HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.28.2003Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Friday, February 28, 2003
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
Gary Nelon presiding.
Council Present: Council Absent:
Llorente Navarrette, Gabe Sensing, Doug Smith, All Council present
Jack Noble, Sam Pfiester, Farley Snell, Ken Evans
Staff Present:
Paul Brandenburg, City Manager; Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager; Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations; Trish Carls, City Attorney; Sandra Lee, City Secretary; Amelia
Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services; Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and
Administration; Eric Lashley, Library Services Director; David Munk, Development Engineer; Bobby Ray,
Chief Current Planner; Glenn Dishong, Water/Wastewater Service Manager; Mark Miller, Transportation
Services Manager
Minutes
Policy Development/Review Workshop
Regular Session to convene and continue Executive Session, if necessary
Executive Session
There was no Executive Session held at this meeting.
Regular Session
B Call to Order -- The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
C Pledge of Allegiance -- The Mayor led the Pledge.
D Comments from the dais regarding the following items:
- Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments — Mayor Gary Nelon
Mayor Nelon welcomed the audience and gave a brief outline of meeting procedures.
He announced that Item Z-3 would be moved to the beginning of the Regular Agenda.
Announcements and Comments from City Manager
Paul Brandenburg made the following announcements:
Georgetown Utility Systems has received the Community Service Award from the American
Public Power Association for the Safe Place Program.
Georgetown is not one of the four communities being considered for the race track project.
The Georgetown Girls Basketball Team beat Fort Bend Hightower in the State Semi -Final game
today and will play the State Championship game tomorrow against State 5A Champion,
Duncanville.
Citizens Wishing to Address Council
B. Keith Peshak, 800 Oak Crest Lane, regarding "how Sam Pfiester and Farley Snell saved Don Dison
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 1 of 12 Pages
$600,000 in city impact assessment fees while supporting the construction of a new Air Transportation
Center at the Georgetown Airport."
Peshak shared his opinion about the operations of the Georgetown Municipal Airport.
G Action from Executive Session
There was no action from Executive Session.
Statutory Consent Agenda
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the Council Workshop on Monday,
February 10, the Special Meeting on Tuesday, February 11, at 5:00 p.m., the Regular Council Meeting on
Tuesday, February 11, and the Special Meeting on Thursday, February 18, 2003 -- Sandra Lee, City
Secretary
Pfiester corrected the Minutes of the Special Meeting on the UDC on Tuesday, February 11, saying that
"Clean -Up" items 1 and 1A should be listed under "Bring back in six months."
I Consideration and possible action to authorize the application for a cooperative grant with Georgetown
Independent School District (GISD), in an amount not to exceed $50,000, from the Institute of Museum and
Library Services, under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by the
State of Texas — Eric Lashley, Director of Library Services
J Consideration and possible action to accept the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the
Investment Report for both the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC) for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 -- Laurie Brewer, Controller and Micki
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Keith Peshak, 800 Country Club Lane, said he questions that financial reports from the Airport are not
made public, so therefore, he questioned the City's Quarterly Financial Report.
K Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution revising the current City of Georgetown
Investment Policy -- Laurie Brewer, Controller and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Keith Peshak suggested he knew where the City could pick up a "quick $500,000," saying the City could
make money by building the hangars at the airport rather than approving a lease and allowing someone
else to build them.
L Consideration and possible action to accept a report of the independent audit of all accounts of the City,
report to management and single audit reports for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 — Laurie
Brewer, Controller and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
M Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution amending the 2002/03 Georgetown
Transportation Enhancement Corporation budget in the amount of $30,725 — Micki Rundell, Director of
Finance and Administration
N Consideration and possible action to approve an agreement for Investment advisory services with Valley
View Consulting, L.L.C. not to exceed $9,000.00 — Laurie Brewer, Controller and Micki Rundell, Director of
Finance and Administration
Evans questioned the value and need for these services. Rundell explained that the City has used this
consulting company for the last four years. She said the City would be charged on a "per transaction"
basis, not to exceed $9,000.
O Consideration and possible action to award the bid for an all purpose crawler to All Weather Equipment
and Power Sports in the amount of $65,210.00 — Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Micki Rundell,
Director of Finance and Administration
Navarrette asked for an explanation regarding the difference between the bids from Holt and All Weather
Equipment. Paul Pausewang explained that the Holt bid was for a much smaller machine.
P Contract Amendments
1. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK) for professional services relating to the
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 2 of 12 Pages
design of the Lakeway Wastewater Improvements Phase I project-- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
2. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK) for professional services relating to the
design of Golden Oaks — 8th & Church Wastewater Improvement Project -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
Q Final Plats
1. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 1.064 acres in the Joseph
Fish Survey, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision, Phase 2, located on Williams Drive, west of
Shell Road — Cada Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning
and Development Services
2. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 120.59 acres in the Lewis, P.
Dyches Survey, to be known as Walnut Springs Subdivision, located at the intersection of CR
261 and FM 3405 — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
3. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Final Plat for a resubdivision of Shell
Addition, the northeast portion of Block 6, being 0.33 acres, to be known as LMA Subdivision,
located at 807 3rd Street — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
4. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Final Plat for 9.2719 acres out of the Garcia
Survey, to be known as the Markham Tract, located on CR 152, with variances to the Subdivision
Regulations — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
Motion by Sansing, second by Smith to approve the Consent Agenda with corrections to the Minutes of the Special
Meeting. Approved 7-0.
Legislative Regular Agenda
Z-3 First Reading of an Ordinance a dopting the U nified Development C ode ( UDC) — Bobby Ray, Chief
Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
Sondgeroth read the caption only of the ordinance after having satisfied the requirements of the City
Charter. She also read into the record the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the UDC and suggests that the following
items be taken under special consideration:
1. Keep the provisions with regards to the Gateway Overlay District (Sections 4.08 and 8.06)
eliminating the Yz mile provision of 4.08.010(A) and set up a task force of citizens to review this
section and bring forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council 6 months from the adoption of the code;
1a. Keep the provisions with regards to the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District (Section 4.09)
set up a task force of citizens to review this section and bring forward a recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council 6 months from the adoption of the code; and,
1b. Delete the provisions of Section 11.04.010 (A) regarding the prohibition of hazardous / toxic
materials over the Acquifer and set up a task force of citizens to review this language and bring
forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council 6 months
from the adoption of the code.
2. That Section 11.06 Indemnification be deferred for additional legal review and brought back for
further review 6 months from the adoption of the code.
3. That Section 12.03.030 B. Connectivity Ratio requirement be changed to a 1.20 ratio including the
following language: "unless the Director of Development Services determines that this requirement
is impractical due to topography and/or natural features".
4. That Section 12.03.050 (B) Required Access Points be amended to require the following: 2 access
points for 99 lots or less; 3 access points for 100 to 299 lots; and, 4 access points for over 300
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 3 of 12 Pages
lots.
5. That the issue regarding light pole mounted banners for non -civic uses be brought for review, with
the development of specific standards, within 6 months from the adoption of the code.
6. That Sections 3.08.010 (E) and 3.08.050 (B) having to do with the leasing or offering for sale of
property be deleted.
7. That Sec. 10.03.020 (G) be modified to remove restrictions in size for political signs.
8. That the number of receptions, weddings, and parties under the Temporary Use Permit (TUP)
provision of Section 5.02.140 (B)(1)(d) be limited to six (6) per calendar year and clarify that these
are for inside events.
9. That the adopting ordinance require a review of the entire ordinance with possible amendments
one year from the date of adoption.
10. That there be a special provision in Chapter 6 to exempt landscape lots, median lots, access lots,
utility lots from the minimum lot size requirement.
11. That site plan expiration of Section 3.09.060 be changed from 12 months to 24 months.
12. Look at Sections 6.01.030 (B) to ensure that zoning is not occurring in the ETJ.
13. Section 13.05.020(C)(1) be amended to change the grade slope requirement from five percent to
twenty percent for parkland credit.
14. Include the requirement for an avigation easement consistent with the existing Subdivision
Regulations, including the required language of the easement.
15. Amend Section 14.04.010(a)(1) to allow the reconstruction of nonconforming structures damaged
by natural or accidental causes to the extent of more than 50 percent of the value of the structure
on the date of the damage, provided that reconstruction commences within six months from the
date of the damaging event.
16. Eliminate the 110% parking cap of Section 9.02.020.
17. Commend to the City Council that they review the impervious cover provision at First Reading and
at the one-year review.
Renee Hanson, 1252 Austin Avenue, spoke as the Chair of the Heart of Georgetown Association, regarding
the restriction of the number of events for Bed and Breakfast facilities. She said she would like to see a
limit of six and not an increase to twelve events per year.
Mel Pendland, 30207 Oak Tree Drive, spoke as President of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce,
against the prohibition of the use of toxic materials over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. He said the
ordinance, as currently stated, would discourage new industry. He read suggested language, as follows:
.all sites, regardless of zoning classification, that are subject to the Unified Development Code, shall
comply with applicable state and federal regulations governing the manufacture, use and disposal of
hazardous and toxic materials. The City of Georgetown reserves the right to conduct inspections, and to
notify the appropriate governing authority of violations of such regulations in order to ensure compliance
therewith." Regarding the connectivity ratio, he said that the current language prohibits cul-de-sacs. He
suggested keeping the current language, including the ratio, provided the Council consider dropping
cul-de-sacs from the calculation. Regarding impervious cover, he suggested that if Georgetown is to be
competitive, sites for industrial property need to be made available. He said the 50% limit, even with the
opportunity to increase with "best management practises" is insufficient for industrial property. He urged
that the current 80% impervious cover provision be used. With regard to retail and commercial space, he
suggested a policy that encourages compliance with the land use plan, at 60% impervious cover with the
opportunity to add 15% through "best management practises" on those properties that are developed in
accordance with the land use plan locations for retail and commercial development.
Steven Shepherd, 406 Riverdown Road, spoke to Council regarding water quality issues and impervious
cover. He said he is opposed to increasing the levels in the ordinance due to possible damage to the
Aquifer. He distributed charts showing a direct relationship between impervious cover and pollution of
water supplies. He said waivers should not be allowed. Evans asked and Shepherd responded that he is
employed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Marjorie Herbert, 1246 Main Street, spoke to Council regarding the importance of regulations for impervious
cover, connectivity, hazardous materials, and parking.
Henry Carr, 119 Yaupon, said it is important that economic development is successful and said the UDC
could be used as a weapon to ensure that success. He said there needs to be a common vision in
Georgetown. He cautioned the Council not to promote "uncertainty." He said he has concern about
specific provisions. He said those that are undeterminable should be left out for now. He said to remove
the hazardous materials clause because there is already protection from state and federal rules. He said
he would accept the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for connectivity and access
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 4 of 12 Pages
points. He would "fix" the provisions for parking lots to provide for big entertainment facilities and would
raise the base numbers for impervious cover and add more percentage points to reward developers for
doing "the right thing" At Navarrette's request, he gave Council a comparison of the code restrictions from
San Antonio. He said the 900 -page, as yet incomplete, UDC for San Antonio does not mention impervious
cover. He said it references their exisiting city code where it is clearly addressed and contains an "open
invitation" for negotiation.
Scott Smiley, resident of Travis County, addressed Council regarding connectivity. He said the number of
connections for development in Section 12.03.050(b) prohibits the development of cul-de-sacs. He
suggested using a lower number to allow small developments on small cul-de-sacs. He had other
suggestions regarding the number of access points. He said other cities count a divided roadway as two
access points in larger subdivisions.
The public hearing was closed at 6:45 p.m.
Motion by Sensing, second by Noble to approve the motion from the Planning and Zoning Commission and
add at 1 b to include the recommendations made by Penland and Evans, to make sure that state laws are
enforced and there is enforceability, and with respect to #17, recommend 60% on commercial with
variances for "best practices" allowing up to 70%, and from 70% to 80% with "best practices" on industrial.
Evans clarified that he had not agreed to the language presented by Pendland. He said he wants the
hazardous materials retstriction back into the UDC with a six-month review and professional advice at that
six-month review..
Motion by Snell, second by Ptiester to amend the previous motion to exclude the following items: 1 b, 3, 4,
5, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 17.
Nelon recalled that Council had previously decided at the Workshop to discuss Items 27 (dealing with the
waiver of the impervious cover limitations) and 31 (the definition of driving surface) and asked if Snell and
Pfiester would agree to include those two items in the amendment. They agreed.
Vote on Amendment: Approved 5.2. (Sensing and Noble opposed)
Vote on Original Motion: Approved 6-1. (Noble opposed)
Pfiester displayed some maps produced by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to
show the location in Georgetown of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. He noted that there are four
existing state and federal laws concemng hazardous materials. He noted the location of the water supply
for Georgetown. He said the current location of industrial sites in Georgetown creates the reason to be
extremely careful.
Smith said the list of hazardous and toxic materials is extensive, and said he thinks most high-tech
industries use hazardous and toxic materials in their production. He said this would effectively exclude
high-tech industries.
Noble said he agrees with Smith, saying this would exclude the bio -medical and chip manufacturing
industries. He said he would like to see local control rather than prohibition.
Sensing agreed that standards in the building code for containment would take care of the local control.
Nelon agreed that the permit requirements of TCEQ are stringent. Snell said he is worried about accidental
contamination.
Navarrette asked for Jim Briggs to respond regarding hazardous material contamination.
Briggs said the characteristics of the northern Edwards are different than those of the southern Edwards.
He said the water that is in our portion of the Aquifer recharges back towards the Jollyville Plateau area of
northwest Austin and comes this direction. He said containment measures are necessary to protect the
water supply.
Nelon noted that Texas is particularly vulnerable because anyone may drill a water well anywhere without
any governmental control. Briggs agreed that there is no required documentation of the location of wells,
and because that information is now considered to be part of Homeland Security, it will not be available.
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 5 of 12 Pages
Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to amend the UDC in the following manner: The on-site manufacture
and/or use of hazardous or toxic materials as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) 40, Part
261, Sub Parts C and D, by an industrial use as defined, located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone
is prohibited within one mile of any city of Georgetown source of water; and, separately from the UDC, that
a Citizen Task Force be formed to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council, six months from the adoption of the Code, a city policy for prohibiting, restricting, or permitting the
manufacture and/or use of toxic and hazardous materials over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, the
Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone and the Edwards Aquifer Transition Zone, and direct that the Task
Force contact Greg Rogers at TCEQ who heads up the Source Water Assessment and Protection Project.
Cads clarified with Pfiester that the Code of Regulations cite that he was referencing actually pertained to
hazardous waste, not hazardous materials. He agreed that he was intending to reference hazardous
materials and requested that the proper reference be inserted in the motion for the record. He summarized
that his motion says that hazardous/toxic materials would be prohibited one mile from City water sources
and the task force would investigate everything else.
Noble asked that at the second reading of the ordinance a map be displayed showing all of the industrial
property in the City and how much of that would be affected by this particular ordinance.
Navarrette said he agrees with building standards and containments but doesn't want to limit industrial
growth in Georgetown due to the need for jobs.
Vote on motion: Motion failed 4-3. (Sensing, Smith, Noble and Navarrette opposed)
Motion by Smith, second by Pfiester that the on-site manufacture of hazardous or toxic materials by an
industrial use as defined by the Super Fund Statute be prohibited over the entire Aquifer. Approved 7-0.
Pfiester asked that the State Safe Water and Protection (SWAP) Study regarding the capture zone or
drainage area that affects the Georgetown sources of drinking water be brought back before the Council
once it has been completed.
7:53 p.m. — recessed
8:03 p.m. — resumed
Connectivity Ratio UDC Code Section 12.03.030(B)
Motion by Snell, second by Sensing to accept the language as written but use the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation to change the ratio to 1.2 and add the language: "unless the Director of
Planning and Development Services determines that this requirement is impractical due to topography
and/or natural features."
There was discussion
Motion by Smith, second by Pfiester to amend the motion to use a ratio of 1.4, taking into consideration
the topography or natural features.
Vote on Amendment: Failed 4-3. (Sensing, Noble, Evans and Navarrette opposed)
Vote on Original Motion: Approved 7-0.
Access Points UDC Code Section 12.03.050(8)
Snell asked Sondgeroth about the "sliver" question. Sondgeroth said the access points provision applies to
the entire subdivison as a preliminary plat and then it is finaled out in different sections, so as long as it
meets the overall preliminary approval, then the developer could come in with one access point at the end
of the process.
Noble asked and Munk responded that in smaller subdivisions if the boundary was sudivided to the point
that you couldn't subdivide again, connectivity(access) was not required.
Motion by Snell, second by Evans to accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
which was to amend to require the following: 2 access points for 99 lots or less; 3 access points for 100 to
299 lots; and 4 access points for over 300 lots. Approved 5-2. (Noble and Smith opposed)
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 6 of 12 Pages
Banners for Non -Civic Uses
Motion by Noble, second by Sensing to approve the Planning and Zoning recommendation to leave this out
at this point and bring it back in six months after being studied. It was determined that during the six-month
period, the banners would not be allowed. However, there would be no enforcement on those that now
exist. Smith mentioned that Barrett Mitsubishi asked to put up the light pole banners, but was told they
could not, even though Hewlett has them.
Motion by Smith, second by Navarrette to amend to allow light pole mounted banners for non -civic uses
with Development Services staff coming up with guidelines for size and "frequency" of the banners.
Approved 6-1. (Pfiester opposed)
Vote on original motion as amended: Approved 7-0.
Bed and Breakfast Events UDC Code Section 5.02.140(B)(1)(d)
Motion by Snell, second by Evans to approve the Planning and Zoning recommendation to limit the number
of receptions, weddings, and parties under the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) provision of Section
5.02.140(B)(1)(d) to six per calendar year and clarify that these are for inside events. Approved 7-0.
One-year Review of UDC
Motion by Snell, second by Evans that the Council will review and make possible amendments to the
Unified Development Code no later than one year from its adoption. In preparation for this review and
possible action, (1) the staff will prepare a report which details the different types of development
applications that have been filed under the new UDC, along with the status of approval and the issues
associated with the approval or disapproval. The list of application types or questions that would be
analyzed are: (a) Rezoning Applications; (b) Appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment; (c) Variances to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment; (d) Waivers to the Subdivision Requirements; (e) Questions regarding
definitions of terms or interpretations; (2) the Staff report and its recommendations will be the subject of no
more than 2 public workshops; (3) the resulting Staff report and amended recommendations will be
presented to P&Z for its recommendation to the Council; and (4) the Council will review the report and
recommendations for possible action to amend the UDC.
There was discussion. Approved 7-0.
Avigation Easement
Motion by Snell, second by Sensing to approve the Planning and Zoning recommendation to include the
requirement for an avigation easement consistent with the existing Subdivision Regulations, including the
required language of the easement.
When asked by Snell, Cads explained the definition of "avigation easement" being "right of flight," saying
that a plat note is required. She said this is not a noise easement. She said the reference to noise is one
of disclosure and one of the effects of aircraft is noise. She said this provision has been in existence for
about 28 years, and staff recommends carrying it forward.
Approved 7-0.
Parking Cao UDC Code Section 9.02.020
Smth asked for the reason for this provision. Sondgeroth replied that it was needed to prevent overparking.
She said restaurants, "big box" retail, and theatres, often exceed parking caps. There was discussion.
Motion by Sensing, second by Noble to follow the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to
eliminate the cap.
Motion by Pfiester, second by Smith to amend to say that if more landcaping is put in, then the parking cap
can be increased by 25% of the lot landscaped and 25% of the tree canopy.
Vote on Amendment: Approved 7-0
Vote on Amended Motion: Approved 7-0.
Impervious Cover Limitation Established UDC Code Section 11.02.010
Pfiester reviewed three reasons for impervious cover limitation, being prevention of stream degradation,
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 7 of 12 Pages
prevention of flooding, and protection of the Aquifer. He said impervious cover has nothing to do with job
creation or competitiveness. There was discussion.
Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to use the wording in Exhibit 9, which states: A. Applicability - No
property greater than five acres in area platted or developed shall exceed the following impervious cover
limitations on a gross site area basis. Properties under five acres in area that are located within the City
limits must comply with the zoning (per lot) impervious cover limits set forth in Section 6.02.030. B. Areas
Located over the Edwards Aquifer - No property located over the Edwards Aquifer shall exceed a
subdivision impervious cover limit of 50 percent impervious cover in the City or the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction unless a waiver allowing additional impervious cover as set forth below is granted. In no case
shall impervious cover exceed 65 percent, including all waivers. C. Credit for Park Land - Park land to be
dedicated may be counted toward pervious area. D. Credit for Arterial and Major Collector Streets - The
area of arterial and major collector streets shown on the Thoroughfare Plan and located within the
subdivision shall be deleted from the calculation of gross area and impervious cover.
There was discussion. Motion by Sensing, second by Noble to amend to raise the baseline of 50% by 5%
to be 55% plus variances. Motion Failed 4-3. (Smith, Snell, Pfiester and Evans opposed)
Vote on Original Motion: Approved 5-2. (Sensing and Navarrette opposed)
Waiver of Imoervious Cover Limitations UDC Code Section 11.02.020(A)(3)
Motion by Pifester, second by Sensing to approve the staff recommendation in Exhibit 10, which states:
That Section 11.02.020(A)(3) "Waiver of Impervious Cover Limitations, Preservation of Natural Areas" be
modified to allow an increase of 7% in impervious cover. Approved 7-0.
Discontinuation of Nonconforming Uses UDC Code Section 14.03.010(A)
There was discussion. Motion by Snell, second by Noble to adopt the staff recommendation to modify
Section 14.03.010(A) to extend the time limit for discontinuation from 6 months to 12 months. Approved
6-1. (Smith opposed)
Temporary All -Weather Driving Surface UDC Code Section 16.05
Motion by Sensing, second by Navarrette to approve staffs recommendation to change the definition of
"Driving Surface, All Weather: as follows: "An impervious surface of chip seal asphalt or concrete...". Add
following the end of the definition: "(See Drawing SD43 and SD44 in the Construction Standards Manual)".
Approved 7-0.
Motion by Evans, second by Snell to modify the UDC at the top of page 4-9 at Section 4.04.030 Special
Districts, add Item G for an "Old Town Overlay District" to be developed by staff and brought back in six
months for the purposes of historical preservation. Sondgeroth noted that staff would need some direction
as to the intent of the district. Smith suggested there be a definition of "old town" Approved 7-0.
Motion by Pfiester, second by Snell, to eliminate electronic message centers from Section 10.02 of the
Code so they are no longer permitted. Approved 6-1. (Smith opposed)
Motion by Snell, second by Navarrette, on page 3-19, section 3.07.050, regarding expiration of special use
permits: as part of that section, add: "a special use permit shall expire 12 months after the use is no longer
made." He said the intent is that the special use does not attach to the property, it attaches to the special
use, and if after a while that property is no longer used for that special use, within 12 months that special
use permit would be withdrawn and they would have to reapply. Approved 7-0.
Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester, on 3-39, section 3.13.080, regarding appeals from a final action on
certificate of design compliance by HARC, re -word the section to say: "Such appeal shall be submitted to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment within 30 days of the final action, following the procedures and criteria
outlined in 3.14.020 through 3.14.040, which is with reference to appeals from an administrative decision.
Failure to appeal within 30 days shall cause the action to become final"
There was discussion. Approved 7-0.
Motion by Pfiester, second by Sensing to approve the unified development code ordinance on first reading
including all of the motions for revision. Approved 7-0.
R Consideration and possible action to approve the Mayor's recommendation for the Chair of the Planning
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 8 of 12 Pages
and Zoning Commission —Mayor Gary Nelon
Nelon read a statement regarding a recent controversy concerning his recommendation for the Chair
position of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He recommended that Chris Aadnesen be appointed as
the Chair. Motion by Noble, second by Sensing to approve the recommendation.
Pfiester said he was one of four citizens who, in a letter to the Council, questioned, not Mr. Aadnesen's
motives, but the existing city policy for boards and commissions. He said he would sponsor an item at the
next meeting for Council's consideration. He said he has a question about Aadnesen's impartiality because
he (Aadnesen) serves on the board of one of the two businesses that surround the "pink dot" indicating the
City's water supply on the TCEQ map used previously in this meeting to demonstrate the location of the
Edward's Aquifer in Georgetown. He said Council needs to either enforce the policy or change the policy
and he would like for Aadnesen to answer the questions in the letter. He said the other signatures on the
letter were ex -Mayor Carl Doering, ex -Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission Marjorie Herbert, and
Judy Shepherd.
There was discussion regarding the effect this issue would have on all volunteers at the City, including other
members of boards and commissions, as well as Councilmembers.
Vote on the Motion: Approved 6-1. (Pifester opposed)
S Consideration and possible action to award a bid for reconstruction of the San Gabriel Park foot bridge to
STIR Constructors,LTD in the amount of $229,258.82 — Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Randy
Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation
Yantis explaiined the item, saying the process to begin rebuilding the bridge has taken a long time since the
the bridge was damaged in the flood in 2001, and that the delay was due to lengthy negotiations with the
insurance company. Motion by Evans, second by Smith to approve the award of bid. Approved 7-0.
T Consideration and possible action to award an annual bid for janitorial and floor cleaning services to
Service Master in the estimated amount of $188,201.50 -- Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Micki
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Brandenburg asked that this Rem be rescheduled for the March 11 Agenda.
U Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute the Master lease/purchase
agreement and related documents between the City and Koch Financial Corporation for computer
equipment — Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Carls explained the item, saying even though Council approved the purchase back in December, Council's
permission is needed to allow the City Manager to execute the lease/purchase documents. Motion by
Smith, second by Evans to approve the lease/purchase agreement. Approved 4-3. (Sensing, Noble and
Navarrette opposed)
V Discussion regarding a presentation by staff on potential locations and construction of "Welcome to
Georgetown" gateway signs — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
Yantis stated that there was no action required of the Council since this item was presented in the
Workshop Session held on February 24, 2003.
W Legislative resolutions
1. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution to the Texas Legislature in support of
the continuation of the Telecommunclation Infrastructure Fund (TIF) — Eric Lashley, Director of
Library Services
Lashley read the caption of the resolution and said the Library has received over $200,000 from
the TIF, and GISD has received well over $1 million in funds from TIF. Motion by Noble, second
by Sensing to approve the resolution. Approved 7-0.
2. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution opposing legislation that would prohibit
a municipality's ability to restrict concealed handguns on municipal premises -- David Morgan,
Police Chief
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 9 of 12 Pages
Morgan read the caption and explained the resolution. .Motion by Evans, second by Sensing to
approve the resolution. Approved 6-1. (Navarrette opposed)
3. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution that opposes legislation that would
change current annexation law -- Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
Brandenburg read the caption of the resolution and explained the purpose, saying decisions
regarding annexation should be kept at the local level. Motion by Sansing, second by Noble to
approve the resolution. Approved 7-0.
X Second Readings
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance rezoning 100 acres out of the William Addison Survey from A,
Agricultural to RS, Residential Single-family, or more restrictive district, located south of the Inner
Loop and east of the future extension of Maple Street -- Bobby Ray, Chief Development
Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services.
Ray read only the caption on second reading. Motion by Snell, second by Pfiester to approve
Ordinance No. 2003-13. Approved 5-2. (Sensing and Noble opposed)
2. Second Reading of an Ordinance rezoning 1.83 acres within Berry Creek Section 5 from C-1,
Local Commercial to RS, Residential Single -Family, or more restrictive district, located on the west
side of S.H. 195 north of Berry Creek Drive / Airport Road — Bobby Ray, Development Planner and
Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services.
Ray read only the caption on second reading. Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to approve
Ordinance No. 2003.14. Approved 4-3 (Sensing, Snell and Noble opposed)
3. Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Century Plan Amendment of 100 acres out of the William
Addison Survey, to be known as The Pinnacle, to change from Intensity Level 2 to Intensity level
4, or any more restrictive classification, located south of the Inner Loop and east of the future
extension of Maple Street — David Munk, Development Engineer and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director
of Planning and Development Services
Munk read only the caption on second reading. Motion by Sansing, second by Smith to approve
Ordinance No. 2003-15. Approved 6-1. (Noble opposed)
Y Consideration and possible action on a Concept Plan for 100 acres out of the William Addison Survey, to
be known as The Pinnacle and located south of the Inner Loop and east of the future extension of Maple
Street— Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
Ray explained the item. Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to approve the Concept Plan. Approved
6.1. (Noble opposed)
Public Hearings / First Readings
1. Public Hearing to consider rezoning 70.32 acres out of the William Robert and John Berry
Surveys from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, located on CR
190 between S.H. 195 (east) and Briarcrest Drive (west) to known as the Villages of Berry Creek
— Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
Ray explained the item and read only the caption on first reading after having satisfied the
requirements of the City Charter. The public hearing was opened at 10:08 p.m.
Arnold Wieder, 30120 Briarcrest Drive, representing the Berry Creek Homeowners Association,
spoke favorably for the rezoning.
With no further public input, the public hearing was closed at 10:11 p.m.
2. First Reading of an Ordinance rezoning 70.32 acres out of the William Robert and John Berry
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 10 of 12 Pages
Surveys from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, located on the
north side of CR 190 between S.H. 195 (east) and Briarcrest Drive (west) to be known as the
Villages of Berry Creek — Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to approve the ordinance on first reading. There was
discussion regarding the sidewalks. Approved 4-3. (Sansing, Snell and Noble opposed)
3. First Reading of an Ordinance adopting the Unified Development Code (UDC) — Bobby Ray,
Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development
Services
This item was handled at the beginning of the Regular Agenda.
AA Items Forwarded by the Georgetown Utility System Board
1. Consideration and possible action to amend the General Services Agreement between the City of
Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and Mckee, Inc. for engineering services related to the design
of the Sun City Elevated Storage Tank #2 — Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility
Operations and Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager
Dishong noted that the tank is required by the Water/Wastewater Plan to meet the Texas
Commssion on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requirements for storage, and it also creates the
pressure plain needed to alleviate pressure problems in Sun City. Evans noted that the GUS
board approved this item unanimously. Motion by Noble, second by Sensing to approve the
contract amendment. Approved 7-0.
2. Consideration and possible action regarding the list of projects for street maintenance for
2002/2003 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
Miller explained the item. There was discussion. Motion by Pfiester, second by Evans to approve
the list of projects for street maintenance. Approved 7-0.
BB Discussion and possible action regarding State Highway 130 symbol selection of structure accents and
landscape provisions — John Aldridge, Systems Engineering Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
Briggs explained the item and provided pictures of examples of where the structure accents would appear
on the highway. There was discussion. Motion by Sensing, second by Smith to accept a modified version
of the City seal to present to TXDOT. Approved 7-0.
CC Discussion and possible action regarding the "Second Amendment to the Development Agreement" with
Campbell -Georgetown. #1, L.P, and regarding the "First Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Substitute Fiscal Surety Agreement Concerning HEB/Georgetown No. 2 Subdivision; with HEB Grocery
Company, L.P -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Trish Caris, City Attorney
Briggs explained the item. Motion by Pfiester, second by Noble to approve. Approved 7-0.
DD Discussion and possible action regarding the Updated Shell Road Public Improvement District
Assessment/Service Plan — Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Trish Cads, City
Attorney
Briggs explained the item. Motion by Evans, second by Navarrette to approve the updated Shell Road
Public Improvement District Assessment/Service Plan. Approved 7.0.
EE Consideration and possible action on a staff update regarding whether or not the projections of based
aircraft for 2006 and 2011 at the Georgetown Municipal Airport, as stated in Chapter 2 of the FAR Part 150
Noise Compatibility Study, can be revised -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
Yantis explained the item, saying there will be additional cost to the City to have the consultant make the
revisions because the change in the based aircraft would also cause changes in the other calculations.
There was discussion regarding whether it is possible to complete the noise study without certifying the
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 11 of 12 Pages
maps, but it was emphasized that the maps would have to be certified in order to qualify for the noise
mitigation.
Kathryn Heidemann, 407 Golden Oaks Drive, told Council that the consultant listed six international airports
in his credits. She said she felt the recommendation from the consultant was for an international airport.
She said there are too many errors in the report, and she suggested the Council would need to revise more
than just the projections of based aircraft. She said she feels the entire chapter would need to be revised.
There was further discussion about the consequences of approving the study. Yantis explained that there
are consequences as well as opportunities in approving the study. Yantis recommended that Council not
pursue updating the projections, but finish the obligations under the grant. He recommended that Council
create a vision statement to explain what is to be done with the Airport. Nelon asked if Council could review
the information from Yantis and be prepared to handle this item for action on March 11.
11:20 p.m. -- motion to adjourn
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 PM.
Approved:
Mayor Gary Nelon
City Council Meeting Minutes/February 28, 2003
Page 12 of 12 Pages
Attest:
City Secretary Sandra Lee
Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Friday, February 28, 2003
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Friday, February 28, 2003 at 06:00:00 PM at Judge Benton's
Courtroom, County Courthouse, 710 Main Street, 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 Official 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 Official 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.
- Potential Litigation (Del Webb Development Agreement)
- Legal Advice regarding agenda items
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).
B Call to Order
C Pledge of Allegiance
D Comments from the dais regarding the following items:
- Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments -- Mayor Gary Nelon
E Announcements and Comments from City Manager
F Citizens Wishing to Address Council
B. Keith Peshak, 800 Oak Crest Lane, regarding "how Sam Pfiester and Farley Snell saved Don Dison
$600,000 in city impact assessment fees while supporting the construction of a new Air Transportation
Center at the Georgetown Airport.'
G Action from Executive Session
Statutory Consent Agenda
City Council Agenda/February 28, 2003
Page 1 of 4 Pages
I
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
H Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the Council Workshop on Monday,
February 10, the Special Meeting on Tuesday, February 11, at 5:00 p.m., the Regular Council Meeting on
Tuesday, February 11, and the Special Meeting on Thursday, February 18, 2003 -- Sandra Lee, City
Secretary
I Consideration and possible action to authorize the application for a cooperative grant with Georgetown
Independent School District (GISD), in an amount not to exceed $50,000, from the Institute of Museum and
Library Services, under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by the
State of Texas -- Eric Lashley, Director of Library Services
J Consideration and possible action to accept the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the
Investment Report for both the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC) for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 -- Laurie Brewer, Controller and Micki
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
K Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution revising the current City of Georgetown
Investment Policy -- Laurie Brewer, Controller and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
L Consideration and possible action to accept a report of the independent audit of all accounts of the City,
report to management and single audit reports for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 -- Laurie
Brewer, Controller and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution amending the 2002/03 Georgetown
F Transportation Enhancement Corporation budget in the amount of $30,725 — Micki Rundell, Director of
Finance and Administration
Consideration and possible action to approve an agreement for investment advisory services with Valley
View Consulting, L.L.C. not to exceed $9,000.00 -- Laurie Brewer, Controller and Micki Rundell, Director of
Finance and Administration
O Consideration and possible action to award the bid for an all purpose crawler to All Weather Equipment
and Power Sports in the amount of $65,210.00 -- Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Micki Rundell,
Director of Finance and Administration
Contract Amendments
1. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK) for professional services relating to the
design of the Lakeway Wastewater Improvements Phase I project -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
2. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK) for professional services relating to the
design of Golden Oaks — 8th & Church Wastewater Improvement Project -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
O Final Plats
1. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 1.064 acres in the Joseph
Fish Survey, to be known as Woodlake Subdivision, Phase 2, located on Williams Drive, west of
Shell Road — Carla Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning
and Development Services
2. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 120.59 acres in the Lewis, P.
Dyches Survey, to be known as Walnut Springs Subdivision, located at the intersection of CR
261 and FM 3405 — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
3. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Final Plat for a resubdivision of Shell
Addition, the northeast portion of Block 6, being 0.33 acres, to be known as LMA Subdivision,
City Council Agenda/February 28, 2003
Page 2 of 4 Pages
located at 807 3rd Street — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
4. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Final Plat for 9.2719 acres out of the Garcia
Survey, to be known as the Markham Tract, located on CR 152, with variances to the Subdivision
Regulations — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
R Consideration and possible action to approve the Mayors recommendation for the Chair of the Planning
and Zoning Commission -- Mayor Gary Nelon
S Consideration and possible action to award a bid for reconstruction of the San Gabriel Park foot bridge to
STR Constructors,LTD in the amount of $229,258.82 -- Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Randy
Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation
T Consideration and possible action to award an annual bid for janitorial and floor cleaning services to
Service Master in the estimated amount of $188,201.50 -- Terry Jones, Support Services Director and Micki
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
U Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute the Master lease/purchase
agreement and related documents between the City and Koch Financial Corporation for computer
equipment -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
V Discussion regarding a presentation by staff on potential locations and construction of " Welcome to
Georgetown" gateway signs -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
W Legislative resolutions
Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution to the Texas Legislature in support of
the continuation of the Telecommunciation Infrastructure Fund -- Eric Lashley, Director of
Library Services
2. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution opposing legislation that would prohibit
a municipality's ability to restrict concealed handguns on municipal premises -- David Morgan,
Police Chief
3. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution that opposes legislation that would
change current annexation law -- Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
Second Readings
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance rezoning 100 acres out of the William Addison Survey from A,
Agricultural to RS, Residential Single-family, or more restrictive district, located south of the Inner
Loop and east of the future extension of Maple Street -- Bobby Ray, Chief Development
Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services.
2. Second Reading of an Ordinance rezoning 1.83 acres within Berry Creek Section 5 from C-1,
Local Commercial to RS, Residential Single -Family, or more restrictive district, located on the west
side of S.H. 195 north of Berry Creek Drive / Airport Road — Bobby Ray, Development Planner and
Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services.
3. Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Century Plan Amendment of 100 acres out of the William
Addison Survey, to be known as The Pinnacle, to change from Intensity Level 2 to Intensity level
4, or any more restrictive classification, located south of the Inner Loop and east of the future
extension of Maple Street — David Munk, Development Engineer and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director
of Planning and Development Services
Y Consideration and possible action on a Concept Plan for 100 acres out of the William Addison Survey, to
be known as The Pinnacle and located south of the Inner Loop and east of the future extension of Maple
City Council Agenda/February 28, 2003
Page 3 of 4 Pages
Street — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
Public Hearings / First Readings
1. Public Hearing to consider rezoning 70.32 acres out of the William Robert and John Berry
Surveys from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, located on CR
190 between S.H. 195 (east) and Briarcrest Drive (west) to known as the Villages of Berry Creek
-- Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
2. First Reading of an Ordinance rezoning 70.32 acres out of the William Robert and John Berry
Surveys from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, located on the
north side of CR 190 between S.H. 195 (east) and Briarcrest Drive (west) to be known as the
Villages of Berry Creek -- Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
3. First Reading of an Ordinance adopting the Unified Development Code (UDC) — Bobby Ray,
Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development
Services
AA Items Forwarded by the Georgetown Utility System Board
1. Consideration and possible action to amend the General Services Agreement between the City of
Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and Mckee, Inc. for engineering services related to the design
of the Sun City Elevated Storage Tank #2 -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility
Operations and Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager
2. Consideration and possible action regarding the list of projects for street maintenance for
2002/2003 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
BB Discussion and possible action regarding State Highway 130 symbol selection of structure accents and
landscape provisions -- John Aldridge, Systems Engineering Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
CC Discussion and possible action regarding the "Second Amendment to the Development Agreement" with
Campbell -Georgetown. #1, L.P, and regarding the "First Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Substitute Fiscal Surety Agreement Concerning HEB/Georgetown No. 2 Subdivision," with HEB Grocery
Company, L.P -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Trish Cads, City Attorney
DO Discussion and possible action regarding the Updated Shell Road Public Improvement District
Assessment/Service Plan -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Trish Carls, City
Attorney
EE Consideration and possible action on a staff update regarding whether or not the projections of based
aircraft for 2006 and 2011 at the Georgetown Municipal Airport, as stated in Chapter 2 of the FAR Part 150
Noise Compatibility Study, can be revised -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
Certificate of Posting
I, Sandra Lee, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the day of , 2003, at , and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
City Council Agenda/February 28, 2003
Page 4 of 4 Pages
Council Meeting Date: February Tom, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment
between the City of Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK)
for professional services relating to the design of the Lakeway Wastewater
Improvements Phase I project.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Lakeway Wastewater Improvements Phase I project is designed to
replace the existing wastewater line to allow more capacity to handle
existing and additional flows from the areas to the north of Lakeway drive.
The existing line is operating at 100$ of capacity with additional
development planned along the east side of Williams Drive. The new line
will be located under Lakeway Drive and the existing line running through
the properties on the south side of Lakeway will be abandoned.
This item allows for the engineering and design of the wastewater
line. Total cost for engineering services is not to exceed $48,000.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds to be paid from the Wastewater Capital Fund in the amount of
$48,000.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of a contract amendment between the
City of Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK) for
professional services relating to the design of the Lakeway Wastewater
Improvements Phase I Project.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
None - Cost is below the threshold for GUS review.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RPK Proposal for professional services for the Lakeway Wastewater
Imorovemante I. I I
Submitted By:Jim ri Glenn W. Dishong,
Assist ity Manager Water Services Me
for Utilities
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
one South Main
Temple, Tem 76501 9%) 773-3731 Fu (254) 7735667 mail®rplmnl ineers.wm
WM. MACK PARKER P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG, P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK, P.E.
November 11, 2002
Mr. Jim Briggs
Assistant City Manager
City of Georgetown
1101 N. College
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Re: City of Georgetown
Proposal for Wastewater Improvements
Georgetown, Texas
Dear Mr. Briggs:
W. CLAY ROMING, P.E.
Partner Emeritus
This letter proposal is in response to your request for basic and special engineering services required
to provide construction drawings for wastewater improvements for:
Lakeway Wastewater Improvements Phase One
The charges for this work are shown on Attachment "A" of this letter. We have priced the work
according to the facts that we know about the project as of this date. Lump Sum charges are shown
and will not change unless the scope of work is expanded, at which time we will meet with you and
plan accordingly. For your convenience, we have attached to this letter a location map, opinion of
probable cost and a project schedule for review. The following are tasks that we have included in
the work schedule:
PRELIlIIIINARY ENGINEERING PHASE. This phase involves determination of project scope
and economic and technical evaluation of feasible alternatives. Services during this phase include:
1. Reviewing available data and consulting with the City to clarify and define the CITY's
requirements for the project.
2. Advising the CITY as to the necessity of providing or obtaining from others additional
data or services. These additional services may be include photogrammetry,
investigations and consultations, compilation of hydrological data, traffic studies,
materials engineering, assembly of zoning, deed, and other restrictive land use
information, and environmental assessments and impact statements.
/ Mr. Jim Briggs
November 11, 2002
Page Two
3. Identifying and analyzing requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction
to approve the design of the project, and participating in consultations with such
authorities.
4. Providing analyses of the CITY's needs, planning surveys, and comparative
evaluations of prospective sites and solutions.
5. Providing a general economic analysis of the CITY's requirements applicable to
various alternatives.
6. Consulting with the CITY, reviewing preliminary reports, clarifying and defining the
project requirements, reviewing available data, and discussing general scheduling.
Conferences may also be required with approving and regulatory governmental
agencies and affected utilities.
7. Advising the CITY as to whether additional data or services are required, and
assisting the CITY in obtaining such data and services.
FINAL DESIGN PHASE. This phase of project development is undertaken only after the CITY
has approved the preliminary engineering phase material. The basic services for the final design
phase includes:
1. Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent
of the project based on the accepted preliminary engineering documents.
2. Preparing and furnishing to the CITY a revised opinion of probable costs based on the
final drawings and specifications.
3. Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits
from local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not
include detailed applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or
planning grants that would be furnished as additional services. Fees for any local,
state or federal construction permit applications are not included as part of the
professional fee charges. These will be paid by the CITY.
4. Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval
by the CITY (and the CITY's legal and other advisors). These may include contract
agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid,
instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other
contract -related documents.
5. Furnishing to the CITY the specified number of copies of drawings, specifications,
and other contract documents.
Mr. Jim Brigs
November 11, 2002
Page Three
BIDDING PHASE. (If Required) Services under this phase include:
1. Assisting the CITY in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime
construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding
documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and
processing fees for bidding documents.
2. Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the bidding documents.
3. Assisting the CITY in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective
constructors, subcontractors and suppliers.
4. When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding
documents, consultation with and advising the CITY as to the acceptability of
alternate materials and equipment proposed by the prospective constructors.
5. Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets and providing assistance to
the CITY in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts
for construction, materials, equipment and services.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the
CITY during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the CITY's
representative. Such services comprise:
1. Preparing for and conducting a pre -construction conference and issuing a Notice to
Proceed on behalf of the CITY.
2. Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance
with design concept.
3. Reviewing laboratory, shop and mill test reports on materials and equipment.
4. Visiting the project site weekly as construction proceeds to observe and report on the
progress and the quality of the executed work.
5. Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing
change orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making
recommendations as to the acceptability of the work.
6. Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions
encountered.
7. Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the CONTRACTOR.
Mr. Jim Briggs
November 11, 2002
Page Four
& Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including
recommendations concerning final payment to constructors and release of retained
percentages.
9. Providing construction off -set staking on a one-time basis for rough cut, on a one-time
basis for back or curb construction, and on a one-time basis for drainage
improvements.
SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE PROJECT
• Research of existing utilities
• Connection with exiting wastewater facilities
• Horizontal and vertical alignment of the proposed wastewater line
• Transfer of existing wastewater services
• Permitting and coordination with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• Contract Documents and Specifications
• Project to be bid and contracted.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. Geotechnical investigations will not be provided by RPK
under this contract.
If this proposal is agreeable, please return tow executed originals to our office.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
Iall 1Ji7C ?
' AMENDMENT DATED NOVEMBER 11, 2002
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
AND ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
LAKEWAY WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I
The General Services Agreement between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN (City) and Roming,
Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P., (Engineer) last authorized on March 14, 1995, is hereby amended as
follows:
The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The charges
for the work in Amendment November 11, 2002 are to be paid on a lump sum basis unless
additional work due to change in scope is authorized.
Your signatures below will constitute your acceptance of Amendment Dated
November 11, 2002.
Executed in duplicate original this day of 2002 at
Georgetown, Texas, where this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form:
Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Patricia E. Carls Gary Nelon
City Attorney Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
Party of the Second Part: City Secretary
ROMING, PARKER && KASBERG, L.L.P.
By: R. David Patrick, P.E.
Principal Engineer
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BELL
This instrument as acknowledged before me on this the i 1th day of No
2002.
Notary Public
�.w DORIS M. WALTERS
F``�.....;'�"•, Nosy RM, Stale of Texas
113 r My Commtvlon Eons
-;r, 0 December 27, 2005
Printed name: 'DORtS M WAL_'i'EAS
Commission Expires: 12 -PLT -05
I
Exhibit A
(Updated November 11, 2002)
This updated Exhibit A to the original General Services Agreement between the City of
Georgetown and Roming, Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P., dated March 14, 1995, provides for the
scope of basic and special services required for developing construction plans, specifications and
contract documents for Lakeway Wastewater Improvements Phase I.
The attached letter details the services and associated charges for the proposed work.
Council Meeting Date: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment
between the City of Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and KasbLLP (RPK)
Oak
for professional services relating to the design of Golden Oaks - 8eh &
Church Wastewater Improvement Project.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This project is the combination of two wastewater improvement
projects. The Golden Oaks improvements will allow for the removal of the
Golden Oaks Lift station by installing a new gravity sewer line from the
lift station influent lines to the Reatta Interceptor line. This will
eliminate the operational cost of a lift station and the risk associated
with lift station malfunction.
The 81" & Church improvements will replace old clay lines to provide
higher capacity to the area.
This item allows for the engineering and design of the wastewater
line. Total cost for engineering services is not to exceed $34,500.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds to be paid from the Wastewater Capital Fund in the amount of
$34,500.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of a contract amendment between the
City of Georgetown and Roming, Parker, and Kasberg, LLP (RPK) for
professional services relating to the design of the Golden Oaks - 8th & Church
Wastewater Improvement Project.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
None - Cost is below the threshold for GUS review.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RPK Proposal f r professional services for the Golden Oaks - 8te &
Church Wa tew mprovement Project.
Submitted By: J' Br g ,
*GleDishong,
Assistant Manager Water Services Man er
for Utilitie
Exhibit A
(Updated November 11, 2002)
This updated Exhibit A to the original General Services Agreement between the City of
Georgetown and Routing, Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P., dated March 14, 1995, provides for the
scope of basic and special services required for developing construction plans, specifications and
contract documents for the Golden Oaks and 8th & Church Wastewater Improvements
The attached letter details the services and associated charges for the proposed work.
y
Subtotal Cost $ 191,825.00
Contingencies (10%) $ 19,182.50
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 211,007.50
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST TO USE $ 225,000.00
Engineering Design, Contract Documents and Specifications $ 15,000.00
Bidding $ 3,500.00
Construction Administration $ 5,500.00
SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING $ 24,000.00
TCEQ Permits/ Coordination $ 1,000.00
Design Surveys $ 6,000.00
Construction Staking $ 3,500.00
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL SERVICES $ 10,500.00
TOTAL COST
$ 259,500.00
PROJECT COST TO USE $ 275,000.00
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Golden Oaks & 8th & Church Wastewater Project
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Item
Description
Quantity Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
Preparation of Right -of -Way
151 STA
$
500.00
$
7,500.00
2
Mobilization, Bonds and Insurance
1 LS
$10,000.00
$
10,000.00
3
Control Plan for Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic
1 LS
$
1,500.00
$
1,500.00
4
Barricades for Traffic Control Plan Implementation
1 LS
$
8,000.00
$
8,000.00
5
12 -inch SDR 26 PVC Pipe with Embedment
1000 LF
$
40.00
$
40,000.00
6
8 -inch SDR 26 PVC Pipe with Embedment
500 LF
$
32.00
$
16,000.00
6
4 -foot Diameter Manholes
7 EA
$
5,000.00
$
35,000.00
7
2,000 psi Concrete Backfill
50 LF
$
75.00
$
3,750.00
8
TV Inspection, DeflectionTest & Air Test
1500 LF
$
5.00
$
7,500.00
9
Vacuum Testing Manholes
7 EA
$
250.00
$
1,750.00
10
Trench Safety Implementation Pie
1500 LF
$
2.00
$
3,000.00
11
Trench Safety Implementation Manholes
2500 SF
$
1.00
$
2,500.00
12
Connecting Wastewater Im rovemtns to Existing System
4 EA
$
1,500.00
$
6,000.00
13
Salvage Lift Station and Convert to Manhole
1 LS
$
7,500.00
$
7,500.00
14
Type A Concrete in Lift Station
30 CY
$
150.00
$
4,500.00
15
Placing Loaming and Seeding with Water to Sustain Growth
450 SY
$
3.00
$
1,350.00
16
T e'D' HMAC Patch
850 SY
$
3.50
$
2,975.00
17
T e'D' HMAC Overlay
4500 SY
$
4.00
$
18,000.00
18
Erosion Control
1 LS
$
5,000.00
$
5,000.00
19
Items Requested By the Owner
1 LS
$10,000.00
$
10,000.00
Subtotal Cost $ 191,825.00
Contingencies (10%) $ 19,182.50
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 211,007.50
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST TO USE $ 225,000.00
Engineering Design, Contract Documents and Specifications $ 15,000.00
Bidding $ 3,500.00
Construction Administration $ 5,500.00
SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING $ 24,000.00
TCEQ Permits/ Coordination $ 1,000.00
Design Surveys $ 6,000.00
Construction Staking $ 3,500.00
SUBTOTAL SPECIAL SERVICES $ 10,500.00
TOTAL COST
$ 259,500.00
PROJECT COST TO USE $ 275,000.00
3
4
Council Meeting Date
February d, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. 6 A— I
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to amend the General Services
Agreement between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and Mckee, Inc.
for engineering services related to the design of the Sun City Elevated
Storage Tank #2.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item provides for the engineering and design of a 1,000,000
gallon elevated storage tank to be located at the northern end of the Sun
City property in the Georgetown Utility Systems CCN. The Water System
Master Plan recommended the installation of a second elevated storage tank
for the summer of 2004.
The number and location of new housing units in Sun City requires the
construction of a new tank to establish a higher pressure plane than that
which currently exists. In addition to providing the required water
storage to meet TCEQ regulations, this new tank will provide the long-term
solution to chronic marginal system pressures in the westernmost
neighborhoods in Sun City.
The cost for engineering services is estimated to be $179,476.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds to be provided by the Water Capital Fund in the amount of
$179,476.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends amending the contract with CDM to provide for the
design and engineering of the Sun City Elevated Storage Tank #2.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
February 20, 2003 - GUS Board recommended to Council the CDM
amendment for engineering of the Sun City Elevated Tank #2.
Approved 6-0 (Brown not present for this vote).
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CDM Contract Amendment.
2. Sun City Low Pressure Plan
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Glenn W. Dishong,
Assistant City Manager Water Services Manager
for Utilities
AMENDMENT
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DESIGN THE SUN CITY ELEVATED STORAGE TANK NO.2
The General Services Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER last authorized on
November 26, 1991, is hereby amended as follows:
The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The fee for
the work in this Amendment is to be paid on a lump sum basis.
Your signature below will constitute your acceptance of this Amendment.
EXECUTED in duplicate original this _ day of 2002 at Georgetown, Texas, where
this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Party of the Second Part:
C DRESSER & McrEE IN .
By: Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Gary Nelon
Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the --J-- day of20 &,-by
Mr. Allen D. Woelke in his capacity as Vice President of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
k,Pre ti n MSL
Notary Public, State of Texas
A1281AMD N92.doc
Printed name: �.ffiG
. Rens
\Nco cu+Commission Expires:1517.2004
v
EX1 MIT 1
SUN CITY ELEVATED STORAGE TANK NO. 2
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Description: The water facilities master plan prepared for the Sun City development
recommended that a 700,000 gallon elevated storage tank be on-line by the summer of 2004. This
project consists of the design of a 1,000,000 gallon elevated storage tank on a site provided by Del
Webb. The tank will be of the hydropillar design as selected jointly with Del Webb. The elevated
storage tank will be on-line by November 2004.
Preliminary Engineering Phase. This phase involves determination of project scope and
economic and technical evaluation of feasible alteratives. Services during this phase include:
1) Reviewing available data and consulting with the OWNER to clarify and define the
OWNER's requirements for the project.
2) Advising the OWNER as to the necessity of providing or obtaining from others additional
data or services. These additional services may include photogrammetry, reconnaissance
surveys, property surveys, topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations and
consultations, compilation of hydrological data, traffic studies, materials engineering,
assembly of zoning, deed, and other restrictive land use information, and environmental
assessments and impact statements.
3) This agreement includes: topographic surveying of the elevated storage tank site;
geotechnical testing and construction material testing. The environmental, archaeological
and property boundary survey will be provided by Del Webb.
4) Identifying and analyzing requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to
approve the design of the project, and participating in consultations with such authorities.
This agreement includes preparation and submission of a TCEQ WPAP application
including permit fee, and preparation and submission of a FAA permit application.
5) Providing analyses of the OWNER's needs, planning surveys, and comparative evaluations
of prospective sites and solutions.
6) Providing a general economic analysis of the OWNER's requirements applicable to various
alternatives.
7) Preparing a letter report presenting alternative solutions available to theOWNER with the
consulting engineer's findings and recommendations. The letter report may contain
schematic layouts, sketches, conceptual design criteria with appropriate exhibits to indicate
clearly the considerations involved (including applicable requirements of governmental
authorities having jurisdiction), and the consulting engineer's conceptual opinion of
probable costs for the project. The number and distribution of report copies will be as
stipulated in the agreement with the OWNER.
A1281AMD N92.doc
EXt-1
K
V
8) Consulting with the OWNER, reviewing preliminary reports, clarifying and defining the
project requirements, reviewing available data, and discussing general scheduling.
Conferences may also be required with approving and regulatory governmental agencies
and affected utilities.
9) Advising the OWNER as to whether additional data or services are required, and assisting
the OWNER in obtaining such data and services.
10) Preparing preliminary design documents consisting of final design criteria, preliminary
drawings, outline of specifications, and written descriptions of the project. The number and
distribution of copies will be as stipulated in the agreement with the OWNER
11) Preparing revised opinions of probable total project costs.
Final Design Phase. This phase of project development is undertaken only after the OWNER has
approved the preliminary engineering phase material. The basic services for the final design phase
includes:
1) Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent of the
project based on the accepted preliminary engineering documents.
2) Preparing and fiunishing to the OWNER a revised opinion of probable total project costs
based on the final drawings and specifications.
3) Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits from
local, state, or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not include detailed
applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or planning grants that
would be fiunished as additional services.
4) Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval by the
OWNER (and the OWNER's legal and other advisors). These may include contract
agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid,
instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other
contract -related documents.
5) Furnishing to the OWNER the specified number of copies of drawings, specifications, and
other contract documents.
Bidding Phase. Services under this phase include:
1) Assisting the OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids for each separate prime
construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding
documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and processing
deposits for bidding documents.
2) Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents.
A1291AMD_N92.da
y 46da
11,
3) Assisting the OWNER in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective
constructors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
4) When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents,
consultation with and advising the OWNER as to the acceptability of alternate materials and
equipment proposed by the prospective constructors.
5) Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets, and providing assistance to the
OWNER in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for
construction, materials, equipment, and services.
Construction Phase. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the OWNER
during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the OWNER's
representative. Such services comprise:
1) Preparing for and conducting a preconstruction conference and issuing a Notice to Proceed
on behalf of the OWNER.
2) Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance with
design concepts.
3) Reviewing laboratory, shop, and mill test reports on materials and equipment.
4) Visiting the project site monthly as construction proceeds to observe and report on the
progress and the quality of the executed work.
5) Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing change
orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making recommendations
as to the acceptability of the work.
6) Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered.
7) Determining amounts of progress payments due, based on degree of completion of the
work, and recommending issuance of such payments by the OWNER
8) Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the CONTRACTOR
9) Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including
recommendations concerning final payments to constructors and release of retained
percentages.
10) Provide through a subcontract construction materials testing.
11) Provide through a subconsultant welding and coating inspection.
A1281AMD N92.do
EX t -3
I y
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
SUN CITY ELEVATED STORAGE TANK NO.2
ENGINEERING FEE ESTIMATEError! Bookmark not defined.
• Preliminary Engineering Phase:
$33,605.00
• Design Phase:
$50,408.00
• Bid Phase:
$ 7,150.00
• General Services During Construction Phase:
$30,388.00
• Other Direct Costs, including:
$10,450.00
Travel
$ 8,625.00
Telephone
$10,000.00
Copyingf bluelines
$47,475.00
Postage/facsimile
Computer time
Total Basic Engineering Services
$132,001.00
• Surveying
$ 3,500.00
• Geotechnical Engineering
$ 4,000.00
• Construction Material Testing
$ 8,000.00
• WPAP Permit Application
$10,350.00
• WPAP Fee
$ 3,000.00
• FAA Permit Application
$ 8,625.00
• Tank Welding and Coating Inspection
$10,000.00
Total Special Services
$47,475.00
A1281AMD_N92.doc
TOTAL
EX 1-4
$179,476.00
ation
City 12" Main
GUS
TCB
Kmnuiy ane _
Design EST _ _ CDM T
Build EST
TBD _
_
Place In Servke
GUS
ConeVuet Sun City_W Main to EST 0
�DealgnSystem
TCB_
Design _
COG._
Install Main _
_ _ TBD
_ _ _
Place In Service-
GUS
Sun City Pressure
Reso...... t Plan
I
Council Meeting Date: FebruaAa, 2003 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Consideration and possible action on the list of projects for street maintenance for 2002/03.
ITEM SUMMARY
The 1/4 cent Sales tax for Street maintenance will generate an additional $440,000. Staff is
recommending the funds be used for the purchase of equipment presently needed for street
maintenance and to complete the attached list of maintenance projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City Council approved approximately $825,000 for street maintenance projects through the
General Fund. Staff projects to receive an additional $440,000 in 2002/03 from the 1/4 cent sales tax
approved by voters, which will begin being collected April 1, 2003. A budget amendment will be
forthcoming on the March 11, 2003 agenda for the additional $440,000 appropriation, which was not
originally included in the adopted 2002/03 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Funding detail sheet
2. List of maintenance projects
Submitted By:
��%Gh �_`%�1.,62�� Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager
Street Maintenance Funding
Current Budget Available:
General Fund $ 658,210
less: sidewalk allocation $ (75,000)
Amount available in General Fund
for street maintenance $ 583,210
Add: sales tax from 1l4 cent
April 1 - September 30, 2003 440,000
Total Amount available $ 1,023,210
for street maintenance
Less: Tymco Sweeper (114,000)
Paving Roller (24,000)
Patch Roller (23,000)
Amount available after $ 862,210
purchase of equipment
TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
CIP 02/03 BUDGET WORKSHEET
Updated: January21, 2003 2:30 p.m.
Transportation 1
TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
CIP 02/03 BUDGET WORKSHEET
Updated: January 21, 2003 2:30 p.m
PROJECT NAME/ Description
02/03 03/0404/05
05/06
Beyond
06/07 5Years Notes/Comments
161, Strut
17,000
add curbs and upgmde to a Ihrough succi
Morrow Street (Low water bridge to 971)
85,000
add ribbon curb and ovcrla
In= L rebabiliute West side ofmad)
40,000
Heavy truck traffic traffic cawing road to fail
TOTAI. TRA NSPORTATION CAPITA I. IMPROVFMFWS
975,771 0 0
0
0 1 0
Transportation 2
Council Meeting Date: February 25, 2003
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.�
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action regarding State Highway 130 symbol selection or structure accents and
landscape provisions.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The State Highway 130 design group has contacted City staff with regards to including certain landscape
and structural accents to the highway bridges, retaining walls and guard rails along the SH 130 project, in order to
improve the gateway locations adjacent to communities. Because Georgetown and several other communities would
be heavily impacted with the construction of SH 130, each individual community is being given the opportunity to
incorporate certain elements of their community within the construction of the project. Attached, I have included
the selection guidelines for the structural accents, along with some visual representations of the preliminary
structural accents that have been included for reference. Staff has considered this information and is recommending
a couple of options to the Council for consideration. One of those option includes the portion of our city seal that
comprises the State of Texas, oak tree, and three rivers. The casting of the structural accent must be and fairly basic
in order for the contractor to be able to include it in the structural elements in a cost effective manner. Initial
meetings were held the fust of February and the recommended action from each entity is expected by February 28,
2003. The final decision on symbol selection will be made by the Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA), on March 15,
2003, and included into the project. Staff is prepared to offer other suggestions and to receive input regarding the
inclusion of certain structural accents along the bridges and retaining walls, so that a final selection can be made
and communicated to the TTA according to their deadline.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
Selection guidelines and /ssuallgpresentation examples
Asstgfnt City PSanager
orAltiliti sUU
tems
SH 130 Symbol Selection Guidelines for Structural Accents
• In summarizing the results from the public aesthetics selection process, several structural
elements have been identified as being areas where local and regional symbols could be used
to identify the respective local or regional area. Identified as "gateway" locations to adjacent
communities, they include the future SH 130 intersections at 1-35, U.S. 79, SH 45 North, U.S.
290, and SH 71.
The default symbol to be used throughout the SH 130 corridor is the Texas star. This symbol
could be replaced at the "gateway" locations by approved symbols submitted by cities or
counties. The elements chosen to show these symbols are end caps of the bridge bents, bridge
barrier rail accents and retaining walls panels adjacent to bridge abutments.
ne
oSubmissions utreach office.rLSlewill tthen submit thesymbols ould be submitted to the proposal to TxDOT for theiirr review. Infrastructure public
.
The symbols should meet the following criteria to be considered:
1) The symbol cannot be a registered trademark.
2) The symbol cannot be associated with mascots or logos (school, professional team,
businesses, etc.).
3) The symbol should be non -controversial, attempting to unify the community rather than divide
it.
4) The symbol should be non-offensive to members of the motoring public and local
communities.
5) The scale and perspective of symbols should be considered in their design. Fine detail and
intricate designs are discouraged in lieu of simple, bold designs that are appropriate for casting
in concrete and that will be easily recognizable and clearly seen from a distance.
6) The symbol should be sized to fit into a 2'-6" x 2'-6" square and be compatible with the
"picture framing" which will be used on all mainlane structure bent caps. The symbol design
should be scalable for placement on larger end caps of taller ramp structure bents (approx. 6 to
7 ft square). The depth of the symbol cannot be greater than 1 W.
7) Retaining wall symbols may be designed to extend to a panel size of 5' x 10' or multiple
adjacent 5' x 10' panels. These symbols are to be recessed into the panels no greater than the
1 1/2".
8) The symbol should be submitted in hard copy (11" x 17" minimum) and as a computer
graphic file Opeg, bmp, etc). Two dimensional symbols and hand sketches will be considered
but wl be design
project LSI reserves the right to 3-D dto modify submitted rawings y the lartwork as required to achievutilized
auniform style
and application.
Submissions should be made through a city or county, and shall be clearly marked with
1 ` submitter's name, contact information and affiliation.
Page 1 of 2
Slide 1
Typical Standard Bridge
e... m b ootl a.uwb.. tl e.wa.. ptln v�a.a
idbi pY1p..Mwa.. tl'nun ae. b W. fya^r blQp
�aJw.aiw. yFwl MiV+i.F w.uw-netlawP
� Neem YllA WnlwrawVVswwulMv
Typical Standard
Multi -Column Bent
6Wuab V wtnYuf�'. b a.Yi Iwx..
.w+.w tl.a..ia �o.e�. tl..ba 911A
Typical Hammerhead
Bent
9Rpb M1p WM�Intl
uw cw.m Nuc.
Other Standard Bridge Abutments
®9W Ir/y ab 16E�
s-tww�e.a
obtlr.�.m+.o..N
NeYslll�l
I��M1Pm� A tlrlt
FW. W L Vw mmw uris.. sV.
.af4OvgA� mrn N tr'. up r.m
YptlbiY
Standard Sign Supports
T. T8WWCM1y1SWBIM.-
N4�.W�amtll.mmmW� Wtl
Tm r�s�arrrw
o.n..aea�a�a.
Page 1 of 1
http://sh l30.com/survey/resources/std_bridge_elements_files/slide0009.htm 2/19/2003