Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 03.22.2005Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, March 22, 2005 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 06:00:00 PM at City Council Chambers, at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Streets, Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. 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 or Threatened Litigation - Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters B Sec.551.072 Deliberation on Real Property - Discussion and possible action regarding acquisition of property for downtown parking - Discussion and possible action concerning the purchase of right of way and easements for improvements to SH29 West C Sec.551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Potential abatements and incentives for prospective downtown development projects - Discussion or deliberation regarding commercial or financial information that the City has received from a business prospect that the City seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City is conducting economic development negotiations Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 PM D Call to Order E Pledge of Allegiance F Comments from the dais - Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments — Mayor Gary Nelon - Announcement of new procedure for addressing the City Council G Announcements and Comments from City Manager H Public Wishing to Address Council As of the deadline, there were no persons who requested to address the Council on items other than already posted on the Agenda. 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. J Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the Council Workshop on Monday, March 7, and the Council Meeting on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 — Sandra Lee, City Secretary K Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Release of a Special Assessment Lien against property currently owned by the Estate of Rosamond McClain, et al., and located at 1204 E. University Avenue and on E. 13th Street -- Patricia E. Cads, Brown & Carls, LLP, City Attorney L Consideration and possible action to authorize application for a Grant of $ 102,463.00 from the Federal City Council Agenda/March 22, 2005 Page 1 of 3 Pages CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 2005 * * * * * CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT MEMORANDUM TO: Georgetown City Council Trish Carls, City Attorney FROM: Kent A. Sick DATE: March 17, 2005 RE: Acquisition of A -Tex property; settlement proposal The purpose of this memo is to advise the Council that legal counsel for A -Tex (James Roppolo) has approached the City with a settlement proposal for the City's acquisition of 2352 SF of ROW in fee simple and a 2919 SF utility easement from the A - Tex property for the improvement of SH 29. Roppolo's attorneys Barron & Adler requested a meeting with me last week at which they presented their proposal, along with some supporting information. A-Tex's Special Commissioner's Hearing is set Friday, March 25, 2005. The City's current appraisal, performed by Jimmy Vick in July 2004, values the land at $7.25/SF, or a total of $17,052 for the ROW. Vick assessed damages to the easement area at 80% such that his total compensation figure for the utility easement is $16,927 (2919 SF * $7.25/SF * 80%). His total recommended compensation, then, is $33,980. A -Tex proposes to settle the case for a total of $80,000. I have previously forwarded information provided me by A-Tex's counsel purporting to make the case that, should we proceed to hearing, their evidence will be that A-Tex's compensation should be $168,320. This figure is based upon the land being worth $13.50/SF, and the entire site being damaged by 40% as a result of the small remainder size, loss of parking, lost I circulation, and the new location of the electrical utility pole. A -Tex offers in support comparable sales along Louis Henna Blvd., one in Cedar Park, one at North Mays and Fannin, and one at the corner of Williams Drive and Wildwood. The unadjusted range of those sales is from $9.30/SF to $18.90/SF; their average is $12.90/SF. A -Tex has not yet provided me with an actual appraisal, so all of these figures represent merely their attorney's assessment of value. From the City's standpoint, in my opinion the two most reliable appraisals we possess along this corridor are the Chris Griesbach appraisals of the Trainer "swap" tract, at $10.25/SF, and of the next-door San Gabriel Storage Systems tract, at $9.00/SF. For purposes of discussion, should the Commissioners find the A -Tex property is worth $10.25/SF and there are no damages to the building the compensation would be $48,044; if the Commissioners find it to be worth $9.00/SF (as they did in the Storage Systems matter) the total compensation would be $42,184. A-Tex's argument that the remainder is damaged seems to center on the fact that the improvements will be less usable because of circulation and parking problems. Given the site's premier location after the taking, however, I have difficulty accepting that the current improvements represent the highest and best use after the taking. If they do not, of course, there is no damages argument. In my opinion, the City will incur an additional $5,000 to $7,500 in legal fees and expert witness fees from this point through the Special Commissioner's Hearing. Should either party appeal the Commissioner's Award and the case become one in court, there will be additional legal fees and costs. 2 Should the City have an interest in settling this matter and removing the uncertainty of litigation, at this time I could recommend a range of between $42,184 and $55,544. The lower end of that range represents the valuation of the property at $9.00/SF; despite the Vick appraisal, I think it likely that Commissioners will conclude the property is worth at least that much. The upper end of that range represents a valuation of $10.25/SF plus the maximum amount of legal fees and costs that would be saved if we do not proceed through a contested hearing. A-Tex's counsel assures me I will receive their appraisal by this coming Friday. In the event A -Tex gets a reputable appraiser to actually opine that A -Tex is damaged by $168,320 or anything approaching that figure, my opinion of the City's relative risk at the hearing could change. 3 4' i"Kent A. Sick" To: <tgc@georgetowntx.org> <kent@kentsick.com> cc: 'Trish Cads" <tcarls@brown-caris.com> 03/16/2005 01:21 PM Subject: RE: A -Tex * * * * * * PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION * * * * * * Terri -- I am forwarding you the text of the message I received from A-Tex's counsel proposing settlement at $80,000. I have also attached two pages in PDF format I received from them. The first is A-Tex's counsel's summary of their perception of A-Tex's damages, totalling $168,320. The second are the "comparable sales" upon which their value conclusion for the A -Tex tract of $13.50/SF is supposedly based. I must emphasize we do not have an actual appraisal report from A -Tex that supports this figure, although I am told by their counsel they are preparing a report for our hearing and that I will have the report by this coming Friday. I will prepare a recommendations memo and get it to you before the packet deadline on Friday morning. Thanks, Kent A. Sick ----------------------------------------- Following is the e-mail I received from A-Tex's counsel: Kent: Based on our conversation this morning, my client has authorized settlement at $80,000. I am attaching a few of the pictures I showed you this morning to add to the other materials I gave you. Please also get back to me on the fence issue we discussed. Sumer Shelton Barron, Adler s Anderson, L.L.P. 808 Nueces Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512) 478-4995 Fax: (512) 978-6022 shelton@barronadler.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: tgc@georgetowntx.org [mailto:tgc@georgetowntx.org) Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:06 PM To: kent@kentsick.com Subject: A -Tex Hi Kent, Please email or fax me a copy of the A -Tex counter-offer so I can include it in the packets for 3/21 Executive Session. Thx. Terri Glasby Calhoun, Paralegal Georgetown Utility Systems 300 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, TX 78626 (512) 930-3558 Direct Line (512) 930-2575 FAX (512) 930-3559 See our web site at www.georgetown.org. The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. I� BarronAdler counter.p( ATEX WATERPROOFING GEORGETOWN - S.H. 29 PROJECT WHOLE PROPERTY ANALYSIS Whole Property (Size) 14,375 SF Value via Comps $13.50 /SF Market Value Land - Whole Property $194,063 Plus: Depreciated Value of Improvements $120,000 Market Value - Whole Property $314,063 REMAINDER PROPERTY ANALYSIS Remainder Proeprty (Unencumbered by DE) 9,104 SF Unit Value per Comps $13.50 /SF Market Value - Unencumbered Remainder Land $122,905 Plus: Depreciated Value of Improvements $120,000 Market Value - Unencumbered Remainder W/O Damages $242,905 Damages Estimated at 40% (due to small remainder size, loss of parking area, lost circulation, location of elect pole) Market Value - Unencumbered Remainder W/O Damages $242,905 Damage Estimate @ 40% 60.00% Market Value - Unencumbered Remainder W Damages $145,743 CONCLUSION - ESTIMATE OF JUST COMPENSATION Market Value - Whole Property Before Taking $314,063 Market Value - Remainder Property After Taking $145,743 Estimate of Compensation $168,320 COMPARABLE LAND SALES Sale Date Sales Land Price .ISb, Location of Sale P[L2 Area (SF)per SF 1 SS Louis Henna, E of Warner Ranch 10/10/03 $428,000 22,651 $18.90 2 SEC North Mays & Fannin 06/26/03 $231,000 24,829 $9.30 3 NS Cypress Creek Rd, E of EI Saildo 08/09/02 $325,000 28,000 $11.61 Supplemental Sale 4 SWC Williams Drive & Wildwood 09/04/03 $792,606 67,170 $11.80 8ubj NS S.H. 29, W of IH-35 14,375 'Sales 1, 2 & 3 were selected because of their small land areas and being located along fairly major thoroughfares. Sale No. 4 was included to show land values along Wlllams Drive. No. 1 was considered most comparable due to existing retail development and being across from Dell Computer. Nos. 2 and 3 were considered Inferior for location compared to subject given the subject Is across from the Simon Mall development. i Council meeting date: March 22, 2005 Item N AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET oumiLt; 1 Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Release of a Special Assessment Lien against property currently owned by the Estate of Rosamond McClain, et al. and located at 1204 E. University Avenue and on 13th Street. 11 C:IVI JummAKI In 1922 the City of Georgetown levied assessments for paving in and around the downtown/Old Town area. An ordinance was recorded in the Mechanics Lien Records of Williamson County, Texas, listing all property owners assessed and a requirement for payment within four (4) years of the assessment. The subject property is in the process of being sold and Georgetown Title Company. has requested a release of the assessment lien(s) on behalf of the current owner, the Estate of Rosamond McClain, et al. Due to the fact that the City does not have financial records dating back to 1922, we are unable to determine whether a payment was ever made or what amount, if any, may still be outstanding. Due to the lack of financial records dating back to 1922, in the past, the City Council has approved the release of several of these liens against properties assessed by the same ordinance. Therefore, this request has been processed in the same manner. n � 1 Al,rf11Y1GIV 1 J Resolution Release of Special Assessment Lien Juumluea tsy: 1 76t,, Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN FOR THE ESTATE OF ROSAMOND MCCLAIN, ET AL. AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received a request from Georgetown Title Company on behalf of The Estate of Rosamond McClain, et al., for the release of a special assessment lien against its property located at 1204 E. University Avenue and on 13"' Street; and WHEREAS, by ordinance dated October 10, 1922 and filed of record on January 25, 1923, at Volume 6, Page 415, Mechanics Lien Records of Williamson County, Texas, an assessment lien was levied against the following described real property and against the real and true owner of said property to be due and payable within four (4) years of said assessment: Block 11, Snyder Addition, in the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has no financial records dating back to 1922 and, therefore, no determination can be made as to whether or not the assessment was paid; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing the request and finding the specific facts as stated above, now concludes that the subject property should be released from the special assessment lien. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements Finance Policy End 14.00 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "All municipal operations are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and sufficient financial resources for both current and future needs are provided"; and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest this resolution and the City Attorney is hereby directed to release the subject special assessment lien against the above-described Property on behalf of the City of Georgetown. Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of March, 2005. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN 0 ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP City Attorney Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 Gary Nelon, Mayor STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY. OF WILLIAMSON § RELEASE OF SPECIAL CITY OF GEORGETOWN § ASSESSMENT LIEN WHEREAS, by ordinance dated October 10, 1922, an assessment lien was ordered by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas ("City"), and filed of record on January 25, 1923 at Volume 6, Page 415, of the Mechanics Lien Records of Williamson County, Texas; and WHEREAS, the City Council levied an assessment in the sum of $782.06 against the following real property described in said ordinance and against W. H. Moses, the real and true owner ofsaid property at the time of assessment: Being Block 11, SNYDER ADDITION, a subdivision in and to the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, Williamson County, Texas. WHEREAS, the Estate of Rosamond McClain, Meredith McClain, Independent Executrix thereof, and William Martin McClain are the current owners of the above-described property, which is encumbered by said lien; and WHEREAS, said assessment lien was due and payable within four (4) years after the date of issuance; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2005, by Resolution No. the City Council of the City of Georgetown resolved to release said lien, as it is unable to confirm whether or not the hen has been paid, since the City has no financial records dating back to 1923. NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that for and in consideration of the recitals above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned has RELEASED AND DISCHARGED and by these presents does hereby RELEASE AND DISCHARGE the above described property from any and all liens recorded at Volume 6, Page 415 of the Mechanic's Lien Records of Williamson County Texas. EXECUTED the day of March, 2005. CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas home -rule municipal corporation By: Gary Nelon, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia E. Carts, Brown & Carls, LLP City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2005, by Gary Nelon, Mayor, of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public, State of Texas Council Meeting Date: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No. lel SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to enter into an agreement between the City and Operations Management International for the replacement of Backwash Recovery Unit filter cartridges at the Southside Water Treatment Plant in the amount of $65,000.00. ITEM SUMMARY: The current 5 -year CIP includes a budgeted amount of $75,000.00 for Plant modifications necessary to maintain compliance with TCEQ or EPA rules or otherwise improve the operation of the water treatment plants. The OMI Operations contract provides for OMI to conduct capital improvements at the City's water treatment facilities under mutually agreeable terms. OMI has indicated that the Backwash Recovery Unit filter cartridges at the Southside Water Treatment Plant need replacement. This item provides for the replacement of the existing Backwash Recovery Unit filter cartridges including all parts and labor. The total cost for replacement is $65,000.00. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $65,000.00 are currently available and will be paid from the Water Operations and Maintenance Fund (660-108-5806-00.) GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: GUS Board recommended approval at the March 15, 2005 meeting. Approved 5-0. Smith and Brown absent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this agreement for the replacement of the Backwash Recovery Unit filter cartridges for $65,000.00. ATTACHMENTS: OMI proposal/agreement for Backwash Recovery Unit filter cartridge replacement. Submitted By: Glenn Dishong, Water Services Man er ft-9-sistaift qty Manager for Utility operations M STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONALSERVICES This AGREEMENT is by and between Operations Management International, Inc. (OMI) and CLIENT identified below. CLIENT and OMI are the sole PARTIES to this AGREEMENT. OMI's Office Address: 9193 S. Jamaica Street, Englewood, CO 80112 CLIENT: City of Georgetown CLIENT's Office Address: 113 E. 8' Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 PROJECT Name: SSWTP BWR Repairs PROJECT Location: Georgetown, TX CLIENT Project Number. OMI Project Number: GEORG 600 630 CLIENT requests and authorizes OMI to perform the following services: Purchase eight membrane cartridges for the backwash recovery (BWR) unit located at the Southside Water Treatment Plant (SSWTP) Provide installation of the new cartridges including labor and removal of existing cartridges Provide hydro -testing and system startup Compensation by CLIENT to OMI will be on the basis of: Owner shall pay to OMI as compensation for services performed under this Agreement OMI's cost plus 15% not to exceed Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), without the prior written consent of Owner. Services covered by this AGREEMENT will be performed in accordance with the Provisions included herewith and any attachments referenced above. This AGREEMENT supersedes all prior agreements and understandings and may only be changed by written amendment executed by both PARTIES. Signatures below constitute execution of this AGREEMENT. Approved for CLIENT (Print and sign name) Approved for OMI (Print and sign name) BY By iE-w 0 _ Name Name Roger B. Quayle Title Title Senior Vice President Date Date OZIZY`%�-S PROVISIONS The following Provisions apply to this Agreement except as modified under Compensation or Other Terms sections of main Agreement Execution of this AGREEMENT by CLIENT will be authorization for OMI to proceed with the work, unless otherwise provided for in this AGREEMENT. 2. Per Diem Rates OMI's Per Diem Rates, when the basis of compensation, are those hourly or daily rates charged for work performed on the PROJECT by OMI employees. These rates are subject to adjustments each calendar year. They include salary, overheads, and fee, but do not include Direct Expenses. 3. Direct Expenses OMI's Direct Expenses are those necessary direct costs and charges incurred for the PROJECT including, but not limited to: (1) transportation, meals, lodging, mail, telecommunications; (2) subcontracts, outside services, and laboratory tests and analyses; (3) PROJECT specific insurance, letters of credit and bonds; (4) equipment and supplies; (5) OMI's current standard rate charges for direct use of OMI's vehicles, computing systems, laboratories, word Processing, printing and reproduction services, and field equipment: and (6) training equipment required to meet health and safety regulatory requirements. 4. Cost Opinions Any cost opinions or PROJECT economic evaluations provided by OMI will be on a basis of experience and judgment but, since OMI has no control over market conditions or bidding procedures, OMI cannot warrant that bids, ltim uate construction cost or PROJECT economics will not vary from these opinions. S. Standard of Care The standard of care applicable to OMI's services will be the degree of skill and dilgence normally employed by professionals Performing the same or similar ser ices at the time OMI's services are performed. OMI agrees to perform any services not meeting this standard without additional compensation. 6. Termination This AGREEMENT may be terminated for convenience on 30 days' written notice, or for cause, if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction of such nonperformance within 5 days of written notice and diligently complete the correction thereafter. On tarrninafion, OMI shall be paid for all authorized work performed up to the termination date. If tenninadon is for convenience. OMI shall be paid termination expenses, such as, but not limited to, reassignment of personnel, subcontract termination costs, and related closeout costs. If no notice of termination is given, relationships and obligations created by this AGREEMENT will be terminated upon completion of all applicable requirements of this AGREEMENT, except as provided under Article'Sevembility and Survival). 7. Payment to OMI Monthly invoices will be issued by OMI for all work performed under this AGREEMENT. Invoices are due and payable on receipt Interest at a rate of 1- 12 percent per month, or that permitted by law if lesser, will be charged on all Past -due amounts starting 30 days after date of invoice. Payments will first be credited to interest and then to principal. In the event of a disputed or contested billing, only that portion so contested shall be withheld from payment and the undisputed portion shall be paid. Interest shall accrue on any contested porion of the billing and shall be payable immediately if the contested billing is resolved in favor of OMI. B. Limitation of Liability OMI's liability for CLIENT'S damages, in the aggregate, shall not exceed the total compensation received by OMI from CLIENT for services provided on the PROJECT under this Agreement. OMI's liability to CLIENT under this AGREEMENT specifically excludes any and all indirect or consequential damages arising from the services contemplated under this AGREEMENT. OMI shall not be liable for fines or civil penalties, which may be imposed by a regulatory agency, which are occasioned by the provision of services under this AGREEMENT. The limitations of liability shall apply whether OMI's liability arises under breach of contract or warranty; tort including negligence; strict liability; statutory liability, or any other cause, except the limitations shall not apply to willful misconduct or gross negligence. Said limitations shall apply to OMI's officers, affiliated corporations, employees, and subcontractors. Severability and Survival If any of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining Provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability indemnities, and other express representations shall survive termination of this AGREEMENT for any cause. 10. Asbestos or Hazardous Substances It is understood and agreed that, in seeking the services of OMI under this AGREEMENT, CLIENT is requesting OMI to undertake obligations for CLIENTS benefit involving the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances. CLIENT recognizes that OMI assumes no risk andfor liability for a waste or hazardous waste site originated by other than OMI. 11. Operations Assistance and Services CLIENT authorizes OMI to operate, modify, inspect and otherwise physically manipulate equipment, furnishings, property and other elements associated with the PROJECT. CLIENT authorizes OMI to take such actions in these respects as OMI considers necessary to meet the objectives of the PROJECT. 12. No Conflict of Interest for Future Work if services provided by OMI under this contract do not include full contract operations, full contract maintenance, or full contract utility management, CLIENT agrees that OMI shall not be precluded from proposing on or providing such services to CLIENT in the future. Information and knowledge gained by OMI in providing services under this contract shall not constitute a conflict of interest in proposing on or providing full contract operations, full contract maintenance, or full contmct utility management, 13. Interpretation The law of the State of Texas shall govern the validity of this AGREEMENT, its interpretation and performance, and any other claims related to ft. 14. Third Party Beneficiaries and Scope of Services This AGREEMENT gives no rights or benefits to anyone other than CLIENT and OMI and has no third party beneficiaries. The scope of services to be provided to CLIENT by OMI are defined solely by this AGREEMENT, and not by any other contract or agreement that may be associated with the Project. 15. Materials and Samples Any hems, substances, materials, or samples removed from the PROJECT site for testing, analysis, or other evaluation will be returned to the PROJECT she within 60 days of PROJECT closeout unless agreed to otherwise. Exceptions to this clause are items subjected to destructive testing or samples with nominal intrinsic value, such as samples of liquid, wild or gaseous materials that are nonhazardous. CLIENT recognizes and agrees that OMI is acting as a bailee and at no time assumes tide to said items, substances, materials, or samples. 16. Assignments This is a bilateral personal services AGREEMENT. Neither party shall have the power to or will assign any of the dudes or rights or any claim arising out of or related to this AGREEMENT, whether arising in tort contract or otherwise, without the written consent of the other party. Any unauthorized assignment is void and unenforceable. These conditions and the entire AGREEMENT are binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. 17. Indemnification OMI shall indemnify and hold CLIENT harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including litigation costs and attomeys fees, to the extera that such are due to the negligent actions of OMI directly related to this PROJECT. Similady, CLIENT shall indemnify and hold OMI harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including litigation costs and aftomey's fees, to the extent that such are due to actions or inactions of CLIENT directly related to this PROJECT. CLIENTS Indemnification of OMI specifically extends to, but is not limited to, the presence, discharge. release, or escape of contaminants of any kind, excepting only such liability as may arse out of the sole negligence of OMI, and limited to the extent that OMI is negligent in the perfonnance of services under this AGREEMENT. Agenda Item: Agenda Item Check List awam Financial Impact Southside WTP Filter Cartridges Agenda Item Subject: Consideration and possible action to enter into an agreement between the City and Operations Management International for the replacement of Backwash Recovery Unit filter cartridges at the Southside Water Treatment Plant in the amount of $65,000.00. Is this a Capital Improvement Project: Council Date: Yes • No 03/22/2005 link to Agenda database => 4b Need Help? Was it budgeted? • Yes No Is it within the approved budgeted amount? • Yes No If not, where is the money coming from? G/L Account Number 660-108-5806-00 Amount Going to Council $ 65,000.00 Is there something (budgeted) that won't get Yes * No done because you are spending these funds? If so, please explain. Will this have an impact on the next year's Yes • No budget? If so, please explain. Does this project have future revenue Yes 9 No impact? Year: Department: If so, how? Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational costs, etc...). Estimated staff hours: Cross -divisional impact: Yes • No If so, what division(s)? Prepared by: Glenn Dishong Date: 03/16/2005 Agenda Item Checklist. Approved on 03/17/2005 Approvers ITitle jAssigned lNotified Received IStatus Changed IStatus Jim Briggs Assistant City 03/16/2005 03/16/2005 03/17/2005 03/17/2005 Approved Jose Lara Manager 03/17/2005 03/17/2005 3/17/2005 03/17/2005 Approved Utility Financial Analyst Approval Cycle Settings f Council Meeting Date March 22, 2005 Item No. 2 - L AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve additional scope of services for the contract between the City of Georgetown and ElectSolve Technology Solutions and Services Incorporated to provide a GUS Operations Central Database note to exceed $70,000.00. ITEM SUMMARY: In 2003, ElectSolve, working with GUS Staff, developed a comprehensive Technology Assessment for Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). The Assessment made a number of recommendations, including: 1) Enhancements to existing systems, 2) Additions of new software systems and, 3) Suggested courses of action to improve overall operational readiness. Many of these suggestions are currently in the planning and implementation stage within GUS, and will require access to core customer information data. In order to meet these data needs, GUS will need to implement a central data repository where customer data, historical operational data and GIS information can reside in one common location. New systems will require access to current informational components such as customer account numbers, addresses, premise id's, meter id's, location id's (ESIID's) and historical service usage readings, etc. The purpose of this project is to establish a central data depository (GUS Operations Central Database) where data can be shared and reported on by various operational systems within GUS. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: GUS Board recommended approval at the March 15,2005 meeting, 5-0. Smith and Brown absent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this addition to the contract between ElectSolve Technology Solutions and the City of Georgetown. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds not to exceed the amount of $70,000 are to be paid from the 2005 Electric CIP and Maintenance Accounts. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: Energy Seis s Manager Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations Agenda Item Check List ff Financial Impact Agenda Item: Approve additional scope of services for the contract between the City of Georgetown and ElectSolve Technology Solutions and Services Incorporated Agenda Item Subject: Provide a GUS Operations Central Database Is this a Capital Improvement 0 Yes No Project: Council Date: 03/22/2005 link to Agenda database => p Need Help? Was it budgeted? • Yes No Is it within the approved budgeted amount? 0 Yes No If not, where is the money coming from? G/L Account Number 611-101-6101 Amount Going to Council $ 70,000.00 Is there something (budgeted) that won't get Yes 0 No done because you are spending these funds? If so, please explain. Will this have an impact on the next year's Yes 9 No budget? If so, please explain. Does this project have future revenue Yes 0 No impact? Year: Department: If so, how? Identify all on-going costs (i.e., insurance, annual maintenance fees, licenses, operational costs, etc...). Estimated staff hours: Cross -divisional impact: If so, what division(s)? Will become part of the Database Contract for GUS 0 Yes No Finance and Administration, Georgetown Utility Systems, Planning and Development Prepared by: Mike Mayben Date: 03/16/2005 Agenda Item Checklist: Approved on 03/1712005 Approvers rritle jAssigned INotified Recelved IStatus Changed IStatus Jim Briggs Assistant City 03/16/2005 03/16/2005 03/16/2005 03/16/2005 Approved Jose Lara Manager 03/16/2005 03/16/2005 03/17/2005 03/17/2005 Approved Utility Financial Analyst Approval Cycle Settings Council Meeting Date: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No.V-1-1- SUBJECT: Second reading of an ordinance of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending Section 10.12.060 of the Code of Ordinances relating to rate of speed on F.M. 2338 in the city limits of the City of Georgetown; defining speeding and fixing a penalty therefore; providing a severability clause; repealing conflicting laws; and establishing an effective date. Mark Miller, Transportation Systems Manager, Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utilities. ITEM SUMMARY The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) has determined upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic investigation that the prima facie maximum Speed Limit on those portions of FM 2338 lying within the City of Georgetown, should be modified. The attached proposed Ordinance modifies the speed limits pursuant to TxDot's engineering and traffic study. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map indicating miles per hour zones 2. Proposed Ordinance 0 ted By: "Mark Miller, im Brig s, Transportation Services ista t Manager Manager For Utilitie ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 10.12.080 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO RATE OF SPEED AND SCHOOL SPEED ZONES ON F.M. 2338 IN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN; DEFINING SPEEDING AND FIXING A PENALTY THEREFORE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING LAWS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, deems it necessary and proper to amend Section 10. 12.080 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas, to revise the speed zones and speed limits on FM 2338; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is necessary and proper and in the best interest of the citizens of Georgetown to adopt the changes hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following elements of the Century Plan Policy Plan and that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter the Policy Plan: Transportation Policy 10.00 of the Century Plan — Policy Plan Element, which states: "Citizens and commercial goods move safely and efficiently throughout all parts of the City. " SECTION 2. The existing text contained in Section 10. 12.080 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to provide as follows: SECTION 10.12.080 F.M. 2338 It is hereby determined upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic investigation that the prima facie maximum speed limit on those portions of FM 2338 routed in the City of Georgetown, is hereby stated, which prima facie maximum speed limit shall be effective at all times and signs will be erected giving notice of the prima facie maximum speed limit so declared to wit. Ordinance No. Speed Zones on F.M. 2338 Sec. 10.12.080 Page 1 of 3 A. FOR EASTBOUND TRAFFIC 1. Beginning at the West city limit of Georgetown at milepoint 10.491 to milepoint 13.468, a distance of 2.977 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 50 miles per hour. 2. From milepoint 13.468 to milepoint 14.010, a distance of 0.542 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 45 miles per hour. From milepoint 14.010 to nAepoint 14.337, a distance of 0.327 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour. 4. From milepoint 14.337 to milepoint 15.455, a distance of 1.118 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour. B. REDUCED SPEED SCHOOL ZONE From milepoint 15.055 to milepoint 15.174, a distance of 0.119 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 20 miles per hour when flashing, 35 miles per hour at all other times. C. FOR WESTBOUND TRAFFIC 1. From milepoint 15.455 to milepoint 14.337, a distance of 1.118 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour. 2. From milepoint 14.337 to milepoint 14.010, a distance of 0.327 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour. From milepoint 14.010 to milepoint 13.468, a distance of 0.542 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 45 miles per hour. 4. From milepoint 13.468 to milepoint 10.491, a distance of 2.977 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 50 miles per hour. D. REDUCED SPEED SCHOOL ZONE From milepoint 15.174 to milepoint 15.055, a distance of 0.119 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 30 miles per hour when flashing, 45 miles per hour at all other times. E. That all of the streets of this city, and all portions of any such streets, are hereby declared to be public streets and that the driving or operating of any motor vehicle on or along any portion of any street of this city at a rate of speed that is greater than the maximum rate of speed for said portion of said street, as fixed by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, which is named "The Offense of Ordinance No. Speed Zones on F.M. 2338 Sec. Page 2 of 3 10.12.080 Speeding" and that the said offense is punishable by a fine in any sum not to exceed Two Hundred dollars ($200.00). That the use of the word "Speeding" shall be sufficient to designate the said offense, and shall mean that a motor vehicle has been driven upon a public street at a greater rate of speed than fixed by city ordinance for the street and for the zone thereof, that such motor vehicle was so being driven upon, if zoned. That in prosecutions under this ordinance, for the offense of speeding, the complaint, if in other respects sufficient in form, shall as to the portion thereof seeking to acknowledge the offense, be sufficient if it in substance alleges that the defendant did while driving a motor vehicle in said city commit the offense of "Speeding" SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of March, 2005. 2005. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the _ day of March, ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra Lee, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney VrnnlanCe No. Speed Zones on F.M. 2338 Sec. 10.12.080 Page 3 of 3 Gary Nelon, Mayor Council Meeting Date: March 22, 2005 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Second reading of an ordinance of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending Section 10.12.060 of the Code of Ordinances relating to rate of speed on F.M. 1460 in the city limits of the City of Georgetown; defining speeding and fixing a penalty therefore; providing a severability clause; repealing conflicting laws; and establishing an effective date. Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utilities. ITEM SUMMARY The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) has determined upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic investigation that the prima facie maximum Speed Limit on those portions of FM 1460 lying within the City of Georgetown, should be modified. The attached proposed Ordinance modifies the speed limit pursuant to TxDot's engineering and traffic study. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map indicating 40 miles per hour zones 2. Proposed Ordinance tted By: 'Mark Miller, poosr ri Transportation Services t Vii Manager Manager ti1i 'es r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 10.12.060 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO RATE OF SPEED ON F.M. 1460 IN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN; DEFINING SPEEDING AND FIXING A PENALTY THEREFORE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING LAWS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, deems it necessary and proper to amend Section 10. 12.060 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas, to establish speed zones and speed limits on FM 1460 and WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is necessary and proper and in the best interest of the citizens of Georgetown to adopt the changes hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following elements of the Century Plan Policy Plan and that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter the Policy Plan: Transportation Policy 10.00 of the Century Plan — Policy Plan Element, which states: "Citizens and commercial goods move safely and efficiently throughout all parts of the City. " SECTION 2. The existing text contained in Section 10. 12.060 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to provide as follows: SECTION 10.12.060 F.M. 1460 It is hereby determined upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic investigation that the prima facie maximum speed limit on those portions of FM 1460 routed in the City of Georgetown, is hereby stated, which prima facie maximum speed limit shall be effective at all times and signs will be erected giving notice of the prima facie maximum speed limit so declared to wit. Ordinance No. Speed Zones on F.M. 1460 Section 10. 12.060 Page 1 of 3 A. FOR SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC Beginning at the centerline of Business 35 (Austin Avenue) at station 34 + 20 to station 63 + 97, a distance of 0.563 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour. B. FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC From station 63 + 97 to station 34 + 20, a distance of 0.563 miles, a prima facie maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour. C. That all of the streets of this city, and all portions of any such streets, are hereby declared to be public streets and that the driving or operating of any motor vehicle on or along any portions of any street of this city at a rate of speed that is greater than the maximum rate of speed for said portion of said street, as fixed by this ordinance, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, which is named "The Offense of Speeding" and that the said offense is punishable by a fine in any sum not to exceed Two Hundred dollars ($200.00). That the use of the word "Speeding" shall be sufficient to designate the said offense, and shall mean that a motor vehicle has been driven upon a public street at a greater rate of speed than fixed by City Ordinance for the street and for the zone thereof, that such motor vehicle was so being driven upon, if zoned. That in prosecutions under this ordinance, for the offense of speeding, the complaint, if in other respects sufficient in form, shall as to the portion thereof seeking to acknowledge the offense, be sufficient if it in substance alleges that the defendant did, while driving a motor vehicle in said city, commit the offense of "Speeding." SECTION 4. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. Ordinance No. Speed Zones on F.M. 1460 Section 10.12.060 Page 2 of 3 PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of March, 2005. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of March, 2005. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra Lee, City Secretary Gary Nelon, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney Ordinance No. Speed Zones on F.M. 1460 Section 10. 12.060 Page 3 of 3 RN aM WIA