HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 06.24.2003Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 at 06:00:00 PM at the San Gabriel
Break Room of the Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the Mayor,
Councilmembers, and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Saturday preceding the council
meeting. The library's copy is available for public review.
Please Note: This City Council Meeting will be video taped live and made available for broadcast
by the local cable company.
Regular Session to convene and continue Executive Session, if necessary
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows
A Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
- Pending Litigation
- Thomas L. Suarez, Jr. vs. city of Georgetown, Texas, City of Georgetown Police Department, Georgetown Police Sgt.
Kelly Devoll, Georgetown Police Officer Jack Lacey, Matt Painter, Brian Grubbs, Cause No. 03-113-C368 in the 368th
Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas
- Matthew Painter and Brian Grubbs, Plaintiffs v. David Morgan, Individually and in his Oficial Capacity as Chief of
Police of the Georgetown Police Department; Robert Hernandez, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Captain of
the Georgetown Police Department Gary Todd Terbush, Individually and in his Oficial Capacity as Lieutenant of the
Georgetown Police Department, Georgetown Police Department; and the City of Georgetown, Defendants, Cause No.
A03-CA-014JN, In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
- In the Matter of the Complaint of Oncor Electric Delivery Company Against Certain Cooperatives and Municipal Utilities
and Petition for Enforcement of Financing Order, Docket No._, before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (2003)
- Potential Litigation/Settlement Offers
- Don L. Dison Complaint to FAA
- Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters
- Legal issues related to the proposed SIMON Development Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding for Wolf
Ranch Project
B Sec.551.086 competitive matters
- City Council will go into Executive Session under Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code to discuss
matters or take action on a "competitive matter' of the Energy Services Department as provided for under
Section 551.086
-Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to the City's Wholesale Power Agreement with the Lower
Colorado Authority (LCRA) — Michael W. Mayben, Energy Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
for Utility Operations
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 P.M.
(The City Council for the City of Georgetown reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at any time during
the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed below, as authorized by Texas Government Code
Sections 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney), 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property), 551.073 (Deliberations
about Gifts and Donations), 551.074 (Personnel Matters), 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices) and
551.086 (Economic Development).
C Cali to Order
City Council Agenda/June 24, 2003
Page 1 of 4 Pages
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
City Council Agenda/June 24, 2003
Page 5 of 4 Pages
Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 Item No:
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action from Executive Session of June 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the
Complaint of Oncor Electric Delivery Company Against Certain Cooperatives and Municipal Utilities and
Petition for Enforcement of Financing Order, Docket No. 27891, before the Public Utility Commission of Texas
(2003)
ITEM SUMMARY
Council to possibly take action on the Oncor petition for
enforcement of financing order concerning billing of transition
charges to Municipally Owned Utilities (MOU's) within the Dually
Certificated area with Oncor Electric Company. A response from
Georgetown has been prepared for your consideration and approval.
This response is attached and your authorization for Trish to
execute will post our response to the Public Utility Commission
(PUC) before the deadline of Jure 25, 2003.
SPECIAL
NONE
CONFIDENTIAL
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
NONE
Submitted By: Trish Carls Jim B ig��t�P
City Attorney an Manager for
Uti perations
Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 Item No.:
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the Resolution
regarding TXU Gas Company Statewide 2003 Rate Case, Railroad
Commission of Texas.
ITEM SUMMARY
Council to possibly approve the Resolution related to the TXU
Gas Company 2003 Rate Case; "electing to have the Railroad
Commission of Texas exercise original jurisdiction over Gas Utility
rates, operations, and services within the Incorporated limits" of
Georgetown. This will be a contested hearing by those cities
seeking relief from rate increases, but the system rate calculation
results in a rate reduction .for most Georgetown residential and
commercial accounts. Any benefits from this proceeding will
benefit our customers without the legal expense of contesting this
filing with the Public Utility Commission (PUC).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANNoT• ONIMPACT: OONFI®ENTIAL
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolutions
tted By: Trish Carrs Jss $ri�
City Attorney ssi to t ty Manager for
Utilit Operations
Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to
the City's Wholesale Power Agreement with the Lower Colorado River
Authority (LCRA).
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City has an exclusive contract with the LCRA, dating back
to 1974, to buy wholesale power from the LCRA. Each year, this
contract requires us to update data on our electrical consumption
and projected load. The LCRA uses this information for their Five
Year Plan.
These figures are bated upon our levels of prior use of
electricity and anticipated future consumption. We anticipate
aggressive growth in electric consumption this year, due to the
rapid rate of development in the service area. Therefore, staff
recommends amending the contract to compensate for that growth.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No direct impact
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS
NONE
By, Jim Briggs'/ (/ v -
Assistant City Manager,
Utility Operations
07nNFIDENIITIAL
Energy Services
Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 Item No. /—
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract between the
City of Georgetown and Georgetown Country Club for the long-term supply of
reclaimed water for golf course irrigation.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Irrigation Utility plan and the current TCEQ permit includes the
provision to supply reclaimed water to the Georgetown Country Club. The
TCEQ requires the producer of reclaimed water to have a specific contract
with each reclaimed water user to ensure that the requirements for use are
understood. Special provisions have been included in this contract because
reclaimed water is being provided as a supplement to the normal water
source fol Georgetown Country Club (GTCC), the Middle Gabriel River. This
contract satisfies the TCEQ requirement and also provides for the necessary
revenue to justify the expansion of the system beyond The Rivery Pond.
Under this contract, the GTCC will pay the system rate for reclaimed
water, subject to a minimum charge of $1,750 per month over a term of
twenty (20) years. Once approved, GUS will begin the process of
engineering and constructing the reclaimed water line to GTCC, with such
engineering and construction subject to additional Council review and
approval.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Revenue to the Irrigation Fund of $21,000 per year (minimum).
STAFF RECO&IM Dom" ION e
Staff recommends tue approval_ of a contract between the City of
Georgetown and Georgetown Country Club for reclaimed water.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
None - Cost is below the threshold for GUS review.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Reclaimed
By:
ract between Georget o GTC„/ /
stAn,V pity Manager
i
Glenn W: Dishong,
Water Services Ma
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
AGREEMENT FOR
THE DELIVERY AND USE
OF RECLAIMED WATER
day of
between Georgetown Country Club ("USER") and the City of Georgetown ("City").
WITNESSETH:
2003
WHEREAS, the City owns, maintains and operates an Irrigation Utility that provides
wastewater effluent to serve the City of Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, such treated effluent (hereafter referred to as "Reclaimed Water"), is a valuable
water resource that can be safely used for irrigation and other non -potable purposes; and
WHEREAS, USER is the owner of certain land used as a golf course (the "Property'),
which is described more fully by metes and bounds on the attached Exhibit "A.' and shown on the
map attached hereto as Exhibit "B:'
WHEREAS, the City can make Reclaimed Water available to USER by extending the
Reclaimed Water piping from San Gabriel Park to the Point of Delivery (as defined herein) on the
Property, and
WHEREAS, USER can benefit from the use of Reclaimed Water as a source of non -potable
water for non -potable uses and will be the p arty r esponsible t o p erform t he c ovenants o f t his
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, USER desires to use Reclaimed Water from the City pursuant to the terns and
conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained
herein, the City and USER do hereby agree as follows:
1. Conditions Precedent to Supply of Reuse Water to the Property
The City shall construct and install Reclaimed Water transmission piping pursuant to the terms
and conditions of this Agreement if:
(a) USER conveys, at no cost to the City, an easement to the City for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the Reclaimed Water transmission piping and associated appurtenances
from the Property boundary to the Point of Delivery on the Property.
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 1 of 12
(b) USER provides the City with a proof of ownership and encumbrances regarding the Property.
The consent of all mortgagees and any other owners of record shall be required prior to the
delivery and use of Reclaimed Water on the Property.
(c) If the preceding two conditions are met, the City shall construct and install Reclaimed Water
transmission piping sufficient to deliver Reclaimed Water pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement to the Point of Delivery generally located at the hole #11 tee,
and shown in the approximate location on Exhibit "C. " which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
2. TERM
(a) Unless terminated for cause pursuant to the terms and conditions of Paragraph 12, below, this
Agreement shall be effective for a term of Twenty (20) years from the date that Reclaimed
Water is fust delivered to the Property by the City in accordance with this Agreement ("Date
of Commencement").
(b) The USER agrees to receive Reclaimed Water within sixty (60) days of receipt of written
notice from the City to be given on the estimated completion date of the new water
reclamation transmission / distribution facilities.
(c) It is anticipated, but not warranted, that the Date of Commencement will be March 30, 2004;
however, USER understands and agrees that the Date of Commencement is subject to
availability o f R eclaimed W ater from t he C ity's wastewater treatment plant(s) and the
completion of transmission/distribution piping. City expressly disclaims any promise or
warranty that the Reclaimed Water will be available on March 30, 2004, and if it is not, then
the Dete of Commencement shall be the actual date that Reclaimed Water is first delivered_
by the City to the Point of Delivery.
3. USE OF RECLAIMED WATER
(a) USER shall use the Reclaimed Water solely for irrigation of the golf course on the Property
or, at USER's sole cost and expense, and only after demonstrating compliance with 30 Tex.
Admin. Code Ch. 210 ("Reclaimed Water") to the City and to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality ("TCEQ"), for such other golf course maintenance and operation
related purposes that are authorized by and compliant with requirements and conditions of
said rules, and for no other purposes. The USER shall use Reclaimed Water in a manner that
is consistent with all local, state, and federal regulations, and in such a manner as not to
require a state or federal wastewater discharge permit.
(b) The USER may identify any other proposed uses of Reclaimed Water and request the City's
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 2 of 12
approval for such use. The City shall review these proposed uses and approve or disapprove
each new use of Reclaimed Water.
4. WATER QUALITY
(a) Reclaimed water delivered under this Agreement shall be t reated b y t he C ity t o 1 evels
acceptable to meet applicable federal, state, and local requirements for irrigation of lands
with public access. The City shall monitor water quality as required by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Reclaimed Water Use Authorization. The
City and USER shall comply with all TCEQ regulations relating to the use of Reclaimed
Water. In the event of unplanned water quality deterioration the City will inform the USER
as soon as practicable and delivery of Reclaimed Water shall be discontinued until quality
is restored to acceptable levels.
(b) The USER will take all reasonable precautions, including signs and labeling, to clearly
identify Reclaimed Water systems to prevent inadvertent human consumption. The USER
shall insure that no inter -connections are made between the Reclaimed Water systems and
other water systems. This shall not prohibit the storage of potable water, storrtlwater, surface
water, well water and Reclaimed Water in a common storage facility if a backflow
prevention system is provided.
(c) The USER shall give his approval to the City to conduct soil borings and locate monitoring
wells at the perimeter of the property in areas agreeable to the USER so as not to interfere
with USER's operations. These monitoring wells shall be installed and sampled at periodic
intervals by the City if required as part of the permit for the Reclaimed Water system.
5. QUANTITY OF RECLAIMED WATER TO BE DELIVERED s.,,...
(a) Subject to availability at the City's wastewater treatment plant, and to the terms of this
Agreement, the City shall deliver a minimum daily flow of 100,000 gallons and a maximum
daily flow of 400,000 gallons of Reclaimed Water to the Point of Delivery.
(b) The USER may, at its expense, use other sources of water during the entire term of this
agreement, without regard to the availability or non-availability of Reclaimed Water;
however, USER shall remain obligated to pay the minimum monthly charge set forth in
Paragraph 7(a)(2) below.
6. POINT OF DELIVERY
(a) The Point of Delivery of Reclaimed Water from the City to the USER shall be as designated
on Exhibit "C,' which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as if set forth
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 3 of 12
in full.
(b) The USER shall install an appropriate meter at USERs expense to measure the volume of
Reclaimed Water delivered at the Point of delivery. The City shall operate, and maintain the
meter at the Point of Delivery.
(c) The City shall own, operate, and maintain the Reclaimed Water distribution system upstream
of the Point of Delivery. The City shall be solely responsible for the operation, maintenance,
and repair of all portions of the City's Reclaimed Water distribution system upstream of the
Point of Delivery.
(d) The USER shall own, operate, and maintain all works downstream of the Point of Delivery.
The USER shall be solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of all portions of
the U SER's Reclaimed Water distribution system located within the boundaries of the
Property. The City shall identify and the USER shall implement at their expense any
improvements/upgrades or modifications of the USER's system as a condition of receiving
Reclaimed Water.
(e) The USER shall provide, if necessary, and in a manner approved by the appropriate
regulatory agencies or by the City, a positive check valve between the Reclaimed Water
irrigation system and any other irrigation water source(s). The cost of such check valve and
its installation shall be home by the USER, and the complete operation of the check valve
shall be the responsibility of the USER. The USER agrees to identify to the City all well(s)
or surface water bodies connected to the non -potable water system.
7. RATES, FEES AND CHARGES.
(a) In consideration for the right to take delivery of -tip to 4(x),000 gallons per day of Reclaimed
Water, USER shall pay the City the greater of the two following rates: (1) the current non -
potable water system rate established by ordinance for all users of non -potable irrigation
water for the monthly metered usage at the Point of Delivery, or (2) a Minimum Charge of
$1,750 per month.
(b) The City reserves the right to review and revise non -potable irrigation water rates without
the consent of USER.
8. DELIVERY OF RECLAIMED WATER UNDER ADVERSE CONDITIONS
(a) Rainfall during the growing season or other unforeseen circumstances may affect USER's
demand for Reclaimed Water. The USER shall have the right to reduce the quantity of
Reclaimed Water used to match water needs or accommodate unforeseen circumstances.
However, such reduction shall not affect USER's obligation to pay the minimum monthly
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 4 of 12
charge set forth in Paragraph 7(a)(2), above.
(b) Both parties also recognize that adverse weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances may
result in a demand for Reclaimed Water greater than 400,000 gallons per day. The USER
shall have the right to request additional Reclaimed Water to be delivered by the City to the
Property, subject to availability of Reclaimed Water supplies and at the rate per gallon
established by City ordinance.
9. INABILITY TO DELIVER
(a) The City shall use its best efforts to deliver from 100,000 to 400,000 gallons per day of
Reclaimed Water to USER.
(b) If and when situations occur where the City cannot deliver 100,000 gallons of Reclaimed
Water on a specific day, the City shall notify the USER by telephone, e-mail, or fax, and, if
initial notification is by telephone, shall follow-up with written confirmation as soon as
possible thereafter.
(c) When the City is unable to deliver a minimum of 100,000 gallons to the USER on a specific
day, the City shall reduce the current Minimum Charge to the User by $55 per day for each
day that 100,000 gallons of Reclaimed Water is unavailable.
10. ALTERNATE SOURCES OF WATER
If the USER's water use exceeds 400,000 gallons per day, the USER shall use its best efforts
to develop and/or maintain alternate water production facilities capable of supplying its
additional non -potable needs. Further, the USER shall use its best efforts to obtain and/or
maintain any water use permit required.to withdraw groundwater or surface water capable
of supplying its additional non -potable needs.
11. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
(a) Express Warranties. The City disclaims all express warranties except those that appear in
paragraph 4 of this agreement. The City does not represent nor warrant that the Reclaimed
Water delivered to the USER shall increase the productivity of the irrigated property or result
in any changes to the land, crops, or vegetation. Further, the use of any plans, specifications,
water quality analysis or treated wastewater sampling during the negotiations leading to this
contract serve to merely indicate the general quality of Reclaimed Water which will be
delivered to the USER. Such plans, specifications, water quality analysis or treated
wastewater samples create no warranty that the Reclaimed Water delivered by the City will
conform to these items.
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 5 of 12
(b) Implied Warranties. The City disclaims any implied Warranties of merchantability or fitness
of the Reclaimed Water delivered under this contract for any purposes.
12. EARLY TERMINATION FOR CAUSE; ASSIGNMENT BY THE CITY
(a) Termination for Cause. The City and / or USER, after 180 days advance written notice to
the other party, shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if the City has had
insufficient supply of Reclaimed Water such that it has been impossible to provide to USER
at the Point of Delivery with at least 2,000,000 gallons per month of Reclaimed Water over
a consecutive six-month period. Termination for such non -supply for the six-month period
will result in the release of the City and USER from all terms, conditions, and obligations
under this Agreement. This provision shall not apply if USER's demand for Reclaimed
Water is less than 2,000,000 in any one month.
(b) Assignment by the City. The City shall have the right to transfer all or any part of the
treatment or distribution facilities to another public utility and to assign all or any part of its
rights and obligations under this Agreement to another public utility who shall be bound by
be exclusively responsible for all applicable terms and conditions of this Agreement.
13. EXCUSE FROM PERFORMANCE BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTS
If for any reason during the term of this Agreement, local, state or federal governments or
agencies shall fail to issue necessary permits, grant necessary approvals, or shall require any
change in the operation of the treatment, transmission and distribution systems or the
application and use of Reclaimed Water, then to the extent that such requirements shall affect
the ability of any party to perform any of the terms of this Agreement, the affected party shall
be excused from the performance thereof and a new Agreement shall be negotiated by the
rartles hereto to conformity with such permits, approvals, or requirements.
14. TRANSFER OR SALE OF PROPERTY
The USER's right to sell, transfer or convey the Property to a person or entity that uses the
Reclaimed Water for the purpose described in Paragraph 3(a) of this Agreement shall not be
restricted by this Agreement, except that written notice of any proposed sale or transfer must
be given to the City at least thirty (30) days prior to the sale or transfer, and any such
subsequent party in interest shall assume USER's obligations under this Agreement. If user
sells, transfers, or otherwise conveys the Property to a person or entity that does not use the
Reclaimed Water for the purpose described in paragraph 3(a), then such sale, transfer, or
conveyance of the Property does not terminate USER's obligations to pay the minimum
monthly charge set forth in Paragraph 7(a)(2), above.
15. INDEMNIFICATION
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 6 of 12
(a) The USER shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, including its officers, directors,
employees and agents, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, costs, expenses,
damages or liabilities arising out of any injury, illness or disease to persons or property
caused, in whole or in part (but if in part, to the extent caused in part), by the Reclaimed
Water famished by the City to the USER hereunder.
(b) The USER shall save and hold harmless and indemnify the City, its agents, representatives
and employees from all claims, costs, penalties, damages and expenses (including attorney's
fees) arising out of claims related to the USER's construction, erection, location, operation,
maintenance, repair, installation, replacement or removal of that part of the system controlled
by the USER for effluent disposal and reuse.
16. ACCESS
The City shall have the right, with prior notice and permission of USER, with such
permission not being unreasonably withheld, to enter upon the property of the USER to
review and inspect the facilities and operations of the USER with respect to conditions
agreed to herein.
17. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the formal parties hereto and no right or cause of
action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a
formal party hereto.
18. SEVERABILITY
If any court fords any part of this Agreement invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or
unenforceability shall not affect the other parts of this Agreement if the rights and obligations
of the parties contained therein are not materially prejudiced and if the intentions of the
parties can continue to be effective. To that end, this Agreement is declared to be severable.
19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS
Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 14, above, this Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the successors or assigns of the parties hereto.
20. APPLICABLE LAW
This Agreement and the provisions contained herein shall be construed, controlled, and
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 7 of 12
interpreted according to the laws of the State of Texas. Venue lies in Williamson County,
Texas.
21. NOTICES
All notices required or authorized under this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall
be served by mail on the parties at the addresses listed below:
City: City Manager
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
USER: Georgetown Country Club
1500 Country Club Road
P.O. Box 450
Georgetown, Texas 78627
22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This written Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. Modifications
to and waivers of the provisions herein shall not be binding unless made in writing and
signed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date first
above written.
USER:
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 8 of 12
Georgetown Country Club, Inc.
By:
Name:
Title:
CITY:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Bv:
Gary Nelon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
Approved as to form:
Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP
City Attorney
Reclaimed Water Agreement
Georgetown County Club Golf Course
Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT "A"
Metes and Bounds Description of the Property
EXHIBIT "B"
Location Map of Property
EXHIBIT "C"
Point of Delivery Location Description and Map
Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. O
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Memorandum of
Understanding by and between the City of Georgetown, the City of
Round Rock, and Simon Property Group regarding off-site roadway
improvements to SH29 and IH35 southbound frontage road
ITEM SUMMARY
Simon Property Group has asked the City of Georgetown and the
City of Round Rock to each sign a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), outlining the general scope of work and activities
associated with transportation improvements and utility
improvements along the State Highway 29 and IH -35 corridor. Staff
has reviewed the documents and edited the documents several times
to accurately reflect the schedule and timing of these improvements
and identify the responsibilities of each party. The MOU that
Council will have reviewed for consideration under this item
generally reflects the intent of each party and the scope of work
necessary in order to meet the time line included in the MOU.
A draft MOU and work product that has been discussed between
Simon Property Group and the City of Georgetown will be shared and
discussed during Executive Session prior to consideration under
this item.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
NONE
Jim Bri
Assistanty Manager
For Utili y perations
City Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible award of the contract to Lewis
Construction, Inc. for the replacement of the wastewater main on
Lakeway from Dawn Drive to Northwest Boulevard Lakeway Drive.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This project will replace the existing 8 -inch clay wastewater
main with a new 12 -inch main. The project located on the Lakeway right-
of-way from Dawn Drive to beyond Whisper Oaks Lane and then
northeasterly across a drainage area to tie into the Pecan Branch
Interceptor line. The existing 8 -inch line is undersized and in poor
structural condition.
The low bidder on the project was Lewis Construction, Inc.with a
bid of $352,560.00. Staff recommends that council approve a budget
amount of $390,000.00 for this project.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$390,000.00 - Funded from wastewater account # 651-101-6623
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommended staff present to council for approval of
award of this project in the June 17,2003 meeting. Approved 4-0
(Hunnicutt, Smith and Evans absent).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the award of this project to Lewis Construction,
Inc. with a budget of $390,000.00, which exceeds the bid amount by 10%
for contingencies.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Roming, Parker and Kasberg letter of recommendation toward and
bid tabulation.
:ted by:
Jim Briggs, Glenn Dishong,
Assistant City Manager for Water Services Manager
Utilities
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Temple. Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773-6667 mail®rpkengineers.com
WM. MACK PARKER. P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG, P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK. P.E.
June 9, 2003
Mr. Joel Weaver
CIP Coordinator
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: City of Georgetown
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Weaver:
W. CLAY ROMING, P.E.
Partner Emeritus
Attached are the Bid Tabulation Sheets for the bids received at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2003
for the above referenced project.
There were eight bids received for this project as shown on the attached tabulation sheets After
tabulation of the bids, we have concluded that Lewis Construction, Inc. is the low bidder with a
base bid of $231,850.00, and Add Alternate 1 Bid of $92,750.00 and an Add Alternate 2 Bid of
$27,960.00.
We have reviewed the submitted bids, contacted six references and as a result of our findings, we
recommend that a contract be awarded to Lewis Construction, Inc. for the Base Bid, Add Alternate
1 and Add Alternate 2 in the amount of $352,560.00. If you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/rdp
2003-105-40
BID TABULATION
2003 105-40
BASE BID
r.dty or t:eorgetown
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
June 3, 2003 2:00 pm
Lewks Construction, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1621
Bertram, TX 78605
BIDDER INFORMA77ON
Royal Vista, Inc. H. Dock Coustruclion Co.
750 C.R. 260 1601 oxford Blvd
Liberty HBI, TX 78642 Round Rack, TX 78664
Rogers Construction Company, Inc.
P. 0. Drawer 1136
Georgetown, TX 78627-1136
item
.Vo.
Esonuned
C'n"
U
Bid Dan,
Dexrrfptlon
unit
Price
Extended
Anunnu
Unit
Price
Exended
Amoum
Unit
Price
Extended
Amount
Unit
Price
Extended
Antonm
I
I(X)%,
LS
Mubilimiun, Bonds and lmmarcc
$ 10,000.00 $
10.0)(1) 110 $
8,080.00 $
8,000.00 $
21,000.00 5
21,000.00
$ 91000.00 f
9,000.00
2
19
SPA
Preparation of Right -of -Way
185.00
3,515.00
400.00
7,600.00
100.00
1.900.00
1,350.00
25,650.00
3
100%.
IS
Control Plan for Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic
4,00.00
4,010.(X)
4,500.00
4,510.00
2,000.00
2,000,00
1900 00
00
L900.010
4
100%
LS
Barricades and Traffic Control Plan lmphatu a alion
9,200.00
9,200.00
14,000.00
14,080.00
7.00000
3,000.00
5,5000()
5,500.00
5
IW'b
LS
Trerch Safety Plan
470.00
470.W
1,000.00
I,00.00
1,000.00
1.000.00
1,500.00
1.500.00
6
1,900
LF
Furnish & Insult 12' SDR 26 PVC Pipe w/EmM.dment
63.00
119,700.00
47.00
89,300.00
75.00
142,500.00
%ool
182,400.00
7
4
EA
Furnish & Install 4 -foot Distorter Manholes
4,400.00
17,601001
3,400.00
13,600.00
4,500.00
18,000.00
3,500.001
14,000.00
8
2
EA
Furnish & Insull 4 -fan Mature, Water Tight Manholes
4,700.00
9,400001
4,000.00
8.000.00
4,700.00
9,400.00
3,600oDI
7,2W.00
')
I
FA
Rehab. Existing Wastewater Manholes, w/growing &coating interior
2,000.00
200100
2,000.00
2,00800
2,000.00
2 00000
2,200ADI
2,200.00
IU
1 1.900
1.12
All materials, equip., tuols & labor for all Testing of pipe w/repairs
2.50
4,750.00
4.00
7,600.00
1.40
2,660.002.00
3,800.00
11
6
EA
All materials, equip., tools & labor for Vacuum testing manholes
180.00
1.080.00
20.00
1,200.00
200.00
1,200.00
lIX).00
1,800.00
12
100%
LS
Connecting Wastewater Improvements to Existing System
2,50.00
2,500.00
8,000.00
8,081.00
3,500.00
3,500.00
L800.00
1,800.00
Il
100%
IS
Sealing Existing Wastewater Line at Existing Manholes
1.000.00
1'01X) 00
4,000.00
4,000.00
1.000.00
1,000.00
2.200.001
2.200.00
14
1
EA
Connoting Existing Single Wastewater Services to Wasrewater Imps
900.00
1.8080 W
1,200.00
2,400.00
1,100.00
2.200.00
700,001
1,400.00
15
8
EA
Connecting Existing Double Wastewater Services to Wastewater Imps
900.00
7,200.00
1,500.80
12 08000
160000
12,8W.00
700,001
5,600.00
16
5
EA
AMndoning Existing Manholes per Specification
350.00
1,75000
600.00
3.000,00
750.00
3,750.00
60000
3 00000
17
1,081
LF
Trerch Safety lmpleatentation (Pipe)
1.251
2,375.00
4.00
7,600.00
2.00
3,800.00
2.40
4,560.00
18
2.700
SF
Trench Safety implementation (Manholes)
0.60
1.620.00
LW
2,700.00
1.00
2,700.00
1.00
2,700.00
19
530
SY
240th Type 'D' HMAC &Flexbase to trench
10.00
5,300.00
61.00
72,730.00
18.00
9,510.00
15.00
7,950.00
21)
100%
LS
lRepainling Crosswalk Striping, Two Stop Bars & School Zone Striping
1,500.00
1.500.00
31000.00
3,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
11800.00
1,800.00
21
200
LF
Iftcasoving and Replacing Curb and Gutter
12.00
2,400.0
20.00
4,000.00
30.00
6,000.00
22.00
4,400.00
22 1
55 1
LF
lFurnish. 1mu11, and remove Rock Berms
18.00
990.00
20.00
1.100.00
30.00
1,650.00
20.00
1,100.00
23
200
SY
Furnish & Install St. Augustine or Bermuda grass sodding w/watering
2.50
500.00
10.00
2,gM1. W
15.00
7.000.00
4.00
800.00
24
I0.0%
IS
Vitleo Taping Project Si¢ Before the Start of Construction of Project
1,200.00
1.200.001
750.00
750.00
350.00
350.00
40.00
400.00
25
IW%
IS
Items Requested by Ure Owner not shown on the Comouction Plans
20.(100.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
20,20.00
20,0X).00
20,000.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
TOTAL
RASE BID AMOUNT (ITEMSI-25)
S
231,850.00
$
259.680.00
$
276,450.00
$
312,660.00
• IMioses error in addition (Tool mwum is corrwmd vnaunU
•• lnticxtes a dimteparxy bctwsan rwntcrical ensoum uW vx,e Wed amount (Twat amount is cortecwd annunq
1 o(6
B. WLATION 2003.105-40
RASE BID
"Ly m UtUrg•es0wn
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
June 3, 2003 2:00 pm
Clasen Contracting
P. O. Box 1057
Round Rock, TX 78680
BIDDER INFORMATION
Housman Corporation Tei Dal Austin
P. O. Box 200190 1302 Chisholm Trail
San Antonio, TX 78220 Round Rack, TX 78681
A & B Construction, toe.
831 Prairle Trail
Austin, TX 78758
/tem
A.
Esomntnl
Quantiq'
Unit
Bid Don
Drrcription
Unit
Price
Eue dnr
Amount
Unil
Price
EUended
Amuura
Unit
Price
Funded
Amouru
[/nit
Price
Extended
Amotun
1
100% 1
IS
Mobilization, Bonds and Insurance
$ 14,000.00 S
14,01)) 00
$ 17,821./5 $
17,828.45 S
19,000.00 $
19,000.00 S
13,500.00 $
13.500.00
2
]
19
100%
S1'A
LS
Preparmion of Righlof-WaY
Consul Plan for Vehicular and pedestrian Traffic
475.00
4,500.00
9,025.00
4.500.00
398.11
549.45
7,564.09
1,550.00
3,000.00
29,450.00
3,000.00
100.00
800.00
1,900.00
8(X1.00
4
100%
IS
Barricades awl Traffic Control Plan Implementation
8,100.00
8.100.00
5,604.42
60,240.00
60,210.00
18,005.00
18,005.00
5
100%
LS
Trench Safety Plan
1,200.00
1,20(100
549.45
1,800.00
1,800.00
800.00
800.00
4
1,900
LF
Furnish & Insult IT SDR 26 PVC Pipe w/Embndnnent
62.00
117.800 00
129.95
U21.033.485t�.001
83.50
158,650.00
201.39 ••
382,641.00
7
4
EA
Furnish & Install 4 -foot Diameter Manholes
4,100.00
16,400.00
5,258.37
5,600.00
22,400.00
2,80000
11,200.00
EA
Furnish & Install 4 -foot Diameter Water Tight Manholes
4,000.00
8,000.00
5,178.39
3,830.00
7,7(X1.00
2,9(0.00
5 80000
GA
Rehab. Existing Wastewater MaMoles, w/grouting & coating interior
1,500.00
1.500.00
703.30
1,700.00
1,700.00
1,500.00
1.500.00
10
IJ00
LP
All nutcrials, equip.. tools & labor for all Testing of pipe w/repairs
1.60
3,WAX
1.54
3.20
6,080.00
1.75
3,325.00
11
4
LA
All nuteriuls, equip., tools &labor fur Vxuum testing nuMoles120.00
720.00
109.89
659.34
300.00
3,000.00
200.00
1.200.00
12
100%
1.5
Comecung Wastewater Improvements to Existing System
4,00000
4,000.00
10.802.67
10,802.67
8,500.00
8.500.00
1,000.00
1.000.00
13
100%
LS
Sealing Existing Wastewater Lire an Existing Manholes
1,400.00
1,700.00
---
6.85779
6.653.79
10,200.00
10,200.00
1,000.00
1.000.00
14
1
EA
Connecting Existing Single Wastewater Services to Wastewater Imps
630.00
1,2611.00
1,154.05
2,308.10
1,577.00
3,154.00
6101
1.200.00
IS
B
EA
Connecting Existing Double Wastewater Services m W[trips ps
750.00
6,000.00
1,85248
14,859.84
1,982.00
15,856.00
600.00
4,800.00
16
17
IB
19
20
21
5
1!90
2,700
530
Ifo%
200
EA
LF
SF
SY
LS
IF
Abandoning Existing Manholes per Specification
Trench Sefny Implementation (Pipe)
Trench Safety Implarcnution (Manholes)
2 -inch Type'D' HMAC & Flexbase in ucxh
Repainting Crosswalk Suiping, Two Stop Bars & School Zone Sniping1,800.00
Rennoving and Replacing Curb and Gutter
1,400.00
1.20
0.30
100.00
18.00
7,(X0.001.642.57
2,280.00
810.00
53,1100.00
I,81)0.00
3,600.00
1.10
0.55
24.13
1,373,631
19.78
9,212.85
2.090 00
1,485.00
12,788.90
1,373.63
3,956.00
2,220.00
2.00
100
18.40
1,875.00
20.00
11,100.00
3,800.00
2,700.00
9,752.00
1,875.00
4,000.00
550.00
1 ODI
1.001
18.26
1,600.00
10.00
2.750.00
11900.00
2.700.00
9,677.80
1,600.00
2,000.00
22
55
LF
Furnish, Install, awl remove Rock Berms
18.00
990.(0
27.47
1.510.851
11.00
Moo
8.00
440.00
23
200
SY
Furnish & 11,51,111 St. Augustine or Bermuda grass sndding w/watering
1200.
2.400.00
16.18
3,296.00
37.75
7,550.00
3.00
600.00
24 100% LS Vide, Taping Project Site Before the Start of Continuation of Project
23 100% LS Items Requested by dw Owner not shown on the Comtructi,o Plans
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT (ITEMS I - 25)
600.00
20,000.00
S
610,00
20,00.00
289,425. W
549.45
20,000.00
$
549.45
20,000.00
405,766.84
1.100.00
20,000.00
1 S
1,100.00
20,000.00
413,597.001
Moo
20,000.00
S
995,00
20,000.00
491,333.80
• Indicates error in Wdium (Tool a l is coo led anxaut)
•• IMicmes a dl�reparcy between tamerical an 1 and extended ansount (T,ul amount is c,rrmtcd annum 2.1`6
BI IULATION 2003-10540
Uty Of l;ecirgetown
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
.lune 3, 2003 2:00 pm
ADD ALTERNATE I -ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
•
Lewis Construction, Ins.
P. O. Bax 1623
Bertram, TX 78605
BIDDER INFORMATION
Royal Viso, Ins. H. Deck Construction Co.
350 C.R. 260 1601 Oxford Blvd
Liberty HW, TX 78642 Round Rock, TX 78664
Rogers Construction Company, lac.
P. O. Drawer 1136
Georgetown, TX 78627-1136
hrnt
No.
Evasured
Quantity
Unit
Did Dato
Da"p(fon
Unit
Price
Evnuled
Anmum
Unit
Price
Extended
Amount
Unit
Price
Extended
Amount
unit
Price
Extended
Amount
AA -1
10S
TA
Preparation of Right -of -Way
S 225.00 f
2,250.00 S
400.00 S
4,000.00 $
100.00 f
LOKOO
f 900.00 f
9.000,00
AA -2
BO
LF
Furnish & install 6-imh SDR 26 PVC pipe w/embedimm
31.00
2,481.00
40.00
3.200.001
50.00
4,000.00
52.00
4,160.00
AA -3
330
LF
Finnish & install 12 -inch SDR 26 PVC pipe w/embedment
43.00
14,190.0
47.00
15,510.001
75.00
24,750.00
58.00
19.140.00
AA -4
630
LF
Furnish & install 15-imh SDR 26 PVC pipe w/embedment
47.00
29.610.00
52.00
32.760a01
65.00
40,950.00
63.00
39.690.00
AA -5
2
EA
Furnish & install Chair diamoux warm tight manholes
4,700.00
9,400.00
4,000.00
8.000.001
4,700.00
9.400.00
3.600.00
7,200.00
AA -6
100
LF
Furnish& install 2,000 psi concrete backfill
20.00
2,000.W
40.00
4,000.00
65.00
6.500.00
28.0DI
2.800.00
AA -7
960
LF
Furnish & install all materials, equip., mods & labor for all pipe testing
2.50
2,400.00
4.00
3,840.00
1.40
1,344.00
2.001
1,920.W
AA -8
4
EA
Furnish & install immruls, epuip.,tmis & labor for maahole healing
180.00
720.00
200.00
800.00
2W.00
800.00
300.00
1,200.00
AA -9
900
LF
Trench safety impletmnulion (Pipe)
1.25
1,200 00
3.00
2,880.00
2.00
1,920.00
1.50
1,440.00
AA -IO
1,800
SF
Trench safety implementation (Manholes)
0.60
1.80.00
1.00
1.800.00
1.00
1,800.00
1.00
1,800.00
AA -II
25
SY
2 -inch Type 'D'HMAC&Flexbase in'1'remh
10.00
250.00
61.00
1,525.00
50.00
1,250.00
15.00
375.00
Conrccung wastewater improvements to existing system
2,500.00
2,5W.W
3,5W.00
3,5W.00
3,500.00
3,500.00
1,700.00
1,700.00
M40
RcmoNng existing 5 foil section of 12' inid pipe & plug openings w/gram
1,000.00
1,000.00
700.00
700.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
800.00
800.00
Placing loaming & seeding w/watering to snstain growth
1.50
9,000.00
2.00
13.000.00
1.25
7,500.00
1.20
7.200.00
Installing, maintaining & rnmviug rmk berm
18.00
720.00
20. W
800.00 1
30.00
1,200.00
20.00
800.00
AA -161
2 1
EA
Abandoning existing manholes per specifications
350.00
70.00
600,00
1,200.00
750.00
1,500.00
600.00d7.000.00
AA-17
100%
LS
Removing guardrail & replacing w/existing mmerials
2,200.00
_',200,00
1.500.00
1,500.00
750.00
750.00
1.400.00
AA -I8
100%
IS
Video aping project site before the start of construction on the project
1,000.00
1.1X0.00
450.00
450.00
350.00
350.00
200.00
AAA9
2
EA
Furnish & Instal14-foot Diameter Manholes
4,400.00
8,800.00
3,400.0()
6,80.00
4,500.00
91000.00
3.5W.00AA-20
I
EA
Furnish & Install 6-imh Smb Out & Plug at Manholes (3+127 & 7+77)
250.00
250.00
750.00
750.W
600.00
60.00
1,200.00AA-21
1
EA
Grouting existing ora tewater lice & removing existing clanout (7+77)
1,00.00
1.00(1.00
500.00
500.00
1,000.00
1.000.00
1,200.00TOTAL
ADD ALTERNATE I BID AMOUNT (ITEMSAA-1-AA-21)
S
92,750.00
f
106,515.00
s
120,114.00
lad ... s error in addition (Toed amotuu is corrected amount)
•• Itdieaws a discrepancy between twntencaJ annum W exwMN ammtnt (Toed amount is corrected amount) 3 01`6
BI IULATION 2003105-40
City of Georgetown
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
June 3, 2003 2:00 pm
ADD ALTERNATE I - ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Curie. Contracting
P. 0. Box 1057
Round Rock, TX 78M
BIDDER INFORMATION
Holloman Corporation Tri Dal Austin
P. O. Box 200190 1302 Chisholm Trau
San Antonio, TX 78220 Round Rock, TX 78681
A & B Construction, Inc.
831 Prairie Tn0
Amtin, TX 78758
Teem
.Yo.
Euimnted
Qurrntin
Una
Brd Duel
Dercrlption
Unit
Pnn
Emended
Amount
Unit
Price
Ecrended
Amnon
Unit
Price
Emended
Amotou
Unit
Pnce
Earnded
Amomn
AA -1
10
STA
Preparation of Right -of -Way S
600.00 Y
6,0011.00 S
309.97 $
3.099.70 $
652.00 S
6,520.00 $
450.00 $
4,500.00
AA -2
80
LF
Furnish & imtall birch SDR 26 PVC pipe w/embcvinsent
44.00
3,520.00
69.15
3,532.001
42.00
3,360.00
45.00
3.600.00
AA -3
330
LF
Furnish & install 12 -inch SDR 26 PVC pipe w/embedment
47.00
15.510.00
71.16
23,482.80
66.75
22,027.50
48.00
15,840.00
AA -4
600
LF
Furnish & install 15 -inch SDR 26 PVC pipe w/embelnses0
56.00
35,280.00
53.97
34,001.10
86.00
54,180.00
50.00
31,500.00
AA -5
2
EA
Furnish & install 4 -hot diameter water tight Manholes
4,000.00
8,000.00
4,128.44
8,256.88
4,100.00
8,200.00
2,800.00
5.600-00
AA -6
100
LF
Furnish & imall 2,000 psi concrete backfill
46.00
4,000.00
45.08
4,508.00
62.00
6,200.00
25.00
2,500.00
AA -7
960
LF
Furnish & imull all materials, equip„ mots & labor for all pipe testing
1.60
1,536.00
1.58
1.516.80
3.40
3,261.00
2.50
2,400.00
AA -8
4
EA
Furnish & imall materials, epuip.,mols & labor for manhole testing
120.00
480.00
112.63
450.52
500.00
2,000.00
200.00
800.00
AA -9
960
LF
Trench safety implementation (Pipe)
1.20
11152.00
1.13
1.084.80
2.00
1,920.00
1.00
960.00
AA -10
1.800
SF
Trench safety Implementation (Manholes)
0.30
54000
0.56
1.008.00
1.00
1,800.00
1.00
1.800.00
AA -11
25
SY
2 -inch Type 'D' IIMAC & Flexbase, in Trench
108.00
2.70000
89.31
2,232.751
28.80
720.00
18.36
459.00
AA -12
100%
LS
Connecting wastewater improvements to existing system
2,400.00
2,400.00
7,422.07
7.422.071
3,000.00
3,000.00
750110
750.00
AA -13
100%
LS
Reaoviag exiting 5 loot swion of 12'buct pipe&plus openings w/gran
600.00
600.00
1,204.79
1,204.79
1,350.00
1,350.00
505.00
505.00
AA -14
6,000
SY
placing loaning & seeding w/watering to sustain growth
240
14,400.00
0.39
2,340.00
3.20
19,200.00
0.87
5,220.00
AA -15
40
IF
Imalling. maintaining & rensumi; ruck beast
18.00
720.00
39.42
1.576.80
26.00
1,040.00
8.00
320.00
AA -16
2
EA
Abandoning existingmar&oles per spccificatimu
1,50000
3.000.00
2.193.39
4,386.78
2,220.00
4.440.00
550.00
1,100.00
AA -17
100%
LS
Renmving guardrail & replacing w/existing nuacrials
2,400.00
2.400.00
2,027.27
2.027.27
750.00
750.00
700.00
700.00
AA -18
100%
LS
Video taping project site before the sant of comtrssction on the project
240.00
240.00
563.13
563.13
500.00
500.00
650.00
650.00
AA -19
2
EA
Furnish &Irnu114-foot Dimncmr Manholes
3,700.00
7,400.00
4,119.86
8,239.72
4,550.00
9,100.00
2,800.00
5,600.00
AA -20
I
EA
Fumish & Install 6 -inch Stub Out & Plug at Manholes (3+127 & 7+77)
600.00
600.00
979.54
979.54
800.00
800.00
600.00
600.00
AA -21
1
EA
Grouting existing wastewater line & removing existing charmut (7+77)
600.00
600,00
1,437.86
1,437.86
500.00
500.00
755.00
755.00
TOTAL
ADD ALTERNATE I BID AMOUNT (ITEMSAA-1-AA-21)1
f
111,678,001
1 Y
115,751.3I
S
150,871.50
$
86,159.00
' Irallcmes error to addition (Total amount is mr..cd amoun0
•' halicans a discrepu cy between nmtwrical an 1 and eueoccd amount (Tend amount is corrected amount 4 of 6
Bl IULATION 2003.105-40
Utty or Georgetown
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
June 3, 2003 2:00 pm
ADD ALTERNATE 2 -ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Lewis Coaaructiou, luc.
P. O. Box 1623
Bertram, TX 78W15
BIDDER INFORMATION
Royal Vista, Inc. H. Deck Construction Co.
350 C.R. 260 1601 Darned Blvd
Liberty HW, TX 78642 Round Rock, TX 78664
Rogers Constructions Company, Inc.
P. O. Drawer 1136
Georgetown, TX 78627-1136
Isrm
No.
Emm�wv/
0,.o v
On,
Bid Om,
Dercnoti n
Unit Extended
Price Ammm
Unu Extended
Price Amomn
Unit Extended
Price Amended
Unit Extended
Price Animate
AR -1
6,500
STA
I%' wia, D HMAC uveday w/ad atrial M' V,,c O HMAC A naxbs,e infra r
$ 4.00 $ 26,000.0) $
4.40 $ 28,600.00 $
4.50 3 29,250.00
$ 6.60 3 42,900.00
AO -2
5
1.F
Adjust storm Sewer Manholes m Grade
250.00 1,2511.00
400.00 2,000.00
200.00 1,000.00
900.00 4,500.00
AB -3
20
LF
Repainting double 4-irch width solid yellow Pavement striping
2.50 SOAP
15.00 310.00
10.00 2M.001
5.00 100.00
A84
40
LF
Repainting single 4 -inch width dashed white pavement sniping
1.50 60.00
13.00 600.01
10.00 400.00
3.00 120.00
AB -5
100%
EA
Repainting whim crosswalk, stop bar & school zone boundary striping
600.00 600.00
1,250.00 1.250.00
1,500.00 1,500.00
700.00 700.00
TOTAL
ADD ALTERNATE I BID AMOUNT (ITEMS AB -I -AB-S)
I $ 27,960,001
1 3 32,750.00
1 S 32,350,001
1 S 48,320.00
Did Bidder Acknowledge Addenda No. I? YES YES YRS YES
DW Bidder Provide Security? YES
YES YES YES
BID SUMMARY
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT (ITEMS I - 25)
t 13
276,/50. 712,680.00
TOTAL ADD ALTERNATE I BIDAMOUNT (ITEMS AA -1 -AA -21)
$ 92,86 $
00
f02 00
6!i67
$120,114.00 S 111,425.00
TOTAL ADD ALTERNATE 1 BID AMOUNT (ITEMS ABd -AB-5)
S 27,960.00 S
32,750.00
S 72 350 00 S 49,320.00
S 352.56.00
$ 398,945.00
$ 425,914.00
• Irtlrtams error in addition (Tend vsrwms n cormaed annum)
•• Indicases a dns ,,.y 6rtwee , nomer.M amoom end extended amemn (Total amoum is correcied amaun) 5 of 6
BI BULATION
2003-105-40
City of Georgetown
Lakeway Drive Wastewater Improvements
June 3, 2003 2:00 pm
ADD ALTERNATE 2. ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Chown Contracting
P. O. Boz 1057
Round Rock, TX 786811
BIDDER INFORMATION
Unitarian Corporation TO Dal Amain
P. O. box 200190 1302 Chknbolm Tnd
San Antonio, TX 78220 Round Rock, TX 78681
A & B Construction, Inc.
831 Prairie Test]
Austin, TX 78758
Lem
No
Evount .I
Q onwv
Unit
Bid Darr.
Descripnian
Unit Extended
Price 4,wum
Unit Extended
Price Amoum
Unit Extended
Price Amount
Onix Extended
Price Amount
AB -1
6.500
STA
I N'sype D HMAC aveday wta lllul:n in-,Hx D I1MAC a fluid in twma
$ 14.40 S 914910.00 5
5.47 $ 35.555.00 $
5.85 S 38,025.00 S
4.40 $ 28,600.00
AB -2
5
LF
Adjust storm Sewer MaMoks to Grade
175.00 875.00
349.53 1,747.651
600.00 3,000.00
450.W 2,250.00
AB -3
20
LF
Repainting double 4-imb width solid yellow pavement sniping
2.31 46.00
2.26 45.20
4.00 80.00
2.20 44.00
AB4
40
LF
Repainting single 4 -inch width dashed white pavement striping
1.20 48.00
2.26 90.40
3.00 120.00
1.40 56.00
AB -5
100%
EA
Repainting white crosswalk, stop bar & school zow boundary striping
600.00 600.00
2,480.50 2,480.50
600.00 600.00
550.00 550.00
TOTAL ADD ALTERNATE 2 BID AMOUNT (ITEMS AB -I - AB -S)
$ 95,169.00
$ 39,918.75
5 41,825.00
S 31,500.00
)id Bidder Acknowledge Addenda No. I? YES YES YES YES
)id Bidder Provide Security' YES YES YES YES
BID SUMMARY
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT (ITEMS 1- 25)
Is 289,425.00
8 485 766.84
S 413,597.00 $
491,333.80
rOTAL ADD ALTERNATE I BID AMOUNT (ITEMS AA -I -AA-21)
is 111,678.00
$ 115,351.311
$ 150 871.50 $
96,159.00
FUTALADDALTERNATEIBIDAMOUNT (ITEMSAB-I -AB-5)
I 8 95,169.001
8 39,918.75 is
41,825.00 $
31,500.00
I hereby certify that this is a correct and Ir@ ubulation of all bids received.
R. UavW Patrick, Y.E. Dale
Ranting, P.olox & Kasbcrg, L.L.P.
sr
827W�
J4o,satxa7��' i
• Indicates error N addition (ToW amour n mrm:ud arhnnu)
•' Inli,ans a duc i parcy into.. canonical amours W extended renown (Tool wswmt is carted .,,......t) 6 of 6
City Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible award of the contract to H. Deck Construction
Company for the rehabilitation of 7th and 8t° Streets from Main Street to
Austin Avenue.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The downtown rehabilitation project has been ongoing for several years
and this phase is the final rehabilitation phase for the immediate downtown
square area.
The rehabilitation project will consist of milling of the existing
surface of the street, reshaping the roadbed for improved drainage and
repaving the surface.
Brick paver cross walks and brick paver pocket parks will be installed
on the west corners of the Courthouse Square and will match the existing
pocket parks on Main Street.
The low bidder on the project was H. Deck Construction Company with a
bid of $175,038.00. Staff recommends that council approve a budget amount of
$195,000.00 for the project.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding of $131,000 from account 203-134-5801-01 and $64,000 from
account 110-101-6915-00.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board recommends staff present to council for approval of award of
this project in the June 17, 2003 meeting. Approved 4-0 (Hunnicutt, Smith
and Evans absent).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the award of this project to H. Deck Construction
Company with a budget of $195,000, which includes 10 percent overage for
contingencies.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Roming, Parker and Kasberg letter of recommendation of award and bid
tabulation.
tea by:
Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utilities
Mark Miller, Transportation
Services Manager
_ ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773-6667 mail®rpkengineers.com
WM. MACK PARKER, P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG. P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E.
June 17, 2003
Mr. Joel Weaver
CIP Coordinator
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: City of Georgetown
7th and 8th Streets Paving and Drainage Improvements
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Weaver:
W. CLAY ROMING. P.E.
Partner Emeritus
.-Attached are the Bid Tabulation Sheets for the bids received at 2:00 PM on Monday, June 16, 2003
for the above referenced project.
There were two bids received for this project as shown on the attached tabulation sheets After
tabulation of the bids, we have concluded that H. Deck Construction Company is the low bidder
with a base bid of $145,273.00, and an Add Alternate 1 Bid of $29,765.00.
H. Deck Construction Company has completed several projects for the City of Georgetown without
complication and within the time frame allowed by the contracts including the construction of the
Main Street project from 9th Street to 6th Street. The bid is within the City of Georgetown's
budgeted amount and under the Engineer's estimate of $180,000.00. Therefore we recommend that
a contract be awarded to H. Deck Construction Company for the Base Bid and Add Alternate 1 in
the amount of $175,038.00. If you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/rdp
2003-111-40
BII ULAnCIN 2603-111-40
BASE BID
City of Georgetown
7th and lith Streets Paving and Drainage Improvements
June 16, 2003 2:00 pot
BIDDER IN6IDRMATION
II. Deck Construction Co. S.F.W. Construction Inc.
1601 Oxford Blvd 1420 E. FM 2410
Round Rock Texas 78664 Harker Heights, Texas 76548
Bem
No.
Evtimated
Quanlity I
Uidt
Bid Dom
Dercri tint
Unit
Price
Euended
Amount
Unit
Price
Ertenderl
Amount
1
5
STA
PTintation of Ri hlof-Wa
$ 1,000.00 S
5,000.00 $
100.00
$ 500.00
2
100%
IS
_
Mobilization, Bonds and insurance
7,000.00
7,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
3
100%
LS
Barricades and Traffic Control Plan Im IcmCnlation
4,500.00
4,500.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
4
100%
IS
Provide and Implement Buikling and Limestone Curb Protection Plan
3,000.00
3,000.00
10,000.00
10.000.00
5
290
LF
Provide Saw Cutting of HMAC Pavement
•• 1.20
348.00
20.00
5,800.00
6
3,400
SY
For Milling Existing As halt
4.00
13,600,00
750
2550000
7
100
SY
For Adding Sub rade Stabilization w/6% Portland Cement
17.00
1,700.00
20.00
2,000.00
8
3.400
SY
For Adding Single Course Penetration Seal Coat
2.90
9.860.00
4.00
13,600.00
9
1 20 1
CY
Famish, Install and Remove Flex Base or Cold Mix Asphalt Ramps
225.00
4,500.00
130.00
2,600.00
to
3,300
SY
4" HMAC T "D" Pavement (w! rime & tack coop
12.00
39,600.00
13.03
42,999.00
11
30
TN
Additional HMAC T "D" Pavement (w/ rime & tack coat)
150.00
4,500.00
50.00
1,500.00
12
210
SF
Remove Brick Pavers, Adjust Sub rade & Replace Brick Pavers
5.00
1,050.00
15.00
3,150.00
13
100
SY
Place 4 1 /2" Concrete Pave Base for Crosswalk
65.00
6,500.00
54.00
5,400.00
14
24
SY
Place Concrete Pave Base for Handicap Ram
65.00
1,560.00
75.00
1,800.00
15
800
SP
Place Brick Crosswalk Pavers w/sand cushion
14.00
11,200.00
4.65
3,720.00
16
180
SF
Place Brick Handicap Ramp Pavers w/sand cushion
14.00
2,520.00
15.00
2,700.00
17
150
SY
Construct 3 -foot wide Concrete Flume
90.00
13,500.00
86.00
12,900.00
18
25
1-F
Place 2 -fool wile Concrete Trench w/.rated cover
200.00
5,000.00
100.00
2,500.00
19
1,600
IF
Place 4 -inch White Parking Striping
0.50
$00.00
1.00
1,600.00
20
5
EA
Place While Painted Handicapped Symbol at Designated lucationns
25.00
125.00
100.00
500.00
21
10
CY
Class "A" Concrete in Miscellaneous Conswction
250.00
2,500.00
100.00
1,000,00
22
39
EA
Install New Wheel Stops
40.00
1,560.00
50.00
1,950.00
23
100%
IS
Items Requested by the Owner not shown on the Construction Plans
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
24
100%
IS
For Video Taping Project Site Before the Stan of Construction
350.00
350.00
100.00
100.00
TOTAL
BASE BID
AMOUNT (ITEMS I - 24)
$
145,273.001
1
S 162,819.00
•' Indicates a discrepancy between numerical amoum add extended amount (Twat anuom is corrected anxmuq 1 of 2
BII SULATION 2003-11I40
ADDALTERNATE
City or Georgetown
71h and 8th Streets Paving and Drainage Improvements
June 16, 2003 2:00 pm
BIDDER INFORMATION
11. Deck Construction Co. S.F.W. Construction Inc.
1601 Oxford Blvd 1420 E. FM 2410
Round Rock Texas 78664 Harker Heights, Texas 76548
Item
No.
Estimated
Quantity
Unit
Bid Dna
Dari tion
Unit
Price
Extended
Amount
Unit
Price
Extended
Amount
A-11110%
IS
Control Ian for vehicular & pedestrian traffic for constructing hawlica ramps $
500.00 $
500.00 $
3,500.00
$ 3,500.00
A-2
100%
LS
Barricades and Traffic Control Plan Implementation
250.00
250.00
2,140.50
2,140.50
A-3
50 1
LF
JP.id, Concrete Saw Cut
2.00
100.00
20.00
1,000.00
A4135
LP
Construct Concrete Block Curb
30.00
4,050.00
10.00
1,350.00
A-5
180
SF
Place Brick Handicap Ramp Pavers w/sand cushion
14.00
2,520.00
4.65
837.00
A-6
1,000
SF
Place Brick Pavers for Pocket Park wisand cushion
14.00
14,000.00
4.65
4,65040
A-7
50
LF
Furnish and Install Ribbon Curb to Match Existing
20.00
1,000.00
8.00
400.00
A-8
100%
LF
Irrigation System for Landscaping Win Pocket Parks
3,000.00
3,000.OD
11500.00
1,500.00
A-9
100%
IS
Landscaping as Requested by the Owner
1,000.00
1,000,00
1,000.001
1.000.00
A-10
350
SF
Furnish and Place 6 -inches of Topsoil in Planter Areas
3.00
1,050.00
1.67
584.50
A-11
85
SY
Remove & Dispose Existing Asphalt & Concrete to Construct the Pocket Parks
27.00
2,295.00
15.00
1,275.00
TOTAL
ADD ALTERNATE BID AMOUNT (ITEMSA-1 -A-II)
$
29,765.00
$ 18,237.00
BID SUMMARY
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT (ITEMS t - 24) S 145 273.00 E _ 162,81 .00
TOTAL ADD ALTERNATE BID AMOUNT (ITEMS A-1 -A-11) is 29,765.00 E _ _ 18.237.00
TOTAL BID (BASE BID AND ADD ALTERNATE) E 175.038.00 S 181,056.00
1 hereby certify that this is a correct and true tabulation of all bids received.
R. David Patrick, P.E.
Burning, Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P.
•• Indicates a discrepancy between numerical amount and extemled amount ('foal wnuunt is corrected anwun0
City Council Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 Item No. (�1
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract between the
City of Georgetown and HDR Engineering, Inc., for professional
engineering services related to the State Highway 29 Southwest Bypass
project.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The HDR Contract for basic services is for the selection of
preferred alternatives and the eventual determination of the final route
and location of the Southwest State Highway 29 Bypass for a lump sum
amount of $482,252. Included in the contract, is the preliminary
engineering for the proposed roadway, right-of-way requirements and
Environmental Impact Statement. Ecological resources services would be
provided on a time and material basis with a not to exceed amount of
$49,500. Total basic services are $531,752.
For possible mitigatio- of environmental and archeological issues
identified by the basic services scope of work, additional services will
be performed on an hourly basis with a not to exceed amount of.
$808,710.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Award of contract contingent upon approval of a GTEC budget
amendment (approved by the Board on June 10, 2003). Mayor to sign
contract no earlier than August 1, 2003 (60 days from public hearing
publication)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
GTEC budget accounts in the amount of $531,752.00 will be created
for basic engineering services and $808,710.00 for additional services
as required.
GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Action by the GTEC Board, on May 22, 2003, to initiate the Century
Plan process for the Bypass be' Road and IH -35. Approved 7-0
the GTEC Board, on June 18, 2003 to approve the contrast.
between the City of Georgetown and HDR Engineering, Inc. for professional
engineering services related to the State Highway 29 Southwest Bypass
project. Approved 4-0 (Evans, Sansing, and Masterson absent)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that council approve a contract with HDR
Engineering to provide professional engineering services related to the
State Highway 29 Southwest Bypass.
COMMENTS:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
HDR Engineering letter and proposed amendment to contract.
stant - marx miller, manager U
Utilities Transportation Services
STATE OF TEXAS § MASTER SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE
SH 29 SOUTHWEST BYPASS PROJECT
CITY OF GEORGETOWN § HDR ENGINEERING INC.
This is an agreement by and between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas
Home Rule Municipal Corporation, ("CITY"), and HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
("ENGINEER"), whereby ENGINEER agrees to perform professional services on the SH 29
Southwest Bypass project.
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to retain ENGINEER, a professional engineering firm,
to provide professional engineering, consulting, and related environmental and schematic
design services for the SH 29 Southwest Bypass project in an amount not to exceed
$531,752 for Basic Services and an amount not to exceed $808,710 for Additional
Services which are in addition to the basic Services costs and which will not be utilized
unless further authorized by the City.
WHEREAS, ENGINEER desires to perform professional engineering services on
such project as may be requested by the CITY.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I -- PROJECT DEFINED
1.01 The term "PROJECT" as used herein shall refer to the SH 29 Southwest
Avraeg eroject defined by the City on the PROJECT TASK ORDER FORM attarhprl
hereto as "Exhibit A.".
ARTICLE II -- INITIATION OF WORK
2.01 ENGINEER shall not commence any work unless and until the CITY issues a
duly executed PROJECT TASK ORDER FORM for the project.
2.02 Upon receipt of authorization to commence services, the ENGINEER may
meet with CITY for the purpose of determining the nature of the PROJECT. CITY shall
designate a representative to act as the contact person on behalf of the CITY.
2.03 No TASK ORDER FORM shall be binding or enforceable unless and until it
has been duly executed by authorized representatives of the CITY and the ENGINEER.
City of Georgetown and HDR Master Services Contract
Page 7 of 9
2.04 CITY shall provide all available criteria and information pertaining to each
PROJECT.
ARTICLE III -- COMPENSATION
3.01 Compensation for services performed under this Agreement shall be either on
a time and materials basis or on a fixed price basis. The particular method of
compensation for the PROJECT shall be specified in the TASK ORDER FORM.
(a) Time and Materials: Compensation for services performed on a time
and materials basis shall be in accordance with the RATE SCHEDULE and terms
attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 8, which included the charges for all
professional, technical, engineering, and administrative personnel directly charging
from time to time on a PROJECT. The RATE SCHEDULE in Exhibit 8 is subject to
adjustment upon advance written notice to the CITY and shall be effective only after
the CITY agrees in writing to change the RATE SCHEDULE.
(b) Compensation for services provided on a lump sum basis shall be as
stated in the approved TASK ORDER FORM.
3.02 ENGINEER shall submit monthly invoices and the CITY shall pay within thirty
(30) days of approval of the invoice. If the CITY disputes any part of the invoice, it shall
pay the non -disputed amounts (if any) and promptly notify ENGINEER of the nature of the
dispute to request clarification or correction.
ARTICLE IV — STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
401 ENGINEER represents that the information and services provided underthis
Agreement is that of a professional engineer, reflecting the standards, procedures, and
performances of the industry for the type of PROJECT performed pursuant to this
Agreement in the same location and at the same time, and further represents,that the all
work and services provided pursuant to this Agreement conform to the processional
standard of care in the profession.
4.02 ENGINEER shall be responsible for the accuracy of its work and shall
promptly make necessary revisions or corrections to its work product resulting from its
errors, omissions, or negligent acts without compensation. ENGINEER will not be
relieved of the responsibility for subsequent correction of any such errors or omissions or
for clarification of any ambiguities until after a PROJECT has been completed.
4.03 The responsible Engineer shall sign, seal and date all appropriate
Engineering submissions to the City in accordance with the Texas Engineering Practice Act
and Rules of the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers.
4.04 ENGINEER's observation or monitoring portions of the work performed under
construction contracts shall not relieve the contractor from its responsibility for performing
work in accordance with applicable contract documents. ENGINEER shall not control or
City of Georgetown and HDR Master Services Contract
Page 2 of 9
have charge of, and shall not be responsible for, construction means, methods,
techniques, sequences, procedures of construction, health or safety programs or
precautions connected with the work and shall not manage, supervise, control or have
charge of construction. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of
the contractor or to other parties on the Project. ENGINEER shall be entitled to review all
construction contract documents and ensure that no provisions extent the duties or
liabilities of ENGINEER beyond those set forth in this Agreement.
4.05 Any opinions of probable Project cost or probable construction cost provided
by ENGINEER are made on the basis of information available to ENGINEER and on the
basis of ENGINEER's experience and qualifications, and represents its judgment as an
experienced and qualified professional engineer. However, since ENGINEER has no
control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over
the contractor(s') methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market
conditions, ENGINEER does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual project or
construction cost will not vary from opinions or probable cost ENGINEER prepares.
ARTICLE V -- INDEMNIFICATION
ENGINEER whose work product is the subject of this contract for engineering
services agrees to indemnify and hold city, it's elected officials, officers and employees,
harmless against any and all claims, lawsuits, judgments, costs, liens, losses, expenses,
fees (including attorney's fees and costs of defense), proceedings, actions, demands,
causes of action, liability, and suits of any kind and nature, including but not limited to,
personal injury (including death), property damage, or other harm for which recovery of
damages is sought to the extent arising out of or occasioned or caused by engineer's
negligent act, error, or omission of Engineer, any Agent, Officer, Director, Representative,
Employee, Consultant, or Subconsultant of Engineer, and their respective Officers, Agents,
Employees, Directors, and Representatives for whom ENGINEER is legally liable while in
the exercise of performance of the rights or duties under this Contract. The indemnity
provided for in this paragraph shall not apply to the extent of any liability resulting from the
negligence of CITY, its officers or employees, in instances where such negligence causes
personal injury, death, or property damage. In the event Engineer and CITY are found
jointly liable by a court of competent jurisdiction, liability shall be apportioned comparatively
in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without, however, waiving any
Governmental immunity available to the City under Texas law and without waiving any
defenses of the parties under Texas law.
Pursuant to Chapter 271.094 of the Texas Local Government Code or its successor
provision, ENGINEER whose work product is the subject of this contract for engineering
services, expressively agrees to indemnify and hold CITY, it's Agent and Employees
harmless against any and all claims, lawsuits, judgments, costs, liens, losses, expenses,
fees (including attorney's fees and costs of defense), proceedings, actions, demands,
causes of action, liability, and suits of any kind and nature, for the personal injury, death, or
property injury of ENGINEER or the employees of ENGINEER for which recovery of
damages is sought that may arise while in the exercise in the performance of the rights or
duties under this Contract.
City of Georgetown and HDR Master Services Contract
Page 3 of 9
It is the express intent of the parties to this CONTRACT that the indemnity provided
for in this section is an indemnity extended by ENGINEER to indemnify, protect, and hold
harmless, the CITY, its Agents or Employees from the consequences of the negligence of
the CITY, its Agents or Employees in instances where such negligence causes personal
injury, death, or property damage to ENGINEER or employees of ENGINEER; or any other
expense that arises from personal injury, death, or property injury to ENGINEER or
employees of ENGINEER. ENGINEER further agrees to defend, at its own expense and
on behalf of the CITY and in the name of the CITY, any claim or litigation brought against
the CITY in connection with any such injury, death, or property injury for which this
indemnity shall apply, as set forth above.
ENGINEER shall promptly advise the CITY, in writing, of any claim or demand
against the CITY or ENGINEER known to ENGINEER related to or arising out of
ENGINEER's activities under this contract.
The provisions of this action are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and not
intended to create or grant any rights, contractual, or otherwise, to any other person or
entity.
ARTICLE VI -- INSURANCE
6.01 ENGINEER shall procure and maintain at its sole cost and expense for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to
property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by ENGINEER, his agents, representatives, volunteers, employees or subcontractors.
6.02 The ENGINEER'S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect
to the CITY, its officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by CITY, its officials, employees or volunteers, shall be considered in excess of
the ENGINEER'S insurance and shall not contribute to it.
6.03 The ENGINEER shall require all subcontractors to maintain the same
insurance as is required by this Agreement. All coverage for subcontractors shall be
subject to all of the requirements stated herein, including the provision to the City of
Certificates of Insurance.
6.04 Certificates of Insurance and endorsements shall be furnished to the CITY
and approved by the CITY before work commences. All Certificates of Insurance shall be
prepared and executed by the insurance company or its authorized agent. The Certificate
of Insurance shall specifically set forth the notice of cancellation or termination provisions
to the City of Georgetown.
6.05 ENGINEER shall use only insurance companies to provide coverage
hereunder that meet the following requirements: :
The company is licensed and admitted to do business in the State of
Texas.
City of Georgetown and HDR Master services Contract
Page 4 of 9
2. The insurances set forth by the insurance company are underwritten
on forms which have been approved by the Texas State Board of
Insurance or ISO.
In addition, the ENGINEER shall provide information to the City relating to any original
endorsements affecting coverage required by this section.
6.06 The following standard insurance policies shall be required:
1. General Liability Policy
2. Automobile Liability Policy
3. Workers Compensation Policy
4. Professional Liability Policy
6.06 The following general requirements are applicable to all policies:
A. General Liability, Automobile Liability, and Professional Liability
insurance shall be written by a carrier with an A:VIII or better rating in
accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide.
B. Only insurance carriers licensed and admitted to do business in the
State of Texas will be accepted.
C. Deductibles shall be listed on the Certificate of Insurance or
separately provided to the CITY by ENGINEER.
D. Claims Made Policies will not be accepted, except for Professional
Liability Insurance.
E The CITY of Georgetown, its officials, employees, and volunteers. are
to be added as "Additional Insured" to the General Liability and the
Automobile Liability policies to the extent that ENGINEER's activities under
this Agreement are potentially covered by such insurance. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the
CITY, its officials, employees, or volunteers.
F. A Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Georgetown with
respect to Worker's Compensation insurance must be included.
G. Each insurance policy shall not be canceled except after thirty (30)
days' priorwritten notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been
given to the City of Georgetown.
H. Upon request, certified copies of all insurance policies shall be
furnished to the City of Georgetown, and the City shall bear the cost of such
copies at a rate not to exceed $0.10 per page.
City of Georgetown and HDR Master Services Contract
Page 5 of 9
6.07 The following Commercial General Liability will be required:
A. Minimum combined Single Limit of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for
Bodily Injury and Property Damage.
B. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Service's Office
form number CG 00 01.
C. No coverage shall be deleted from the standard policy without
notification of individual exclusions being attached for review and
acceptance.
6.08 The following Automobile Liability will be required:
A. Minimum Combined Single Limitof $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for
Bodily Injury and Property Damage.
B. The Business Auto Policy must show Symbol 1 in the Covered Autos
Portion of the liability section in Item 2 of the declarations page.
6.09 The following Professional Liability will be required:
A. Minimum of $1,000,000.00 per claim and $1,000,000.00 aggregate.
B. Coverage must be maintained for two -(2) years after the termination
of this Agreement.
6.10 The following Workers' Compensation will be required:
A. Employers Liability limits of $100,000.00 for each accident is required.
B. Texas Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsements,
W 42 03 04 shall be included in this policy.
C. Texas must appear in Item 3A of the Workers' Compensation
coverage or Item 3C must contain the following: all States except
those listed in Items A and the States of NV, ND, OH, WA, WV, WY.
13110]NALLIm►Eel 1'IF_I&RII 'kg161:4►`i
7.01 ENGINEER shall not assign, sublet or transfer any rights under or interest in
this Agreement without the written consent of the CITY, except to the extent that any
assignment, subletting or transfer is mandated by law orthe effect of this limitation may be
restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary, in any written consent to an
assignment, no agreement will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or
responsibility under this agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent the
City of Georgetown and HDR Master Services Contract
Page 6 of 9
ENGINEER from employing such independent associates and consultants as the
ENGINEER may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.
7.02 Nothing under this agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits
in this agreement to anyone other than the CITY and ENGINEER, and all duties and
responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this agreement will be for the sole and exclusive
benefit of the CITY and ENGINEER and not for the benefit of any other party.
I_\-.4 9194:10111111011110]:Zd:1111111Fi/11111 72
8.01 No liability shall attach to either party from delay in performance or
nonperformance caused by circumstances beyond the control of the party affected,
including but not limited to acts of God, war, fire, flood, explosion, action or request of a
governmental authority, injunction, labor relations, accidents, delays, or inability to obtain
materials, fuel, equipment, or transportation.
ARTICLE XI — MISCELLANEOUS
9.01 Termination for convenience. CITY may at any time terminate this
Agreement or any PROJECT for convenience. At such time CITY shall notify ENGINEER
who shall cease work immediately. ENGINEER shall be compensated for the services
performed.
9.02 Governing Law. This agreement has been made under and shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Texas. The parties agree that performance and all
matters related thereto shall be in Williamson County, Texas.
9.03 Notices. All notices, requests or other communications required or permitted
by this agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by (i) telecopy, with the original
delivered by hand or overnight carrier, (ii) by overnight courier or hand delivery, or (iii)
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt rPgti-Gted, and addressed to the parties at
the following addresses:
CITY:
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Attn: City Manager
City Attorney
ENGINEER:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2211 S. IH35, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78741-3842
Attn: James K. (Ken) Haney, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Addresses and telecopy numbers for notices required under this agreement may be
modified as needed by giving notice as required in this paragraph.
City of Georgetown and HDR Master Services Contract
Page 7 of 9
9.04 Independent Consultant/Engineer. The parties agree that ENGINEER
shall be deemed to be an independent consultant/engineer and not an agent or employee
of the CITY with respect to its acts or omissions hereunder. The parties agree that the
services and activities performed under this agreement are not and shall not be construed
as a joint venture between the parties.
9.05 Confidential Work. Any reports, information, project evaluation, project
designs, data, or other documentation developed by ENGINEER hereunder given to or
prepared by or assembled by the ENGINEER will not be made available to any individual
or organization by the ENGINEER without prior written approval of the CITY, except as
required by law, including the rules or ordinances of any governmental entity having
jurisdiction over the Project.
9.06 Ownership of Documents. City shall have ownership of all documents,
including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software, or other items prepared
or furnished by ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement. However, the documents are
instruments of service with respect to the Project for which they were prepared only.
ENGINEER retains ownership of all standard concepts, designs, details, and specifications
used in such documents. CITY may retain copies of documents for its information and
reference in connection with the Project; however, none of the documents are intended or
represented to be suitable for use by CITY or others on extensions of the Project (unless
specifically approved by ENGINEER) or for any other work. Any reuse without written
verification or adaptation shall be at the CITY's sole risk and without liability or legal
exposure to ENGINEER.
9.07 No Oral Modification/Complete Agreement. This agreement and any
exhibits thereto constitute the entire agreement between the CITY and ENGINEER and
supersedes all prior written or oral understandings. This agreement may only be amended,
supplemented, modified or cancelled by a duly executed written instrument.
9.08 Waiver. No waiver by either party hereto of any term or condition of this
agreement shall be deemed or con -tri ii -d to be a waiver of any other term or condition or
subsequent waiver of the same term or condition.
9.09 Remedies. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this agreement
shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law
and under this agreement including the right of specific performance and offset. Payment
made to ENGINEER by the CITY shall not denote acceptance of the work.
9.10 Exhibits. All exhibits attached to this agreement are incorporated by
reference and expressly made part of this agreement as if copied verbatim.
9.11 Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this
agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any
respect, such invalidity, illegality, or inability to enforce shall not affect any provision
thereof, and this agreement shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable
provision had never been contained in this agreement.
City of Georgetown and HDR Master services Contract
Page 8 of 9
9.12 Heirs, successors and assigns bound. The CITY and ENGINEER and
their heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns are hereby bound to the
terms and conditions of this agreement.
9.13. Controlling Agreement. These terms and conditions shall take precedence
over any inconsistent or contradictory provisions contained in any proposal, contract,
purchase order, requisition, notice -to -proceed, or other like document.
9.13 Signatures warranted. The signatories to this agreement represent and
warrant that they have the authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the CITY and
HDR ENGINEERING, INC., respectively.
Executed to be effective this day of
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
LIM
Gary Nelon, Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
Approved as to form:
Patricia E. Carls
r;+tv Attomav
STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
EN GI R
By:
Ja es K. (Ken) Hane , P.E.
Executive Vice President
Attest: L�Q�
��CiL.C�iti1
George E. Allett, P.E.
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of
by , in capacity as
Of— , a , on behalf of said
Notary Public, State of Texas
City of Georgetown and HDR Master
Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT "A"
HDR ENGINEERING INC.
PROJECT TASK ORDER No. 1
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain "Master Services Contract for
Engineering Services for the SH 29 Southwest Bypass project ("Agreement") dated
by and between the City of Georgetown, Texas ("City") and HDR
Engineering, Inc., ("Engineer") the City and Engineer hereby agree that Engineer shall
perform the work described below as provided herein and subject to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The scope of services for this project shall include wetland delineation, land use,
environmental and survey services, route studies and schematic design for a new
location of a four lane divided rural roadway connecting SH 29 to IH 35 and the
extension of DB Wood/Inner Loop to a Tee intersection with the SH 29 Southwest
Bypass.
Project Administration
HDR Engineering, Inc (The Engineer), in coordination with the City of
Georgetown's Contract Manager (hereinafter referred to as Contract Manager),
will be responsible for directing and coordinating all activities associated with the
SH 29 Southwest Bypass Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project).
A) Scheduling
The Engineer will develop a detailed, graphic project schedule (?r Microsoft
Project format) indicating tasks, subtasks, critical dates, milestone events,
deliverables, information requested from external agencies and TxDOT review
requirements. The project schedule will be in a format that depicts the order and
interdependence of the various tasks, subtasks, milestones, and deliverables for
each task identified herein. Progress will be reviewed monthly and should these
reviews indicate a substantial change in progress, the schedule will then be
revised subject to the approval of the Contract Manager.
B) Project Client Meetings
Up to Five (5) meetings will be held with the City of Georgetown to discuss
project issues that arise. The minutes of all meetings will be taken and prepared
by the City of Georgetown. The Engineer will staff the meetings with the Project
Manager and one Sr. Design Engineer or Sr. Environmental Coordinator.
City of Georaeto and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 1 of 17
C) Progress Reports, Invoices and Billings
The Engineer will review the schedule and prepare monthly progress reports for
review by the Contract Manager over a fourteen (14) month time period.
Invoices for all work completed during the period will be submitted monthly for
the Engineer and all sub -consultants. Monthly progress reports will include:
a. Actual activities performed during the reporting period
b. Anticipated activities planned for the next period
Deliverables
• Monthly Progress Reports (one [1] printed copy with invoice).
• Monthly invoices including tabulation of percentage complete by task.
D) Project Guide
A project management plan will be prepared to identify project organization and
responsibilities, coordination and communication procedures, project team
meetings, document format, report format, technical memorandum format,
graphic production standards, and other important operational information
pertaining to the Project
E) Close -Out
Upon completion, the Engineer will submit all electronic files to the City of
Georgetown. Copies of the transmitted materials will be retained by the Engineer
for two (2) years after delivery of originals/diskettes to the Contract Manager.
2. Schematic Design
A) Route and Design Studies
The Alternative Analysis scope of services for the SH 29 Southwest Bypass
project is organized into four steps:
Step 1 - Develop Initial Set of Alternatives
Step 2 - Screening of Initial Set of Alternatives for Fatal Flaws and Selection of
Viable Alternatives
Step 3 - Analysis, Refinement and Evaluation of Viable Alternatives and
Selection of the Preferred Alternative
Step 4 - Development of Schematic & Environmental Documentation for the
Preferred Alternative
B) Technical Methodology Plan
Engineer will prepare a Technical Methodology Plan that identifies detailed level
alternative evaluation criteria and documents technical methodologies and
procedures for alternative analysis evaluation. Included will be
quantitative/qualitative measures of effectiveness summarized in a comparative
form for each issue.
A decision matrix will be developed as the basis for the alternative
recommendations. The criteria in this matrix will include avoiding and/or
minimizing impacts to the following:
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 2 of 17
a. Right -of -Way/ Displacement cost
b. Regional Mobility
C. Capital cost
d. Utility Conflicts
e. Social and Economic Impacts
f. Environmental Impacts
g. Land use
h. Farmlands or Ranchlands
i. Existing, build year and 20 -year design air quality
j. Existing, build year and 20 -year design noise levels
k. Water quality
I. Wetlands / waters of the U.S.
M. Wildlife habitat
n. Floodplains
o. State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species
P. Historic and archaeological assets
q. Hazardous waste sites
r. Aesthetic and Scenic quality
C) Identify Conceptual Alternatives (Up to 10)
The Engineer will identify and define, with the assistance of Stakeholders,
Interested Public participants, City of Georgetown Staff and previous studies,
conceptual alternatives within the project area. The Aerial photo will be provided
by the City of Georgetown.
a) Using controlled aerial photography along with public input, identify
potential alternatives to provide for the development of the SH 29
Bypass including interchange locations and configurations. These
alternatives, will be identified considering existing development, past,
present and future land use, environmental factors, location and
functional characteristics of present and future interchange, geographic
features, political issues, traffic volumes and costs. Up to ten (10)
potential alignment alternatives will be identified, including those
identified by the public.
b) Field inspection of the corridor while evaluating the impacts of each
potential alternative.
D) Fatal Flaw Analysis
The Engineer will screen the conceptual alternatives based on fatal flaw
qualitative analysis to determine up to three (3) viable alternatives for further
evaluation.
Deliverables
■ General alignment and typical sections of all alternatives at appropriate
scales so that each alternative can be presented on one 11" by 17" sheet.
■ General environmental constraints map.
■ Completed Decision Matrix
City of Georaetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 3 of 17
E) Analysis and Refinement of Viable Alternatives
A generalized ROW impact will be developed for the viable alternatives. A
horizontal alignment will be developed for critical elements of each alternative as
required to substantiate the layout, impacts, structure requirements, and costs of
each alternative. These plan view ROW impact drawings are intended to
highlight the differences between the alternatives and for selection of the
preferred alternative.
Based on qualitative analysis and quantitative analyses, input from the
stakeholders, the Engineer will develop a preferred alternative.
Schematics will be drawn in Microstation, (dgn format). Alignments will be
calculated in Geopak application.
F) Schematic Design
Roadway geometry will be based on the criteria and requirements set forth in
TxDOT's Roadway Design Manual — Revised October 2002. The schematic will
be prepared in English units within the MicroStation CADD environment.
Submittals for the Schematic will be:
• Preliminary Schematic: Showing Horizontal Alignment only, for
approval and use at 2nd Public Meeting.
• Draft Schematic: Showing Draft Horizontal & Vertical Alignment for
approval and use at Public Hearing.
• Final Schematic: Showing final Horizontal and Vertical Alignment of the
preferred alternative and final comments from Public Hearing.
3. Preliminary Design and Railroad Coordination
A) Schematic Design will be developed from SH 29 Near DB Wood Road to
IH 35 near Inner Loop
1) Attend up to four schematic coordination meetings with the City of
Georgetown
2) Coordinate two meetings with the City of Georgetown and Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Williamson County.
3) Provide a MicroStation format on compatible archive media
containing all graphics files used in developing the schematic and
all Geopak (Gpk) alignment files.
4) Collect, review, and evaluate available existing data pertaining to
project.
B) Utilities
Contact area utility companies and perform a visual survey of the project
sites. Identify existing utility locations and place utility information on
plans.
C) Right of Way
1) Determine location of additional right of way.
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 4 of 17
4.
2) Determine preliminary right of way requirements by parcel.
3) Develop list of affected property owners.
D) Roadway
1) Select roadway geometry and prepare Typical Section. The typical
section shall also reflect proposed geometric including pavement
cross slopes and lane and shoulder widths.
2) Develop Horizontal and Vertical Alignment.
3) Develop roadway plan view.
E) Bridge:
1) Develop bridge typical section.
i. Determine superstructure and substructure requirements.
ii. Determine location and number of test holes for geotechnical
testing.
F) Miscellaneous items:
1) Develop preliminary traffic control narrative.
2) Determine preliminary estimate of probable construction cost
utilizing City supplied or TxDOT average unit bid item cost.
G) Railroad Coordination:
1) Prepare a preliminary Railroad Crossing exhibit for initial
discussions with TxDOT and Georgetown Railroad.
2) Attend two meetings with City.
3) Attend two railroad coordination meetings with the Georgetown
Railroad Representatives.
H) Traffic Operation Analysis:
The Engineer will conduct the following:
(a) Provide turning movements diagram for both the anticipated
onnnino year and the TxDOT or CAMPO 20 -year projected traffic
(b) Use existing and future traffic volume to determine Level of Service
(LOS) analysis for mainlanes, interchanges and intersections, as
well as analyze traffic data to determine whether traffic signals are
warranted at the various intersections.
Final Schematic
Upon approval of the draft horizontal and vertical geometrics by the Contract
Manager, three copies of the draft schematic will be submitted through the City of
Georgetown for TxDOT Austin District and TxDOT Design Division for approval,
and subsequent coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
where applicable, and shall be the basis for an exhibit at any required public
hearing prior to final development of the project. If there are any changes to the
draft schematic after the Design Division and FHWA approval and before the
public hearing, two copies of the revised draft schematic, as displayed at the
hearing, shall be submitted either prior to or accompanying the public hearing
Task Order No. 1
Page 5 of 17
data. If there are no changes in the schematic as displayed at the hearing, only
photographs of the schematic and other displays shall be submitted with the
public hearing data. The final schematic will be issued after changes (if any) from
the public hearing are incorporated.
Deliverables
• Three copies (assume 4 rolls each) of the schematic layout
• Digital copy of approved schematic.
A) Engineering Summary Report
Prepare an Engineering report, which will document the Preliminary Engineering
of all components of the project. The report includes:
1) Project Summary (description and history)
2) Alternative evaluation
3) A summary of the route study
4) Description of preferred alternative
5) Traffic analysis
6) Level of Service Analysis
7) Typical sections
8) Sequence of construction diagrams and traffic handling
narrative
9) ROW and Construction Cost Estimates
10)A preliminary hydraulic analysis
B) Value Engineering Study including:
Since the project Construction Estimate is currently Slightly under $22,000,000,
no Value Engineering Study is included in this scope. If the estimate increases
to $25, 000,000 or more, a Value Engineering study will be provided at the
beginning of the PS&E phase scope and fee.
5. Public Involvement
All public involvement procedures shall be in accordance with 43 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) 2.40-2.51, Code of Federal Regulations Title 23, Part
771 Technical assistance, meeting(s)/hearing(s) preparation, maintenance of
contacts lists, exhibit preparation, and other tasks required, shall be provided.
The minutes of all meetings will be taken and prepared by the City of
Georgetown. The Engineer will staff the stakeholder meetings with the Project
Manager and one Sr. Design Engineer. The Engineer will staff the Public
Meetings and Public Hearing with the Project Manager, a Sr. Design Engineer, a
Design Engineer. A Project Principal will attend one public Meeting and one
Public Hearing. One coordination meeting prior to the first Public meeting and
the Public hearing is included in the scope and fee.
A) The Engineer will maintain contact list and provide notices to TxDOT to
mail to individual property owners.
B) At project kickoff — to develop range of alternatives — Up to 5 separate
meetings will be held with stakeholders.
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 6 of 17
C) First Public Meeting will occur during route study for initial route
identification.
D) After preliminary evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives in order to reach
consensus on Viable Alternatives — One meeting will be held with
stakeholders.
1. After preliminary evaluation of Viable Alternatives in order to
reach consensus on Preferred Alternative — One meeting will be
held with stakeholders
2. Second Public Meeting will be to transition from route selection
to vertical development of schematic.
3. One public hearing to be held at the location designated by the
Contract Manager once the schematic has been approved
4. Engineer will prepare up to three (3) editions of a newsletter to
keep the public informed of project progress and the dates,
times, and locations of public meetings. Newsletters will
incorporate text and graphics. 300 copies of each newsletter
will be published.
The Engineer will provide a synopsis of the outcome of the public
meetings, which include attendance record, copy of comments received,
type of questions posed, general disposition of the public to the proposal,
new issues which may have surfaced, for each of the public meetings.
Deliverables
■ Public meeting summaries for two public meetings (One original each), and
for one Public Hearing (One Original).
6. ROW AND UTILITY ADJUSTMENT:
A) ROW Maps and Legal
The ENGINEER shall provide preliminary ROW (including drainage easements)
acquisition lines as soon as thev are identifiable. The Engineer shall provide X&Y
coordinates and/or Station & Offsets to the City of Georgetown.
B) Easements:
The Engineer shall be responsible for delineating easements in areas ROW for
purposes of proposed construction or future maintenance. (Engineer will be
responsible for preparing the necessary legal instruments.)
7. DRAINAGE:
A) Hydrologic Studies, Discharges:
1. The Engineer will identify major drainage areas and based on
ultimate land use and zoning maps, determine ultimate design year
and 50 and 100- year "Q" for probable bridge class drainage
structures. The Engineer will also obtain existing floodway data
hydrologic models for regulated floodways and verify these
drainage areas and "Q's". Additionally, the Engineer will use
City of Geometow and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 7 of 17
approved hydraulic models to size probable bridge class structures
to satisfy FEMA requirements.
The Engineer shall investigate the need for drainage easements for
cross drainage sites.
Standard hydrologic analysis methodologies found in the TxDOT
drainage manual will be appropriate for the analysis. Non-standard
analysis techniques will not be required. The analysis will be
limited to "major' drainage channels and structures that will either
have an impact on Right -of -Way requirements or encompass
significant cost considerations.
All hydraulic design shall be in accordance with TxDOT's Hydraulic
Manual, except where variances are permitted in writing by TxDOT.
Use 1 inch=2000 feet scale area drainage maps.
Deliverables:
1. Drainage area maps showing existing conditions and proposed
improvements.
2. Hydrologic data/discharge determination
3. Stage -discharge information
B) Hydraulic Drainage Study and Documentation*
1. Hydraulic computation
a. For non -bridge class structures, the Engineer will compare
existing structures with structures upstream and downstream
of the roadway to determine preliminary structure size.
b. Bridge class drainage crossings will be analyzed. Tailwater
elevations will be determined assuming normal depth in a
single downstream cross-section.
C. Preliminary channel design will be based on a normal depth
analysis using Manning's equation. Backwater analysis for
channel design will not be performed.
*This work will include the use of any hydrologic or hydraulics computer
programs which may be required, such as Texas Hydraulic System (THYSYS),
Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circulars and other
TxDOT Hydraulic Section publications.
8. Revise Century Plan
Attend up to four meetings.
2. The Engineer shall prepare two exhibits with the assistance from the City
Staff to identify the general location of the road extending to the west from
the SH 29 Bypass intersection with the Inner Loop for modification to the
century plan.
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 8 of 17
9. Environmental Services (To Be Performed by Blanton & Associates)
The Environmental Assessment (EA) and permitting process consists of several
planning phases. Initial phases include coordination with affected entities and
the identification of issues that pose potential constraints to the development of
the proposed project. These phases are followed by the incorporation of
pertinent design and environmental data that provide a framework for issue
resolution and the selection of a preferred alternative. Finally, an EA will be
prepared to document the planning and permitting phases of the project. The
following outlines this process.
A. Prepare Environmental Constraints Report
The Engineer will prepare an environmental constraints report in support
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to identify any known
environmental constraints and/or fatal flaws associated with the proposed
project. The report will follow a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to
evaluate and characterize up to three alternative corridors. The findings of
this report will help project planners and engineers determine potential
constraints when determining roadway alignments.
B. Prepare Draft Environmental Assessment
The EA document will comply with NEPA and the guidelines of the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for preparing environmental documents. The
analysis will address the adverse and beneficial impacts of project
construction and operation. The impacts analysis will be organized to
facilitate equivalent comparisons of alternatives. Mitigation options will be
emphasized where adverse impacts may potentially occur. Environmental
professionals with specialized technical training and experience in their
respective disciplines will perform the baseline and impacts analyses for
various disciplines.
C. Public Involvement
The Engineer will participate in all public involvement activities necessary
to achieve public support and consensus, but this scope assumes the
Project Engineer will be responsible for all logistical activities (i.e., meeting
places, attendees, meeting summaries). The primary responsibility of the
Engineer for this task will be to provide environmental technical support
and graphics depicting environmental constraints. This scope includes the
Engineer's attendance at the following meetings:
1) Two public meetings
2) One public hearing
3) Meetings with affected property owners (up to five)
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 9 of 17
D. Agency Coordination
As part of the proposed effort, the Engineer intends to collect information
and informally coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies and
organizations regarding project compliance with applicable environmental
regulations and associated approvals, including the 18 regulatory
programs listed in Section 2-204 of the Texas Department of
Transportation Operations and Procedures Manual Part IIB, and Section 2
of the TxDOT Environmental Manual. These entities may include:
• Local, county, and municipal government agencies
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding Endangered Species
Act (ESA) compliance
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local flood
management agency regarding National Flood Insurance Program
compliance
• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) regarding area parks,
wildlife refuges, state -listed endangered species, and compliance with
TxDOT/TPWD Memorandum of Understanding regarding non-
regulated vegetation impacts
• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding Prime Farmland
Protection Act compliance
All correspondence and telephone or in-person discussions with agency
officials will be logged as part of the project file.
E. Purpose and Need for Action
This task, which includes preparation of the project description, will be based
on information provided primarily by the Project Engineer. The Engineer will
work closely with engineers from the City of Georgetown, HDR Engineering,
Inc., and TxDOT to develop the project description and purpose and need
sections for the EA.
F. Description of Alternatives
The Engineers role in this task is to provide and analyze constraints
information as related to NEPA alternatives to assist in the selection of a
preferred alternative.
G. Affected Environment and Consequences
For each of the categories listed below, the Engineer and the Project
Engineer (where appropriate) will perform pertinent literature and background
searches and field reconnaissance to gather data necessary for completion of
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 10 of 17
an EA and to support the permitting process. Data will be provided both on a
regional scale and specific to the alternatives that received primary
consideration during the planning process. This information will be
graphically depicted and verbally characterized in sufficient detail so that their
comparative merits can be evaluated. The results of this effort will be utilized
in the EA but will also be useful during the alternatives analysis and public
involvement phases. The existing environment and potential impacts of the
proposed projects will be described for each discipline below.
H. Land Use and Economic Impacts
The Project Engineer will be responsible for determining the effects of
proposed project improvements in light of land -use trends, plans, and policies
within the study area. This effort will entail coordination with local officials and
will include an analysis of potential secondary effects of the proposed
improvements. The assessment will address potential economic effects upon
adjacent businesses due to diversion of traffic during and after construction.
Particular attention will be paid to the existence of underground and above-
ground pipelines servicing the oil and gas industry.
The Engineer will be responsible for reviewing the applicability of Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act and Section 6(f) of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act. If 4(f) or 6(f) evaluations are required, they will
be conducted under a separate scope and budget.
The Engineer will assess impacts to prime farmland soil units by mapping,
quantifying, and coordinating with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Resolution of this issue will be documented in the text of the EA.
I. Social Impacts and Environmental Justice
As applicable, this task will address potential effects of the project on local
..eighborhoods or communities, travel patterns, access, and publ'.c safety,
particularly as those changes may differentially affect various social groups
and minorities. The assessment will conform to FHWA guidance for
compliance with Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice.
J. Air Quality Impacts
The proposed project area will be evaluated for National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) status. The air quality assessment will focus on the
changes in roadway -related carbon monoxide (CO) and other criteria
emissions that may result from the proposed improvements. Using existing
literature, an analysis will be prepared of the study area's existing
meteorological dispersion and air-quality characteristics.
City of Geomeloym and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 11 of 17
K. Noise
The project noise assessment will consist of an inventory of potential noise -
sensitive receptors in order to establish the project area's existing noise level
range. In accordance with TxDOT noise assessment guidelines, the roadway
alignment for the design year will be computer simulated, and future noise
levels will be predicted at each of the sensitive receptors using the
FHWA/TxDOT approved Traffic Noise Model.
L. Ecological Resources (To be performed under time and material portion of
contract with a not -to -exceed of $49,500.00)
The Project Engineer will conduct evaluations of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, in all areas potentially affected by the proposed project, and a
"jurisdictional waters finding" will be provided if necessary. As part of the
environmental phase of the project, the Project Engineer will notify the district
if it is believed that a Section 404 or Section 9 permit is required and will
provide the technical data to the district for application to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and/or the U.S. Coast Guard. Any Section 404 permitting that
requires direct coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
scheduled to occur during the design phase and will require an additional
scope and budget.
The Engineer will characterize remaining ecological resources including
existing vegetation attributes and wildlife habitat. Ecologically sensitive
resources, if identified, will be mapped and described in order to assess
potential effects of project construction and operation. This will include the
appropriate literature and aerial photography review and field verification.
The Engineer will also perform a literature review, habitat assessment(s), and
USFWS coordination to identify and address threatened/endangered species
issues in order to ensure compliance with the ESA. The assessment will
focus on federally listed species of potential occurrence. Phis scope and
budget also includes a geologic assessment survey to identify candidate karst
features within the project area. The proposed right-of-way and a 500 ft
buffer on either side of the proposed right-of-way will be surveyed to identify
these features. The EA will also address compliance issues under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act relative to the proposed project.
M. Hazardous Materials Contamination
The Project Engineer will perform an Environmental Site Assessment for
potential hazardous materials impacts in accordance with the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1528.93 (Transaction Screen
Process). It will be undertaken as a combination of data search and site
investigation for the preferred route (corridor). The hazardous material
criterion will be used in determining mitigative measures for the preferred
route—not necessarily for route selection. Notwithstanding, the Project
City of Geo®eloy and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 12 of 17
KOJI
Engineer will identify significant appurtenances that may conflict with the
various routes during the route selection phase. This information will be used
for revising alignment and/or selecting the preferred route.
The Project Engineer will conduct database searches for up to three
alternative routes for the Inner Loop project. Up to five separate investigations
will be conducted: leaking petrochemical tanks (underground), state/federal
superfund sites, municipal solid waste sites, storage disposal facilities, and
industrial and hazardous waste sites. Field verification will be completed for
the preferred route.
Separate Support Documentation
Where applicable, separate letter reports documenting results of historic,
threatened and endangered species, noise, wetlands, and environmental
justice investigations will be prepared for regulatory overview.
Survey Services (To Be Performec' by Diamond Surveying, Inc,)
A) Provide Client with electronic Gadd file and plotted map showing road right-of-
way lines and property lines based on record deed information and
preliminary pin search for use in preliminary route determination.
B) Obtain right of entry to properties that require field crew entry.
C) Establish and stake baseline control and furnish listing of horizontal alignment
and coordinates for baseline control. This baseline shall not be on centerline
stationing.
D) Establish benchmark circuit throughout the project and project control data.
Provide Client with benchmark list.
E) Collect void information to supplement Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the
roadway and site for use in the GEOPAK Koaoway geometry modeling
system.
F) Establish x, y and z coordinates of power lines, manholes and valves of
various utilities and flowlines of existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines.
Utility locations shall be based on One -call services.
G) Provide temporary signs, traffic control, flags, safety equipment, etc.
H) Ties to existing bridges, bridge foundations and culverts.
1) Provide hydraulic cross-sections for hydraulic analysis.
J) Locate geotechnical bore holes and provide location report to client.
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 13 of 17
K) Perform management tasks related to the surveying services listed above.
These tasks shall include such items as coordinating work to be performed,
attending meetings, telephone discussions with the Client, progress reports,
etc.
11. Work not included at this time
• Right of way mapping or parcel plats.
• Meets and bounds for parcel legal descriptions.
• Pavement Design.
• Utility conflict design and plan preparation.
• Roadway, Railway or Bridge design.
• Final PS & E and Bid Document preparation.
• Traffic analysis for project or century plan.
12. Items to be provided by the City
• Any cultural resource work (i.e., archaeological investigations/historical
investigations). The City or its selected consultant will provide the
required cultural resource findings/reports necessary for state and federal
approvals. This information will be made available to the Engineer for
inclusion in the Environmental Assessment.
• A court reporter or other source for recording meeting minutes at the
public meetings and the public hearing.
• Minutes of all public meetings/hearing.
• Background data including construction drawings, site plans, plats, survey
information, survey datum, property ownerships, land use drawings,
13. Additional Services
There are work items associated with this project which are dependent upon
findings from the basic services scope of work. These items may be required in
their entirety, may be partly required or may not be required at all. In order to
more efficiently work these items into the project, the effort required to complete
them will be determined at a later date when the project corridor becomes more
definite. Therefore, the items and their associated costs as outlined below are
estimated and will be further defined as the project develops. Items included in
the additional services are:
A. Environmental Services
Agency Coordination
TxDOT generally conducts formal coordination activities with resource and
regulatory agencies when the draft EA is provided to their office. Due to the
uncertainty of TxDOT's involvement, it may be necessary for the Engineer to
conduct formal coordination with resource and regulatory agencies. The
City of Georgetown and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 14 of 17
Engineer would perform any required formal coordination to obtain approvals if
TxDOT is not involved with the proposed project.
Formal coordination and meeting activities: $9,000
Archaeology
The cultural resources task will include a background review of historical and
archaeological sources, including an inventory of recorded sites from the Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory, to evaluate the potential for occurrence of
sites which may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places. This scope includes a 100 percent pedestrian survey of the preferred
alignment as required for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Texas Antiquities Code. This scope does not include
any activities associated with the testing or mitigation phases of Section 106
compliance. If testing and/or mitigation are deemed necessary, additional funds
would be needed to complete these activities This scope also includes a TxDOT
Historical Resources Survey of buildings and structures up to 1,300 ft beyond the
proposed right-of-way for the preferred alignment.
• Estimated cost to conduct archaeological studies: $12,250
• Estimated cost to conduct historic studies: $12,250
• Additional cost would be required if the initial archaeological survey
determines that a site or sites require testing and/or mitigation. Mitigation
of an archaeological site may require additional work in order to comply
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Texas
Antiquities Code.
• Testing of archeological site(s) depends on size and significance: $25,000
to $125,000 (per site)
• Mitigation of archaeological site(s): $50,000-500,000 (per site)
For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that a single site may be identified
requiring testing and mitigation, which would cost approximately $250,000.
Endangered Species
Presence/absences surveys for the threatened and endangered species may require
additional efforts if habitat is present. For example, USFWS protocol may require
three years of survey data for the golden-cheeked warbler to resolve issues. If
significant karst features are identified, a biological assessment of habitat quality
would be required. Efforts associated with significant karst features may require
mapping of significant caves to achieve clearance. Additionally if impacts to
endangered song birds occur, a biological assessment would be required.
• Additional surveys: $20,000
• Additional karst work: $100,000
• Biological assessments: $30,000
• Mitigation Planning: $50,000
City of Georaetow and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 15 of 17
Noise Impacts
If noise modeling indicates that noise abatement is feasible and reasonable, a
noise workshop would be scheduled for the affected property owners. The intent
of the noise workshop would be to gather a consensus from the affected property
owners concerning the location and type of noise wall(s) that could be
constructed.
Noise workshop: $5,000
Section 4(f)/6(f) Evaluations
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 helps protect
publicly owned lands such as parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, and significant historic sites from impacts due to highway construction.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act requires that
recreational facilities receiving U.S. Department of Interior funding from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act as allocated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD) may not be converted to non -recreational use unless
approval is received from TPWD and the National Park Service. Impacts to
Section 4(f) and/or 6(f) lands would require additional documentation to achieve
environmental clearance.
• Section 4(f) evaluation: $10,000 (per location)
• Programmatic 4(f) evaluation: $15,000 (per location)
• Section 6(f) evaluation: $15,000 (per location)
For the purposes of this correspondence, a total cost of $25,000 is assumed for
4(f) and 6(f) concerns.
Prepare Environmental Impact Statement
If potential significant unavoidable impacts to the human or natural environment
are determined during the development of.the EA, an Environmental Impact
Statement resulting in a Record of Decision would be required.
Additional Cost for Environmental Impact Statement: $90,000
B. Survey
1. Locate roadway right of way and parcel line locations based on
actual on -the -ground survey and relate to project control upon
determination of final alignment. Provide City with electronic CADD file
and plotted strip map.
2. Provide coordination with Utility companies based on One -call notification
service.
3. Prepare individual metes and bounds descriptions with seven (7) parcels
to be acquired for right-of-way and five (5) parcels to be acquired for
City of Geometow and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 16 of 17
easements. These numbers are estimated based on information available
at this time.
4. Stake centerline stationing of final alignment for use during construction
phase.
14. PAYMENT
Fees associated with the Basic Services portion of the contract, excluding the
Ecological Resources, will be invoiced on a lump sum basis in the amount of
$482,252. The Ecological Resources will be invoiced on the basis of hourly
costs plus expenses with a maximum not to exceed amount of $49,500. The
total for Basic Services is $531,752.
Additional Services, if required and approved, will be invoiced on the basis of
hourly costs plus expenses with a maximum not to exceed amount of $808,710.
A breakdown of the costs for this project is attached, Exhibit C, to this task order.
15. SCHEDULE
A detailed project schedule will be provided shortly after Notice to Proceed is
received. Development of the environmental documentation and schematic
design comprising the Basic Services of this contract will be completed with
fourteen (14) months of written authorization to proceed.
This PROJECT TASK ORDER shall not bind or effective unless and until it is signed by
duly authorized representatives of both ENGINEER and the CITY.
Executed to be effective on
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Printed Name:
Date:
City of Georaetow and HDR Task Order No. 1
Page 17 of 17
2003.
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
By, l
Printed ame: James K. (ken) Haney, P.E.
Title: Exec tie Vice President
Date: 4,13403
EXHIBIT "B"
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
AUSTIN, TEXAS
SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED HOURLY BILLING RATES
Project Principal
$ 250
Project Manager/Senior Engineer
$ 165
Project Engineer
$ 150
Design Engineer
$ 115
Engineer -in -Training
$ 90
Sr. Design Technician
$ 100
CADD Technician
$ 80
Clerical/Steno
$ 65
BLANTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Project Principal
$ 155
Senior Project Manager
$ 125
Project Manager
$ 105
Sr. Scientist
$ 100
Scientist II
$ 85
Scientist 1
$ 70
Technician II
$ 65
Technician 1
$ 55
Cartography
$ 85
Project Administrator
$ 60
Clerical
$ 55
EXHIBIT "C"
Fee Summary - Basic Services
Project Name: SH 29 Southwest Bypass
Consultant: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Cost Component, Hours
Project Principal
Project Manager/Senior Engineer.
Design Engineer
Engineer -in -Training
Sr. Design Technician
CADD Technician
Clerical/Steno
Total Hours
Cost Component, Dollars
Project Principal
Project Manager/Senior Fngineer
Design Engineer
Engineer -in -Training
Sr. Design Technician
CADD Technician
Clerical/Steno
Labor Dollars
TOTAL EXPENSES W/ 10% markup
TOTAL HDR BASIC SERVICES FEE
SUBCONSULTANTS BASIC SERVICES
Diamond Surveying
Right-of-way Map w/Electronic File
Obtain Right of Entry
Baseline Control
Benchmark Circuit
Digital Terrain Model
Utility Survey
Traffic control & Safety
Ties to hydraulic structures
Hydraulic Cross Sections
Geotechnical Boni^o I ^t -en=
Administration, meetings, coord., etc.
Subtotal Diamond Surveying
Blanton & Associates (Excluding Ecological Resources)
Envir6nmental Constraints Report
Public Involvement
Agency Coordination
Purpose & Need for Action
Alternative Descriptions
Land Use & Economic Impacts
Social Impacts
Air Quality Impacts
Noise Assessment
Subconsultant Administration & Coordination 10%
Subtotal Blanton & Assoc.
YNS/_l�:laF96I.9X:77[NX.'��r1.:liYYld�3�
$32,591
$336,546
$ 5,080
$ 650
$ 13,900
$ 9,580
$ 16,400
$ 12,600
$ 850
$ 6,300
$ 6,950
$ 3,650
$ 6,000
$81,960
$ 18,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 1,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
$ 1,500
$ 4,500
$ 7,500
$50,500
$13,246
$482,252
Blanton & Associates (Ecological Resources) TOTAL HOURLY NOT TO EXCEED FEE $49,500
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES FEES $531,752
Schematic
Environ.
RR
Project
Total
Coor.
Admin.
Hours
60
0
2
20
82
416
58
38
108
620
512
8
14
44
578
264
104
16
0
384
264
0
0
0
264
496
24
24
0
544
72
17
0
68
157
2084
211
94
240
2629
Rate
$250
$15,000
$0
$500
$5,000
$20,500
$165
$68,640
$9,570
$6,270
$17,820
$102,300
$115
$58,880
$920
$1,610
$5,060
$66,470
$90
$23,760
$9,360
$1,440
$0
$34,560
$100
$26,400
$0
$0
$0
$26,400
$80
$39,680
$1,920
$1,920
$0
$43,520
$65
$4,680
$1,105
$0
$4,420
$10,205
$237,040
$22,875
$11,740
$32,300
$303,955
Subtotal Diamond Surveying
Blanton & Associates (Excluding Ecological Resources)
Envir6nmental Constraints Report
Public Involvement
Agency Coordination
Purpose & Need for Action
Alternative Descriptions
Land Use & Economic Impacts
Social Impacts
Air Quality Impacts
Noise Assessment
Subconsultant Administration & Coordination 10%
Subtotal Blanton & Assoc.
YNS/_l�:laF96I.9X:77[NX.'��r1.:liYYld�3�
$32,591
$336,546
$ 5,080
$ 650
$ 13,900
$ 9,580
$ 16,400
$ 12,600
$ 850
$ 6,300
$ 6,950
$ 3,650
$ 6,000
$81,960
$ 18,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 1,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
$ 1,500
$ 4,500
$ 7,500
$50,500
$13,246
$482,252
Blanton & Associates (Ecological Resources) TOTAL HOURLY NOT TO EXCEED FEE $49,500
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES FEES $531,752
Manhour Summary
Project Name: Southwest SH 29 Bypass
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...............................................
Consultant: HDR Engineering, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasks
Hours for the Classifications
Total
roject
F: incl al
PM / Senior
En/Sr. Env
Design
Enq/ Env II
Engineer in
raining/Env
Sr. Design
Technician
CADD
Technician
Steno /
Clerical
Project Administration
20
108
44
68
240
Schematic Preparation
60
416
512
264
264
496
72
2084
Environmental
0
58
8
104
0
24
17
211
Georgetown RR Coordination
2
1 38
1 14
1 16
0
24
1 0
94
Total Hours
82
1 620
1 578
1 384
264
544
1 157
2629
Jim Briggs To: Sandra Lee/City of Georgetown@City of Georgetown
03/21/2003 09:19 AM Subject: Georgetown Village Interceptor
Could you forward this on the council for background for Tuesday night. We have been talking with the
neighbors about the connections to the wastewater line and making available to them an option that we
have used before to "UNDERWRITE" the project for them if they pay 100% of the cost plus interest at the
current City rate of 5-6% with a 5 year payout. That interest rate is up to Micki. Council adopted a policy to
do this about 10 years ago just for this type of purpose. We have yet to get an exact number of who will
connect to the system because the residents have been hesitant to commit to paying for the
improvements. They still think that the City should pay for the improvements and waive any fees for them.
We have so far indicated that is not on the table because we have obligations for customers within the
City Limits and they are outside the City customers. Taking funds from City projects and transferring them
to Out of City customers is not an option at this time. The wastewater fund is very delicate on covering
expenses as it is without reducing potential revenues and increasing expenses to the fund. The
underwriting option has been used numerous times and is a very effective way to meet the customers half
way without damaging our commitments to the current users. I have this issue scheduled for discussion at
the GUS Advisory Board meeting next Thursday as a way to give the residents a forum for discussion
since they will simply address the council on Tuesday night and there is a procedure already established
to offer them that is council approved. The GUS Board can recommend to Council that we either go
forward with these contracts to underwrite the project, establish another means for doing this or pass.
Jim Briggs
ACM/Utilities
Georgetown Utility Systems
512.930.3889
internet mail: jhb@georgetowntx.org
Forwarded by Jim Briggs/City of Georgetown on 03/21/2003 09:02 AM t7 --
Glenn
--
Glenn Dishong To: Jim Briggs/City of Georgetown@City of Georgetown
03/21/2003 08:24 AM cc: Keith Hutchinson/City of Georgetown@City of Georgetown. John
Aldridge/City of Georgetown@City of Georgetown, Joel
Weaver/COU/City of Georgetown@City of Georgetown
Subject: Georgetown Village Interceptor
Jim,
I met with a group of Serenade homeowners (approx 20) last night. I reviewed the current City decision
and also reiterated that GUS would be willing to fund and manage the project of stub installation if
homeowners would pay for 100% of the cost (either up front or financed). I also asked for them to clearly
indicate how many homeowners would be interested in Sewer Service (not just stub installation) within the
next year. I told them that if enough homeowners would actually tap into the system (paying impact fees
and monthly service fees), then GUS MAY be able to participate in the cost to some degree because there
would then be a means of offsetting the cost with sewer revenue.
Also mentioned that if we did manage the installation of the stubs, we would do everything possible to
minimize the cost including "bundling" the project with other projects (Lakeway, Golden Oaks Lift) to
create economies of scale. I told them that to proceed with any kind of engineering estimate, I would need
to know the addresses of those individuals that want stubs (and are willing to pay) and also the addresses
of those folks that want service within the next year. The group will try to get this info to me ASAP.
In the mean time.... they will be speaking to the council on Tuesday evening.
Glenn W. Dishong
Water Services Manager
Georgetown Utility Systems
512-930-2574