500.00 4,200.00 4,200.00 25 100% IS Plugging Existing t0' Wastewalariine exiting Exis®g Manhole at STA 31+10, after wommed bur tar line b mend & operstasual 1.500.00 11500.00 1,500.00 1,50.00 600.00 600.00 26 100% IS Abandon Existing Manhole adjacent m STA 0+60 in place, in accordance with Tech 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,300.00 2,500.00 I,000.W I,OW.00 27 100% LS Abadon Eddn Lift Station toin accordance with Sheet WW07 25,000.00 25000.00 17000.00 17000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 28 IS VF Idmbole lmcior whh Raven, 6c 300.00 4500.00 90.00 1,350.00 360.00 5400.00 29 12,000 SY Placing Lemming & Sending includm samg tesuatain moad, 3.00 76000.00 LIO 13 00.00 3.00 76000.00 JO gal LF Placing Com est Eouseutmt in aesordaaes with the Standard Demb 20.00 16000.00 56.00 44.900.001 47200.00 31 100 CY Mise Ustwous Class "A" Ceonereve 85.00 8,500.00 94.00 9400.00 410.00 41 000.00 32 150 BY &lnch Thick Cmaeoe RiprV 80.00 12000.00 51.00 7650.00 80.00 12,000.00 33 70 LF halt Replacement dw trench width in accordance with the Sutrdard Demo 90.00 2 700.0 42.0 1 60.00 28.00 840.00 34 1,500 LF lain Maintain & Remove Silt Pence 2.00 3,000-00 2.25 3.375.00 2.40 3,600.00 35 1 700 LF Ftmis msuil Maintain& Remove Rode Berm 1 25.00 17500.00 22.50 15750.00 30.00 2100. TOTAL BASE BID Gums I - 35) 1 711.10 BH -JLATION 1o4.142L0 CITY OF GEORGETOWN/ TEXAS Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor April ll, 2006 2:00 PM 300 Industrial Avenue, GenrSeto n, TX 78626 P.O. Box 10759 1 1601 Oxford BNd I P.O. Box 1623 I A-1 1 2,545 1 LF 17'- T -_ _. _ - -- '- ---� _ � —'- _' �"-' -- ' -� IS 17.00 1 S 43.265.0015 58.00 Is 147,610.00 IS 5.00 Is 20.360.004 Submimed