HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.28.2003Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 at 06:00:00 PM at George
Washington Carver Elementary School, 1200 W. 17th 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
- 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 regarding Development Agreement
- CTSUD regarding Water Quality Land Application for Proposed Permit No. 14371-001 before the TCEQ
- Code Enforcement Actions
- Legal Advice regarding agenda items
B Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property and Sec.551.086 deliberation regarding economic
development
- Draeger Property Incentive Enhancement Package
C Sec.551.086 competitive matters
City Council will go into Executive Session under Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code to discuss matters or
take action on a "competitive matter" of the Energy Services Department as provided for under Section 551.086
- Results and recommendations from the Electric Rate Study recently completed by McCord Engineering
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).
D Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the dais regarding the following items:
- Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments -- Mayor Gary Nelon
City Council Agenda/January 28, 2003
Page 1 of 5 Pages
Announcements and Comments from City Manager
H Citizens Wishing to Address Council
Della Green, 1901 Vine Street, representing the TRG Neighborhood Association, regarding school bus
stops.
Action from Executive Session
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the Council Workshop on Monday, January
13, and the Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 -- Sandra Lee, City Secretary
Final Plats
1. Consideration and possible action on a Short Form Final Plat of a resubdivision of Lot A,
Amended Plat of Lots 15 & 16 of Westlake of the Woods, Phase 1A, to be known as Lake
Georgetown Subdivision, located at Goldridge Drive and Goldridge Circle --Carla Benton,
Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Development Services
2. Consideration and possible action on Short Form Final Plat for 3.957 acres out of the David
Wright Survey, to be known as Loper-Seebock Subdivision, located on FM 2338 (Williams
Drive), with variances to the Subdivision Regulations -- Melissa McCollum, Development Planner
and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Development Services
3. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of a 22.07 acre tract in the John
Powell and Ephriam Evans Surveys, to be known as Kelley Trust, Phase Four, located at Kelley
Drive and Westinghouse Road — Carla Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Development Services
4. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of 3.42 acres, out of the William
Addison Survey, to be known as University Vista, located on Highway 29 East, with a variance to
the Subdivision Regulations — Carla Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Development Services
5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of a resubdivision of Lot 10,
Block C, Katy Crossing, Section Two, a Planned Unit Development, being 7.750 acres in the
Antonio Flores Survey, to be known as Townhomes at Katy Crossing, located on the comer of
FM 971 and Prairie Springs Lane, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations — Melissa
McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development
Services
6. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Snyder's
Addition, a portion of Block 42, being 0.62 acres, to be known as Adkins Subdivision, located on
Maple Street — Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Development Services
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
Presentation and discussion regarding the City's new website -- Erin McDonald, Webmaster and Dennis
Schoenborn, Director of Information Resources
M Consideration and possible action for the declaration of surplus computer equipment and authorizing
City Council Agenda/January 28, 2003
Page 2 of 5 Pages
staff to initially offer equipment to city employees in the form of an employee purchase plan -- Dennis
Schoenborn, Director of Information Resources
N May 3, 2003 General Election
1. Consideration and possible action to approve a proposal to modify the polling place
designations to correspond to County Voter Precinct Numbers and add two additional Election
Day polling places for City of Georgetown registered voters -- Sandra Lee, City Secretary and Tom
Yantis, Assistant City Manager
2. Consideration and possible action to finalize the ballot propositions for a Charter Amendment
Election -- Trish Cads, City Attorney
O Awards of Bid
1. Consideration of an award of the annual bid for gasoline and diesel fuel to Truman Arnold
Corporation in the estimated annual amount of $272,225.00 -- Terry Jones, Purchasing Director
and Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
2. Consideration of an award of the bid for a diesel cab and chassis with a 55 -foot aerial device to
Altec Industries in the amount of $101,411.00 -- Terry Jones, Purchasing Director and Micki
Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration
P Consideration and possible action to purchase a Vacuum/Sewer truck from Underground Services, Inc.
via the Houston -Galveston Area Council (H -GAC) for a total of $216,971.06 -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
Q Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and
Roming, Parker, Kasberg, L.L.P. (RPK) for professional services relating to the design of the Shell Road
Water Line Extension of the West Loop Project -- Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager and Jim
Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
R Consideration and possible action to authorize additional funding not to exceed $15,000 to implement a
training curriculum focused on minimizing liability risks associated with workplace safety and supervisory
skills -- Carla Bourland, Director of Human Resources
S Discussion and possible action to approve a budget and a funding source for expenses related to the
Implementation of Firefighter Civil Service for fiscal year 2002-03 -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
T Consideration and possible action to direct staff to determine whether 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 -- Councilmembers Farley Snell and Sam Pfiester
U Item Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC)
Consideration and possible action to authorize staff to proceed with discussions on the State Highway
2911nner Loop proposed plan with the appropriate governmental bodies regarding planning and financing
of the project and to report back to Council the results of discussions -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
for Utility Operations and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
V Second Readings
1. Second Reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of 15.83 acres, more
or less, in the David Wright Survey, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM
2338 (Williams Drive) and Cedar Breaks Road -- Ed Polasek, Chief Long -Range Planner and
Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Development Services
2. Second Reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of 100.00 acres, more
or less, in the William Addison Survey, east of the proposed Maple Street extension and south
of Inner Loop -- Ed Polasek, Chief Long -Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Development Services
3. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 7.57 acres, out of Katy Crossing, Section 2, Block C,
Lot 10 from RM -2, Dense Multi -Family to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district,
located at the southeast corner of FM 971 and Prairie Springs Lane -- Bobby Ray, Chief
City Council Agenda/January 28, 2003
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
4. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 15.832 acres out of the David Wright Survey No. 13
from "A", Agricultural to "CA", Local Commercial, or more restrictive district, located at the
southeast corner of Williams Drive (FM 2338) and Cedar Breaks Road (4300 Williams Drive)
— Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services.
5. Second Reading of an ordinance Rezoning of 118.94 acres out of the Joseph Fish Survey, to be
known as Heritage Oaks PUD, from RS, Single Family & RM -2, Dense Multi Family, to RP,
Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, located at the comer of FM 2338 and Shell Road
— Carla Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and
Development Services
W Public Hearings and First Readings
1. Public Hearing to consider 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. First 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.
3. First 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.
4. Public Hearing to consider Rezoning . 3122 acres, out of the Lost Addition, Block 65 (SW) and
.1286 acres out of the Lost Addition, Block 65 (NW), from R -S, Residential Single-family to
C -2A, Commercial First Height, or more restrictive district, located on the east side of Rock Street
between University Avenue (south) and 11th Street (north) — Bobby Ray, Chief Development
Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
5. First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning . 3122 acres, out of the Lost Addition, Block 65 (SW)
and .1286 acres out of the Lost Addition, Block 65 (NW), from R -S, Residential Single-family to
C -2A, Commercial First Height, or more restrictive district, located on the east side of Rock Street
between University Avenue (south) and 11th Street (north) — Bobby Ray, Chief Development
Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
6. Public Hearing to consider 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 Development Services.
7. First 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 Development Services
X Detailed Development Plans
1. Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan for Lot 1, PW Properties,
located on FM 2243 (Leander Road), with variances to the Subdivision Regulations — Cada
Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Development Services
2. Consideration and possible action on a Detailed Development Plan for 3.5 acres out of the David
Wright Survey, to be known as Eckerd Drugs Retail Development, located on the south comer of
Williams Drive and Cedar Breaks Road, with variances to the Subdivision Regulations — Melissa
City Council Agenda/January 28, 2003
Page 4 of 5 Pages
McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Development Services
Final Plats
1. Consideration and possible action on Public Review Final Plat for 15.719 acres out of the David
Wright Survey, to be known as Eckerd's at Cedar Breaks, located on the south comer of
Williams Drive and Cedar Breaks Road -- Melissa McCollum, Development Planner and Amelia
Sondgeroth, Director of Development Services
2. Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 118.94 acres out of the
Joseph Fish Survey, to be known as Heritage Oaks PUD, located at the comer of FM 2338 and
Shell Road — Carla Benton, Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Development Services
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/January 28, 2003
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Council Meeting Date: January 28, 2002
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to purchase a Vacuum/Sewer truck from
Underground, Inc. via the Houston -Galveston Area Council (H -GAC) for a total of
$216,971.06.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The current amendment for the Operations Management International contract
provides for the purchase of a used (9 yrs old) sludge hauling truck for an amount
not to exceed $95,000. The truck was to be used to provide sludge hauling and
emergency bypass service for the wastewater utility.
Concern over the age of the vehicle with its resultant maintenance costs and
a complete cost -benefit analysis have resulted in a recommendation to purchase a
new truck that is capable of performing functions in addition to those originally
planned. The additional functions allow for capability to properly care for the
wastewater system and also provide for a much higher utilization of the truck
chassis upon which the equipment is mounted.
Purchase of this vehicle will provide major cost savings over the use of
contractors to perform the same required functions.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds to be provided by a combination of Cimarron Hills wastewater
operations revenue over a 5 -year period, Vehicle service funds available from
retirement of 1990 Ford Sewer truck, and OMI contract.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the purchase of the "VAC -CON" vacuum/sewer truck in the
total amount of $216,971.06.
GUS BOARD
GUS Board recommends approval of the purchase of the VAC -CON vacuum sewer
truck. This item was approved at the GUS Board January 23, 2003 meeting.
Approved 6-0 (Gavurnik absent)
COMMENTS:
NONE
1. H -GAC proposal
2. Vacuum truck cost benefit analysis
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Glenn W. Dishong,
Assistant City Manager Water Services Manager
for Utilities
Dual Function Truck
Base Coat
Capitol f-ame Cost
1999
2000 2001 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2001
200E
2010
2011
2012
Maintena Cost
S
21,897 S
21,897 f
21,697 f
21.697 S
21,697 $
21,697 S
21,697 $
21,697 S
21,697 $
21,89 7
al
Total T Bene
S
500 S
500 $
600 $
5.000 S
5,000 S
5,000 $
5.000 $
5,000 $
5,000 $
6,000
Sludge HandlingS
22,197 S
22,197 S
22,197 E
26,697 $
26,697 $
26,697 $
26,697 $
26,697 S
26,697 $
26,697
SCW VrP, Gellone/Veer
CH WWTP, GeBana/yeer
242,783
305,387 339,434 357,107
382,104
327,061
349,977
374.476
400,889
428,737
458,749
490,861
526,221
661,987
GUS LOa01/yr
101
60,600
128
182,400
226,000
240,750
257.803
276,635
294,929
315,574
337,664
361,301
386,592
141 174
235
230
246
263
282
302
323
345
369
395
LIIt 3blbn Chanlrlp
M Sial Cl aning
S
82N $
8,053 S
8.627 S
9231 f
9,877 S
10,669 $
11,308 $
12,100 S
12,947 S
13,863
Uh Stations Cleaned
Ult SbllonCleagen-
30
32
34
37
39
42
45
48
52
55
BypinsUS
Em«perry Bypass
S
2,544 $
2,722 $
2,913 $
3,117 S
3,335 S
3.668 E
3,818 $
4,095 $
4,371 $
4,677
Emergency Une Maintenance Hm
36
36
36
Ermug.y BWeas - GUS Cost
$
1.490 S
1,490 $
1,490 S
36
1490 $
36
1,490 f
36
1,0490 $
36
1490
36
36
36
Manhole Cleaning
E
1,490 f
1,690 $
1.490
Manndas In Stratum
Maniple IneOenlor✓Clenp a GUS Cont
2,787
2.98 2
3,191
3.414
3.6 53
3,909
4,193
4,475
4,709
5.1204
5,462
Co
Conlrad« Cala
E
25,288 $
27,058 $
28.952 f
30,979 S
33,148 S
35.468 S
37,951 S
40,507 S
43.450 S
46,491
Sludge Hauling $
Uh Stenon Cleaning
6,622 $
8,866 $ 9,538 $ 11,743 $
15,56.7 $
15,513 $
16,599 $
17,761 $
19,005 S
20,335 $
21,755 $
23282 S
24,911 $
26,655
Em«gonry BClearing
S
24wiss.000 S
25,680 E
27,478 $
29,401 S
31059 $
33,861 S
38,016 S
35.539 $
41236 S
44.123
MToull
f 10,000 E
10,000 $
10.000 $
10.000 $
10,000 f
10,000 S
10,000 S
10,000 S
10.000 $
10,000 $
10.000
oanotng
TdM Clabred«
-
$
119,284 S
127,633 S
138,668 S
146,128 $
166358 $
187,301 S
179,013 S
191,543 S
204,951 $
219,296
$
189,146 S
178,627 E
190,645 $ 203,290 $ 216,820 $
231,295 S
246.789 S 263,364 S
281,099 $
300,076
Net SaNngs
$
109,352 $
117,296 f
128,465 $
131,776 $
142,273 $
153,506 S
185,524 $
178,354 $
192,144 S
206,867
lhlllutlan
Sludge Hediing
Wl Station Cleanup
7%
9% 10% 13%
17%
17%
18%
19%
20%
22%
23%
25%
27%
29%
Emergsnry Bypass
6%
2%
6%
7%
794
8%
6%
9%
9%
Io%
11%
Msnnde Clearing
29%
2%
31%
2%
33%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
T
Total Utilization
53%
55%
59%
35%
38%
40%
43%
46%
49%
53%
63%
67%
72%
77%
82%
88%
94%
Manhole Assumption*
TlmaWlimnde
1.0
Mileage
5
FreOusncy
20%
ULt Shan Assumptions
Time / L5t SIMwn (his)
4
Mirage 10 LM Station
10
Claiming FMuxpy (limes per year)
1
Caarect« Coal (W hour) S
200.00
Volume As numnions
Annual Peruent Swi Ircrease
7.00%
Operator Aaaumptions
Operators We, I.I Benefits) S
2070
Wage (W) S
1600
BeneMs Padage(%d Wage)
0.38
Load Assumption*
Time I l-oad. H.
1.5
Mileage / Haul
20
Truck Assumption*
Load Volume. Gallons
2400
1.800
Initial Cast $
216.971 $
198,000
Ltle of Truck
10
Truck Common. S/Mile $
020
C«dradl« Truak Assumption*
Cool per gallon S
0.03
jr: I oa a C t• D eh E (IYof inclu6ng Hl,AC fee
$ OD
H -GAC PRODUCT PRICING BASED ON CONTRACT
1ne/d/oriny Oe011a -0IUSY Oe Pvovltle0 w —Y Wc/vae aipeie a EM UM b*QAC,
L- Lymn added to Baca Prwe(Sublaf I of 1Cot 1'8 T.oIY)
S 72G64 00
z'al cccc_cni 1,
HC the faGA/ PRODUCT PRICING BABED ON CONTRACT
'lln5 detoI d!UST be &--,&d /M any prre,ox epe, from a End User to kOLC
Pmdtld Description:
A. Base Price in Bid/ptOposal Number H HT02-M
B: Published Opbons gt,.act nam tatoul
AC78 A/C Heater
S.ou
FT78 Dual Fud Tanks
S 499.00
AMFM AM/FM radio
S 290m
CA78 Catarpoler 7 2l 250 M
S 2,524.00
MD3578 Attaon MD3580p
$13,376.00
RF78 Rardpcyd Frartie
S 1,28700
FA78 20 0001E Front axle
S 3,216.00
=$3
S
S
E
Subtotal CdUmn 1:
$2212500
2003 Starfnq LT75M
Sertes ._ MF =>
E 37,482.00
Ei
0
Subtotal Cok" 2. $ _
Published Options added to Base Price (Subtotal 0('1.011'+ "Col 2')
C: Subtotal of A . 8 <>
D: Unpubasrad options lm�e tatoaneaa_asreci
275HP upgrade S 50000
425165R 2Z5-18 ply tires front
$ 587.00
RT -400 Rev Ste= �pn S 58700
Ar Ride Drivers Seat S 219.00
S
S 22.125.00
S 59 60700
UnPubliahad = 0.03 %
Stfildal COltrnn 1: E 1,893.00 SW*W COkm 2:
UnpubfiShed Options added to Base Price (Subtotal of -'Col 1".'1.012"(
E: Contract Pride Adjudment(samr.emjai,,Wrs) -... ._
F: Total of C . D a E ,lWd 'aauang HGAC Faay =>
G: Ck"MMY Ordered (Units x F) => • of Unds t
H: H'GAC Admias6at" Fee (From Fee Sdmd l-, Table: _ b @ 1000
I: Non-Egtapmera Charyes 6 CMdit {r: Fjo Wamny rr m. Cos a Fappry. bm ek.t
E
S
Subtotal ot Non-EQtr6Hnertt Charges
J: TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDING (G. H H)
b cl ES139-SBb-182 sawwr
S 1,693.00
E _ _
$
E 61.5m.00
$ 61 50000
S 1,000.00
E -
S 62.500.00
Council Meeting Date: January 28, 2002
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No. _2
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 Shell Road Water Line
Extension of the West Loop Project.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The West Loop Water Line Project is designed to provide water
transport capability from the Sequoia Spur Ground Storage Tank and pumping
facility south to Rabbit Hill. There exists a window of opportunity to
install a section of the West Loop known as the Shell Road Water Line
Extension along with the current realignment of Sequoia Spur and Shell Road
with Cedar Breaks Road. This concurrent installation of the water line
with road realignment will eliminate the need to disturb the new roadway
for water line improvements when completed.
This item allows for the engineering and design of the subject water
line concurrent with the engineering and design of the road. Total cost
for engineering services is not to exceed $16,000.00.
SPECIAL
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
ONS:
Funds to be paid from the Water Capital Fund.
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 Shell Road Water Line
Extension for a total of $16,000.00
ATTACHIEENTS .
1. RPK Proposal for professional services for Shell Road Water Line
Extension Engineering.
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Glenn W. Dishong,
Assistant City Manager Water Services Manager
for Utilities
i,1 --T
ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
R X CONSULTING ENGINEERS
One South Main
Temple, Texas 76501 (254) 773-3731 Fax (254) 773-W7 mail®rpkengineers.com
WM. MACK PARKER, P.E.
RICK N. KASBERG, P.E.
R. DAVID PATRICK. P.E.
January 17, 2003
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 Water 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 engineering for water improvements for:
Shell Road Relocation and Improvements
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. This work will be done in conjunction with the
Shell Road Relocation and Improvements Project. The following are tasks that we have included in
the work schedule:
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PHASE. This phase involves determination of project scope
and economic and technical evaluation of feasible alternatives. Services during this phase include:
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
January 17, 2003
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
January 17, 2003
Page Three
BIDDING PHASE. (If Required) Services under this phase include:
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
January 17, 2003
Page Four
SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE PROJECT
• Research of existing utilities
• Research of existing drainage facilities
• Alignment of proposed waterline
• Alternative designs to accomplish the desired goals
• Prepare plans and specification to complete the construction of the proposed waterline
• Publicly bid the project in conjunction with the Shell Road Realignment Project
• Contract Administration
• Prepare Record Drawings
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. Geotechnical investigations will not be provided by RPK
under this contract.
If this proposal is agreeable, please return one executed original to our office.
Sincerely,
R. David Patrick, P.E.
RDP/crc
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF CHARGES FOR SERVICES
2002 - 2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR SHELL ROAD REALIGNMENT
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
TASK
Water Improvements for Shell Road
Realignment
I. BASIC SERVICES
A. Engineering Design
$
14,000.00
TOTAL BASIC SERVICES
$
14,000.00
II. SPECIAL SERVICES
A. Construction Staking
$
2,000.00
TOTAL SPECIAL SERVICES
$
2,000.00
* Establishment of existing rights-of-way are included in these costs subject to discovery of
adequate recoverable monuments. Additional funds may be requested if this is not found to be
the case.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
COMMUNITY OWNED UTILITIES
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR SHELL ROAD REALIGNMENT
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED UNIT
QUANTITY COST TOTAL
1
Bonds and Insurance
1
LS
$
9,000.00
$
9,000
2
16" Ductile Iron Pipe
2650
LF
$
50.00
$
132,500
3
30" Encasement Pipe
50
LF
$
100.00
$
5,000
4
16" Wet Tap
1
EA
$
5,000.00
$
5,000
5
16" Fittings
1
LS
$15,000.00
$
15,000
6
16" Water Valves
4
EA
$
5,000.00
$
20,000
7
Fire Hydrant
6
EA
$
2,500.00
$
15,000
8
Line Connections
2
EA
$
5,000.00
$
10,000
9
Concrete Thrust Block
50
CY
$
150.00
$
7,500
10
Trench Safety Plan
2650
LF
$
1.00
$
2,650
11
Trench Safety Implementation
2650
LF
$
1.00
$
2,650
12
Testing of Waterline
1
LS
$
5,000.00
$
5,000
13
Loaming, Seeding & Erosion Control
5000
SY
$
0.50
$
2,500
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$
231,800
CONTINGENCIES (10%)
$
23,180
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
$
254,980
ENGINEERING
$
14,000
CONSTRUCTION STAKING
$
2,000
ENGINEERING TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL $ 268,980
USE $ 270,000
NOTE: COSTS DO NOT INCLUDE PREPARATION OF RIGHT -OF WAY DOCUMENTS,
RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASES, GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL OR LEGAL SERVICES.
AMENDMENT DATED JANUARY 17, 2003
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
AND ROMING, PARKER & KASBERG, L.L.P.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DESIGN WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
SHELL ROAD RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
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 Dated January 17, 2003 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
January 17, 2003.
Executed in duplicate original this day of
Georgetown, Texas, where this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form:
Patricia E. Carls
City Attorney
Party of the Second Part:
ROMIN���S/� L.L.P.
By: R. David Patrick, P.E.
Principal Engineer
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BELL
2003 at
Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Gary Nelon
Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
This instrument as acknowledged before me on this the ��%+� day of Tanwary
2003.
'Ar" s -x%1.
Notary Public
... ,
, DORIS M. WALTERS
C} Notary PubNc. Mate of Texas
�. ; i My CommlcUon E0tres
�`•+:;% `+'` December 27, 2005
Printed name: Dogs M.yJaltiers
Commission Expires: 12-21-015
Exhibit A
(Updated January 17, 2003)
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 the Water Improvements for the Shell Road Relocation and Improvements
Project.
The attached letter details the services and associated charges for the proposed work.
City Council Meeting Date: January 28, 2003 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Council authorization for staff to proceed with discussions on
the Hwy 29/ Inner Loop proposed plan with the appropriate governmental
bodies regarding planning and financing of the project and to report
back to Council the results of discussions.
ITEM SUMMARY-
At the January 13, 2003 GTEC Board Meeting, the GTEC Board
approved a proposal, to be presented to other governmental agencies, as
an alternative to widening Austin Avenue (State Highway 29) through
Historic Downtown Georgetown. Staff has since completed the proposal and
is now ready to proceed forward with discussions with appropriate
governmental agencies in order to provide the community with an
alternative to the Highway 29 widening.
Therefore, staff requests authorization from the City Council in
order to proceed forward with discussions/negotiations for an alternative
solution to this issue.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION•
GTEC recommends phased project to provide an alternate route for
traffic around the City. Thereby reducing through -town traffic on SH 29.
Approved 5-0 (Evans and Taylor absent)
STAFF RECOMMEMATION:
Staff recommends Council authorization to proceed forward with
discussions with appropriate governmental entities and report results of
those discussions to Council.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposal for alternatives to widening State Highway 29.
Submitted by: Pad
Cit
sistant City
Utilities
PROPOSAL FOR
UNIVERSITY AVENUE (SH 29)
INNER LOOP (SOUTH)
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Georgetown
FOUNDED IN 1 B41B
UNIVERSITY AVENUE (SH 29)
INNER LOOP (SOUTH)
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
University Avenue is a heavily traveled east -west street in the City of Georgetown. It is
designated as State Highway (SH) 29 on the State Highway System and carries a
significant amount of traffic through the City, including large trucks. The road provides
access to the western part of the State and this volume of traffic is on the increase. With
the building of the toll road, State Highway 130, just to the east of Georgetown and
proposed retail development being built near the intersection of IH -35 and SH 29, the
traffic congestion on SH 29 will only increase. The Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) has realized these large traffic volume projections and proposes to improve the
roadway by increasing the current lane widths and potentially increasing the future
section to a six -lane facility, from Railroad Avenue to near Maple Street. This is shown
on the attached street schematic along with the proposed typical sections. TxDOT's
proposal is understandable considering the impacts of the recent widening of IH -35, and
the future construction of SH 130, which will be only 3.5 miles apart at this location.
A portion of the TxDOT project on SH 29 is within the historic district of Georgetown.
The Historic District along SH 29 begins at Timber Lane and continues to Myrtle Street.
The proposed widening of the roadway would allow the traffic very near the front of
many historic homes, shops and churches in the area. Several large trees just behind the
curb and gutter would have to be removed as the new curb is installed. The City of
Georgetown feels that having a six -lane facility in this area would be detrimental to the
Historic District due to the extra traffic that would be generated and the alteration of the
neighborhood for the roadway widening.
As an alternative, the City of Georgetown would propose to upgrade the SH 29 roadway
in its current configuration for more local traffic loads and develop the southside of the
Inner Loop to act as a traffic bypass, and in particular, a truck bypass. The trucks would
potentially move through the area faster and safer by using the Inner Loop rather than
going directly through the City. The southern portion of the Inner Loop is proposed to be
built as a four -lane divided highway with grade separation structures at locations shown
on the schematic. Also, consultants familiar with traffic loads in the area suggested a
pavement section adequate to support the trucks.
Exhibit "A" is the cost estimate to upgrade drainage and pavement surface along SH 29
to include the installation of approximately 5,800 feet of storm sewer to alleviate street
flooding which also has been detrimental to the pavement in many locations. The total
roadway could be rebuilt with its current lane configuration for an estimated cost of
$6,083,700. This cost includes mobilization, contingencies and design of the
improvements.
Exhibit `B" is the construction cost estimate to complete the southern portion of the Inner
Loop around the City of Georgetown of $50,563,045. This estimate provides for
rebuilding the existing portion of the Inner Loop, which was not structurally built to cavy
the necessary loading. The typical section indicates a four -lane divided roadway,
pavement structure of 20 inches of flexible base and 4 inches of hot mix asphaltic
concrete on a minimum of a 120 -foot ROW. The total construction also includes
mobilization, contingencies and the installation of major grade separation structures at
SH 29 East and West, FM 1460, IH -35 with the railroad overpass, FM 2243, South San
Gabriel River and its tributaries. If TxDOT determines that the Inner Loop is to be part
of the Trunk System, then additional ROW would be needed to meet the requirements of
the Trunk System.
The first phase of this project is shown in Exhibit "C" to complete two lanes on the
southwest portion of the Inner Loop and rebuild the existing two lanes on the southeast
portion of the Inner Loop to TxDot standards in the amount of $18,118,000.
We recommend that the improvements to University Avenue, Austin Avenue and Church
Street be installed by the City of Georgetown to preserve the historic significance of the
area. The City of Georgetown would then be responsible for all future maintenance of
University Avenue from Southwestern Blvd. to Scenic Drive, Austin Avenue from 6m
Street to 21" Street and Church Street from University Avenue to 21s` Street. The City of
Georgetown will also be responsible for the purchase of all ROW for the Inner Loop
between IH 35 and SH 29 West and in exchange, TxDOT would construct the southwest
portion of the Inner Loop, from IH -35 to SH 29 West. The Inner Loop will serve as a
regional transportation facility and will better serve the citizens of the State of Texas.
EXHIBIT "A"
Description: Rehab 5000' of 4 -Lanes of University Av. (SH 29) and Install approximately 3000' of 36"
RCP Storm Sewer in University Avenue (SH 29).
Limits: From the intersection of University Avenue and the M.K.T. Railroad Crossing
To the intersection of Railroad Street and University Avenue.
ELEMENTS OF WORK UNIT COST PER UNIT ESTIMATED COST
Prep ROW
30 sta
$1,000
$30,000
Reconstructing Roadway
0.95 mi
$1,600,000
$1,520,000
Storm Sewer, 36 inch RCP
3,000 ft
$100
$300,000
Structural Excavation
5,000 cy
$75
$375,000
Curb Inlets
10 each
$2,500
$25,000
Storm Sewer Manholes
10 each
$2,000
$20,000
Water Quality Pond
1 each
$50,000
$50,000
Sedimentation & Erosion Control
1 LS
$20,000
$20,000
SUBTOTAL
$2,340,000
Mobilization 10 % of SubTotal $234,000
Contingencies 15 % of SubTotal $351,000
Design 15 % of SubTotal $351,000
SUB -TOTAL
$3,276,000
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 1 of 3 1/21/2003 12:19 PM
Description: Rehab 1500' of 4 -Lanes of Austin Av. (US 81) and Install approximately 1500' of 36"
RCP Storm Sewer in Austin Avenue and 16th Street.
Limits: From the intersection of University Avenue
To 17th Street and additional Storm Sewer in 16th Street
ELEMENTS OF WORK
UNIT
COST PER UNIT
ESTIMATED COST
Prep ROW
15 sta
$1,000
$15,000
Reconstructing Roadway
0.28 mi
$1,600,000
$448,000
Storm Sewer, 36 inch RCP
1,500 ft
$100
$150,000
Structural Excavation
2,500 cy
$75
$187,500
Curb Inlets
5 each
$2,500
$12,500
Storm Sewer Manholes
3 each
$2,000
$6,000
Water Quality Pond
1 each
$50,000
$50,000
Sedimentation & Erosion Control
1 LS
$50,000
$50,000
SUBTOTAL $919,000
Mobilization 10 % of SubTotal $91,900
Contingencies 15 % of SubTotal $137,850
Design 15 % of SubTotal $137,850
SUB -TOTAL
$1,286,600
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 2 of 3 1/21/2003 12:19 PM
Description: Rehab 3500' of 4 -Lanes of Church St. and Install approximately 1300' of 36" RCP Storm
Sewer.
Limits: From the intersection of University Avenue and Church Street
To the intersection of 21st Street and Church Street.
ELEMENTS OF WORK
UNIT
COST PER UNIT
ESTIMATED COST
Prep ROW
35 sta
$1,000
$35,000
Reconstructing Roadway
0.67 mi
$1,000,000
$670,000
Storm Sewer, 36 inch RCP
1,300 ft
$100
$130,000
Structural Excavation
2,200 cy
$75
$165,000
Curb Inlets
5 each
$2,500
$12,500
Storm Sewer Manholes
2 each
$2,000
$4,000
Water Quality Pond
1 each
$50,000
$50,000
Sedimentation & Erosion Control
1 LS
$20,000
$20,000
SUBTOTAL
$1,086,500
Mobilization 10 % of SubTotal $108,650
Contingencies 15 % of SubTotal $162,975
Design 15 % of SubTotal $162,975
SUBTOTAL
$1,521,100
PROJECT TOTAL - Georgetown $6,083,700
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 3 of 3 1/21/2003 12:19 PM
EXHIBIT "B"
Description: Construct a 4 -Lane divided Inner Loop roadway including drainage structures and grade
separation structures at major intersections..
Limits: From the intersection of SH 29 and the existing Inner Loop east of Georgetown, along a southerly
route for 3.7 miles crossing IH 35 and continuing 3.1 miles to the intersection of SH 29 and the
proposed Inner Loop west of Georgetown.
ELEMENTS OF WORK UNIT COST PER UNIT ESTIMATED COST
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 1 of 2 1/21/2003 12:19 PM
ROADWAY
Prep ROW
100 ac
$150
$15,000
Embankment
151,600 cy
$10
$1,516,000
Excavation
75,000 cy
$10
$750,000
Lime Trt Subgrade
415,000 sy
$3
$1,245,000
Flex Base - 20" depth
206,000 cy
$25
$5,150,000
Prime - MC 30
60,700 gal
$1.50
$91,050
HMAC Ty B 2" depth
38,000 ton
$35
$1,330,000
HMAC Ty D 2" depth
38,000 ton
$35
$1,330,000
Lighting
150 each
$2,000
$300,000
Conduit 2"
36,000 If
$15
$540,000
Elect. Cord.
108,000 if
$0.75
$81,000
Strut Appr Slab
2,500 sy
$350
$875,000
Riprap
4,500 sy
$250
$1,125,000
Metal Sm Gd Fence
15,000 If
$14
$210,000
Striping 4" solid
42,000 If
$1
$42,000
Striping 4" broken
10,859 If
$1
$10,859
ROADWAY
$14,610,909
Misc Culverts
10 %of Roadway Subtotal
$1,461,091
Right of Way
61 ac
$536,800
Archeological
1 Is
$150,000
$150,000
Enviromental
1 Is
$60,000
$60,000
Surveying
1 Is
$60,000
$60,000
Design
15 % of Roadway Subtotal
$2.191.636
SUBTOTAL ROADWAY
$19,070,436
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 1 of 2 1/21/2003 12:19 PM
EXHIBIT "B"
ELEMENTS OF WORK UNIT COST PER UNIT ESTIMATED COST
BRIDGES
4 - Locations (Inner Loop & FM 1460, FM 2243, SH 29E, SH 29W)
Embankment
200,000 cy
$10
$2,000,000
Lime Trt Subgrade-Ramp
26,800 sy
$1.50
$40,200
Flex Base -Ramp
15,000 cy
$20
$300,000
Prime MC -30 -Ramp
5,766 gal
$1.50
$8,650
HMAC Ty D 2" depth -Ramp
3,350 ton
$45
$150,750
Bridge
69,600 sf
$38
$2,644,800
Signage
400 each
$200
$80,000
Bridge over South San Gabriel
Embankment
250,000 cy
$10
$2,500,000
Bridge
80,000 sf
$42
$3,360,000
2- Bridges over Tributary of South San Gabriel
Bridge
23,200 sf
$38
$881,600
Bridge over IH 35 & RR
Embankment
156,000 cy
$10
$1,560,000
Retaining Wall
53,000 sf
$22
$1,166,000
Bridge
$88,000 sf
$76
$6,688,000
SUBTOTAL/BRIDGES
$21,380,000
Mobilization
10 % of SubTotals
$4,045,044
Contingencies
15 % of SubTotals
$6,067,565
TOTAL OF ROADWAY AND BRIDGES - TxDOT
$50,563,045
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 2 of 2 1/21/2003 12:19 PM
EXHIBIT "C"
Description: Construct Two Lanes of a Proposed 4 -lane divided Inner Loop roadway -and a bridge over the
South San Gabriel River and its tributaries -Phase I.
Limits: From the intersection of SH 29 and the existing Inner Loop east of Georgetown, along a southerly
route for 3.7 miles crossing IH 35 and continuing 3.1 miles to the intersection of SH 29 and the
proposed Inner Loop west of Georgetown.
ELEMENTS OF WORK UNIT COST PER UNIT ESTIMATED COST
ROADWAY
Prep ROW
100 ac
$150
$15,000
Embankment
75,800 cy
$10
$758,000
Excavation
37,500 cy
$10
$375,000
Lime Trt Subgrade
208,000 sy
$3
$624,000
Flex Base - 20' depth
103,000 cy
$25
$2,575,000
Prime - MC 30
30,400 gal
$1.50
$45,600
HMAC Ty B 2' depth
19,000 ton
$35
$665,000
HMAC Ty D 2' depth
19,000 ton
$35
$665,000
Lighting
150 each
$2,000
$300,000
Conduit 2'
36,000 If
$15
$540,000
Elect. Cond.
108,000 If
$0.75
$81,000
Metal Bm Gd Fence
2,000 If
$14
$28,000
Striping 4' solid
21,000 If
$1
$21,000
Striping 4' broken
6,300 If
$1
$6,300
ROADWAY
$6,698,900
Misc Culverts
10 % of Roadway Subtotal
$669.890
SUBTOTAL ROADWAY
$7,368,790
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 1 of 2 1/22/2003 10:11 AM
EXHIBIT "C"
ELEMENTS OF WORK UNIT COST PER UNIT ESTIMATED COST
BRIDGES
Bridge over South San Gabriel
Embankment
250,000 cy $10
$2,500,000
Bridge
40,000 at $42
$1,680,000
2- Bridges over Tributary of South San Gabriel
Bridge
11,600 sf $38
$440,800
SUBTOTAL/BRIDGES
$4,620,800
Mobilization
10 %of SubTotals
$1,198,959
Contingencies
15 %of SubTotals
$1,798,451
ROW
$536,000
Archeological
$150,000
Environmental
$60,000
Surveying
$30,000
Design
15% of bridge and roadway construction
$2.355.000
TOTAL OF ROADWAY AND BRIDGES
$18,118,000
SH 29/Inner Loop Cost Est. 2 of 2 1/22/2003 10:11 AM
RA -W.
I
s
INTERSTATE „PSTN AVE (SUS,'TI
.a.. WILL MMANE
MIN.)
2 - 12' WIDE
(TRAVEL LANES( I
4'SH t t 1O'S H
SITY AVENUE (SH 29) IMPROVEMENTS
AVE. (BUS. 1-35) IMPROVEMENTS
:H ST. IMPROVEMENTS
,LOOP (SOUTH BYPASS) IMPROVEMENTS - PH 1
LOOP (SOUTH BYPASS) IMPROVEMENTS
STRUCTURE OVER SOUTH SAN GABRIEL
VO TRIBUTARIES
MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
EMATIC
SOUTH BYPASS
1/TOWN TEXAS